SH => SH5 How did we come into this?

[Rosencrantz]

SH (orig.): Concentrated on boats and Pacific submarine war in great detail. Interesting, challenging and entertaining. UBI wasn't involved.

SHII: UBI gives a try. Stock didn't have Dynamic campaign, but boats still had couple interesting features (diesel/electric management) to be lost in the future.

SHIII: Someone - probably in this forum - says two magic words "Crew" and "Dynamic campaign". UBI listens and both are in. Boats are clearly degenerating.

SHIV: Goes back to Pac. Creates mixed feelings among users. On boats "working periscopes" are probably the biggest leap ahead. U-boat addon offers fantasy campaign and units to player, and "special abilities" to crew.

SHV: UBI's probably most secret submarine simulation project up to date, planned to be jealously guarded by DRM. Going back to Atlantic, Full Dynamic Campaign is forgotten again, and only one type of three main U-boat classes is left. Crew - with ( their very) "special abilities" - is probably coming to be even more important than before, so don't forget SOUP!



-RC-

[tater]

There was no "dynamic" campaign in SH3 or 4.

Dynamism requires that the campaign can change due to player actions. No campaign mission-layer stuff changes AT ALL due to any player actions. Nothing changes. You can park outside a port and sink every ship that goes by and they'll keep sending out convoys. No dynamism in the least.

Are you saying that the campaign in SH5 is a true Dynamic Campaign?

[Galanti]

God, I hope not. I think what Tater's getting at is that the outcome of the war should not rest in the hands of a lone Kaleun and his ragged band of assorted reprobates and focus group rejects. Mad 2X Torpedo Damage skilz notwithstanding.

I think the OP's point is excellent though, we seem to be devolving and losing key features all the time.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Galanti

God, I hope not. I think what Tater's getting at is that the outcome of the war should not rest in the hands of a lone Kaleun and his ragged band of assorted reprobates and focus group rejects. Mad 2X Torpedo Damage skilz notwithstanding.

I think the OP's point is excellent though, we seem to be devolving and losing key features all the time.

I agree, that would be stupid. A campaign needs a sort of tactical dynamism, not war-winning dynamism.

I don;t think they should bother with outcomes much at all. But I do think during a patrol convoys should be rerouted around a sub, or that ASW assets might be re-tasked to an area with sinkings.

Any nonsense about changing the war outcome is not useful, and a waste of effort when there are no shortages of realism problems still to be dealt with

[Galanti]

Originally Posted by tater

tactical dynamism

That is a brilliant description for what I think most of us want.

[Rosencrantz]

To tater:

I just used term "Dynamic Campaign" as I understand it was used when SHIII was released. That's all, and we seem to be thinking about tactical/strategic effect in the same way.


To razark: Since when great graphics has been something to do with realism?!? And yes, I actually like to read manuals, US Navy ones especially. Well writen, detailed, full with information.

To Galanti: You got my point. I think we have been going backwards a looooong time. Not in every aspect, but in many anyway.


-RC-

[razark]

Originally Posted by Galanti

I think the OP's point is excellent though, we seem to be devolving and losing key features all the time.

But we get pretty pictures to look at! Doesn't that make up for the missing features?

I mean, great graphics > great gameplay and realism, isn't it?

Besides, if we had all those features, they might actually have to write a manual to describe them. And we wouldn't want to actually have to read to play the game, would we?

[tater]

It looks for the first time (least since the pre-ubi SH stuff which I don't know about) the campaign in SH5 might be a little dynamic.

SH3/4 was not at all dynamic, so it has no place to go but up from there