Is 100% historical accuracy absolutely essential? - Page 2

WFGood · 04-05-07, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akdavis

Quote:

Originally Posted by WFGood

Quote:

Originally Posted by akdavis

Quote:

Originally Posted by WFGood

Quote:

Originally Posted by akdavis

Of course, 100% historical accuracy would mean you have zero free action in the game. You would have to simply sit back and watch things as they really happened. But then not being able to have 100% historical accuracy does not mean that historical accuracy is irrelevant.

This just goes to show that discussing anything in terms of absolutes is ultimately pointless and unhelpful.

No, I don't agree. You can recreate conditions 100% and have different outcomes based upon the decisions of the participants. You could, for example, recreate the Ward's patrol outside of Pearl on the morning of December 7, 1941 and based upon the timing of your decisions or the decisions themselves, you could miss the one in a million shot that hit the midget submarine. Besides, I think the post is pretty clear in spelling out that we are talking about recreating ports, aircraft, etc 100%, and not making a carbon copy of the war to unfold as a movie. The negative posts take the developers to task for not creating ports authentically or modeling planes completely to detail. To me those things do not affect gameplay. Having the Japanese task force off Midway not there for the battle is a flaw that needs addressing, but the number of ships at the atoll during the course of the war is eye candy and not a factor, which is my entire point.
You cannot recreate things 100%, which is an absolute, but time after time we see posts where the developers are taken to task for just that, not being 100% accurate.

So he was actually making a statement in absolute terms that was not absolute. Like I said: unhelpful.

Perhaps you have not completely read the post or are unable to understand it. My point is that you cannot recreate the Pacific Theater 100% accurately, and the negative posts about not finding the game 100% accurate are not only "unhelpful," but they also detract from discussion of more pertinent issues that affect the game. You may be as dismissive as you like, but I wonder who is being "unhelpful" here? This post was about people complaining about the developers not recreating installations, aircraft, ships, and their numbers with 100% fidelity, which I agree is impossible to do. Hence the post asking why people spend so much time posting about the game not being so. Nowhere in any of the posts have I advocated for 100% accuracy or fidelity. I have in fact questioned those that have.

You misunderstand me. If you, in fact, believe that 100% historical accuracy is not possible, then the question you posit is disingenious. That is what I am calling unhelpful. You are creating a strawman to attack. No one actually believes that 100% historical accuracy is possible. There are just a good number who lean strongly to the 100% end of the spectrum instead of the 0% end. Those ends are both absolutes that can't practically exist.

It sounds like we are talking about the same thing from two differnet ends. The question is not disengenious at all. In fact it is not a question at all. It is simply a title which reflects a large number of posts which attack minute historical inaccuracies in areas which do not affect gameplay. You can even think of it as a problem statement for a research project or a hypothesis if you like.
I am all for as much realism as time and budgets allow. In fact, the more realistic the better. What I take exception to is the negative aspersions cast upon the development team because something was not to someone's liking or expectations.
The development team had a deadline to meet, a budget, etc. I may not like it, but I understand that they had to make some choices in order to complete the project on time as well as make it appealing to as many people as possible. I would rather they spent the time making the submarines and shipping as realistic as possible since they occupy the majority of our time. As an example, there are very few people who actually know what Midway Atoll looks/looked like and even fewer who care unfortunately. There is also the question of how to apply that realism. I enjoy manually tracking and attacking targets, but that in itself is not realistic. A submarine's commanding officer did not plot the solution to the target in most cases. (There were a few exceptions in which the XO made the periscope observations, and the CO oversaw the plot.)
The purpose of this post was not (as I stated in the beginning) to attack anyone or to try and halt conversation. What I was taking exception with was the tone of many of the posts. We can have conversations about realism without denigrating the dev team. I just think that people need to keep that in mind. The dev team may very well have been aware that something was historically inaccurate, but may have had to do it that way for reasons unknown to us. They put a lot of hours into this game, and it sounds like it was under less than ideal circumstances. My point was that given those circumstances, they did an excellent job, and it does not drag serve the community or the game well to drag them over the coals over things which are minor in nature.
Semantics aside, we can debate this issue for years, but I think it can be done without calling the dev team lazy, uneducated, uncaring, etc.

