10, must have, items for SH4

[CaptJodan]

Taking out a feature such as the crewman is, to me, not a positive. I honestly cannot understand why anyone would want to take away immersion elements in a sim.

Ironically, my number one "must have" for me is the ability for the "all compartment" tour, not just limited to the control room and the radio room and bridge. (I'd love to be able to walk through myself on the track like someone said, but even pushing a button that puts you in a specific spot I could deal with. Just so long as I got to see the other areas).

I've been overall very pleased with most of what SH3 had to offer, and though there have been many problems, the community has really improved it, and I honestly consider SH3 to be a real positive for the sim community (it's a well enough known title for one, bringing exposure and sales which allow for other sims to be developed).

I take the outlook that "the bare minimum" that needs changing are things like the two engine control, ability to see more interior spaces, and an increase in screen resolution/graphical controls (giving the ability for others to scale to their systems needs, but still a game that looks decent.) and other things I can't think about or remember at the moment. Basically, things that are hard coded into the game that no one can get to to change.

Don't get me wrong, I want the game to be as realistic and solid as possible, and it's not like I want to create work for the community to do. Far from it. But I know that if the depth charges seem rediculously powerful, or the crush depth is set at 200 feet for a Gato and later subs, the community will find a way to fix the problem. They've even made vast improvements to the AI. And there's really no way to satisfy everyone's own tastes, so naturally there will be mods for just the complete redicioulous.

I don't want a buggy game (in fact, I want a stable game. No game in the history of my playing games has ever been as stable as MOO2. It plays on ANYTHING practically...but I digress). But SH3, and probably SH4 as well, are complex games. They're going to have problems. They're going to have bugs. And there are going to be things that just aren't right or aren't the way people think they should be. "Ubi can't bring out a non-buggy game". Well that's probably true. But these are complex games and few games if any that I can think of don't come out buggy or that there's something someone didn't like about them. It's just the way it is these days. How much support/how many patches/how many expansions have been put in the IL-2 series, and the game STILL isn't to everyone's liking. It STILL is buggy on occasion and there are still things that annoy the heck out of people. The game's like 4 or more years old and it's been getting support from day one (the never ending .50 cal, the 190 cockpit, the glass engine in the P-47 etc).

Don't kill immersion just for the sake of getting it to run perfectly, because that's a near unattainable goal, and in the process you only hurt the rest of the game.

[Onkel Neal]

My 10 Must Have items list:

1. A working stadimeter, as the US subs had, where a dual image is lowered until the mast height is even with the surface of the ocean.
2. Complete red-light shading: SH3 did this well in 80% of the screens, but the Ship ID log and the UZO blind me when playing at night in a dark room.
3. More realistic escort visual abilities: US subs frequently slid into convoys at ranges of 2000 yards without detection on moonless or overcast nights. US subs also used sailing fleets and junks as camouflage.
4. Neutral Russian ships – very important along the coast to ID ships, sinking a Russian neutral should cause a skipper to be relieved of command, career over.
5. Coral reefs, shoals, rocks, and shallows should abound. Some not marked on the charts. Big part of the US sub war was trying to avoid running aground.
6. Radio traffic and more of it. HQ does most of the talking, sending Ultras, convoy info, and area reports
7. No “Enemy Target Destroyed” messages
8. A new compartment to view; such as the engine room, mess, or torpedo room, with 3D crew.
9. Tokyo Rose broadcasts – and lots of them!
10. Phosphorescence of sub and torpedo wakes. In certain areas, at certain times, US subs at high speed would leave a glowing trail. This would be a good tactical consideration that adds to the gameplay.
11. Large-scale naval engagements, such as Midway, Battle of Coral Sea, Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Okinawa Invasion, etc.

Err...yes! Number 11 sounds very good. Get the large battles invloved of Midway etc. Even if you're a spectator and aren't directly asked to intervene...can you imagine a crippled destroyer from the battle happening across your path and BAM! you catch him off guard. I love randomness like that...

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

My 10 Must Have items list:7. No “Enemy Target Destroyed” messages

Looking over the convoy documents brings me to add: No "Dud Torpedo, Sir!" messages; they listed almost all duds as misses.

And for that matter, no "Torpedo Hit" or "Torpedo Missed" messages. I think a captain could figure that out for himself.

9. Tokyo Rose broadcasts – and lots of them!

I like that, but maybe for the record player downloads.

