What is IV missing...

[Platapus]

I find it interesting that there appears to be two camps for what should be added to SH4 (recognizing that many people have interests in both camps

1. The group that wants better graphical depictions

2. The group that wants more simulation

I wonder if any single software program can ever make both camps happy?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I wonder if any single software program can ever make both camps happy?

Some people probably won't be happy until they invent the first commercial "holodeck." At which point they'll promptly give their drab lives over to the thing and society will have a new addiction to cope with.

[Rockin Robbins]

Back to business:

• An actual roster of enemy ships. Once you sink the Yamato, you should ideally not encounter it again. It should be child's play for the game to keep a list of all possible ships and cross them off as you sink them so they don't regenerate.
• Air traffic that makes sense, relating realistically with airbase locations, or aircraft carriers out only far enough to return to a landing field or carrier. And numbers should make sense for the number of planes possible to maintain in the air from a given base.
• Enemy air bases marked on our nav map. Updated as bases are eliminated or built during the war.
• Steal Ducimus' evil airplanes. Within reason, airplanes should be able to see you when submerged, subject to depth, light, surface conditions and water clarity modifications.
• Adaptive AI. You're off the coast of Honshu. The game schedules convoys through your area. You sink a ship. Convoys should avoid you for the foreseeable future, forcing you to move locations. It's not enough to do the RSRD schedule ships where ships really were. Good starting point only. The Japanese reacted to events and so should the game.
• Relative maneuvering. You should be able to order a 30º left turn. You should be able at 90' to say take her down another 30'.
• Realistic weapon loads on planes. Zeros didn't carry torpedoes.
• Realistic air search radar. Give us the right scope for the right radar. Don't show a radar screen when the sub has no radar. Let us find the direction of the plane by rotating the antenna and using the edge of the antenna, but don't put the plane on the map or wrong radar scope.
• Give us an intelligent crewmember to call out range and bearing of the plane. In conjunction with the wonderful radar, don't make us hover over the radar. Let us run our boat if we choose.
• Have an intelligent sound man to let us select what target to track and actually give us appropriate continuous info on that target until we change our specification. If he's sweeping, how bout letting him find things and inform as a real crewman would?

And another list bites the dust. I'm sure there is lots I've left out. Notice that I'm putting gameplay first. Eyecandy is fine and adds immersion as long as it doesn't break the game. But when it interferes with gameplay everyone curses the eyecandy and it defeats its own purpose. Works good always must have priority over looks good or the game is a loser. The game must play well on an average gaming machine of the time it is released. That means the previous generation of video card, motherboard, and microprocessor. Requiring a $6000.00 machine to play is the same as not having a game for sale. On the other hand, it's not a bad idea to have the game ABLE to take advantage of a $6,000 machine to strut its stuff.

[Armistead]

Great list RR.....

[longam]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Some people probably won't be happy until they invent the first commercial "holodeck." At which point they'll promptly give their drab lives over to the thing and society will have a new addiction to cope with.

What scares me is now that we have systems that can run what we need, want, wish for, simulations are fading fast...