SH3 and 4: Which has the more compelling campaign experience (historically speaking).

[tater]

The AC wasn't for the men, it was to prevent electrical shorts

The ice cream, OTOH...

[Freiwillige]

Just depends on what your into. I play both SHIII and IV. SHIII GWX 3.0 and IV w/RSRD and a few other basic mods and both have an enriching experiance of history that you could never get from a text book.

So its in essance apples and oranges.

[Torplexed]

The submarine war in the Atlantic follows the classic gaming curve. As time goes on you face tougher and tougher opposition and more of them. Sort of like the way the old video game Missile Command used to throw more bombers and ICBMs at you faster and faster until you couldn't keep up. However, the war in the Pacific is the only major submarine campaign were submarines did what they were designed to do and come out on top. Strangle enemy trade. I guess it depends if you are in the mood to play a game of grim survival of one of sunny Pacific optimisim.

Fighting for a losing cause does make for the more compelling drama . There are always all the what-ifs, could-haves, and second-guessing. Ask any ex-Confederate touring Gettysburg.

[Bosje]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

...the war in the Pacific is the only major submarine campaign were submarines did what they were designed to do and come out on top. Strangle enemy trade...

i always thought they were designed to provide support for surface ships but they were 'relegated' to sinking anything japanese for the simple reason they were the only weapon left to the USNavy

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Bosje

i always thought they were designed to provide support for surface ships but they were 'relegated' to sinking anything japanese for the simple reason they were the only weapon left to the USNavy

They weren't the only weapon left. Those carriers the Japanese missed at Pearl harbor came back to haunt them six months later. Plus, the American submarines certainly contributed their share of attrition on the combat units of the Japanese Imperial navy as well as on their merchant fleet.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Bosje

i always thought they were designed to provide support for surface ships but they were 'relegated' to sinking anything japanese for the simple reason they were the only weapon left to the USNavy

What planet do you hail from?

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What planet do you hail from?

@Bosje: Check out the main SH4 Thread for lots of great info on the Pacific Theatre.


RDP

[Bosje]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

@Bosje: Check out the main SH4 Thread for lots of great info on the Pacific Theatre.


RDP

i did

ducimus' post says exactly what I said above
quoting from http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=128185

quote
The U.S. Navy's submarine force was caught woefully unprepared for the type of warfare which they were about to face. All of the pre-war, peacetime training for the U.S. submarine commanders which was previously geared in support of the surface fleet, was now obsolete and impractical. Submarines were originally looked upon to serve as scouts and screens for the navy's capital warships. Unfortunately, following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor virtually no surface fleet of any consequence remained in the Pacific waters for which to scout or screen. The United States Navy developers of tactical planning for submarine warfare never anticipated the situation that they found themselves in during those early days of the war. With the American Navy in the Pacific all but destroyed, the rules of submarine warfare had to be drastically changed. That change, came about via one simple and blunt order.

"Execute unrestricted air and submarine warfare against Japan."
- Admiral R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, December 1941.

The Submarine war in the pacific had begun.
/quote

*wanders off, scratching head*

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Just depends on what your into. I play both SHIII and IV. SHIII GWX 3.0 and IV w/RSRD and a few other basic mods and both have an enriching experiance of history that you could never get from a text book.

So its in essance apples and oranges.

A huge endorsement for this point of view! It is absolutely pointless to compare the two games when you could be playing both of them. The only joykiller in SH3 is its ability to forget all about your career after you've been playing for a month. Other than that these are two superb games that each adds to your enjoyment of the other.

[Admiral Von Gerlach]

And YES the fleet boats of all services were originally intended to be a Battle fleet adjunct and the IJN continued to adhere to this view all the way thru the war pulling boats off misions to support surface fleet actoins. Commece raiding and other missions developed...the exception to this was the Kriegsmarine use of commerce interdiction from almost the start. And they had little surface fleet action to support anyway, though they tried when they could. So that was a valid thought....many service arms find their mission changes as doctrine impacts actual battle conditions and the sub service was no exception. I have seen some of the fleet manuals from the 20's, and 30's and hear of the development of doctrine and it was a long slow crawl from obscurity for the sub service in many navies....and the US achievemnts in the WWII were amazing and a validation of the sub arm in many ways, both for boat design and esp for crew and officer skills and performance in action. Other navies had their limitations and achievments too, includling the U boat service....all did their best but often the command ashore had their own views not always in line with what was possible at sea.