Stock Game.

[Admiral Halsey]

Well my computer decided to wipe all of my SH4 mods off its memory and I had to uninstall SH4 to play it as I was running a few mods when that happened. I decided to play some of the stock game to see if it was bad as everyone said it was and dear god it was.(Quick note. I did some research before I played the game and never actually played the stock game with the exception of the tutorials and one test campaign mission.) I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles. I will admit that the RSRDC has spoiled me when it comes to historical accuracy of the naval battles in SH4 but surely UBI could have done better? I mean it seems like the quarter-assed them and didn't really care about them at all. Well I should end this rant as I still have a few days until I will have downloaded all the mods I had again and I need to start practicing my manual torpedo targeting for as soon as I get all the mods installed I will run my first manual TDC campaign.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

Well my computer decided to wipe all of my SH4 mods off its memory and I had to uninstall SH4 to play it as I was running a few mods when that happened. I decided to play some of the stock game to see if it was bad as everyone said it was and dear god it was.(Quick note. I did some research before I played the game and never actually played the stock game with the exception of the tutorials and one test campaign mission.) I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles. I will admit that the RSRDC has spoiled me when it comes to historical accuracy of the naval battles in SH4 but surely UBI could have done better? I mean it seems like the quarter-assed them and didn't really care about them at all. Well I should end this rant as I still have a few days until I will have downloaded all the mods I had again and I need to start practicing my manual torpedo targeting for as soon as I get all the mods installed I will run my first manual TDC campaign.

Yep, one never really appreciates the excellent work the modders have put out until they spend some time playing stock, it's just horrible. I played stock a good 4 or 5 months until and have ran mods since, could never go back.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

I decided to play some of the stock game to see if it was bad as everyone said it was and dear god it was.
...
I don't even know where to start it was so bad.

Yes, the inescapable conclusion.

...surely UBI could have done better?

I have the same thought every time I think about the technical aspects of the game.

[Rockin Robbins]

My question is why do we have to judge the game from a historical perspective so far as enemy ship dispositions go? Why, when we go to investigate the Battle of Midway, for instance, does the exact reenactment of the conflict (within the limitations of the game to render it) become our yardstick for "I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles."

Don't you realize that when you play like that you are so unrealistic that you have rendered Silent Hunter 4 something from Capcom Games? Not one submariner in the war left port looking for the Battle of the Coral Sea. The ones that did get deployed in fleet support, in 1944 during the Battle of the Philipines, accomplished next to nothing.

The reason for that is that they did not know what to expect, where. They didn't have an enemy timeline with course and position on their map so they could go intercept the troop landings on Guadalcanal. The fact is most of the time they had no idea what they would encounter in the patrol area assigned.

Why, THAT'S JUST LIKE THE STOCK GAME that you think stinks so bad! It stinks so bad because it doesn't allow you to cheat and take a God's eye view of the war. It stinks because you can't take a simulation and make it into Frogger.

Reality ain't predictable, any more than insanity is. By demanding rationality in a simulation we are demanding to play an arcade game. If we really want a simulator, it has to simulate the state of mind of the actual participants in WWII, not knowing.Not knowing where the enemy was

• Not knowing whether they would encounter lone merchies or heavily escorted convoys
• Not knowing where they were likely to encounter capital ships
• Not knowing the length, tonnage, armament, height or cargo of targets
• Not being able to identify the vast majority of targets encountered
• Not knowing whether they would return or not

Simulation does not consist of an exact recreation of the war as it transpired. It simulates participating in the unknown. If it were to happen again with the same assets, entirely different battles would be fought. A different list of submarines would not return. A different list of targets would be sunk at different places.


Think about it! What you expect out of the game is the exact opposite of simulation. You seek an exact reproduction of a chaotic series of events. But when you do it is not chaotic any more. You've amputated the soul of the simulation.

I can understand the desire to take part in such battles but at the same time having this ability is a cheat

RR hit the nail on the head, if its accurate to history then you "can" cheat and most players will cheat to get a crack at this or that target so its not the realism but the cheat factor you are missing.

everyone has their own idea of what they want from the game so if UBI made the game the exact same way to your wishes, then there would still be 100,000 players out there saying its done all wrong and isn't the way "they" wanted it.

UBI kind of went "middle of the road" in following history but at the same time not exactly scripting history so there is always randomness and uncertainty in the game to give it a feeling of realism without being predictable.

