So Ive sunk the Yamato 5 times...

[Packerton]

Yeah, Japan must have ALOT of Resources to spare >_>

[WWSandMan]

Perhaps it was the Yamato, the Musashi (Yamato's sister ship) and a whole bunch of really big mirrors?

[SteamWake]

Know what ... I dont belive you.. post the log ... prove it.

[mookiemookie]

And if you can prove it, then turn off auto targeting.

[-Pv-]

... and realistic torpedos.
-Pv-

[Reaves]

Lucky you, i'm yet to see it.

Battle over realism versus game play i guess. Personally i'd rather have multiple Yamato's compared to only having one per career. :hmm:

[Beery]

I'd rather have no Yamatos at all rather than 5 per career. In real life there was one Yamato for about 500 careers.

[Reaves]

Can't please everyone I guess. Of course they could probably make it a selection in difficulty to have 'Realistic Unit Numbers' or something but I have a feeling the DEVS already have a bit on their plate.

[kiwi_2005]

I spotted it once on my way back to base, had just use up all torpedoes, and i certainly wasn't going to take it on with the deckgun (although that thought did enter my mind :rotfl: ) so all i could do is watch it sail pass. And what a huge scary beast it is!

This ship would probably take 6 or more torpedos:hmm:

[-Pv-]

I think if we had no targets there would be more complaints than you could imagine. Most games are engineered to reward the player with lots to do and plenty of rewards for continuing to play the game. It also saves development time if they didn't have to create absolutely every individual ship in the IJN navy in order to have anything like the historical number of targets. Some realism is more than I'm willing to pay or wait for. After all, it took 10 years of waiting for me, to even get to this point and frankly, I was wondering if I was going to live long enough to see it (maybe never- if the UBOAT fanatics had had their way.)

I was hearing SO much wealping... it would be way too easy, not enough challenge, US subs were too powerful to be fun, NO one would buy it. etc...

"I spotted it once on my way back to base, had just use up all torpedoes, and i certainly wasn't going to take it on with the deckgun (although that thought did enter my mind :rotfl: ) so all i could do is watch it sail pass. And what a huge scary beast it is!

This ship would probably take 6 or more torpedos:hmm:"

The Shimano super carrier which was built on the same hull had four torps shot at it and interviews with it's crew and the sub crew seems to indicate only one torp penetrated and that one torp sank the ship because it struck a support beam that was propelled through a main boiler causing a cascading failure. That hull was massive, but it had flaws. You might get lucky and sink it with one, or unlucky and hit it with everything you have and wait a couple days for it to sink. Over time I expect there will be a lot of stories to tell.

-Pv-

[tater]

Having the right number of real units in game is critically important, IMO. In the Atlantic, the U-boats were fighting the US and UK. Merchant ships were built in numbers that boggle the mind, the US alone built more merchant tonnage in the first 6 months of 1943 than Japan built merchant ships in total up to the end of the war, for example. The principal combatants seen by U-boats were DEs and DDs. The US built nearly 800 of those 2 types combined during the war, in addition to the large number we started with. Heck, the CVEs seen in the atlantic had ~140 built! 140 #$@%$#$@% carriers.

So in the Atlantic, a gamey world where there are an infinite number of ships to sink is REALISTIC. For any given u-boat commander, he can sink 100k per patrol and guess what, it doesn't matter, we'll build more.

This is simply not true in the PTO.

The current campaign really shows how much was just changing unit types from SH3 and thinking it was fine.

tater

[Beery]

Originally Posted by -Pv-

I think if we had no targets there would be more complaints than you could imagine.

No one's suggesting we should have no targets. As many as submarines saw in reality would be fine by me. The problem is that, if anyone's sinking the Yamato five times in a career, that means that in effect we have about 2500 times as many Yamatos out there as there were in reality. Call me crazy but I reckon that's just a tad too many.

Remember, if you're seeing that many more of that kind of target, you're not playing a WW2 sub game - you're playing an arcade shooter that just happens to look like a WW2 submarine game. Some players may not care. I do.

Never mind, modders (as usual) will fix it. Although occasionally it would be nice if we didn't have to.

[kiwi_2005]

Maybe what mode your playing in, would it make a difference? Like Very hard you would see less of the Yamato.

[Beery]

The thing is, Yamato should be that one ship that makes the player think "Oh my God! The Yamato!". It should be rare enough to get a real response out of the player. When it becomes as frequent a sight as a piece of junk mail it loses a whole lot of its impact. I remember in the original Silent Hunter, I saw the Yamato once in all the time I played the game and as I lined up to take my shot at her I was shaking and sweating - that was a huge deal. Seeing it multiple times in every single career makes it just another big ship. This is why it's necessary to make it rare - not just for the sake of realism, but because a rare Yamato makes the game far more fun.

[Reaves]

You have a point there Beery. The excitement for running accross a rare ship would be great. I just wouldn't want it so rare I may never come accross it. But 5 times in one career is obviously too much.