10. Phosphorescence of sub and torpedo wakes. In certain areas, at certain times, US subs at high speed would leave a glowing trail. This would be a good tactical consideration that adds to the gameplay.

Now THAT would be cool. Even if there was no phosphorescence, one of the things SHI had that SHIII misses is the fact that even after the foam died down the wake would be a different color form the rest of the water for miles. Planes would follow the wake to the sub.

[Mulder]

Originally Posted by mfykes
2. I don’t need 3-D crew members; I can do that in my head! Besides, the more 3-D images of crew members, the more power that’s needed to render them as individuals.

Dont need it? fine...go play SH II

[Justin Prince]

For one, I hope they keep the 3D crew. Perhaps have an option to disable to save horsepower.

SHIV will probably be released in 2007. Players with 2001 computers who don't want to upgrade shouldn't try to get Devs to crap up games for them. I understand your frustration (I've had to upgrade many a time), but why should those of us with huge machines (AMD 64X2 4200 Dual Core, 2 Gig Ram, 2X7900GTs in SLI Mode here) have to continue to play graphically unapealing or downright ugly games because you refuse to upgrade? Or what about newbies coming from the "shoot-em up" genre? They'll want the advanced graphics too.

For me, it is about immersion. If you want to play it by the map only and use hotkeys, and hence don't need the 3D crew, go ahead. I play by clicking on the stations, and watching in the control room as a DD passes over, like a real sub commander.

In addition, the argument "Not having a 3D crew will improve performance" is quite wrong, at least if your play style has you at the map at all times. Have you ever been on an old machine playing a first person shooter that it can't handle? You get crappy frame rates, but as soon as you look to the sky (where fewer objects are being rendered), your frame rates jump drastically. It is the same situation here: If you play at the map and stations, whatever performance hit on your old machine caused by the 3D crew is negated, as they are not rendered and hence do not take resources. It seems to me that if one plays the game that way, it is because their old machine's processor cannot successfully handle all of the information of various units. The only way to solve that would be yanking out most of the ships, and creating static mission based campaigns - and I think most of the community would abhor that idea.

My advice to you is this: Upgrade your machine. You will have to do it eventually, and the longer you wait, the further behind you'll get, and the more you have to spend. I found that out the hard way, going from a PIII 833mhz and a TNT2 to a Athlon 2600 and a 5200FX. Sure I could "play" the newer games (even SH3), but since it wasn't a great upgrade, I needed to up again. And that upgrade was in 2002 (for the P3) and in 2003 (For the 2600). Early this year, I spent $2,000 on a new machine, and I won't be "forced" to upgrade probably until 2010. And even then my rig should "run" the games then, but albeit at a lesser quality.

The purpose of a simulation is to simulate, and to immerse. The way the thread starter seems to play it is more of a wargame, move here, take control, then move here. That is fine and dandy, but to the majority of players that is not simulating anything, and that sure as heck isn't immersive. Why should we be made to suffer to accept your play style?

Again, I think there should be a balance. Make the 3D crew standard. Adding stuff is good, taking away is what can kill a game. But, have an option in the graphic settings to disable them. I can almost promise you, though, that if the game continues to keep track of individual crew members, then you won't see a performance increase: All you'll get is a lifeless 3D sub, a step backwards in simulation.



I also like the idea I saw someone wrote of having all nations subs. Very cool. But realistically (remember, I am a game Designer, see Matrix's War Plan Orange), the idea of making a sim with that is flawed and impossible from the start. Here is why:

1) Voice acting. You'd have to do a complete American, British, Japanese, and Dutch voice set. That's a lot of $$$$.

2) Interiors. SH3 has four basic interiors, a Type II, Type VII, Type IX, and Type XXI. But for SHIV to have so many playable subs.... well, even if you shared interiors, you'd need at least 3 per nation (providing you have a good amount of subs for each nation). So that comes to 12 interiors (at least). That right there, production and time wise, is 3 times the $$$$ and labor SHIII cost.

