sh5 pdf campaign overview here

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

Yes I do see, but that's not what people are complaining about. They are not complaining that they can sink ships that historically were never attacked by U-Boat. To make that stick, you'd have to stick rigidly to the original U-boats patrol, never deviating from it, including during attacks.

I was using it as an example, I was mearly trying to remind people that every SH3/4/5 patrol we undertake is pure fantasy anyway.
It never happened. the best the sim can do is convey a sense of what it was like.

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

What some people are concerned about is that people can sail out, sink 2 million tons of shipping in a week with their deck gun in pew pew fashion and then RTB, get a little message saying how they have turned the tide and thinking 'Wow! I could have won the war for the Nazis! How tragic I wasn't born back then.'..

And so what if they do think that? Silent Hunter is a game, not an interactive history lesson for retards.
Anyway you could do the same Turkey shoot in the last two SH games on a low realism.

Theoretically it should be harder in SH5 because the game is allegedly able to respond to your actions (e.g by sending a bunch of escorts/planes to punish you for such reckless behavior.)

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

Other people are complaing that as a single instrument, the U-boats whilst being very effective initially, once counter measures were put in place, they ceased to be as potent and effective as they once were. Having a single captain (the player) being responsible for turning the tide of the war is... quite a stretch, unless tonnage figures are going to be pew pew excessive.

Sure I agree, by 1943, no matter what the player has done, the game should be giving off a STRONG Impression that its the begining of the end for the Uboats..
How do we know that this is not the case? I have not seen anything in that PDF that states "the player is able to secure an Axis victory and you vill be king of ze vorld!!'
Rather it says "will dictate the out come of the war on sea and land too" which is exactly what the U-boats did to some degree!
It doesn't say to what degree, its abit vague and open to interpretation

But of course people will jump to the worst possible conclusion... (again)

[Ducimus]

My bottom line on the idea of, "if its possible to alter the course of the war" in SH5 is this:

History should be respected, not rewritten to suit some romance or agenda.

[Frederf]

"Altering the war" is not to be confused with "radically changing the outcome." The devs have stated that they don't want a strict passive documentary and I support this notion. All WWII games I play I want to be plausible and believable interpretations of that scenario. Small scale differences are happy accidents that allow a unique story to be told within the larger known context.

Based on what I've seen the player not only controls 1 U-boot but probably the naval/sub strategy for an entire theater and possibly beyond that.

In actuality a WWII game where, say Market Garden was 100% successful would be pretty cool but only if it was an accurate representation of what would have actually happened. This is of course so difficult as to border on impossible. The world is such a complex place that any credible large-scale deviation from actual history is effectively beyond reach.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

My bottom line on the idea of, "if its possible to alter the course of the war" in SH5 is this:

History should be respected, not rewritten to suit some romance or agenda.

And I dont think anyone could rationally disagree with your last sentence, but I am not up in arms over it simply because...

"dictate the out come of the war on sea and land too"

AND

"dictate the out come of the war." (PERIOD)

...mean two different things.

[Ducimus]

>>...mean two different things.

No not really. Consider if a player is actually able to save the Bismark; and as a result, It goes on to fight another battle and becomes a key piece to a victory by the axis that never happened. That would be a monumental crock of schitt.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

>>...mean two different things.

No not really. Consider if a player is actually able to save the Bismark; and as a result, It goes on to fight another battle and becomes a key piece to a victory by the axis that never happened. That would be a monumental crock of schitt.

Why? It sounds perfectly plausible to me.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

>>...mean two different things.

No not really. Consider if a player is actually able to save the Bismark; and as a result, It goes on to fight another battle and becomes a key piece to a victory by the axis that never happened. That would be a monumental crock of schitt.

Like SH3, only the player had to 'pretend' it either fought other battles or got sunk anyway.

Dynamic campaign (multiple possiblilties)
History (a fixed chain of events)

I guess you cant have your cake an eat it. -unless they make SH5 into a rail shooter like House of Dead.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Why? It sounds perfectly plausible to me.

Sure, and while we're at it, lets make the Type 21 be developed earlier, say in 1940, so it could be commissioned by 41. Force radar development sooner too. Then change the enigma codes on a monthy basis while we're at it. Having done that we could cut Englands lifeline and force them to capitulate by 42 and we'll all sing Deutschland Uber Alles while toasting our knights crosses at Unkle Karl's casino bar celebration party.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

So you guys think that the U-boats made no difference? That if Germany had not sent any of them to war then everything would have panned out exactly the same anyway? Wow. Why on earth would you even be interested in playing a game that simulates the command of such useless vessels?

