What about hiroshima?

[rubenandthejets]

Fuij is a monster mountain-3777m-and if it can be seen i game, anywhere off the coast of Tokyo Bay to Shizuoka should be good.

I can see it from Chiba on the far side of Tokyo Bay everyday, at a distance of 250+ kilometers.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by rubenandthejets

Fuij is a monster mountain-3777m-and if it can be seen i game, anywhere off the coast of Tokyo Bay to Shizuoka should be good.

I can see it from Chiba on the far side of Tokyo Bay everyday, at a distance of 250+ kilometers.

I just fired up one of those single patrol scenarios that starts off the coast of Honshu. I checked the area out. No sign of the mountain although I did get blasted by a shore battery for my pains.

I tried using the external camera to search inland but found the ground just drops straight down to the sea like a facade when you go too far. That's probably why it's not there. My guess is that the game only models topography so far inland and then quits.

Must be an impressive sight in real life from Chiba. I see Mount Rainier everyday on my commute although it's not as pretty and symmetrical as Fuji.

[rubenandthejets]

Stunning, especially for an Australian, the flatest continent on earth. It's got that funny cold white stuff on it too. I think Mt Ranier is nicknamed Fuji, right?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by rubenandthejets

Stunning, especially for an Australian, the flatest continent on earth. It's got that funny cold white stuff on it too. I think Mt Ranier is nicknamed Fuji, right?

Actually the mountain around here that most resembled Fuji in terms of it's shape and symmetry was Mt. St. Helens. But that certainly changed for the foreseeable future in 1980 when it committed volcano seppuku.

Mt. Rainier is a bit lumpier, but a bit higher than Fuji. (4392 meters)

[Midwinter]

At the risk of pulling us back onto the topic that everyone had so neatly manoeuvred away from, I have to say I agree with Soundman. I believe in seeking out peaceful solutions to conflict, but I'm no pacifist. I understand that military activity is sometimes the only viable route to take, but it should rarely be the first choice, and if there are other ways we should be exploring those thoroughly before we take up arms.

I know that this could potentially flare up the whole "should we be simulating war for fun" debate. So my take, very briefly:

Silent Hunter, and other war-based simulations, are entertaining, and maybe that's a little weird, when you think about it. Though like most other people, I'd much prefer the idea of wars being fought in simulation than for real. But this war really happened. Still, I say to myself that it's also educational in that, after spending several ingame hours attempting to escape from a flotilla of alerted destroyers, I think I have a better appreciation at least for the mechanics of what submariners had to face during the period. I'm not going to presume that I understand what they went through, that "I can relate" - but I can say that playing the game has made me think. And by and large I think that's a good thing.

And at its most basic level a game of this type is a challenge: this is your situation; these are your constraints; this is what you want to do. Now find a way to do it within those constraints.

So I'm not for one moment arguing against the simulation itself or the detail it presents. But. There is something about the idea of displaying the detonation of those weapons that I would find a little uncomfortable. Is that inconsistent? Is it irrational to think that way about one specific atrocity in a war of many atrocities? Maybe it is. But somehow, I think that certain events are significant not just for the number of people they killed - as if that's not bad enough - but for what they represent. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were symbols that the world had changed - there was a new power in the world. War was no longer something that was (in principle at least if rarely in practice) restricted to the battlefield. While civilian casualties had always been inflicted and rationalised, suddenly we're faced with the most powerful weapon ever devised, and it was specifically designed to incinerate huge areas - and therefore huge numbers of people - in one strike. And if Little Boy and Fat Man weren't terrifying enough in themselves, they were the heralds of a new age of fear and brutality. We can argue over whether the detonations over Japan were justified in light of what the Japanese had done, but in the end their significance spread out far beyond the Pacific war and encompassed all of humanity, present and future.

I can't truly rationalise this. I'm maybe being oversensitive or too... what was it? Too 'bleeding-heart'. But no, I think we're better off for holding that particular event as something that is spoken of, but not seen in the game. It should, I think, bring pause. Whatever other reason I think we can offer as to why we choose to amuse ourselves with recreations of horrific situations, I think it's worth holding that particular event in a special place.

[hermanJnr.]

I can't truly rationalise this. I'm maybe being oversensitive or too... what was it? Too 'bleeding-heart'. But no, I think we're better off for holding that particular event as something that is spoken of, but not seen in the game. It should, I think, bring pause. Whatever other reason I think we can offer as to why we choose to amuse ourselves with recreations of horrific situations, I think it's worth holding that particular event in a special place.

I think, respectfully, you're looking at it in the wrong light.

Without being too pretentious, games aren't just a form of entertainment, they are a form of artistic expression too.

Art is not just viewed for amusement, it is used to convey the whole human emotional spectrum.

If Hiroshima was put in the game, it wouldn't be for entertainment, it would (if done correctly), be a respectful rememberance of what a terrible event it was.

For example, while it does not depict real life events, have you ever played Call of Duty 4? At the end of the game, many of the main characters are killed alongside you, and you are powerless to help.

That's not done for amusement, it's done to convey a more serious message to the player.

There's a difference between mature artistic expression and sinking things for fun, though if done carefully and respectfully, it is possible to get across serious and thought-provoking messages to the player through an entertainment medium.

My two cents, anyway

[FIREWALL]

What makes any of you think there wasn't a sub their to photo the event if it could, and is still classified Top Secret.

There's still alot of classfied stuff from WWII today.

[Sailor Steve]

WELCOME ABOARD!

Originally Posted by Midwinter

At the risk of pulling us back onto the topic that everyone had so neatly manoeuvred away from...

Nothing neat about it - we wander like that all the time. Doesn't matter how it starts, but that's how it always ends.

I believe in seeking out peaceful solutions to conflict, but I'm no pacifist. I understand that military activity is sometimes the only viable route to take, but it should rarely be the first choice, and if there are other ways we should be exploring those thoroughly before we take up arms.

Well said. I agree completely.

I know that this could potentially flare up the whole "should we be simulating war for fun" debate.

It's been discussed before, so it's okay to shy away from it this time. Most of us agree with your summary that it's meant to be a learning experience. I don't think you were overly "bleeding-heart", or overly anything.

On the whole a great summary of the way most of us feel. Fantastic first post. I hope to see more.

[Rockin Robbins]

It's interesting to me that submarine veterans are also split on the issue of whether war gaming is appropriate. However, the ones who don't have a problem with it are reluctant to offend their fellow vets and the ones who object do so loudly. The surest way not to get any information is to sashay into a veterans' bulleting board, mention that you want some information to include in a Silent Hunter 4 scenario.

Those guys were afraid for their lives. They are very aware that the opinion of many wargamers is that the Japanese were toothless grandpapas. They don't like that. And they have a problem with playing at war anyway. It's an oxymoron to them that lost buddies there and can't conceive of going to war for fun, even if it's not real.

Playing Silent Hunter 4 is a symbolic gesture, and like all symbols, it is prone to ridicule, dismissal as demeaning to its object, trivialization, abuse and neglect.