Confusion over Campaign [Merged] - Page 3

Adriatico · 01-22-10, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JScones

Well, Webster said he read somewhere something about rough seas not being modelled...

In that case they would be the first game in history - to open "bargain bin" on eBay before release date...

Mikhayl · 01-22-10, 04:20 AM

The "no rough sea" thing is complete bullsh!t, people see a dozen screenshots of units in fair weather and they "fear" that there will be no rough sea, and two posts later people are "convinced" that there won't be rough sea. Sheesh, enough with the crazypants rumors already

Adriatico · 01-22-10, 04:57 AM

It seems no "new modeled rough sea" issue rather than no "rough sea"...
Correct me if I'm wrong...

Anyway... the mentioned "confusion" could not be the fault of market (us fans) side, that's the only sure thing...

* * *
Could You imagine, for example : That one month before "BoB SoW" goes gold... people have not seen new Oleg's clouds on screenshots ?

Hartmann · 01-22-10, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

Yeah but I don't see these as gamekillers for me. It is no different in SH3 with GWX now. I can go to the beaches off Normandy late on 5th June 1944 and sure enough there will be a nice fat juicy set of targets coming my way early next morning! Protected by large swarms of highly sensitive escorts after my blood.

My bigger concern is that this period of the war is not there and would need to be modded or an add-on released to allow the above scenario to be played out in SH5.

The problem is the inclusion of a scripted history line in the game with RPG elements , it means for example, every 5th of june of 1944 you have to be in Normandy to "unlock" the next part of the history ( and survive of course).

And the killer is that if the files can´t be edited ( not confirmed yet )

Sailor Steve · 01-22-10, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reece

Sorry to put a dent in that but here is a quote from Dan:
Also:

Quote:

Yes, you have a crew. Yes, there's a storyline to it.

Nice way to cherrypick quotes to suit your argument. What Dan actually said was

Quote:

Yes, you have a crew. Yes, there's a storyline to it.

But the campaign is dynamic and that's the end of it I wouldn't have it any other way .

Now that may turn out to not be true, but nothing he said gives cause to believe otherwise. I guess the other thing he said is also true:

Quote:

People keep turning words around trying to find proof that their greatest fears come true: Scripted Campaign.

Oh no! I have it in quotes! Dan said "Scripted Campaign!"

Chisum · 01-22-10, 12:30 PM

Dynamic or not campaign will be the same I think.
But for me the basic and critical point of SH5 is the end of de campaing in 1943.
That's incredible.

Except if it's just to be able to sell an add-on in six months, it's totaly unacceptable and I understand the reaction of Neal in the interview.

Now we have only one hope is that our development teams are able to give us a game complete.

sk065 · 01-22-10, 01:19 PM

I know that what the Devs have basically said is that we can influence the enemies movements and responses. However, can other german uboats/ships also influence this?

Also, is it a persistant world where the clock ticks in realtime and events happen even while you are in port or is it a series of missions, each one based on the last?

Yosarian · 01-22-10, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sk065

However, can other german uboats/ships also influence this?

No way, like in CoD where you as a hero storming alone the Reichstag, you can now change in SH5 the entire course of the war alone with your submarine ...impressive isn't it?

TarJak · 01-22-10, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartmann

The problem is the inclusion of a scripted history line in the game with RPG elements , it means for example, every 5th of june of 1944 you have to be in Normandy to "unlock" the next part of the history ( and survive of course).

And the killer is that if the files can´t be edited ( not confirmed yet )

How do you KNOW this? Apart from the fact the game has a finite end in May '43, we don't know how the campaign part of the game will play out yet do we? We will know in March.

Mikhayl · 01-22-10, 02:42 PM

The devs improved the campaign and the objective system greatly between SH3 and SH4, I just can't imagine why SH5 would go backward.

In SH4 the number of different objectives is finite but they are put in a "pool" and drawed semi-randomly depending on dates and flotilla. So although you can draw the exact same objective, the likelihood of it being at the exact same date is very low. And even IF you draw the same objective at the same date and same flotilla in 2 different careers, it's very unlikely that the actual patrol will pan out in the same way.

For example in SH3 if you play with the "transfer to med" mod, you start your new career from an Atlantic base and the first mission invariably has you crossing Gibraltar. "Same old same old" at a glance, but what are the odds of two Gibraltar crossings going the same way? Same for the eventual encounters en route, so ultimately although you have the same objective, the missions are never the same.

sk065 · 01-22-10, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

The devs improved the campaign and the objective system greatly between SH3 and SH4, I just can't imagine why SH5 would go backward.