WFGood · 04-05-07, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

Frankly, I'd be happy if they just fixed the "A" key.

I'm right there with you!

Tigrone · 04-05-07, 05:57 PM

It's self defeating and gets absurd pretty quick. I always look of a nice balance of playability and immersion.

SteamWake · 04-05-07, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WFGood

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

Frankly, I'd be happy if they just fixed the "A" key.

I'm right there with you!

Yea that and those darn belt buckles, oh and the screws that turn backwards and....

Im no grognard by any means but historical accuracy should be a key component to any game of this sort.

But when it comes down to rivet counting... meh.... let me live in my bliss.

Snowman999 · 04-05-07, 06:32 PM

Quote:

But when it comes down to rivet counting... meh.... let me live in my bliss.

Fleet boats were welded. Does knowing that make me a rivet-counter?

minsc_tdp · 04-05-07, 06:42 PM

To original poster: Good post. I'd thought of posting something similar myself but instead I just created sh4bugs.com. I figured when the community entered a ton of historical accuracy bugs, it wouldn't really matter since they would be demoted in priority below that of the serious stuff.

Crashes are bad. What happens during sub battles should get 90% of the attention, so any problems with damage, weapons, AI, but that does span a lot of the game.

I think one of the greatest harms is when a member of the community overlaps and confuses a historical accuracy bug with a fatal flaw that prevents them from playing or engaging in a battle properly. "I expected so and so ship here during this time because that's historically accurate, and I spent hours looking for it..." it's just a waste. The sailors at the time didn't know they were there unless they got a radio report. If there's a radio report, them maybe something's there and you should maybe check it out. To go hunting for things because they were in the real ocean in the real world 70 years ago is ridiculous.

The devs need to focus on fixing the crashes, and focus on the moment you spot an enemy ship to when it's finally sunk, and fix everything you might do or that might happen to you in between. Everything else is mere candy and unimportant right now.

davejb · 04-05-07, 06:51 PM

I've seen quite a lot of bug reports, some common like the 'A' key and mission list, others less so - the CTD's seem to fall into several families. Not seen a lot of complaints about 100% reality to be honest, a few questioning the number of torps different targets take that I doubt will lead anywhere but I'd like to think a dev might see that one day and a light bulb will go over his head ... I suspect (guess, more like) it's just a bit too much leeway on a randomise routine.

The planes and airfields comments seem to me to be missing the point a bit though, because as I understand it the main issue with these areas isn't so much the historical accuracy, it's the unbalancing act it does on the game to be continually attacked by zeroes carrying 500lb bombs in the middle of nowhere - it wrecks the immersion factor for me, and I suspect many others, to be continually swatting at planes that turn up hourly seemingly having flown a direct route from a base 700 miles away as if the Japanese had satellite targetting systems.

Luckily for us there are already many mods to take care of these issues, for which I'm very grateful. I think there's a difference between
(1) Bugs that crash the game
(2) Historical innacuracies that operate to reduce the 'believabilty' of the experience while playing
(3) 'Rivet counting' style problems, eg 'My Gato has an Obs scope that's clearly 3mm too narrow at the lens, don't the devs KNOW that after hull 11 (USS Nitpicker) the Obs lens was crafted by Gnome Enterprises from recycled lightbulbs? Sheesh!

I think devs ought to deal with (1) and (2), I think local psychiatric practitioners are responsible for (3).

nattydread · 04-05-07, 09:13 PM

As close as possible to historical acuracy is essential for those of us(and there are many of us here) who want and look to have an accurate representation of the what happened. Now it doesnt have to be forced for all, but when we have realism options we should get an option setting that provides that accruacy.

Now when I think of accuracy, Im thinking of contact frequency, available targets, difficulty, numerical unit conservation...so 1 Yamato, etc., unit performance and tactics, etc.

mookiemookie · 04-05-07, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nattydread

As close as possible to historical acuracy is essential for those of us(and there are many of us here) who want and look to have an accurate representation of the what happened. Now it doesnt have to be forced for all, but when we have realism options we should get an option setting that provides that accruacy.