3) Sub choices. Again, you need accurate modeling and specs, damage, crew compartments, etc, morso than from an AI standpoint. For the US, you would NEED the Tench, Balao, Gato, T, Salmon/Sargo, P, Cachalot, Dolphin, Narwhal, Argonaut, and a generic S class (There are actually about a half dozen S class subs, S-1 to S-51 were not homogenous). That is 11 classes. Going to what SH1 had, it cuts down to 10, because although the Cachalot and Dolphin classes were not modeled, SH1 featured the Barracuda class. So that is 10 boats. Then, to do the whole point of SHIV justice, you'd need to add the various selectable conning tower types (2 to three versions), deck gun weapons (5"/51, 5"/25, 4"/50, 3"/50, 40mm, 20mm, .50cal, and .30cal). So just modeling the US side is almost as astronomical a task as SHIII was. Now, on top of that, you want how many Japanese? How many British? Two or three Dutch? So again, on those resources, it costs 4 times what SHIII did to produce.

4. Campaigns. You have to make them fun and accurate don't you? Except, you have to do it four times instead of one. So that is more labor.

5. Playtesting. 4 times as many subs, 4 times as much beta testing.

6. Expansion. If you add everything into the game at first, then you really can't expand it. So you in effect get the work (in your US, Brit, Dutch, Japanese playables) of four different games, but the devs get paid only for one.

7. Price. So, if SHIV did what some people wish with so many playables, it would cost in time and labor 3 to 4 times the amount of work to develop, and about 4 times as much money invested. To make a profit, they have to raise their prices accordingly.

So, while I too would like playables from each side, to do it justice (and not like Enigma:RT, 1 sub, 1 PC, 1 DE, 1 DD for each side, with Germany getting 2 subs) and have the realism and authenticity we all want, it is an impossibility. That, or we wait until 2008 probably and pay the Devs for having to do 4 times the work, and instead of SHIV costing $49.99 USD it would cost $199.99 USD. I paid $80 USD for War in the Pacific, great game. I paid $125 USD for Steel Beasts Pro, great sim. But I for one am hesitant to pay $200 USD for a game, and I suspect those who want crappier graphics so their older machines can run it, and hence cannot afford to by a $150USD new video card or a $250USD new processor won't like it either.

For me, the only "must have" features for SHIV I have are these:

1) Dynamic Campaign (naturally), but with assignable missions like SH1, such as collect data, pilot rescue, etc)

2) Playable Submarines. I expect - nay, demand at least the same playables we had for SH1, plus the Argonaut (S class [With no stern tube!], Barracuda class *can be subsituted for Cachalots*, P Class, Salmon/Sargo class, T class, Gato class, Balao Class, Tench Class.

3) Keep the 3D crew. I love the immersion. Though, for those with older systems, have an option to disable it.

4) Air raid starts: have it so that when Manila is the current base (i.e. 1941 or 1942), that when you click to start the next patrol, the game randomly decides if their is an air raid or not occuring before or during the start of the next patrol. If there is, then instead of departing (for example) on December 11th, 1941 that when you click the start mission, a pop up window says something like "December 10th, 1941. Enemy Air Raid! Make all preparations for getting under way!" That way, you have to sortie during an air raid, or risk being caught by Japanese planes. Possibly extend this to all USAFFE bases, and maybe even Australia (West Coast) and New Guinea, with a trigger that it can no longer happen after 31 December 1942.

5) Conning Towers. Like SHIII allowed, I want the whole range. From the prewar cons, to the cut down bridge forward, to the cigaratte decks, to the final 1945 fits with a relatively low conning tower.

6) Free Flood ports. Using the mechanism similar to conning towers, be able (based on date) to have more free flooding ports cut into your submarine (as was done historically) to cut dive times.

7) The Mk XIV Torpedo. Have, starting in late 1942, an option when you go to sea to disable the exploder (as many captians did). However, make it have a renown cost, to represent harsh words from BuOrd. Perhaps maybe even receive a scathing letter or two from them.

8) Runaways. As much as I may regret this when I buy the game if it makes it in , let us have runaways. If we fire a torpedo, especially at an odd angle, give it the ability to come full circle. Many US submarines were lost to their own torpedoes, so it should be a danger we have to face.

9) Historical occurances. program in some of the historic battles, so that if we go to that area during the campaign we can see it. It doesn't have to be every one, but at the very least the ones I would expect are: Doolittle Raid 1942, Battle of Midway 1942 (which US subs took part in), Guadalcanal 1942-1943 (this should be a hotbed of naval activity), Marianas 1944, Philippine Sea 1944, Iwo Jima 1945 and Okinawa 1945. they don't have to be spectacular or historically correct, but I would expect to see Japanese cruisers steaming down the slot in November 1942, or B-25s over tokyo in April 1942, or the Great Marianas Turkey SHoot of 1944, or what about the Battle of the Phillippine Sea? I for one would love to be in the position of the Darter or Dace, and feel like I have an impact on the war. That brings me to my #10 item.