In SH4 the number of different objectives is finite but they are put in a "pool" and drawed semi-randomly depending on dates and flotilla. So although you can draw the exact same objective, the likelihood of it being at the exact same date is very low. And even IF you draw the same objective at the same date and same flotilla in 2 different careers, it's very unlikely that the actual patrol will pan out in the same way.

For example in SH3 if you play with the "transfer to med" mod, you start your new career from an Atlantic base and the first mission invariably has you crossing Gibraltar. "Same old same old" at a glance, but what are the odds of two Gibraltar crossings going the same way? Same for the eventual encounters en route, so ultimately although you have the same objective, the missions are never the same.

Ive never played SH4 as the Pacific Campaign never appeald to me. However what you describe above sounds acceptable to me as long as the 'pool' of mission types is vast and that there are no scripted 'triggers' where the game forces you to move from the atlantic to the med for example. If this is to happen it should only happen depending on how the war is progressing and not on a predefined date.

Mikhayl · 01-22-10, 03:21 PM

But historically the war progression is tied to dates. For example in SH3 if you're in Brest, when 6 June 1944 comes you'll be transfered back to Germany all the time at the same date. But it's still fun and replayable.
Now in SH5 this might be different with the dynamic aspect, but I doubt that our actions will have more than local effects has shown in the video, it shows enemy assets redeploying but it doesn't show/say that Malta can fall in German hands. I hope so anyway, a single u-boot singlehandly changing the course of the whole war sounds silly IMO.

Navarre · 01-22-10, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I hope so anyway, a single u-boot singlehandly changing the course of the whole war sounds silly IMO.

not hope too much, read the last sentence in this PDF document
http://static4.cdn.ubi.com/SH5dynami...9d1f2c89396c3c
(right click and save as...)

tater · 01-22-10, 04:07 PM

I have less than zero interest in playing a u-boat, but it sounds like the campaign might actually be partially dynamic. Dynamism requires that the campaign can alter due to player actions in some meaningful way. In SH4, you can get spotted and have the airstrike chance increase, for example. This is not dynamism. Neither SH3 or 4 were dynamic, IMO. Not in the least.

In a u-boat campaign, if the boat uses the radio, for example, there needs to be a chance that a convoy headed right at him (but over the horizon and invisible) might very well alter course and never be seen. If the boat makes a torpedo attack, the same should also e true, and perhaps have ASW assets assigned to the area to try and hold the boat down until it is forced to surface.

I don't expect or require "war changing" stuff in most circumstances, it's just too complex. I could see certain important engagements written with alternate (scripted) outcomes. Say smaller invasion forces in the med—a mythical attack might well change the short term outcome. The nice thing from the perspective of scripting the u-boat war is that there is nothing the boats could have done to do anything but delay the inevitable. I the PTO all fleet boats could do was accelerate the end for Japan, the outcome was certain in both cases (in hindsight though people at the time could have not been so sure).

Failure to redirect convoys, etc would mean no real dynamism, IMO.

I'd be very disappointed if the game didn't actually keep track of named ships so that once a certain ship is sunk it is gone forever. Ie: if a warship with 1 in the class gets sunk it should never be seen again. If there were 2 and you sink one, the chances of seeing the other should appropriately drop. For merchants this isn't a big deal, the US effectively built an infinite number. Heck, DEs and DDs were effectively built in infinite numbers (the USN built about 2/3s as many DE/DDs during the war as the KM built u-boats, lol)

Mikhayl · 01-22-10, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navarre

not hope too much, read the last sentence in this PDF document
http://static4.cdn.ubi.com/SH5dynami...9d1f2c89396c3c
(right click and save as...)

Thanks, good find, it's very interesting. Well it can indeed go into alternate history, but... if I play with 100% difficulty, it will be near impossible for me to wipe out an entire task force or convoy, so ultimately my actions would have only little reactions. I hope

01-22-10, 04:57 AM	#33
Adriatico Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2007 Location: Periscope depth Posts: 860 Downloads: 119 Uploads: 0	It seems no "new modeled rough sea" issue rather than no "rough sea"... Correct me if I'm wrong... Anyway... the mentioned "confusion" could not be the fault of market (us fans) side, that's the only sure thing... * * * Could You imagine, for example : That one month before "BoB SoW" goes gold... people have not seen new Oleg's clouds on screenshots ? __________________ Last edited by Adriatico; 01-22-10 at 08:45 AM.

