DEV Q&A post on Ubi Forum

[C DuDe]

Wonder if there will be Tenders to refit / refuel at sea and if we'd get the option to call in a tow when in sight of a friendly harbor.
(Obviously the tow has to be done at night so you won’t be to embarrassed getting to port).

Maybe get the option to call in for help when you’re in friendly waters to refuel when you ran out... even when it takes days for them to get to you.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by C DuDe

Wonder if there will be Tenders to refit/refuel at sea

Originally Posted by GKane

Can we call in a refuelling sub or to reload the torps in the middle of Atlantic? and perhaps we can also see the crew in actions to refuel and reload the torps?

Whether the crew will be visibly performing these actions is still to be decided, but you’ll definitely be able to resupply at sea. This was an important factor in the real U-Boat campaign and it will be the same in our game too.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...7/m/8591082387

[elanaiba]

Regarding malfunctions, I'd say in reality you'd have the option to assign your crew to doublecheck systems that may be prone to sabotage, run tests, detect the problems before they occur in battle. If something is detected you have the option of a quick yard repair (insteaad of waiting the full 2-3 weeks standard in port). Doable? Yes. Simple? No.

The example of "torpedo duds" is the only one that kinda stands but even in reality the source of the problems was design of the system rather than sabotage. Also note that when torpedo malfunctions were implemented, many player controlled factors were taken into account - dud chance is based on impact angle, premature chance is based on sea state and torpedo running depth. As in real life, the player has some control - but he has the benefit of historic hind sight.

Aircraft, destroyers, depth charges, are also related to player performance and choice of tactics.

And I will never give up "thinking", its in my blood

[JScones]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

I'd say in reality you'd have the option to assign your crew to doublecheck systems that may be prone to sabotage, run tests, detect the problems before they occur in battle. If something is detected you have the option of a quick yard repair (insteaad of waiting the full 2-3 weeks standard in port). Doable? Yes. Simple? No.

But the beauty of sabotage was to "break things" without detection. For example, drill holes in the fuel bunkers, battery acid on all the seals, weakly welded hull plates...none of which could be easily identified in port, only when out to sea.

Steel Boat, Iron Hearts by Hans Goebeler devotes a whole chapter to sabotage and how frustrating it was. For example, he alleges that it took four patrols before workers found the drill holes in the fuel bunkers!

Now, most general malfunctions could be found through the usual dive checks just out of port...but the idea here isn't just to have stuff break or stop working, it's to add another element of decision making to the Commander - "gee, I can't reach full speed, should I continue or return to port?". It's not as black and white as just a "dud battery, u-boat can't move" type of malfunction.

[THE_MASK]

I think for game play sake the average player would not get much out of it . Imagine in SH4 that your fuel range was reduced for no apparent reason . There would be threads about the stupid fuel bug or something . You cannot put everything in the game , imagine the size of the dvd .

[JScones]

Originally Posted by sober

I think for game play sake the average player would not get much out of it . Imagine in SH4 that your fuel range was reduced for no apparent reason . There would be threads about the stupid fuel bug or something . You cannot put everything in the game , imagine the size of the dvd .

I think the DVD would still be 12cm in diameter.

Certainly true though, malfunctions/sabotage would have to be well explained. I mean, I always found it perplexing that people would select the option in SH3Cmdr and then complain that they couldn't see through the periscope, or couldn't reach flank speed..."bug!", "bug!" they cried...

[THE_MASK]

I think choice/options screen is the new buzword though.

[Laffertytig]

Originally Posted by JScones

I think the DVD would still be 12cm in diameter.

Certainly true though, malfunctions/sabotage would have to be well explained. I mean, I always found it perplexing that people would select the option in SH3Cmdr and then complain that they couldn't see through the periscope, or couldn't reach flank speed..."bug!", "bug!" they cried...

i think the main problem with the way this worked was that there was no way of fixing the engine if it malfunctioned.

[raymond6751]

What about having a sub start with an unknown efficiency number (mid to high) for various equipment. During the mission, getting full use could be improved by having good crew in the compartment. A captain will learn the efficiency of his boat and crew during a patrol.

