Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tater
I think almost everyone agrees that a "dynamic campaign" in one in which player actions alter the course of the campaign.
In a flight sim, if you get a mission to destroy a given target, once it is totally destroyed you shouldn't be tasked with destroying it again—at least not until a point far enough in the future that it has been rebuilt.
In the case of SH4, the bare minimum, IMO, is some persistance past the end of a given patrol. If 2xYamato are sunk, it should be possible to never have any chance of seeing a Yamato BB again. That's my minimum requirement for a dynamic campaign instead of a "random campaign" which is what SH4 has. If the typical sub is sinking 1-2 ships per patrol, and you sink 100,000 tons of mostly merchants in a given area, you'd expect the enemy to react to that and steer traffic elsewhere, or use more escorts in that region. In game? Nothing. the player in no way changes the game world, not even a little.
|
I think there are several layers of Dynamic.
1) If you start the same patrol over and over...the objectives will change.
If you go to the same spot and a certain time again and again...you will see different ships, weather and what not.
You will not be able to influence the war.
2) Same as above, but you choices and actions will have some effect...IE if you sink the Yamato, it will not appear again in the game.
The problem with nr 2 is that given the tonnage we get on our patrols we will change the ressources of the enemy to an unhistoric/unrealistic level.
Worst case: We will sink most of their ships early and have nothing to hunt for...
So I think the devs did it like nr 1, so they game will continueously give us the level of contacts we should experience.