10) Fleet Maneuvers. I know in SHIII if you sent a contact report sometimes the Luftwaffe would appear. Keep that part. But also keep trakc of random US and Japanese fleets, and allow them to be vectored in. As I said, to be the Darter or the Dace, it would be cool to discover a large Japanese fleet moving into the Surigao Strait, send a radio report and recieve orders to continue shadowing and reporting. And then, to see over the horizon gunflashes a US Task Force vectored in based on your reports blasts away. Some might get miffed at loosing kills, but I would feel more immersed, like instead of being a single sub in the middle of a war that I actually had some impact on the war, much like several submarines did.


These are just my .02 cents.

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by don1reed

go siphon a cup full and leave it unattended beneath the bed



do not, I say again, do not let the Mrs. know...oh Jeeez!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

To Justin Prince: that has to be just about the best post I've read on this subject! I agree with every single point; your negative reasons concerning multi-national campaigns reflects the way I feel exactly. I also like every one of your suggestions, most especially number four: air raids while in base.

[Lionman]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

To Justin Prince: that has to be just about the best post I've read on this subject! I agree with every single point; your negative reasons concerning multi-national campaigns reflects the way I feel exactly. I also like every one of your suggestions, most especially number four: air raids while in base.

I agree Steve - that was a great post and I too agree with all his points.

Those who don't want immersive simulation with 3D crew members and mobility around the boat - go play SH II - better yet get rid of Windows altogether and revert to DOS - after all it's all unecessary eye-candy, right? <sigh> I am soooooo bored with hearing this tired old stuff from gamers who "don't get it" as regards realism and simulation and who create a false opposition between realism and game-play. It is NOT necessary to say either/or in today's computing environment. A simulation means a simulation of reality, in detail.

Proof? Check out the screenshots and videos of Microsoft's coming Flight Simulator X (10) with migrating birds, herds of moving wild animals, moving traffic, car headlights, real-world dynamic weather downloaded in real time from satellite, specular reflections in cockpit glass, complex shadows, thermals updrafts, airport ground traffic animations and moving trees and cornfields. THAT is the kind of level of realism and immersion possible, demanded, enjoyed and possible in today's flight simulators whose flight models are immesaurably more complex than the hydrodynamic models for submarines and have to be different for every aircraft. I have over 450 aircraft in my current FS9 installation and I am running all that on a 7 year old PC with only just over 800 MB of RAM, an old nVida 5200 128MB GFx card and an Athlone 1700 MHZ CPU, so this level of immersive realism does NOT require an Alienware Ferrari. MS FS9 2004 is already so realistic that you can take a whole course of flying lessons and get a virtual license within the "game".

This is 2006 for goodness sake so let's just IGNORE all these "who needs the future I just want a board game" folk and press for the same levels of immersive realism in Ocean combat simulators that the flight sim world demanded and got long ago. We did it with SH III which, for all its faults, was a really massive upgrade from SH II, because we all stuck to our guns and requested what we mostly eventually got. Let's do the same for SH IV and one day soon we'll find ourselves walking around inside our creaking, humming, ultra-immersive Gato class sub, listening to Tokyo Rose, with asdic pings and crew chatter in the background, off watch sailors sleeping in dark bunks, others sitting on the torpedo racks playing harmonica and joking, fish in the sea outside, trees on the headlands we pass, and wind blown spray whining across the conning tower.

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by Justin Prince

For one, I hope they keep the 3D crew. Perhaps have an option to disable to save horsepower.

SHIV will probably be released in 2007. Players with 2001 computers who don't want to upgrade shouldn't try to get Devs to crap up games for them. I understand your frustration (I've had to upgrade many a time), but why should those of us with huge machines (AMD 64X2 4200 Dual Core, 2 Gig Ram, 2X7900GTs in SLI Mode here) have to continue to play graphically unapealing or downright ugly games because you refuse to upgrade? Or what about newbies coming from the "shoot-em up" genre? They'll want the advanced graphics too.

You bet they will try to make it prettier. In the world of gaming, prettier is always a selling point. Not necesarily in the world of realism, but pretty sells a lot better.

