Campaign End?

[JohnnyMacintosh]

What happens if you get full crosses on all the campaigns.. Does history change in any major way? Or does it just sort of flow on like it would have..

I guess what im asking is.. do you actually have any impact on how events turn out on the war based on your exploits?

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by JohnnyMacintosh

Does history change in any major way?

From what I know... NO, which is essentially an indication that UBI has put very little effort into this game, and to make the game end at 1943, is a cheap marketing shot to get 1 for the price of two - Well we all know how this has turned out.

I think that anybody who is able to program AI decently and allow 'history changes' will have a sim winner, coz at the moment all games are seriously lacking in one or both these areas.

[Axeman3d]

I think you hit on the main reason why Ubisoft end the game in 1943, along with all that troublesome stuff like type XXI's and so forth. I don't think that the sim should alter world history to suit one sub commander however. Unless you happen to be driving a nuclear sub armed with ICBM's I don't think sinking a few more freighters and escorts is going to save Hitler.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Axeman3d

I think you hit on the main reason why Ubisoft end the game in 1943, along with all that troublesome stuff like type XXI's and so forth. I don't think that the sim should alter world history to suit one sub commander however. Unless you happen to be driving a nuclear sub armed with ICBM's I don't think sinking a few more freighters and escorts is going to save Hitler.

Agreed. Unless you are going to sink 9 million GRT by yourself, then there is no way that history is going to be altered. This is a submarine simulation, not an alternate history game.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Agreed. Unless you are going to sink 9 million GRT by yourself, then there is no way that history is going to be altered. This is a submarine simulation, not an alternate history game.

Though in the stock version your mission requirements are in the WTF grade
You must single handedly sink the royal navy
so i guess if you succeed every objective you should change history

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

not an alternate history game.

That's just it...
By taking out this factor, UBI (and others) have destroyed 50% of the RL experience. The subs were out there to make history their way, not to just accept that they were going to lose.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by vanjast

That's just it...
By taking out this factor, UBI (and others) have destroyed 50% of the RL experience. The subs were out there to make history their way, not to just accept that they were going to lose.

Again, one submarine is not going to change the outcome of the war unless you are going to be sinking 9 million GRT by yourself. Additionally, since there is no way that the player will be able to prevent the destruction of the Luftwaffe, the failed invasion of the USSR and the destruction of the Axis industrial centers, there is no way that you will be able to make history your way. This is a historical sim.

[E.Luden]

I don't know, one sub commander could have an impact on the war, I mean (ok it may not be entirely realistic) but in my game I've sunk the arc royal twice, and I've taken out the BB's Queen Elizabeth and Rodney and its only just turned Nov' 39. Now these ships have a huge price tag and take years to build, and the propaganda coup de gras of such kills so early in the war may have tipped public and political opinion against the war, upon the presentation of Hitler's Peace offer following the fall of France in 1940 (not to mention the denial of the use of such capital ships in future operation against the Bismark etc..) there's more to war than tonnage, there's politics and manoeuvre too

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by E.Luden

I don't know, one sub commander could have an impact on the war, I mean (ok it may not be entirely realistic) but in my game I've sunk the arc royal twice, and I've taken out the BB's Queen Elizabeth and Rodney and its only just turned Nov' 39. Now these ships have a huge price tag and take years to build, and the propaganda coup de gras of such kills so early in the war may have tipped public and political opinion against the war, upon the presentation of Hitler's Peace offer following the fall of France in 1940 (not to mention the denial of the use of such capital ships in future operation against the Bismark etc..) there's more to war than tonnage, there's politics and manoeuvre too

That is really more of a problem with ahistorical spawns, which is not new to the SH series. I recall, in an earlier patch of SHIV, sinking the Yamato 7 times in one career, despite the fact that she never saw action prior to her sinking. But, I think that you hit upon the right word with realism. Realistically, I should not be able to change the outcome of the war. As such, I have no interest in altering history.

EDIT: However, when it comes to naval warfare in WWII, you have to remember that it was really the coming out party for airpower in the naval war. The Luftwaffe was never truly dedicated to naval air support (an example of where their Japanese counterparts were far more forward-looking, at least in doctrine) and following it's demise, all German naval assets were virtually naked and defenseless. As such, any German capital assets would have suffered the same fate as the IJN's following Philippine Sea. The primary difference is that the Allied aircraft in the theatre were land-based, not from carriers, which puts them beyond the reach of the Kriegsmarine; something that no virtual Kaleun is going to be able to do anything about.

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

something that no virtual Kaleun is going to be able to do anything about.

More ship sunk = less weapons for england = you start winning the war.
While this is a really fantastic equation (like e=mc^2), adding to this a randomness factor representing other sectors, is a monumental coding task which I'm sure would take developers decades to achieve.

In the meantime we should just sit back and accept the inevitable.

[Sailor Steve]

In LucasArts' Their Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain, they had a campaign mode that did let you change the outcome, of that battle at least. I played it once, one the battle for Germany, and never played campaign mode again. It felt pretty stupid for one pilot to have that much influence.

In the SH series you can sink 10 times as much tonnage as any real kaleun ever did. That in itself is so unhistorical that it makes me cringe. Changing the outcome of the war in a game where you play a top general or admiral, sure. In one where you play a single ship captain? The only word that comes to mind is LAME.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by vanjast

More ship sunk = less weapons for england = you start winning the war.
While this is a really fantastic equation (like e=mc^2), adding to this a randomness factor representing other sectors, is a monumental coding task which I'm sure would take developers decades to achieve.

In the meantime we should just sit back and accept the inevitable.

Again, unless you are sinking 800k GRT by yourself, per month, which was the Kriegsmarine's estimate for the minimum tonnage required to make a noticable impact on the ground and air war, no notable difference will be made. As Steve pointed out, attaining anywhere near this figure is completely a-historical, not for the least reason that should you begin to approach the 200k mark, you should would be promoted to a squadron command and be spending the rest of the war as a desk jockey. Once we enter the realm of the a-historical, we stop talking about a simulation and begin talking about Super Mario Brothers. That is fine if that is what you want, but I do not believe that it should be the aim of a simulation.

[vanjast]

You're missing the point completely

The 'equations' are simple to implement in a game, it no more than about a weeks work including testing for the dev. The implementation doesn't require the 'nuking' of the sea lanes.

You efforts are simply a representation, with random factors thrown in for the big picture. In a way very much the same thing that happened in WW2.

If this type of thing is done, it would lead to a large online co-operation game with surface and submerged forces, and tactical decision making.

[E.Luden]

The thing is that a). you can never achieve any real measure of realism as you will (hopefully) not be malnourished, cold and in fear for your own life while playing this game (unless like me you have to endure the trials of my mothers cooking and hospitality... but that's another story) but my point is that if you were to say turn off limited fuel and ammo and turn on invulnerability, and embark on an Arnold Schwarzenegger style mission of "if it floats and does no say "quacK" sink it mission then a fully dynamic campaign would let you win the war

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by vanjast

If this type of thing is done, it would lead to a large online co-operation game with surface and submerged forces, and tactical decision making.

Ah, so you are only speaking hypothetically. I see. Well, I'll add that I would have absolutely zero interest in a naval WoW.