My earlier suggestion about crew qualifying training and drills during a mission could improve over time the efficiency. Losing a good crewmember in port would impact the boat.

While sailing to your patrol area you can run drills, i.e. guns, torpedo loading, that would improve accuracy and reload times. Tracking neutral or friendly ships to the point of a firing solution could improve torpedo accuracy. Crew could qualify to rank up by courses. Things like that.
It adds another layer of complexity but it is very real. A captain doesn't just go fast forward to cntact. That would reduce his abilities.

As for saboutage, these are things out of the player's control. I don't think it should be part of the game.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by JScones

Now, most general malfunctions could be found through the usual dive checks just out of port...but the idea here isn't just to have stuff break or stop working, it's to add another element of decision making to the Commander - "gee, I can't reach full speed, should I continue or return to port?". It's not as black and white as just a "dud battery, u-boat can't move" type of malfunction.

That's exactly the point. It's a strategic decision the commander is making when he decides to press on with the patrol, despite a boat that has issues. It was a fact of life for the U-boat men, and something that they dealt with just as much as anything else currently included in the game. Adding more layers of decision making and tactical skill means a more rich and nuanced game in the end. Dan, I respect you guys to the max, but I have to disagree with the line of thinking that leaves sabotage/malfunctions out of the game.

[elanaiba]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Dan, I respect you guys to the max, but I have to disagree with the line of thinking that leaves sabotage/malfunctions out of the game.

Remember, Mark, the answer says "In the future, we will tackle them in some way, but for now, we have no such thing in the game."

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

Remember, Mark, the answer says "In the future, we will tackle them in some way, but for now, we have no such thing in the game."

Then, as always, I trust in your judgment sir. Keep up the good work, and I'm eagerly awaiting your latest masterpiece.

[PL_Andrev]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

Remember, Mark, the answer says "In the future, we will tackle them in some way, but for now, we have no such thing in the game."

Not exactly.
The problem is that in patched SH3 and SH4 the big bugs were not solved ( for example decoys at periscope depth in SH3).
I prefer to see bad / incomplete solution than hear words "it will be implemented later". Early is the bigger chance that the wrong function will be detected and fixed by next patch.

[karamazovnew]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

Remember, Mark, the answer says "In the future, we will tackle them in some way, but for now, we have no such thing in the game."

If you wouldn't mind, I've been an avid supporter of the changes being made in SH5. Every time someone complained about eye-candy pushed in front of realism I was right there waving the Ubi flag. That's because at some point I started modding SH4 and let my imagination run wild. It went downhill fast after getting stuck by small hardcoded issues. When the first preview of SH5 was shown, I couldn't believe my eyes: it was the exact same list of features that would've loved to see, point by point, feature by feature. I just couldn't believe it. It's one thing to mod a game trying to bypass hardcode and another to actually have the things you need in the code and a tool to make life easier. I almost gave up modding the Sh4 interface but I'm glad I didn't. I can't believe how good SH4 UBM has become with Operation Monsun. It has completely replaced SH3 for me and made the wait for SH5 a lot easier.

Now here's my question.. If so much has been achieved in SH4, things which were thought would be impossible even with all the SH3 modding experience, why are so many people scared by features not being present in vanilla SH5? Even I can't imagine what SH5 will look like in a few years. As long as you guys allow us to create scripts, the sky will be the limit. We have 3d maniacs like Tomi and Ju88 (and soon ME), campaign freaks like Lurker, realism gurus like the GWX team and Dulcimus, perfectionists like Makman and Hitman and the gods of thunder themselves, Luke and W-clear. And if all else fails, Skwasjer will save the day with an editor. All I want to see in SH5 is a well rounded game, bug free, with smooth performance and ready for complex modding.

Let's face it, this might be the last U-boat sim for a looooong time. I suppose some features will make their way into an expansion (like real navigation /pray). Maybe later you'll release another PTO sim (hopefully with the Japanese Imperial Navy too) and MAYBE the U-boat core will be upgradeable to the new engine. What's next? Cold war sim? WW1? Surface warfare? What I want to underline is that any mod made for SH5 will not interfere with the sales of your future sims.