SH4 before DC2?

[Hornet]

So let me guess, Ubi.com has decided to make a Sh4 before DC2? Is that true? I guess so..... Well the subsim community has been begging for DC 2 to go with Sh3 for months, and I believe they deserve it. Without us, ubi wouldn't sale a game. So i suggest we tell ubi.com that we won't buy Sh4 until they make a DC2...... I don't plan on buying it until they do..... period.

[donw]

I plan to buy it. Period.

Originally Posted by Hornet

Well the subsim community has been begging for DC 2 to go with Sh3 for months...

I wouldn't mind seeing a new Destroyer Command, but the demands are actually coming from a relatively small handful. The big problem for a company is, how will it sell? Did DC sell anywhere near as well as SHII? Probably not. The original Silent Hunter is still popular after nine years, and SHIV is what the subsimmers (at least the American ones) really want.

[Hornet]

Well, let me ask you something. What do you think made sh2 last so long with the subsim community? The fact you could play head to head with destroyer command players I feel made it last as long as it did. The dd's would protect the convoys and the subs would attack the convoys. This competition so to speak drove the enthusiasm for the games. One game fed off the other and visa versa. When Sh3 came out ( within the first month ) the number of servers that were up at ubi.com was in the dozens, go look now even on the weekends, you will be lucky to see 3 servers up. I think the interests, number of people playing it is dropping. The main thing I hear from players, and I hear from hundreds, is that the one thing they miss is that head to head aspect of DC/Sh2 in Sh3. So In my opinion Sh3 will die out sooner than Sh2/DC because it will get boring without the head to head matchups. Human destroyers. The AI's are just to predictable, nothing beats a human competitor. I have had this opinion backed up by just about everyone at wolfpack league, which I know only counts as a small percentage of people, about 2,000. But all of them want a DC2, so its NOT so small a community that wants a DC2.

If sales is a problem, I did my part for ubi.com. I purchased 2 copies of Sh3 for myself, one to play and one for a backup,. I then purchased 4 copies for friends as Christmas presents. Thats 6 copies I have bought. If all of us in the subsim community did something like that, the sales issue wouldn't be one. For either game,. But I know I speak for a bunch of people, there are many things with Sh3 that hasn't been worked out yet to be talking about sh4. But if Ubi.com would spend half as much time advertising Sh3 and DC2 as they have on King Kong, half the planet would have a copy of Sh3 already.

[CCIP]

To be honest, myself - I'm not really interested in DC2. As much as it might be a big plus for multiplayer, not everyone plays multiplayer. I don't. It's the single player campaign that brought me to SHIII in the first place.


And personally, I don't think I'm very interested in an ASW game - because the campaign structure of it would have to be quite different from SHIII. If playing a submarine in a campaign is often hours of rather plain searching, an escort campaign on the same engine would be even less inspiring. Unless you jack up submarine encounters to unrealistically high levels. And, again, mind you - I have a strong preference for patrol simulators rather than attack simulators. The immersion factor, for me, goes through the roof if the game lets me do full patrols instead of the engagement part only.

However, I would love to see a surface simulator using an improved version of the SHIII engine - but rather than commanding escort vessels, I would have liked it to be a battle squadron command game. Those would make for really exciting career-type games, I think, and their patrols would inevitably be memorable.

Just my two non-multiplayer, patrol-simulating cents cents

[Marhkimov]

I'm sure I speak for the majority of SH3 players when I say this...

I hate multiplayer.


I play SH3 for the single player aspect of it. Regardless of crappy AI, regardless of no wolfpacks, regardless of all problems with single player, i'd still rather play solo than with other online people.

[HEMISENT]

Originally Posted by Marhkimov

I'm sure I speak for the majority of SH3 players when I say this...

I hate multiplayer.


I play SH3 for the single player aspect of it. Regardless of crappy AI, regardless of no wolfpacks, regardless of all problems with single player, i'd still rather play solo than with other online people.

Ditto!

[CB..]

Originally Posted by Marhkimov

I'm sure I speak for the majority of SH3 players when I say this...

I hate multiplayer.


I play SH3 for the single player aspect of it. Regardless of crappy AI, regardless of no wolfpacks, regardless of all problems with single player, i'd still rather play solo than with other online people.

i have to say the same here ---only game i really enjoyed on line was quake--but i reckn it would do no harm at all if the devs included a couple of player operated destroyers with their own screens et al--no need for an actual campaign for them just a couple of training missions would do the trick and the ability to select them during multiplayer-as once the destroyers are in the game the community can very quickly take care of the rest---

and "driving" a DD is good fun--even if i wouldn't want to play thru an entire campaign--they don't have to go completely mad with the thing--just a decent model-- decent screens for the sonar hydrophnes and DC launchers and bingo the community will lapp it up---so they don't really need to make DC2 --just include a couple of playable DD's in SH4---they should really have done this as a matter of course in SH3--it's not going to reduce sales of the game -and multiplayer with drivable subs AND destroyers can only help maintain interest--lets face it if DC and SH2 had worked perfectly and was 100% stable on line then it would still be a big hit on line even now--much older games than these are still very much alive on-line simply because the multiplayer works extremely well and is reliable--Red baron 2/3d for example--

Ubi would make more money if the online side was worth while. More ppl play online games than those who dont. I'm not refering to just SH in any form either btw, I'm refering to most PC games. Online is where the money's at - so if UBI want to make SH earn a profit, that then will drives UBI to make new versions of SH, they must look to the online side as well.

