SH3 and 4: Which has the more compelling campaign experience (historically speaking).

[Agiel7]

Given the historical context, it seems to me that the career of SH3 makes for the more compelling experience. For example, in SH3, you command a U-boat during the time that Germany was losing the war and you and your fellow wolves were just buying time, while late in the war on the Pacific Theatre, Japan was losing ground left, right, and center to the US and in SH4, it kind of felt like you were kicking the Japanese while they were down (not to discount the US sailors who served on subs in WWII, since they helped keep weapons and ammunition that could have killed a lot more Americans out of Japanese hands), and while the US sub crews had the luxury of air conditioning and an onboard ice cream machine, the Germans had to wade through sausages and bananas with wierd black spots on them just to see their speed and depth below keel.

Your thoughts?

[tater]

The AC wasn't for the men, it was to prevent electrical shorts

The ice cream, OTOH...

[Freiwillige]

Just depends on what your into. I play both SHIII and IV. SHIII GWX 3.0 and IV w/RSRD and a few other basic mods and both have an enriching experiance of history that you could never get from a text book.

So its in essance apples and oranges.

[Torplexed]

The submarine war in the Atlantic follows the classic gaming curve. As time goes on you face tougher and tougher opposition and more of them. Sort of like the way the old video game Missile Command used to throw more bombers and ICBMs at you faster and faster until you couldn't keep up. However, the war in the Pacific is the only major submarine campaign were submarines did what they were designed to do and come out on top. Strangle enemy trade. I guess it depends if you are in the mood to play a game of grim survival of one of sunny Pacific optimisim.

Fighting for a losing cause does make for the more compelling drama . There are always all the what-ifs, could-haves, and second-guessing. Ask any ex-Confederate touring Gettysburg.

[Bosje]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

...the war in the Pacific is the only major submarine campaign were submarines did what they were designed to do and come out on top. Strangle enemy trade...

i always thought they were designed to provide support for surface ships but they were 'relegated' to sinking anything japanese for the simple reason they were the only weapon left to the USNavy

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Bosje

i always thought they were designed to provide support for surface ships but they were 'relegated' to sinking anything japanese for the simple reason they were the only weapon left to the USNavy

They weren't the only weapon left. Those carriers the Japanese missed at Pearl harbor came back to haunt them six months later. Plus, the American submarines certainly contributed their share of attrition on the combat units of the Japanese Imperial navy as well as on their merchant fleet.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Bosje

i always thought they were designed to provide support for surface ships but they were 'relegated' to sinking anything japanese for the simple reason they were the only weapon left to the USNavy

What planet do you hail from?

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What planet do you hail from?

@Bosje: Check out the main SH4 Thread for lots of great info on the Pacific Theatre.


RDP

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Just depends on what your into. I play both SHIII and IV. SHIII GWX 3.0 and IV w/RSRD and a few other basic mods and both have an enriching experiance of history that you could never get from a text book.

So its in essance apples and oranges.

A huge endorsement for this point of view! It is absolutely pointless to compare the two games when you could be playing both of them. The only joykiller in SH3 is its ability to forget all about your career after you've been playing for a month. Other than that these are two superb games that each adds to your enjoyment of the other.

[Admiral Von Gerlach]

And YES the fleet boats of all services were originally intended to be a Battle fleet adjunct and the IJN continued to adhere to this view all the way thru the war pulling boats off misions to support surface fleet actoins. Commece raiding and other missions developed...the exception to this was the Kriegsmarine use of commerce interdiction from almost the start. And they had little surface fleet action to support anyway, though they tried when they could. So that was a valid thought....many service arms find their mission changes as doctrine impacts actual battle conditions and the sub service was no exception. I have seen some of the fleet manuals from the 20's, and 30's and hear of the development of doctrine and it was a long slow crawl from obscurity for the sub service in many navies....and the US achievemnts in the WWII were amazing and a validation of the sub arm in many ways, both for boat design and esp for crew and officer skills and performance in action. Other navies had their limitations and achievments too, includling the U boat service....all did their best but often the command ashore had their own views not always in line with what was possible at sea.

