DEV Q&A post on Ubi Forum

we think random malfunctions or sabotages are very dangerous for gameplay reasons. These kinds of events cannot be controlled by the player and they may ruin a mission, a plan, or a patrol for you. In the future, we will tackle them in some way, but for now, we have no such thing in the game.

I suggest you give up 'thinking' and try some bloody 'listening' for a change!

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by JScones

Hmm, I hope no-one tells Flight sim or Tank sim devs this - they've been including some form of breakdown options for years. Seems odd that it's such a concern in a Sub sim though...or is it just a convenient excuse?

I don't buy the "won't someone think of the gameplay!" excuse, either. I think having breakdowns from pushing your equipment too hard would add an excellent strategy aspect. Do I chase that convoy at flank speed all day and run an increased risk of my engines breaking down, or do I let it go? It would fit in great with this "crewman special abilities" angle they're implementing too. An experienced chief would be able to push the engines hard with a reduced risk of a breakdown. Works great!

These kinds of events cannot be controlled by the player and they may ruin a mission, a plan, or a patrol for you.

Yeah, you know what other uncontrollables can ruin a mission, plan or patrol for you? Stormy weather. Destroyers. Airplanes. Task forces. Dud torpedoes. Let's just take all of those out of the game, too!

What a bullcrap excuse.

[PL_Andrev]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Yeah, you know what other uncontrollables can ruin a mission, plan or patrol for you? Stormy weather. Destroyers. Airplanes. Task forces. Dud torpedoes. Let's just take all of those out of the game, too!

What a bullcrap excuse.

The question is where is the problem?

The resistance is known in France and Norway. Is the problem to set up the probability of damage for example 2% in Norway bases, and 4% in France bases in April 1942? A simple data file for each database and each month of the war.

The main cause of damage were leaks - is the problem to simulate a weak (random) integrity of each room, which would be unhide after the first depth and can be removed?
For example:
stern tubes 100%
conning tower 25%
engine 75%
When the first depth the conning tower begins to leak at 50 meters, the engine at 150, and stern tubes at the critical depth.

Of course if the leaks are critical is only one way: emergency surface and return to homebase and repair...

Similarly, a periscope or diesel, these elements may be damaged - if something is completely damaged - back to base. If the damage is partial - what is problem to remove this malfunction?

I do not understand UBI's problems...

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by Antar

I do not understand UBI's problems...

They're not Ubi's, they're the devs problems. And they're called deadlines.

[C DuDe]

Wonder if there will be Tenders to refit / refuel at sea and if we'd get the option to call in a tow when in sight of a friendly harbor.
(Obviously the tow has to be done at night so you won’t be to embarrassed getting to port).

Maybe get the option to call in for help when you’re in friendly waters to refuel when you ran out... even when it takes days for them to get to you.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by C DuDe

Wonder if there will be Tenders to refit/refuel at sea

Originally Posted by GKane

Can we call in a refuelling sub or to reload the torps in the middle of Atlantic? and perhaps we can also see the crew in actions to refuel and reload the torps?

Whether the crew will be visibly performing these actions is still to be decided, but you’ll definitely be able to resupply at sea. This was an important factor in the real U-Boat campaign and it will be the same in our game too.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...7/m/8591082387

[elanaiba]

Regarding malfunctions, I'd say in reality you'd have the option to assign your crew to doublecheck systems that may be prone to sabotage, run tests, detect the problems before they occur in battle. If something is detected you have the option of a quick yard repair (insteaad of waiting the full 2-3 weeks standard in port). Doable? Yes. Simple? No.

The example of "torpedo duds" is the only one that kinda stands but even in reality the source of the problems was design of the system rather than sabotage. Also note that when torpedo malfunctions were implemented, many player controlled factors were taken into account - dud chance is based on impact angle, premature chance is based on sea state and torpedo running depth. As in real life, the player has some control - but he has the benefit of historic hind sight.

Aircraft, destroyers, depth charges, are also related to player performance and choice of tactics.

And I will never give up "thinking", its in my blood

[JScones]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

I'd say in reality you'd have the option to assign your crew to doublecheck systems that may be prone to sabotage, run tests, detect the problems before they occur in battle. If something is detected you have the option of a quick yard repair (insteaad of waiting the full 2-3 weeks standard in port). Doable? Yes. Simple? No.

But the beauty of sabotage was to "break things" without detection. For example, drill holes in the fuel bunkers, battery acid on all the seals, weakly welded hull plates...none of which could be easily identified in port, only when out to sea.

Steel Boat, Iron Hearts by Hans Goebeler devotes a whole chapter to sabotage and how frustrating it was. For example, he alleges that it took four patrols before workers found the drill holes in the fuel bunkers!

Now, most general malfunctions could be found through the usual dive checks just out of port...but the idea here isn't just to have stuff break or stop working, it's to add another element of decision making to the Commander - "gee, I can't reach full speed, should I continue or return to port?". It's not as black and white as just a "dud battery, u-boat can't move" type of malfunction.

[THE_MASK]

I think for game play sake the average player would not get much out of it . Imagine in SH4 that your fuel range was reduced for no apparent reason . There would be threads about the stupid fuel bug or something . You cannot put everything in the game , imagine the size of the dvd .

[JScones]

Originally Posted by sober

I think for game play sake the average player would not get much out of it . Imagine in SH4 that your fuel range was reduced for no apparent reason . There would be threads about the stupid fuel bug or something . You cannot put everything in the game , imagine the size of the dvd .

I think the DVD would still be 12cm in diameter.

Certainly true though, malfunctions/sabotage would have to be well explained. I mean, I always found it perplexing that people would select the option in SH3Cmdr and then complain that they couldn't see through the periscope, or couldn't reach flank speed..."bug!", "bug!" they cried...

[THE_MASK]

I think choice/options screen is the new buzword though.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by JScones

Now, most general malfunctions could be found through the usual dive checks just out of port...but the idea here isn't just to have stuff break or stop working, it's to add another element of decision making to the Commander - "gee, I can't reach full speed, should I continue or return to port?". It's not as black and white as just a "dud battery, u-boat can't move" type of malfunction.

That's exactly the point. It's a strategic decision the commander is making when he decides to press on with the patrol, despite a boat that has issues. It was a fact of life for the U-boat men, and something that they dealt with just as much as anything else currently included in the game. Adding more layers of decision making and tactical skill means a more rich and nuanced game in the end. Dan, I respect you guys to the max, but I have to disagree with the line of thinking that leaves sabotage/malfunctions out of the game.

[Laffertytig]

Originally Posted by JScones

I think the DVD would still be 12cm in diameter.

Certainly true though, malfunctions/sabotage would have to be well explained. I mean, I always found it perplexing that people would select the option in SH3Cmdr and then complain that they couldn't see through the periscope, or couldn't reach flank speed..."bug!", "bug!" they cried...

i think the main problem with the way this worked was that there was no way of fixing the engine if it malfunctioned.

[PL_Andrev]

Nice question was found on SH5 forum:

Unsinkable submarine (on surface after player death) in SH4 patch 1.5 kills almost all matches in multiplayer mode...

After that should I buy SH5 without slightest doubts?

[elanaiba]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Dan, I respect you guys to the max, but I have to disagree with the line of thinking that leaves sabotage/malfunctions out of the game.

Remember, Mark, the answer says "In the future, we will tackle them in some way, but for now, we have no such thing in the game."