Taking that online is where the money's at, then is stands to reason that ppl would prefer H-H play rather than just CO-OP. CO-OP could/should still be a part of online but TEAM SIDE based, ie: Subs V's Surface units (dont always have to be DD's n DE's). This would then keep SH alive and kicking far longer than just Joe Sub driver lurking in the depths ever will. With good AI to back up the human playes for numbers in game, UBI will have an all round winner.

[CB..]

yes i agree--it's perhaps a shame that they shied away from the whole concept of inter-op between two seperate games---but having done so they should havetaken a leaf out the big MMP ww2 games like BF42 etc and included the DD's for multiplayer--

if you ask me there is room for expanding on the concept of games like BF42 where it's possible to fly planes captain ships sub etc in a semi arcade way and go the whole hog and release independant full simulations of these different vessels and allow them all to inter-op on line--so in effect you would have BF42 but with full sim difficulty and specialisation---
folks might wonder at the expense of buying variuos different games for the whole experinence but this would be in no way compulsory and would build up over time to a truly immense MMP on line war simulation---everything from subs of all sides--destroyers --flight sim quality coastal command sunderlands etc providing air cover---no real limtations at all--a real money spinner no doubt (to be cynical) but if they pulled it off they would deserve the money IMO it would be a huge investment---- and the on line world it would allow for would be if it was stable and reliable would become an awfull lot of peoples favourite hang out--and would allow with the inclusion of a "coastal command asw" sim would briing the two groups of enthusiasts together (flightsimmers and sub/naval-simmers)in the same franchise--and that would surely more than double sales as the FS world has a far far larger fan base--

personally i'd love a fully simulated sunderland asw aircraft to fly on line interop against human "driven" u-boats and protecting convoys escorted by human "driven" destroyers ---i really believe the old SH2 /DC inter-op concept could be absolutely huge if done without buggs


mean time tho they should include drivable DD's in SH4 just beacuse it makes dang good sense--

[Hitman]

Another one here who prefers single rather than multi , however I agree that the sim should ship Multi to please the guys with a taste for that kind of action

[The Bandit]

I think that if they do make a sequel to DC then it should be a little more ASW based, and should have more controlable platforms. I think it would kick ass to captain a Flower class Corvette on convoy escort duty. The DC campaign kind of pissed me off. You went from one ASW mission of the east coast, I think there was a convoy mission too, and then your fighting a big surface engagement against light cruisers in the english channel. Its not only multiplayer, I think that if UBI made DC2 with the same sort of evolving dynamic campaign it would be quite an experience. You could see the U-boat war from the other side. Be able to see the introduction of Radar and HF/DF and by the end of the war you could call in air support from an escort carrier and have an Avenger come in with sono-bouys and arial-dropped torpedoes. I think if they did it right, they would have one hell of a game.

[CCIP]

I'm certainly not saying that there isn't potential in the concept.

BUT!

Majority of gamers aside (the majority of players don't play SHIII, period) - I think it's safe to say that virtually every SHIII fan would much rather see a completely polished campaign and better-modeled sub to play in that campaign, than a half-finished sub and half-finished destroyer slugging it out somewhere in the half-finished Atlantic :hmm:

I think the Ubi team here is still learning to make single-player subsims. Let them get that single 'sub' part right before demanding a destroyer.

I think it's fair that most of us want a solid-modelled sim that works properly offline before something that goes well online :hmm:

Plus, for the aspiring sub-hunters, there's a fifty times more solid and feature-filled DW, where ASW is a little bit more brains than just making quick and dirty guesses at where that sub is and dropping a chock full of charges over it

[edit]

As far as a single player escort game...

What I think would suit things better is not a destroyer sim game but a convoy escort command game. And that would require a slightly different approach.

That said, commanding a convoy or convoy escort rather than just a destroyer could make for an excellent and unique tactical wargame.

Actually, here is a proposal:

Make an SHIII-engine based game where you could command small attack boat groups, convoy escorts, hunting/support groups, or even big battle groups. You'd be the squadron commander sitting on one of the ships, and issuing orders to not one, but a whole number of units. You'd have both an SHIII-style nav map with waypoints, and radio menus to automatically make them execute manuevers and such. If needed, you could also take direct control of your boat a-la SHIII, and fire some cannons and torpedoes by hand or something.

Now THAT would be a much cooler approach.

[CB..]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Actually, here is a proposal:

Make an SHIII-engine based game where you could command small attack boat groups, convoy escorts, hunting/support groups, or even big battle groups. You'd be the squadron commander sitting on one of the ships, and issuing orders to not one, but a whole number of units. You'd have both an SHIII-style nav map with waypoints, and radio menus to automatically make them execute manuevers and such. If needed, you could also take direct control of your boat a-la SHIII, and fire some cannons and torpedoes by hand or something.

Now THAT would be a much cooler approach.

now that's a damn good idea--not only does it re-use the SH3 engine for another game (good economics from UBI's point of view with any luck) it allso allows for the revitalisation of SH3 it self by introducing the possibility of inter-op against DD's

every ones a winner surely--sales of SH3 continue --sales of the new surface version of SH3 accumalate --and it all works to promote interest in SH4--

[scrapser]

I've been playing sims since 1985. I never got into playing online mainly because I like working within the parameters set up by the sim itself. When you introduce online capability, you have to deal with all the idiots out there who want to tweak, cheat, or simply go off on their own and try to show off. Yes, there are some sincere players out there but truth be told, I bet they would prefer a LAN based engagement over the Internet option. The main point here and what I think I've accidently been lucky enough to avoid is the "watering down" effect of having every Tom, Dick, and Harry suddenly be part of a sim. I can think of other examples where the Internet has had a negative impact by introducing a flood of people into what was until then a tight knit group. Too much of anything is not a good thing.

scrapser