Can anyone explain to me why they're not depressed by games that always end in death?

[Beery]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

It's just a game.

No, it's not 'just' a game. Not to me anyway. It's a simulation. If it was 'just' a game it could have flying nuns, chimpanzees and spaceships. It doesn't, and in fact it couldn't have those things and still be on the same serious level. No one would play a WW2 sub game that had chimps, flying nuns and spaceships in it because it wouldn't be a WW2 sub game then.

The fact that it is indeed a game doesn't mean that "anything goes as long as it's fun".

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by Beery

No, it's not 'just' a game. Not to me anyway. It's a simulation. If it was 'just' a game it could have flying nuns, chimpanzees and spaceships. It doesn't, and in fact it couldn't have those things and still be on the same serious level. No one would play a WW2 sub game that had chimps, flying nuns and spaceships in it because it wouldn't be a WW2 sub game then.

The fact that it is indeed a game doesn't mean that "anything goes as long as it's fun".

It's just a game. At the top of the standard retail edition box it says 'The Best Selling Submarine Game Series Ever'. There's no mention of the word simulation. It's a game of strategy and tactics set in a WWII submarine.

Just enjoy it.

[CaptainCox]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

Just enjoy it.

Every figging second of it i would say

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

Just enjoy it.

NO!

I DEMAND REAL DEPTH CHARGES!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

(Puts on helmet and nomex fire suit.)

[heartc]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

It's just a game. At the top of the standard retail edition box it says 'The Best Selling Submarine Game Series Ever'. There's no mention of the word simulation. It's a game of strategy and tactics set in a WWII submarine.

Just enjoy it.

Subject? Computer Game. Genre? Simulation. How can I tell? Common Sense.
So you are both right, but Beery is more accurate.

"It's a game of strategy and tactics set in a WWII submarine."

+ simulated systems in that sub = simulation.

[vindex]

The only time I die in SH4 is when I take silly risks because (a) I want to see what will happen or (b) I'm too lazy/impatient to take all precautions I would in RL.

Regarding the above post, yeah, I recently read the book "Finest Hour" which includes the story of the sinking of the City of Benares with 77 evacuee children on board. Wikipedia: "The sinking ship took on an immediate list, thus preventing the launching of many of the liferafts and trapping numerous crew and passengers below decks. As a result, many of the 400 people on board were unable to escape. As hundreds of survivors struggled in the water, the U-boat's powerful searchlight swept once over the chaotic scene, before the boat left the area for good. The survivors in the boats were not rescued for nearly 24 hours, as the nearest allied units were 300 miles away, and in that time dozens of children and adults died from exposure, or drowned, leaving only 147 survivors. One boat was not picked up for a further eight days."

Really sobers you up.

Several Japanese merchant ships sunk by U.S. submarines, unbeknownst to them, contained Allied POWs. Worth pondering next time you send one to the deep.

[Beery]

[quote=mcoca]

Originally Posted by Beery

In SH4, in my experience, the chance of the player's sub being sunk is about one in every 5 patrols - that's close to a 100% chance of getting killed during a career.

You're right. I knew I was making some fundamental mistake because I knew that 1 in 5 didn't mean that every career would end in death. I must brush up on my math.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Roughly one third of frontline U-boats were lost to enemy action on their first patrol.

To me this translates to, "If I make a dumb mistake, the AI built into the simulator should punish me. If it does not punish me, it should be altered to punish dumb mistakes.... not for the sake of a challenge... but for the sake of causing a historically plausible behavior to be emulated."

... and

"When I stop making dumb mistakes... I will live as long as I please... though sometimes that means that I have to let a target go because I was unable to obtain a firing solution without taking an idiotic risk."

Dead sailors cannot fight... putting myself in a suicidal position is an avoidable circumstance.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

Roughly one third of frontline U-boats were lost to enemy action on their first patrol.

Yeah, but roughly a third of all U-boats put to sea on their first patrol in the last year and a half of the war when putting to sea in a U-boat was suicide.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Beery

Yeah, but roughly a third of all U-boats put to sea on their first patrol in the last year and a half of the war when putting to sea in a U-boat was suicide.

Even early in the war, mistakes cost u-boats and lives. If a man didn't make a mistake he survived. It also became easier for men to make mistakes as the war progressed.

The entire concept of whether or not the AI in any sim is "too tough" or "too weak" is subjective anyway... because no matter how it is set up... A player has to make a mistake to "die" and will "live" if he doesn't make a mistake.

We could debate/argue in circles using logic as well.

Doesn't mean we have to.

Its your thread showcasing your interpretations yet again. Take it wherever you please. One concept is as valid as any other as long as good intent is behind it.

[Ducimus]

Im guess i follow in on, "Its just a game". Is it a sim? Sure. But a sim, is stil just a genre of game, and what is 100% historically accurate, isn't always fun. To take an example from SH3 (only because its the easiest illusration), is that in reality, many uboats didnt sink any ships at all. In reality, patrols were long, tedius, and filled with monotany. Frankly, that just doesnt make a good game.