I don't use RSRDC because it is a predictable cheat and if I know information then it I use it so I don't use the mod

the "unknown" is THE biggest thing I like about the game

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

My question is why do we have to judge the game from a historical perspective so far as enemy ship dispositions go? Why, when we go to investigate the Battle of Midway, for instance, does the exact reenactment of the conflict (within the limitations of the game to render it) become our yardstick for "I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles."

Don't you realize that when you play like that you are so unrealistic that you have rendered Silent Hunter 4 something from Capcom Games? Not one submariner in the war left port looking for the Battle of the Coral Sea. The ones that did get deployed in fleet support, in 1944 during the Battle of the Philipines, accomplished next to nothing.

The reason for that is that they did not know what to expect, where. They didn't have an enemy timeline with course and position on their map so they could go intercept the troop landings on Guadalcanal. The fact is most of the time they had no idea what they would encounter in the patrol area assigned.

Why, THAT'S JUST LIKE THE STOCK GAME that you think stinks so bad! It stinks so bad because it doesn't allow you to cheat and take a God's eye view of the war. It stinks because you can't take a simulation and make it into Frogger.

Reality ain't predictable, any more than insanity is. By demanding rationality in a simulation we are demanding to play an arcade game. If we really want a simulator, it has to simulate the state of mind of the actual participants in WWII, not knowing.Not knowing where the enemy was

• Not knowing whether they would encounter lone merchies or heavily escorted convoys
• Not knowing where they were likely to encounter capital ships
• Not knowing the length, tonnage, armament, height or cargo of targets
• Not being able to identify the vast majority of targets encountered
• Not knowing whether they would return or not

Simulation does not consist of an exact recreation of the war as it transpired. It simulates participating in the unknown. If it were to happen again with the same assets, entirely different battles would be fought. A different list of submarines would not return. A different list of targets would be sunk at different places.


Think about it! What you expect out of the game is the exact opposite of simulation.

While you have a valid point, part of the fun of this sim is it is set in a time and place that still fascinates many all these years later. Part of the excitement and simulation of WW II in the Pacific is being able to witness(and if able and/or player chooses put themselves in the fray. Few weeks back I was running an S boat out of Brisbane in 42, I decided to patrol off Savo Island on night of August 8/9 and found myself in position to attack the Japanese force. I sent a contact report, then attacked, 3 torpedoes hit a heavy cruiser, this through the battle line in disarray , allowing Allied force to open fire first and have an advantage, the battle turned out much better than historically did for the Allied force, so in a sense I, the player, was able to change up history.Now, this would not be possible without RSRD because I recall stock had next to NOTHING in the Solomons, just left the whole important campaign out of the war.

The sim is also in a way, telling a story, one that does not get told often, the story of the silent service in WW II .yes some things change but major, important things like the battles, should be recreated historically accurate as possible and left up to the player to change history such as I did, if they choose or are able, in some cases they wont make a dent, as some subs found out.Not making things accurate along with the million other flaws of stock, made it more of an arcade game than a sim.To me, stock game had a lot of signs of laziness.I understand the schedules, budgets etc but they just overlooked so much with no excuse.Honestly, SH 4 is a pretty amazing sim now, 6 years since it's release? Without the great community of modders and supporters, it would have been dead long ago.

Subs had no impact at the Philippine Sea? Did I read that correctly? Surely you know they sunk two aircraft carriers...Taiho and Shokaku. Contact report from Harder off Tawi Tawi and the hell she was raising in days prior caused fleet to deploy early , convinced Tawi Tawi was surrounded by submarines, so goes the story.Seahorse sent a pretty important contact report as well.Subs made a big difference at Philippine Sea.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

While you have a valid point, part of the fun of this sim is it is set in a time and place that still fascinates many all these years later.

I guess it all comes down to what you want out of the game, for some they want to join in on historical battles and be part of it all while others look for a sub sim to get the true feeling of what it was like to be in the war and life on a sub.

there are 100 different things the game is or isn't to the players and part of its success is that it is in that middle ground that does or can be modded to appeal to all.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Webster

I guess it all comes down to what you want out of the game, for some they want to join in on historical battles and be part of it all while others look for a sub sim to get the true feeling of what it was like to be in the war and life on a sub.

there are 100 different things the game is or isn't to the players and part of its success is that it is in that middle ground that does or can be modded to appeal to all.

