In response to Trout,
I assume you are talking about your experiences in SHIII compared to what you expect in SHIV.
Don't expect DD AI in SHIV to ALWAYS be more aggressive or lethal than SHIII. That would not be historically accurate. However due to the fact that 52 subs were lost in the Pac war and 5,200 submariners died, there should be times when you unexpectedly meet a lethal or lucky opponent.
Concerning the lack of hot zones due to sub activity, I have definitely seen evidence in SHIII that the AI does respond to attacks and sinkings where if I stuck around I would see aircraft and hunter patrols show up eventually. The ruling factor in SHIII appears to be spotting. If I was SEEN by any enemy (even if I shot them down or sunk) there would be follow-up patrols by the enemy. When this happens, I quietly leave the area or suffer unending attacks.
In the Pac the best hunting should be near ports, but they will also be heavily patrolled making them very dangerous.
Historically, 1.5 percent of the nation's naval manpower sinking one-half of the Japanese tonnage would indicate there will be a target-rich environment and the fleet boats will be tough to sink compared to the Germans. In addition, the Pac boats had the latest technology the Allies could produce (with the exception of the torps.)
How do you know that in SHIII there were no damage or noise effects that affected your chances of detection and being sunk?
Just because you didn't get a text message telling you "...the compressor is making too much noise sir..." doesn't mean the game logic did not account for some of these things. Remember when you selected Silent Running you elected to forsake repairs and the noise that made. That is indication SHIII likely had some logic in place for the effect of repair noise.
I think it's important in our speculations to avoid the these assumptions:
1) The game logic in SHIV will be unaltered ports of SHI or III.
2) SHIV will be like SHIII with different visuals and map.
I've seen no evidence these two are likely based on past releases.
What controls game development more than anything are:
Skill, size, and enthusiasm of the development team.
Time/Budget.
Current devel technology available.
Target consumer technology available.
Market pressures as in potential sales and purchaser requests are a relatively small part of the picture (except for the facets that contributed to the investment decisions) although SHIII worked hard at the last moment to include a requested feature. The dynamic campaign came close to not being there.
When programmers can make AI as smart as humans, it's time for them to stop creating games and switch to creating millennium man robots. They'll make a lot more money. Games that cannot be won by humans playing at the highest reality level will not be well-received by the majority of gamers. Each person has their own challenge assessment. Some think the SHIII at highest is too hard, some too easy. For me, I can no longer spend 50 hours a week gaming.
What I CAN expect from past releases:
1) Game play will be more or less historically pertinent to the theater and time period.
2) Graphics will exceed expectations and game logic will take a measurable back seat.
3) There will be notable bugs at release that will be patched after sales have begun and the sales are positive enough to warrant the added investment.
Point two is unfortunately due to human behavior. Many people will buy and play a game once or twice even if they're uninterested if the graphic representation wowed them. Some people will play a flawed game for the graphics only. I call these people TV Gamers.
Lots of eye movement, little cognitive activity.
-Pv-
|