No one stated that the uboat did nothing. Altering the outcome of the war, win/lose, is the issue. I'm all for events changing within my uboat world but not the entire world. Sure, a change of shipping lanes because my presence in a particular part of the ocean is welcomed. I sunk an entire convoy so a large battle never took place as a result is ok. Winning the war or alternate reality does not work for me.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Well i my impression is that the devs are talking about relativly minor alterations to the Battle of the Atlantic- not a total re-write of WW2 history.

You got to apprieciate that some events during of the Battle of atlantic were down to chance.
In SH3, you could potentially 'save the Bismark' but game thinks nothing of it. Were you to do that in SH5, maybe the Bismark would be used in another battle?
IMO Its no so far fetched that one U-boat can make a difference in this way, it potentially can if its in the right place at the right time.

WW2 has already played out and history is cast in stone, now how can you play that out in a sandbox game like silent hunter 5? 100% historical accucuracy is not really compatible with 'computer game' format in this way.

Players did unhistorical things in SH3, like raiding Ports, saving the bismark sinking ships that never got sunk in real life etc.
The only difference it that SH5 acknowledges these acts, where SH3 totally ignored them.
Yet SH3 is somehow deemed superior for it??

So long as we are not led to feel as though the Battle is being won by the Axis by 1943... I really dont see the problem.

I like your thoughts in the matter.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Why? It sounds perfectly plausible to me.

Seems plausible but not historical. I guess we are really down to what is a simulation? Is it always historical? Is it just a submarine simulation and that is it? It is a history simulation? Can it be made both? Campaign layers in SH4 can have battles start and finish on a certain date. Can SH5 do the same and we never see the ship again? For instance, Bismark. Say you are sent to save the Bismark. You do not arrive in time. The Bismark is sunk. Does the game keep it sunk? If you are successful and keeping the Bismark safe does she steam off for port never to be seen again or does she steam on and sink other ships? The question inquiring minds want to know!

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Sure, and while we're at it, lets make the Type 21 be developed earlier, say in 1940, so it could be commissioned by 41. Force radar development sooner too. Then change the enigma codes on a monthy basis while we're at it. Having done that we could cut Englands lifeline and force them to capitulate by 42 and we'll all sing Deutschland Uber Alles while toasting our knights crosses at Unkle Karl's casino bar celebration party.

You are still speaking as if we all have some kind of warped fixation with the germans winning the war or something. I live in the UK -and im sure as hell glad they didnt.

Everything you mention above, would involve very crude and deliberate tampering with historical events.
Sinking or Saving Ship X because you happened to be at a certain location at a particular time is not the same thing at all.

Like it or not, the freedom to go anywhere and sink anything pressents the player the possiblilty to deviate from history.
I know we all want it historical, but how do you suggest the players historical decrepencies (or blunders) be handled by the game?

Sure, ackowleging and responding to them goes against historical events (possibly).
But at the same time, totally ignoring them makes the SH world less belivable and forces a failure where there shouldn't be one.

Damned if they do, damned if they dont?

Im refering to the Bismark example, not the 'uboats swinging it around for an axis win', and certainly no major war/technological progressions where there weren't any, obviously that would be wrong on so many levels.

[Ducimus]

Some things are entirely plausible, dynamic, and will not change historical events. A great example is as AVG mentioned, convoys being rerouted if a Uboat was known to be in a certain area. That really happened.

But things like saving the Bismark or altering any major historical outcomes so the Nazi's win should be right out. It's disgraceful and in extremely poor taste. Therego I don't think the campaign should handle those things any differently then it did in SH3 or Sh4.

[Mikhayl]

I still think that if the system is properly balanced, then a captain playing with 100% realism should/will have very little global influence, aside from local/tactical changes. Well assuming the game doesn't let you sink 5 million tons of shipping with "100% realism"

Even for the "remarkable" events, say you save the Bismack, in the end Germany still loses air superiority (nothing a sub can do about that) and odds are that the Bismark will just end up being a Tirpitz bis so ultimately it's not really a big deal.

I don't remember where it was, but a dev said that your actions can also trigger Allied reaction, for example sinking a carrier in a convoy will prompt them to stop doing that. Unlike SH3 where this is all scripted so you can sink a lot of battleships and carrier in convoys until they stop being scripted that way.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I still think that if the system is properly balanced, then a captain playing with 100% realism should/will have very little global influence.

Now this is how im hoping it will be overall.