Now when I think of accuracy, Im thinking of contact frequency, available targets, difficulty, numerical unit conservation...so 1 Yamato, etc., unit performance and tactics, etc.

My dream was always to have a mod that went back through the actual shipping records and used those historical ships at sea at those historical times....The number of contacts problem would solve itself then

I doubt it will ever happen. That's a HUGE undertaking, and there's no way of knowing which ships were exatcly where at any given day just given the departure and arrival dates. But I can still dream.

nattydread · 04-05-07, 10:12 PM

I dont need the exact ship for the exact place and time. Just an accurate representation of shipping frequency/quanity. The routes are already in game. They just need to reduce the numbers across the board, and increase the ratio of small, coastal shipping in the form of solo and small convoys.

As it is now, i think the high rate of COMSUBPAC contacts reports in the vicinity of teh patrol area is too high. It may be creating the illusion of more shipping.

As it stands, it seems about 90% of all my sinkings have been contact reports given to me in the area...thats about 20 tons a mission just given to me...and I dont even go after all of them.

perisher · 04-06-07, 12:18 AM

It would be possible to start the war with 100% accurate orders of battle, but as the "war" progresses you must, inevitably, lose accuracy. For example, what if, in January '42, you come across the Japanese fleet carriers and sink 2 of them? What happens at Midway now?

As always it's a trade off and we all would have done it a little differently if we could.

Grothesj2 · 04-06-07, 12:29 AM

Having historical accuaracy is good up to a point. But eventually the game play and historical accuarcy has to diverge. Those that truely want a submarine experience instead of a game should join thier navy's sub service.

nattydread · 04-06-07, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grothesj2

Having historical accuaracy is good up to a point. But eventually the game play and historical accuarcy has to diverge. Those that truely want a submarine experience instead of a game should join thier navy's sub service.

I missed out on that 70yrs ago...plus I could have only been a cook on a US sub.

The experience can be accuratly depicted in a game, it just takes additional research and dev resources.

Grothesj2 · 04-06-07, 02:17 AM

Those that want 100% historical accuarcy should petition to model the cook, menu planning, food storage and food preperation. After all, a sub crew wont last long without food. The cooks just as important part of the crew as the sonarman. Wouldnt that be "fun" historical realism?

OakGroove · 04-06-07, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Those that want 100% historical accuarcy should petition to model the cook, menu planning, food storage and food preperation.

:p
F4 doesn't simulate piddle pak application, that doesn't make it less of a simulation though. There are very few simulation titles on the market that cater to the "few", the hardcore enthusiasts. Infact i can only think of 3 atm; Dangerous Waters, Steel Beasts and F4.

Although having some simulation aspects, the SH series caters to a much broader audience. Plenty is simplified, or not controllable at all. It's a compromise between reaching as much players as possible with a niche product, and not scaring away an established sea warfare "fan" base. But even for those "who are full of it", that's hardly a major turn down as long as the Devs provide the base and keep the means open for the community to edit game elements. To each his own.

04-05-07, 05:57 PM	#18
Tigrone Commander Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Newport Beach, CA Posts: 470 Downloads: 41 Uploads: 0	100% is impossible It's self defeating and gets absurd pretty quick. I always look of a nice balance of playability and immersion. __________________ Commander Hiram Cassedy: "Tigrone has saved the Air Force and is now returning to Iwo Jima with 28 rescued zoomies." B-29 SNUFFY & THE SHIF'LESS SKONKS among them. I've a broom at the mast said he, for the broom is a sign for me, that wherever I go, I sweep the mighty sea.

