Manual Plotting

[Bilge_Rat]

Something just occurred to me.

In SH4, when I play with full realism settings (i.e. manual TDC + no map updates), I use the pause key liberally on the theory that I am doing the work of a half-dozen men and therefore want to take me time say flipping through the recognition manual, estimating range/AOB from the periscope, plotting target range/course/speed on the NAV map, fine tuning the torpedo settings, etc., etc.

I am not sure how that is going to work if my virtual Kaleun has to sprint from station to station...

[coronas]

Thanks, Hitman! Something new to learn.

[jerm138]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Something just occurred to me.

In SH4, when I play with full realism settings (i.e. manual TDC + no map updates), I use the pause key liberally on the theory that I am doing the work of a half-dozen men and therefore want to take me time say flipping through the recognition manual, estimating range/AOB from the periscope, plotting target range/course/speed on the NAV map, fine tuning the torpedo settings, etc., etc.

I am not sure how that is going to work if my virtual Kaleun has to sprint from station to station...

This is the same concern I have with it. The game needs to either provide a competent crew that can do those things for you, or allow you to "teleport" from station to station since you're not really teleporting, just changing roles.

If it forces you to play all the roles, like in SH4, AND forces you to run to each station, then it could get real tiring in short order, and make it nearly impossible to play on high-realism.

Obviously, I'm just speculating though since I haven't played it...

[Bilge_Rat]

Agreed.

I thought Neal had posted that there was a way to switch rapidly between stations, but cannot find that post. Perhaps I misread it.

[Bilge_Rat]

Unless I am totally misreading these screenshots, there appear to be shortcut controls in the bottom-left and top-right corners.

http://www.pcgames.de/aid,705472/Sil...ize=fullscreen

http://www.pcgames.de/aid,705472/Sil...ize=fullscreen

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Thomas Kenobi

The point I was initially trying to make was that being given an objective of the sort "sink xxxxx tons of shipping" detracts from realism and game immersion.

I view that as a consequence of appealing to 'casual' players.

They know bugger all about history unless it was last week.

They tend not to like games that don't lead them by the nose (they might have to, well, think...).

The fact that telling someone to sink x'000 tonnes is an absurdity won't bother them in the slightest, as they don't realise it IS an absurdity. To them, games have clear objectives with pretty pictures.

Empire Total War is another example in that people are perfectly willing to overlook its many, many failures as a claimant of a strategy game because it looks so nice. 'Professional' reviewers aided and abetted this.

So it doesn't surprise me at all. It's also one of the main things to which I attribute the fact that, for me, the overwhelming majority of games are linear, unimaginitive and very tedious from a long-term, replayability factor (which is why I hardly buy any games these days, despite building a fairly high-spec PC).

Cheers

[Frederf]

Originally Posted by Thomas Kenobi

The point I was initially trying to make was that being given an objective of the sort "sink xxxxx tons of shipping" detracts from realism and game immersion.

As an objective, yeah it's wrong, but as a campaign branching condition it's fine.

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

I view that as a consequence of appealing to 'casual' players.

They know bugger all about history unless it was last week.

They tend not to like games that don't lead them by the nose (they might have to, well, think...).

The fact that telling someone to sink x'000 tonnes is an absurdity won't bother them in the slightest, as they don't realise it IS an absurdity. To them, games have clear objectives with pretty pictures.

Empire Total War is another example in that people are perfectly willing to overlook its many, many failures as a claimant of a strategy game because it looks so nice. 'Professional' reviewers aided and abetted this.

So it doesn't surprise me at all. It's also one of the main things to which I attribute the fact that, for me, the overwhelming majority of games are linear, unimaginitive and very tedious from a long-term, replayability factor (which is why I hardly buy any games these days, despite building a fairly high-spec PC).

Cheers

Agreed. Gaming has long since gone past the stage of enthusiasts making games for enthusiasts. Now the targeted market share are the majority and the majority generally doesn't require all that much from their games.

Don't get me wrong, simple games that require little thought have their uses, i.e. they can be great for stress relief and relaxation and I'm not being sarcastic here. The trouble is how prolific they have become to the detriment of "deeper" games.

I myself still hold hope that indy developers will revitalise the gaming industry. This was certainly a promising year for indy games.

Originally Posted by Frederf

As an objective, yeah it's wrong, but as a campaign branching condition it's fine.

As long as it is hidden from the player I'm fine with that. The player shouldn't have so exact information in a war game.


edit: This thread has started to slip away from the original topic it seems.