01-22-10, 12:30 PM	#36
Chisum Seasoned Skipper Join Date: May 2007 Location: Bastogne, Belgium Posts: 716 Downloads: 86 Uploads: 0	Dynamic or not campaign will be the same I think. But for me the basic and critical point of SH5 is the end of de campaing in 1943. That's incredible. Except if it's just to be able to sell an add-on in six months, it's totaly unacceptable and I understand the reaction of Neal in the interview. Now we have only one hope is that our development teams are able to give us a game complete. __________________ [http://simus-paradise.forumactif.com/silent-hunter-iii-f12/ Last edited by Chisum; 01-23-10 at 06:17 PM.

01-22-10, 04:20 AM	#32
Mikhayl Captain Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 485 Downloads: 64 Uploads: 0	The "no rough sea" thing is complete bullsh!t, people see a dozen screenshots of units in fair weather and they "fear" that there will be no rough sea, and two posts later people are "convinced" that there won't be rough sea. Sheesh, enough with the crazypants rumors already

01-22-10, 01:19 PM	#37
sk065 Bosun Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 62 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	I know that what the Devs have basically said is that we can influence the enemies movements and responses. However, can other german uboats/ships also influence this? Also, is it a persistant world where the clock ticks in realtime and events happen even while you are in port or is it a series of missions, each one based on the last?

01-22-10, 02:42 PM	#40
Mikhayl Captain Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 485 Downloads: 64 Uploads: 0	The devs improved the campaign and the objective system greatly between SH3 and SH4, I just can't imagine why SH5 would go backward. In SH4 the number of different objectives is finite but they are put in a "pool" and drawed semi-randomly depending on dates and flotilla. So although you can draw the exact same objective, the likelihood of it being at the exact same date is very low. And even IF you draw the same objective at the same date and same flotilla in 2 different careers, it's very unlikely that the actual patrol will pan out in the same way. For example in SH3 if you play with the "transfer to med" mod, you start your new career from an Atlantic base and the first mission invariably has you crossing Gibraltar. "Same old same old" at a glance, but what are the odds of two Gibraltar crossings going the same way? Same for the eventual encounters en route, so ultimately although you have the same objective, the missions are never the same.

01-22-10, 03:21 PM	#42
Mikhayl Captain Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 485 Downloads: 64 Uploads: 0	But historically the war progression is tied to dates. For example in SH3 if you're in Brest, when 6 June 1944 comes you'll be transfered back to Germany all the time at the same date. But it's still fun and replayable. Now in SH5 this might be different with the dynamic aspect, but I doubt that our actions will have more than local effects has shown in the video, it shows enemy assets redeploying but it doesn't show/say that Malta can fall in German hands. I hope so anyway, a single u-boot singlehandly changing the course of the whole war sounds silly IMO.

01-22-10, 04:07 PM	#44
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	I have less than zero interest in playing a u-boat, but it sounds like the campaign might actually be partially dynamic. Dynamism requires that the campaign can alter due to player actions in some meaningful way. In SH4, you can get spotted and have the airstrike chance increase, for example. This is not dynamism. Neither SH3 or 4 were dynamic, IMO. Not in the least. In a u-boat campaign, if the boat uses the radio, for example, there needs to be a chance that a convoy headed right at him (but over the horizon and invisible) might very well alter course and never be seen. If the boat makes a torpedo attack, the same should also e true, and perhaps have ASW assets assigned to the area to try and hold the boat down until it is forced to surface. I don't expect or require "war changing" stuff in most circumstances, it's just too complex. I could see certain important engagements written with alternate (scripted) outcomes. Say smaller invasion forces in the med—a mythical attack might well change the short term outcome. The nice thing from the perspective of scripting the u-boat war is that there is nothing the boats could have done to do anything but delay the inevitable. I the PTO all fleet boats could do was accelerate the end for Japan, the outcome was certain in both cases (in hindsight though people at the time could have not been so sure). Failure to redirect convoys, etc would mean no real dynamism, IMO. I'd be very disappointed if the game didn't actually keep track of named ships so that once a certain ship is sunk it is gone forever. Ie: if a warship with 1 in the class gets sunk it should never be seen again. If there were 2 and you sink one, the chances of seeing the other should appropriately drop. For merchants this isn't a big deal, the US effectively built an infinite number. Heck, DEs and DDs were effectively built in infinite numbers (the USN built about 2/3s as many DE/DDs during the war as the KM built u-boats, lol)