As for point 9) I would suggest having them randomized a bit, so that you could risk running into them weeks ahead or weeks later than their actual historical occurance, for more gameyness and challenge.

[Safe-Keeper]

Mate, don't mock my want of realism when you're talking about "...sea water in the batteries producing chlorine gas.." And what are we meant to do if that happens? Hold our breath?

Gas masks. And surface really, really fast. I'd like it, actually, if implemented well.

SHIV will probably be released in 2007. Players with 2001 computers who don't want to upgrade shouldn't try to get Devs to crap up games for them. I understand your frustration (I've had to upgrade many a time), but why should those of us with huge machines (AMD 64X2 4200 Dual Core, 2 Gig Ram, 2X7900GTs in SLI Mode here) have to continue to play graphically unapealing or downright ugly games because you refuse to upgrade? Or what about newbies coming from the "shoot-em up" genre? They'll want the advanced graphics too.

As I said before, just put this Graphics Prettifulness Level slider in the options screen. SH3 is the bottom of the slider, Awesome SHIV With All Glory On is the top. Then some check-boxes for various features like Dynamic lighting, etc (not that anyone'd turn it off).

As for graphics being necessary for immersion: I disagree here. Sure, the terrain in SHIII looks pretty bad, and sure, the officers' models aren't the greatest, but you're supposed to be able to immerse yourself nonetheless. I am.

Not to say graphics shouldn't be improved, but saying that the game has to make use of every last piece of technology to be immersive? I beg to differ. Call me a "board game player" or "DOS Lover" all you want, but I beg to differ.

[Justin Prince]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Gas masks. And surface really, really fast. I'd like it, actually, if implemented well.

As I said before, just put this Graphics Prettifulness Level slider in the options screen. SH3 is the bottom of the slider, Awesome SHIV With All Glory On is the top. Then some check-boxes for various features like Dynamic lighting, etc (not that anyone'd turn it off).

As for graphics being necessary for immersion: I disagree here. Sure, the terrain in SHIII looks pretty bad, and sure, the officers' models aren't the greatest, but you're supposed to be able to immerse yourself nonetheless. I am.

Not to say graphics shouldn't be improved, but saying that the game has to make use of every last piece of technology to be immersive? I beg to differ. Call me a "board game player" or "DOS Lover" all you want, but I beg to differ.

Well, I did not mean to imply that graphics are necessary for immersion. Au contrare, I simply meant to imply that to take out 3D crew members while retaining a 3D interior would detract from immersion. If SHIV had the same graphics engine/same graphics as SHIII I for one would be happy. My main contention is that simulators should not have to be made graphically unappealing or downright ugly because some consumers choose to have six or seven year old computers. Graphics are not necessary for immersion - gameplay is the key factor. But playing (what I consider to be) an immersive campaign of SHIII with its graphic interiors and 3D crew, and then going to SHIV with the 3D crew removed and a worse graphic quality for other consumers will detract from gameplay. Many times I have played sims that were great on gameplay, but had crappy or even bad graphics (EAW.... one of my favorite sims of all time, but the planes didn't even have moving parts!). But in 2007, with computers as powerful as they are now, it is not unreasonable to expect - or demand - both.

I don't think graphics are necessary for immersion. However, bad or unreaslistic graphics, or in particular graphics that are worse or a step behind a prequal (as many have suggested do with SHIV) can detract from immersion. Today, would you play a tank simulator with blocky, pixelated tanks? Or how about a flight sim where the planes have no moving parts? Or how about an infantry sim where the guns are nothing more than bitmaps with no moving parts? These are relatively small things, that today are expected. My whole contention is that after SHIII, I feel that 3D crewman should become an industry standard in naval simulations. That is my only contention on graphics.

[rman214]

Definetely more interior views with full roaming capability of all compartments. Era correct radio broadcasts/music, Tokyo Rose and more radio traffic. Enemy submarines to duel with, more coordinated attacks against the enemy using suface ship,other subs and aircraft. Warning when in time compression that an enemy is approaching so you don't have a destroyer coming out of nowhere with guns blazing while you are t/c'ing your way through quiet sectors getting to your patrol areas.