04-05-07, 06:42 PM	#21
minsc_tdp XO Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 411 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	To original poster: Good post. I'd thought of posting something similar myself but instead I just created sh4bugs.com. I figured when the community entered a ton of historical accuracy bugs, it wouldn't really matter since they would be demoted in priority below that of the serious stuff. Crashes are bad. What happens during sub battles should get 90% of the attention, so any problems with damage, weapons, AI, but that does span a lot of the game. I think one of the greatest harms is when a member of the community overlaps and confuses a historical accuracy bug with a fatal flaw that prevents them from playing or engaging in a battle properly. "I expected so and so ship here during this time because that's historically accurate, and I spent hours looking for it..." it's just a waste. The sailors at the time didn't know they were there unless they got a radio report. If there's a radio report, them maybe something's there and you should maybe check it out. To go hunting for things because they were in the real ocean in the real world 70 years ago is ridiculous. The devs need to focus on fixing the crashes, and focus on the moment you spot an enemy ship to when it's finally sunk, and fix everything you might do or that might happen to you in between. Everything else is mere candy and unimportant right now. __________________ June 29 2016 - shSpeech v2.55 - Voice Command for Silent Hunter 4! View Thread

04-05-07, 06:51 PM	#22
davejb Sailor man Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Forres, Scotland Posts: 49 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	I've seen quite a lot of bug reports, some common like the 'A' key and mission list, others less so - the CTD's seem to fall into several families. Not seen a lot of complaints about 100% reality to be honest, a few questioning the number of torps different targets take that I doubt will lead anywhere but I'd like to think a dev might see that one day and a light bulb will go over his head ... I suspect (guess, more like) it's just a bit too much leeway on a randomise routine. The planes and airfields comments seem to me to be missing the point a bit though, because as I understand it the main issue with these areas isn't so much the historical accuracy, it's the unbalancing act it does on the game to be continually attacked by zeroes carrying 500lb bombs in the middle of nowhere - it wrecks the immersion factor for me, and I suspect many others, to be continually swatting at planes that turn up hourly seemingly having flown a direct route from a base 700 miles away as if the Japanese had satellite targetting systems. Luckily for us there are already many mods to take care of these issues, for which I'm very grateful. I think there's a difference between (1) Bugs that crash the game (2) Historical innacuracies that operate to reduce the 'believabilty' of the experience while playing (3) 'Rivet counting' style problems, eg 'My Gato has an Obs scope that's clearly 3mm too narrow at the lens, don't the devs KNOW that after hull 11 (USS Nitpicker) the Obs lens was crafted by Gnome Enterprises from recycled lightbulbs? Sheesh! I think devs ought to deal with (1) and (2), I think local psychiatric practitioners are responsible for (3).

04-05-07, 09:13 PM	#23
nattydread Captain Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 498 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	As close as possible to historical acuracy is essential for those of us(and there are many of us here) who want and look to have an accurate representation of the what happened. Now it doesnt have to be forced for all, but when we have realism options we should get an option setting that provides that accruacy. Now when I think of accuracy, Im thinking of contact frequency, available targets, difficulty, numerical unit conservation...so 1 Yamato, etc., unit performance and tactics, etc.

04-05-07, 10:12 PM	#25
nattydread Captain Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 498 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I dont need the exact ship for the exact place and time. Just an accurate representation of shipping frequency/quanity. The routes are already in game. They just need to reduce the numbers across the board, and increase the ratio of small, coastal shipping in the form of solo and small convoys. As it is now, i think the high rate of COMSUBPAC contacts reports in the vicinity of teh patrol area is too high. It may be creating the illusion of more shipping. As it stands, it seems about 90% of all my sinkings have been contact reports given to me in the area...thats about 20 tons a mission just given to me...and I dont even go after all of them.

04-06-07, 12:18 AM	#26
perisher Frogman Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: England Posts: 300 Downloads: 15 Uploads: 0	It would be possible to start the war with 100% accurate orders of battle, but as the "war" progresses you must, inevitably, lose accuracy. For example, what if, in January '42, you come across the Japanese fleet carriers and sink 2 of them? What happens at Midway now? As always it's a trade off and we all would have done it a little differently if we could.

04-06-07, 12:29 AM	#27
Grothesj2 Medic Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 167 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Having historical accuaracy is good up to a point. But eventually the game play and historical accuarcy has to diverge. Those that truely want a submarine experience instead of a game should join thier navy's sub service.

04-06-07, 02:17 AM	#29
Grothesj2 Medic Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 167 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Those that want 100% historical accuarcy should petition to model the cook, menu planning, food storage and food preperation. After all, a sub crew wont last long without food. The cooks just as important part of the crew as the sonarman. Wouldnt that be "fun" historical realism?