Well the battles are just one part of the sim.Mods like RSRD gives player a much better simulation to get the true feeling than stock. I mean no sub ever ran into the Yamato 50 times in a career like in stock lol. Stock had allied style convoys from day 1 and the AI was just idiotic.Then had allied style radar etc etc etc list goes on and so much traffic, it was just unreal, arcade like.I was shocked when I opened up stock campaign files and found most escorts with convoys were set to NOVICE, even in late war.Could not perform night surface attacks in realistic manner, i could prob take up several posts with stocks problems, but most of us know them.

I am thankful they made that crappy game so it could be modded and give us the excellent sim we have now.Just a shame UBI did not care enough to make SH 4 what it could have been.Perhaps one day a sub sim will revisit the PTO and it will be done properly.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Well the battles are just one part of the sim.Mods like RSRD gives player a much better simulation to get the true feeling than stock. I mean no sub ever ran into the Yamato 50 times in a career like in stock lol. Stock had allied style convoys from day 1 and the AI was just idiotic.Then had allied style radar etc etc etc list goes on and so much traffic, it was just unreal, arcade like.I was shocked when I opened up stock campaign files and found most escorts with convoys were set to NOVICE, even in late war.Could not perform night surface attacks in realistic manner, i could prob take up several posts with stocks problems, but most of us know them.

I am thankful they made that crappy game so it could be modded and give us the excellent sim we have now.Just a shame UBI did not care enough to make SH 4 what it could have been.Perhaps one day a sub sim will revisit the PTO and it will be done properly.

well yes stock leaves a whole lot to be desired and I don't think anyone can defend the stock game as being all that great, at best its just ok.

from UBI point of view they needed to make the game both easy to play to get the most people to buy it yet still be challenging to hard core simmers so its pretty obvious the flubbed both sides in that attempt.

im no code writer but if they could have had true difficulty settings so you can turn it from too easy "beginner" to holy crap "expert" settings then they would have pleased so many more people.

I think "simmers" would howl at any notion of difficulty settings as being too "arcade like" so its not an easy thing to do to create something that appeals to everyone

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

Well my computer decided to wipe all of my SH4 mods off its memory and I had to uninstall SH4 to play it as I was running a few mods when that happened. I decided to play some of the stock game to see if it was bad as everyone said it was and dear god it was.(Quick note. I did some research before I played the game and never actually played the stock game with the exception of the tutorials and one test campaign mission.) I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles. I will admit that the RSRDC has spoiled me when it comes to historical accuracy of the naval battles in SH4 but surely UBI could have done better? I mean it seems like the quarter-assed them and didn't really care about them at all. Well I should end this rant as I still have a few days until I will have downloaded all the mods I had again and I need to start practicing my manual torpedo targeting for as soon as I get all the mods installed I will run my first manual TDC campaign.

Had he lived to see it, Von Clauscewitz would have had one more rule to his opus 'On War' for subsimmers: Whenever possible, increase firepower(MODS) but never count on your computer(enemy) doing what your plan calls for it to do! (Yamamoto's mistake at Midway)

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

My question is why do we have to judge the game from a historical perspective so far as enemy ship dispositions go? Why, when we go to investigate the Battle of Midway, for instance, does the exact reenactment of the conflict (within the limitations of the game to render it) become our yardstick for "I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles."

Don't you realize that when you play like that you are so unrealistic that you have rendered Silent Hunter 4 something from Capcom Games? Not one submariner in the war left port looking for the Battle of the Coral Sea. The ones that did get deployed in fleet support, in 1944 during the Battle of the Philipines, accomplished next to nothing.

The reason for that is that they did not know what to expect, where. They didn't have an enemy timeline with course and position on their map so they could go intercept the troop landings on Guadalcanal. The fact is most of the time they had no idea what they would encounter in the patrol area assigned.

Why, THAT'S JUST LIKE THE STOCK GAME that you think stinks so bad! It stinks so bad because it doesn't allow you to cheat and take a God's eye view of the war. It stinks because you can't take a simulation and make it into Frogger.