[rls669]

Originally Posted by Lionman

Those who don't want immersive simulation with 3D crew members and mobility around the boat - go play SH II - better yet get rid of Windows altogether and revert to DOS

A total red herring. I am completely in favour of increased detail in the ship models, ocean, weather, wildlife, seafloor, you name it. I just simply don't care about the 3d crew or boat interior, as I find navigating between stations that way boring and pointless for me. Having crew and passengers on surface ships would do far more for my immersion than having a bunch of crew models standing around the control room doing nothing in particular. And believe me, if you want them to move around and do anything convincing you're going to need to graft on a high-end FPS engine and its AI scripting and pathfinding.

My point is that in the real world there are limited resources available for game development and I don't want any more of them spent on eye candy overlaying a broken simulation. Get the guts right first and then spend all the time you want on the graphics. Maybe it's just because I come from a first-person shooter modding background and SH3's crew models and interiors are 1998-quality anyway, the engine capabilities to breathe life into them nonexistent. I know the kind of work it would take to redo those assets to modern standards and unless they double the SH4 budget and dev team, other areas will suffer.

[DarkFolle]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Not only do i think a fully rendered 3d crew is mandantory and not optional, this time, i want to be able to walk from the bow torpedo room, to the stern torpedo room, and see everything in between!

**** right!
*********** **** right!
*********** ****** **** right!
***** u are right!
***** ******* u are right!!!

1 - I want to walk from the Aft Torpedo Room to the Stern Torpedo Room, i want to even walk over my Sub if that's possible when in surface.
And i want I WANT TO SEE THOSE -censored- SAILORS WORKING OUT THE SUB FOR REPAIRS, AND FOR THE EXTERNAL TUBE RELOADING!
I want to see my men repair also the internal boat, when it is damaged, under or over the surface.
I want to see my men eat those bananas, men injured in the boat, the med coming, i want to see the fear in my men when submerged and under attack.
It's a game, always remeber and today we can do incredible things with the graph cards technology! Have u see Call Of Duty 2? it's incredibly involving, makes me feel at least a little of how it was in WW2, and it's not so complicated do that for a subsim..SH3 is nothing more than an improved graph version and corrected game of Aces Of The Deep....AND FIRST OF ALL I WANT THIS DAMN-to Drebbel-i leave alone this one just because we are in 2006 and the game is 2005 and it is incredible they used only pixel shader 1.1 for the water, stupid thing don't u think?-WATER LOOK LIKE WATER NOT LIKE A SWAMP!!

I mean, we are now in 2006, what it needs is only ideas, really true, because we have all the needed to create such an incredible game..i don't care if there are ppl with pc older than their grandma, it's their problem, not mine, not of the creators...we are in 2006 and if u still old a 9600, well man, i think u need to get some fresh air in ur pc...

SH3 looks like it was created in the 1998!

But i'm not talkin only about graph, i want AI competitive, not that **** that i see when a ship spot me, starts only to zig zag until i disappear..i want also a tactical game, the opportunity to be trained in "pack Attacks" when u are in water and there are more than only ur U-boat, and u can with other subs give hell to the British!
And correct Dials, correct speeds, less bugs, an improved multiplayer menu, not that -censored- that i have to refresh every 5 seconds it hurts a lot because first of all this game isn't like cod 2, there aren't many ppl playing it, and so u can't find so many servers, second thing a game can last for hours!! i can't handle every 5 seconds that click....make an auto refresh of 5 second not manual!!!
And the manual! I want 120 pages of manual!!!no! I want 500 pages of manual!!! -Censored-!!! Someone can remember B-17 The Flying Fortress game for 486-Pent I?? Someone of u can remember that damn MANUAL? it was HUGE, HEAVY, and COMPLETELY USEFUL! there were Flying tactics explaining, story confrontations, real historical comments over the problems of the B-17 all over WW2, suggestions...the Manual itself was a training camp for me!!
that's really boring! I can't believe u made a game for non noob ppl that mostly play FPS (and u don't need a manual for a FPS, mostly), and then u leaved the player with only the semi-relevant "Keyboard sheet of Paper"...

oh and congrats to the SH3 team they made [Enter] to launch torpedoes....

ah and i don't care if the game needs 20 giga of space, make 4 DVD Boxset, and i don't even care if it will cost 120 Euro, do u wanna know why? because "when a thing is valuable enough, price is nothing, it's a matter of heart"

i'm sick to see ppl spend 40-60 Euro for a game like NFS, that only has graph, and nothing else! u make this price? well at least MAKE THE GAME AS VALUABLE AS THE PRICE!

I think naval sims are too less considered enough, both by gamers and creators.....baaaaaaah!