Is 100% historical accuracy absolutely essential?

[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.

[WFGood]

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.

[mookiemookie]

Agreed that tradeoffs need to be made for the sake of differing historical records, playability, technological limitations, etc. I remember Kpt Lehmann saying that when GWX was being made, they wanted to recreate the historical composition of convoys but couldn't because they were just too huge and the game would choke on that number of ships. An example of where technology holds us back.

I love historical accuracy as much as the next guy and would even consider myself a stickler for it. But if the game misses it, I don't hold it against the developers and say it's their fault. There's just too many other factors in the equation to say that they didn't put X in because they were too lazy or inept or whatever slander you want to throw at them. First and foremost they're making a game and they're on a timeline. Some things will need to be omitted so they can get it done. But luckily there's enough flexibility in the game that the modders can step in and take the time to research the things that the developers had to sacrifice for the sake of getting the game done.

So all in all, I guess I agree.

[WFGood]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Agreed that tradeoffs need to be made for the sake of differing historical records, playability, technological limitations, etc. I remember Kpt Lehmann saying that when GWX was being made, they wanted to recreate the historical composition of convoys but couldn't because they were just too huge and the game would choke on that number of ships. An example of where technology holds us back.

I love historical accuracy as much as the next guy and would even consider myself a stickler for it. But if the game misses it, I don't hold it against the developers and say it's their fault. There's just too many other factors in the equation to say that they didn't put X in because they were too lazy or inept or whatever slander you want to throw at them. First and foremost they're making a game and they're on a timeline. Some things will need to be omitted so they can get it done. But luckily there's enough flexibility in the game that the modders can step in and take the time to research the things that the developers had to sacrifice for the sake of getting the game done.

So all in all, I guess I agree.

(I love the signature by the way.)

[Immacolata]

I like historical accuracy when it gives me flavour and challenge. too much of it locks a game, possibly making it not very funny.

I find that SHIV is a tad on the easy side because it ISNT realistic in some aspects, like EZ mode using deckgun and AA gun, and too thick single contact reports, air search radar that gives you 360 radar for 30 km range.

In that case I would like "more" realism. But also I don't exactly enjoy the realism presented in the GW/NYGM mods in SH3 when the calendar turns mid 43 and later. The game just is hard, real hard and I find myself being entertained less. So I scoot about from 1940 to early 1943 in my SH3 campaigns.

[WFGood]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

I like historical accuracy when it gives me flavour and challenge. too much of it locks a game, possibly making it not very funny.

I find that SHIV is a tad on the easy side because it ISNT realistic in some aspects, like EZ mode using deckgun and AA gun, and too thick single contact reports, air search radar that gives you 360 radar for 30 km range.

In that case I would like "more" realism. But also I don't exactly enjoy the realism presented in the GW/NYGM mods in SH3 when the calendar turns mid 43 and later. The game just is hard, real hard and I find myself being entertained less. So I scoot about from 1940 to early 1943 in my SH3 campaigns.

I loved those two mods, but I did not fare too well after mid-'44 either, which I guess is fairly representative of the Kreigsmarine experience. I have only made it to a type XXI once, and I did not long with it. It is a fantastic submarine though.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

I don't exactly enjoy the realism presented in the GW/NYGM mods in SH3 when the calendar turns mid 43 and later. The game just is hard, real hard and I find myself being entertained less.

As I understand it, the major mods for SH3 did not make the game any more difficult than the standard game after 1943. The standard game was extremely hard after that time, and in fact we modders tried to tone down the deadliness of the game (that's certainly the case for RUb, and since both NYGM and GW were based on RUb I'd imagine the same applies to them too). The standard SH3 game gave a survival rate for U-boat commanders of less than 10%, whereas in real life 75% of U-boat commanders survived. That's a big difference and a bit more realism would have helped make the game more fun in that regard - no one likes playing a game that's impossible to win.

In the case of SH3's commander mortality rate more realistic would have been much more fun, and modmakers tried to make it more realistic and more playable in that regard - but when so many things are hard-coded it's difficult. If you're blaming modmakers for making the game too hard you're blaming the very people who tried to make it less hard. And if you think realism is what made the game too hard you're 100% wrong - it was a lack of realism that made it too hard.

More deadly is not necessarily more realistic, and often more realism means more fun and a more playable game. That's the very reason why I'm a fan of realism - because more realism usually means a more playable game.

[nattydread]

Originally Posted by Beery

As I understand it, the major mods for SH3 did not make the game any more difficult than the standard game after 1943. The standard game was extremely hard after that time, and in fact we modders tried to tone down the deadliness of the game (that's certainly the case for RUb, and since both NYGM and GW were based on RUb I'd imagine the same applies to them too). The standard SH3 game gave a survival rate for U-boat commanders of less than 10%, whereas in real life 75% of U-boat commanders survived. That's a big difference and a bit more realism would have helped make the game more fun in that regard - no one likes playing a game that's impossible to win.

In the case of SH3's commander mortality rate more realistic would have been much more fun, and modmakers tried to make it more realistic and more playable in that regard - but when so many things are hard-coded it's difficult. If you're blaming modmakers for making the game too hard you're blaming the very people who tried to make it less hard. And if you think realism is what made the game too hard you're 100% wrong - it was a lack of realism that made it too hard.

More deadly is not necessarily more realistic, and often more realism means more fun and a more playable game. That's the very reason why I'm a fan of realism - because more realism usually means a more playable game.

I could have sworn I heard or read that the survival rate was 10-15%. Maybe they just meant the boats and the skippers retired, but I also thought Axis skippers sailed until dead or utterly exhausted.

[tater]

I don't expect 100%, I don't think anyone does. The mere addition of the player into the world changes history. That said, some basic attention to historical detail is important for a number of reasons. Having 20X the proper number of DDs in the game makes every convoy the best defended convoy (aside from invasion forces) in the whole war. It just feels wrong.

I'm playing Freemantle based '42 campaign right now. I forgot to alter the 42b files, so I just sank Yamato. I keep seeing these huge TFs down near the Celebes and I know they shouldn't be there. It depends on the player's area of historical interest, but if you played SH3 and saw the Normandy invasion force in the channel in the wrong month of the wrong year, you'd instantly feel like someone didn't do their homework.

As for the ports, those comments were from me. I stand by them. I didn't point out some nitty gritty issues with Pearl Harbor---a major, industrialized port---I pointed out that they should DELETE their port object(s) from a few poerts that should have NOTHING there. Not a hard change, I'm not asking for an artist to create the perfect port for Freemantle, all I wanna see there is a Sub tender and a raft of subs. Ditto Midway. Honaria simply didn't exist as a city in WW2, putting a port there makes Guadalcanal look totally wrong to anyone who has read anythign about it (not sure there is much of a port there NOW, frankly). So if I had picked on them for the wrong color roofing tiles, or the cranes were 10m too tall, etc, you'd have a point, but they have a couple standard ports they drop on the map, removing them from places where they don't belong is likely as simple as clicking them and hitting the delete key (like it would be in the mission builder).

tater

[akdavis]

Originally Posted by WFGood

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.

[WFGood]

Originally Posted by akdavis

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.

[akdavis]

Originally Posted by WFGood

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.

[Iron Budokan]

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

[WFGood]

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

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

I'm right there with you!

[WFGood]

Originally Posted by akdavis

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.