[Bosje]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

@Bosje: Check out the main SH4 Thread for lots of great info on the Pacific Theatre.


RDP

i did

ducimus' post says exactly what I said above
quoting from http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=128185

quote
The U.S. Navy's submarine force was caught woefully unprepared for the type of warfare which they were about to face. All of the pre-war, peacetime training for the U.S. submarine commanders which was previously geared in support of the surface fleet, was now obsolete and impractical. Submarines were originally looked upon to serve as scouts and screens for the navy's capital warships. Unfortunately, following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor virtually no surface fleet of any consequence remained in the Pacific waters for which to scout or screen. The United States Navy developers of tactical planning for submarine warfare never anticipated the situation that they found themselves in during those early days of the war. With the American Navy in the Pacific all but destroyed, the rules of submarine warfare had to be drastically changed. That change, came about via one simple and blunt order.

"Execute unrestricted air and submarine warfare against Japan."
- Admiral R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, December 1941.

The Submarine war in the pacific had begun.
/quote

*wanders off, scratching head*

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Bosje

i did

ducimus' post says exactly what I said above
quoting from http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=128185

quote
The U.S. Navy's submarine force was caught woefully unprepared for the type of warfare which they were about to face. All of the pre-war, peacetime training for the U.S. submarine commanders which was previously geared in support of the surface fleet, was now obsolete and impractical. Submarines were originally looked upon to serve as scouts and screens for the navy's capital warships. Unfortunately, following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor virtually no surface fleet of any consequence remained in the Pacific waters for which to scout or screen. The United States Navy developers of tactical planning for submarine warfare never anticipated the situation that they found themselves in during those early days of the war. With the American Navy in the Pacific all but destroyed, the rules of submarine warfare had to be drastically changed. That change, came about via one simple and blunt order.

"Execute unrestricted air and submarine warfare against Japan."
- Admiral R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, December 1941.

The Submarine war in the pacific had begun.
/quote

*wanders off, scratching head*

It was you last line that got me to ...the only weapon left to the US Navy Yes, you are right, they were to be scouts and go ahead of the fleet but they were not the only weapon left to the US Navy.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Bosje

Unfortunately, following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor virtually no surface fleet of any consequence remained in the Pacific waters for which to scout or screen.

With all due respect to ducimus that does overstate the situation a bit. The US lost the battleships upon which it's original strategy for war in the Pacific was based at Pearl Harbor, but considering what happened to the British battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse a few days later that was probably a good thing. The US only lost 3 destroyers severly damaged in the Pearl attack and no cruisers. There were plenty of both left to screen US carrier forces. Battleships weren't meant to scout and screen. If anything the Japanese did the US navy a favor in settling the long-standing arguement over which was the major warship of the future. As of Dec. 7th, 1941 it as the aircraft carrier.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

With all due respect to ducimus that does overstate the situation a bit. The US lost the battleships upon which it's original strategy for war in the Pacific was based at Pearl Harbor, but considering what happened to the British battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse a few days later that was probably a good thing. The US only lost 3 destroyers severly damaged in the Pearl attack and no cruisers. There were plenty of both left to screen US carrier forces. Battleships weren't meant to scout and screen. If anything the Japanese did the US navy a favor in settling the long-standing arguement over which was the major warship of the future. As of Dec. 7th, 1941 it as the aircraft carrier.

Which begs the question, why were the carriers out to sea on Dec 7th 1941? Yes, a conspiracy theory but still a theory that the Admirals wanted a new Navy. How best to get it? Again, just conjecture that I had read that this very attack was known about and not a surprise.

Maybe that was what Bosje was saying with "the only weapon left'? After Pearl? Bosje?

[Dread Knot]

Yeah...but I've yet to hear a Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory that explains how Roosevelt knew that Hitler would declare war on the US a few days later when he didn't have to and was under no obligation to. Japan got us in a war. Hitler's inexplicable move got us in a World war. That saved Roosevelt from a big headache as to why the US should aid Britain in Europe first.