Likewise, approaching a convoy, sinking ships with near impunity, and having no retribution on the player at all most of the time, isn't a game at all, but a very fancy interactive screensaver. Making decisions, is what being a "skipper" is all about, and those decisions should have consequences. When theirs little to no risk, theres a certain level of interaction with the game thats missing. Your simply going through the motions, but with no consequences, theres really not much of a point.


As per death statictis cited about how often the player dies in SH4. I dont beleive that at all. Maybe im an exception, but i dont die very often, not in SH3 with GWX or NYGM, and certainly not in SH4. I end more careers out of boredom, then by action from the AI.

[Adm. Ahab]

I just started my first career with RFB 1.24. Thanks for the great Mod to you and all who's work is included!!!
(The deck gun seems TOO weak now I had to empty AP and HE just to finish off a tanker that had already went down completely at the stern. Also, it took a lot of ammo to get the spot lights out at <200 yds, more then I remember B4).


Thanks again for your work!
(I use RUB 1.xx as well.)


Sorry, couldn't help it.



Anyway, I know if I'm dying a lot in any game, I don't usually feel depressed, I feel angry "That’s right, cheating is the only way YOU can win, you stupid f$@&%#! computer! I'll never play that stupid game again!".



Of course I keep coming back for more. After all, it’s probably just my subconscious forcing me to take a brake.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Adm. Ahab

I just started my first career with RFB 1.24. Thanks for the great Mod to you and all who's work is included!!!
(The deck gun seems TOO weak now I had to empty AP and HE just to finish off a tanker that had already went down completely at the stern...)

The deck guns in RFB have been balanced to give similar results as historical reports of deck gun use on small to medium freighters (which is what they were usually used on). Smaller vessels (fishing boats, junks and sampans) have had their damage models adjusted in RFB so that they are sunk with a similar number of shots as were used historically to sink them. If the deck guns seem too weak then historically they were that weak.

[Chock]

Because many simulations end up with deaths or at least the simulation of that result, one could be forgiven for thinking that people who play them are similarly disposed to be obsessed with it. But for me nothing could be further from the truth.

I was actually talking about this with one of my friends the other day, and we came to the conclusion that if anyone were to wander into our houses and spot the bookshelves groaning under the weight of books on fighters, bombers, warships tanks battles etc, they might draw the conclusion that we were just days away from going up a clocktower and becoming the latest person to go postal with a sniper rifle!

However, if such a person looked a little closer, in amongst those books, they would spot many biographies and autobiographies of the men - and sometimes women - who worked those machines. If they spotted that, they'd have an idea as to where we were really coming from, which is the interest stemming from how humans deal with probably the most trying and stressful situation anyone could ever find themselves in, i.e. a war.

Obviously an interest in the machines develops too, but at the heart of at least my obsession with stuff like that (which incidentally does include some civilian aircraft and ships too), is the human side of things.

So, looking over at my shelves, from here I can see: Heinz Knocke's I Flew for the Fuhrer; Ulrich Steinhilper's Spitfire on my Tail; Herbert A Werner's Iron Coffins; Leonard Moseley's Faces from the Flames; Hanna Reitsch's The Sky My Kingdom; V.M. Yeat's Winged Victory; Ira Jones' King of Air Fighters; Richard Hillary's The Last Enemy etc, etc.

None of these celebrate war or death in any way shape or form, and are all quite inspiring to read, as they mainly concentrate on seeing the best of people, rather than the worst. It's this that defines me personally, and I would say that the more I know about war and such, the more I am actually against it, but it doesn't mean I don't find simulating it interesting or even enjoyable, because for me, killing people in a simulation is exactly where it belongs, not in real life, and there is much we can learn from the simulated experience and hopefully avoid a repeat.

And without sounding too snooty, I enjoy a huge explosion as much as the next person!

[DiveMonkey]

Are there any statistics on how US subs were lost?
I mean, how many to air attack?, how many to depth charge?, how many to catastrophic equipment failure?

I'd like to see more equipment failure, remember SHII, I don't know if it was a mod but I could over heat the diesels running ahead flank for long periods of time. Never happened in SHIII.

Air attacks I think are too easy, way to much notice. Only once in almost three months at sea (total) has an air attack even come close. Was the only one to even get a chance to drop a bomb before I dived.

These ain't game\mod killers, RFB is very challenging. Just finding the enemy has become half the sim and when I do find em, I take great pleasure in sending em to the bottom.

Was just doing some google on it. Guess there's really no way of knowing how they were sunk.
was surprised by how many sunk due to running aground or possibly into enemy ships.
was also surprised by how much time sub crews got off...two weeks off after each patrol, patrols lasting between 45 and 60 days.