How Do You Think Renown Should Be Awarded

Hakahura · 05-28-07, 05:23 AM

I posted a reply in another thread and relised I was a bit off topic.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=104257&page=3
So heres a new thread...

Renown...
How do you think it should be awarded?

On the basis on tonnage,
Percieved threat through Kriegsmarine eyes,
Or a completely different way?

Frenssen · 05-28-07, 05:38 AM

One thing I would really like to see is increasing renown as the war progresses and sinking ships gets harder and harder.

melnibonian · 05-28-07, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frenssen

One thing I would really like to see is increasing renown as the war progresses and sinking ships gets harder and harder.

Be patient and your request will become available soon

TarJak · 05-28-07, 05:59 AM

Alhtough I'm currently playing mostly GWX for the many great additions to the game, I actually prefer the NYGM model of tonnage as renown. This is more historically accurate and if the adjustments are made to make the upgrades more expensive so they are equivalent to the "old" renown system.

Jimbuna · 05-28-07, 06:16 AM

'Patience is a virtue'...they say.

Hakahura · 05-28-07, 06:33 AM

In my opinion the systems not far from right. After all in was a "Tonnage War" as Donitz himself said.

But I think it would be nice if the game could reflect the extra kudos a commander and his boat would have for sinking particulally prominent enemy vessels.

Even if he had never sunk another ship Priene's name was already made with the sinking of the Royal Oak.

Or even for being successful against extreme odds. For example destroying a DD under normal conditions is next to worthless. But how about after nearly a days attempt to evade him under constant attack, you sink him and bring all your crew home alive? Would that story not circulate around the base, boosting your renown?

But then we've all got our own wish list for SH3 right? Very few have the ability to actually do anything about it.

melnibonian · 05-28-07, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

Alhtough I'm currently playing mostly GWX for the many great additions to the game, I actually prefer the NYGM model of tonnage as renown. This is more historically accurate and if the adjustments are made to make the upgrades more expensive so they are equivalent to the "old" renown system.

I agree with you up to a point TarJak. I think the ideal system would have been a mixed one. Renown based on tonnage with respect to merchant ships and "special renown bonus" (even in terms of medals) for sinking "important" military ships like Aircraft Carriers and Battleships. I have the feeling that this is not possible though given the current structure of GWX.

TarJak · 05-29-07, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melnibonian

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

Alhtough I'm currently playing mostly GWX for the many great additions to the game, I actually prefer the NYGM model of tonnage as renown. This is more historically accurate and if the adjustments are made to make the upgrades more expensive so they are equivalent to the "old" renown system.

I agree with you up to a point TarJak. I think the ideal system would have been a mixed one. Renown based on tonnage with respect to merchant ships and "special renown bonus" (even in terms of medals) for sinking "important" military ships like Aircraft Carriers and Battleships. I have the feeling that this is not possible though given the current structure of GWX.

Mel, I think it should be possible if you edit the renown on the carriers and battleships above and beyond the tonnage. The only problem would then come from ships sunk in a harbour raid which I also think should be rewarded differently.

IMHO, the tonnage on the larger targets in the tonnage model should actually be reward enough if you get the upgrade cost balance right.

JScones · 05-28-07, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melnibonian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frenssen

One thing I would really like to see is increasing renown as the war progresses and sinking ships gets harder and harder.

Be patient and your request will become available soon

:rotfl: The timing of Frenssen's request is exquisite.

nikbear · 05-28-07, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frenssen

One thing I would really like to see is increasing renown as the war progresses and sinking ships gets harder and harder.

I always thought that as well,suprised it was never implemented considering to even get to 1944 is a major achievment:hmm:

melnibonian · 05-28-07, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikbear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frenssen

One thing I would really like to see is increasing renown as the war progresses and sinking ships gets harder and harder.

I always thought that as well,suprised it was never implemented considering to even get to 1944 is a major achievment:hmm:

As stated above be patient. GWX Team thinks before you for you

P_Funk · 05-29-07, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakahura

Renown...
How do you think it should be awarded?

By my mom.

That way even when I have a bad patrol she'll give me my due.

05-28-07, 05:23 AM	#1
Hakahura Grey Wolf Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Posts: 785 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	How Do You Think Renown Should Be Awarded I posted a reply in another thread and relised I was a bit off topic. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=104257&page=3 So heres a new thread... Renown... How do you think it should be awarded? On the basis on tonnage, Percieved threat through Kriegsmarine eyes, Or a completely different way? __________________ Sir Humphey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO and MA. Britain's Greatest Orator, well bar that Churchill fellow. Last edited by Hakahura; 05-28-07 at 05:39 AM.

05-28-07, 06:16 AM	#5
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,500 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	'Patience is a virtue'...they say. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

05-28-07, 06:33 AM	#6
Hakahura Grey Wolf Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Posts: 785 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	In my opinion the systems not far from right. After all in was a "Tonnage War" as Donitz himself said. But I think it would be nice if the game could reflect the extra kudos a commander and his boat would have for sinking particulally prominent enemy vessels. Even if he had never sunk another ship Priene's name was already made with the sinking of the Royal Oak. Or even for being successful against extreme odds. For example destroying a DD under normal conditions is next to worthless. But how about after nearly a days attempt to evade him under constant attack, you sink him and bring all your crew home alive? Would that story not circulate around the base, boosting your renown? But then we've all got our own wish list for SH3 right? Very few have the ability to actually do anything about it. __________________ Sir Humphey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO and MA. Britain's Greatest Orator, well bar that Churchill fellow.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-28-07, 05:38 AM	#2
Frenssen Sparky Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 155 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	One thing I would really like to see is increasing renown as the war progresses and sinking ships gets harder and harder.

05-28-07, 05:59 AM	#4
TarJak Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,052 Downloads: 150 Uploads: 8	Alhtough I'm currently playing mostly GWX for the many great additions to the game, I actually prefer the NYGM model of tonnage as renown. This is more historically accurate and if the adjustments are made to make the upgrades more expensive so they are equivalent to the "old" renown system.