Reality ain't predictable, any more than insanity is. By demanding rationality in a simulation we are demanding to play an arcade game. If we really want a simulator, it has to simulate the state of mind of the actual participants in WWII, not knowing.Not knowing where the enemy was

• Not knowing whether they would encounter lone merchies or heavily escorted convoys
• Not knowing where they were likely to encounter capital ships
• Not knowing the length, tonnage, armament, height or cargo of targets
• Not being able to identify the vast majority of targets encountered
• Not knowing whether they would return or not

Simulation does not consist of an exact recreation of the war as it transpired. It simulates participating in the unknown. If it were to happen again with the same assets, entirely different battles would be fought. A different list of submarines would not return. A different list of targets would be sunk at different places.


Think about it! What you expect out of the game is the exact opposite of simulation. You seek an exact reproduction of a chaotic series of events. But when you do it is not chaotic any more. You've amputated the soul of the simulation.

The game isn't WW3, it's WW2, it's past, history. However, in a majority of battles we were able to predict where they would be, knew the shipping lanes, could read their code, etc.

Why I agree once yu learn RSRD ships are easy to find, but it takes a long time to learn it. I think many play to sink ships, not wander around looking. War is boring with moments of terror, that doesn't make good gaming.

Why I agree on many points, I would take RSRD over stock traffic any day.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

My question is why do we have to judge the game from a historical perspective so far as enemy ship dispositions go? Why, when we go to investigate the Battle of Midway, for instance, does the exact reenactment of the conflict (within the limitations of the game to render it) become our yardstick for "I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles."

Don't you realize that when you play like that you are so unrealistic that you have rendered Silent Hunter 4 something from Capcom Games? Not one submariner in the war left port looking for the Battle of the Coral Sea. The ones that did get deployed in fleet support, in 1944 during the Battle of the Philipines, accomplished next to nothing.

The reason for that is that they did not know what to expect, where. They didn't have an enemy timeline with course and position on their map so they could go intercept the troop landings on Guadalcanal. The fact is most of the time they had no idea what they would encounter in the patrol area assigned.

Why, THAT'S JUST LIKE THE STOCK GAME that you think stinks so bad! It stinks so bad because it doesn't allow you to cheat and take a God's eye view of the war. It stinks because you can't take a simulation and make it into Frogger.

Reality ain't predictable, any more than insanity is. By demanding rationality in a simulation we are demanding to play an arcade game. If we really want a simulator, it has to simulate the state of mind of the actual participants in WWII, not knowing.Not knowing where the enemy was

• Not knowing whether they would encounter lone merchies or heavily escorted convoys
• Not knowing where they were likely to encounter capital ships
• Not knowing the length, tonnage, armament, height or cargo of targets
• Not being able to identify the vast majority of targets encountered
• Not knowing whether they would return or not

Simulation does not consist of an exact recreation of the war as it transpired. It simulates participating in the unknown. If it were to happen again with the same assets, entirely different battles would be fought. A different list of submarines would not return. A different list of targets would be sunk at different places.


Think about it! What you expect out of the game is the exact opposite of simulation. You seek an exact reproduction of a chaotic series of events. But when you do it is not chaotic any more. You've amputated the soul of the simulation.

With the exception of Midway(In which I attacked Yamamoto's main body and not Nagumo's carriers.) and the first naval battle of Guadalcanal I don't even go after the TF's anymore. I just sit back and watch as the battles happen around me. That's why I like the historical accuracy. Not because I want to change history but because I want to experience it.

[Rockin Robbins]

That's legitimate but that doesn't make the stock game suck. What makes it suck is the illogical groupings of ships, the vanishing of ships in detection range in the middle of the ocean when they reach their last waypoint, etc.

I can see where it's kind of cool to load up RSRD and go watch the battle of the Coral Sea. Of course, how authentically it can be modeled is limited by what the game lets you do.

Personally I'd like to watch the Japanese carriers launch the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Personally I'd like to watch the Japanese carriers launch the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Me to.(Hell I want to see the attack.)

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

That's legitimate but that doesn't make the stock game suck. What makes it suck is the illogical groupings of ships, the vanishing of ships in detection range in the middle of the ocean when they reach their last waypoint, etc.

I can see where it's kind of cool to load up RSRD and go watch the battle of the Coral Sea. Of course, how authentically it can be modeled is limited by what the game lets you do.

Personally I'd like to watch the Japanese carriers launch the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I am working on Pearl Harbor attack, need to get permission to user the pre pearl harbor mod, insert the waves of planes attacking pearl.The issue is planes in RSRD are idiots and not nearly as deadly as should be, esp with torpedoes.