sh5 pdf campaign overview here

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

If thats true, i have problems with that on a multiple levels. I'll bite my lip and stop there.

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

Wow. That's just....wow.

I'm speechless if this is true.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Sorry, I find the 'change the war with a uboat' a bit weird. Are we re-writing history via a game?

So you guys think that the U-boats made no difference? That if Germany had not sent any of them to war then everything would have panned out exactly the same anyway? Wow. Why on earth would you even be interested in playing a game that simulates the command of such useless vessels?

[THE_MASK]

Hasnt anyone ever modded a campaign before . If they drop the DRM i dont see a problem in modding it .

[Bubblehead1980]

As usual, Ducimus said basically what I was thinking

[utops]

I just want to survive and take credit for sunken tonage , that is all for me when i thinking about,some fiction it is not a problem in eg. if i get lucky to sink main unit of the home fleet , that unit is off.
So that unit is not longer operational and that impact on the campaign.
In future this particural ship do not acomplish mission. Some event because of this is diffirent and change a little shape of the frontline,but whole war? This is just ridiculous, but good material for those epic heroes wannabe rpg fans.

[JU_88]

Hypothetical question for the 'historical' purists here...

Senario:
Your are playing SH3 and HMS Nelson passes in front of your scope
What do you do?

1) Attack as did the commander of U-31 (but! if you sink her, that event is 100% fantasy, Nelson was never sunk!.)

2) Ignore her for the sake of historical accuracy. (not what a real Uboat commander would have done under the circumstances)

The point is that history happened one way only and it cannot be undone, in a sandbox game with DYNAMIC campaign on the hand...
Do you see where Im going with this?
A Historically accurate computer game is not actually possible - unless you remove the players free will.
SH5 responds to that 'free will' is that a crime?

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by The General

This won't be the first time that has a happened. For just one example; Phillip K. Dick wrote a story about an alternative reality where The Axis powers won WWII.

Yes, The Man in the High Castle. In that book though, it was clearly pointed out that they were living in the 'wrong' reality and things should not have turned out that way. It also talked about the extermination of the Jews, so was not a fun thing to try to role play with.

Originally Posted by JU_88

Hypothetical question for the history purists here...

Senario:
Your are playing SH3 and HMS Nelson passes in front of your scope
What do you do?

1) Attack as did the commander of U-31 (but! if you sink her, that event is 100% fantasy, Nelson was never sunk!.)

2) Ignore her for the sake of historical accuracy. (not what a real Uboat commander would have done under the circumstances)

The point is History happened one way and it cannot be undone, in a sandbox game with DYNAMIC campaign on the hand...

Do you see where Im going with this?

Yes I do see, but that's not what people are complaining about. They are not complaining that they can sink ships that historically were never attacked by U-Boat. To make that stick, you'd have to stick rigidly to the original U-boats patrol, never deviating from it, including during attacks.

What some people are concerned about is that people can sail out, sink 2 million tons of shipping in a week with their deck gun in pew pew fashion and then RTB, get a little message saying how they have turned the tide and thinking 'Wow! I could have won the war for the Nazis! How tragic I wasn't born back then.'.

Other people are complaing that as a single instrument, the U-boats whilst being very effective initially, once counter measures were put in place, they ceased to be as potent and effective as they once were. Having a single captain (the player) being responsible for turning the tide of the war is... quite a stretch, unless tonnage figures are going to be pew pew excessive.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

Yes I do see, but that's not what people are complaining about. They are not complaining that they can sink ships that historically were never attacked by U-Boat. To make that stick, you'd have to stick rigidly to the original U-boats patrol, never deviating from it, including during attacks.

I was using it as an example, I was mearly trying to remind people that every SH3/4/5 patrol we undertake is pure fantasy anyway.
It never happened. the best the sim can do is convey a sense of what it was like.

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

What some people are concerned about is that people can sail out, sink 2 million tons of shipping in a week with their deck gun in pew pew fashion and then RTB, get a little message saying how they have turned the tide and thinking 'Wow! I could have won the war for the Nazis! How tragic I wasn't born back then.'..

And so what if they do think that? Silent Hunter is a game, not an interactive history lesson for retards.
Anyway you could do the same Turkey shoot in the last two SH games on a low realism.

Theoretically it should be harder in SH5 because the game is allegedly able to respond to your actions (e.g by sending a bunch of escorts/planes to punish you for such reckless behavior.)

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

Other people are complaing that as a single instrument, the U-boats whilst being very effective initially, once counter measures were put in place, they ceased to be as potent and effective as they once were. Having a single captain (the player) being responsible for turning the tide of the war is... quite a stretch, unless tonnage figures are going to be pew pew excessive.

Sure I agree, by 1943, no matter what the player has done, the game should be giving off a STRONG Impression that its the begining of the end for the Uboats..
How do we know that this is not the case? I have not seen anything in that PDF that states "the player is able to secure an Axis victory and you vill be king of ze vorld!!'
Rather it says "will dictate the out come of the war on sea and land too" which is exactly what the U-boats did to some degree!
It doesn't say to what degree, its abit vague and open to interpretation

But of course people will jump to the worst possible conclusion... (again)

[Ducimus]

My bottom line on the idea of, "if its possible to alter the course of the war" in SH5 is this:

History should be respected, not rewritten to suit some romance or agenda.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

My bottom line on the idea of, "if its possible to alter the course of the war" in SH5 is this:

History should be respected, not rewritten to suit some romance or agenda.

And I dont think anyone could rationally disagree with your last sentence, but I am not up in arms over it simply because...

"dictate the out come of the war on sea and land too"

AND

"dictate the out come of the war." (PERIOD)

...mean two different things.

[Frederf]

"Altering the war" is not to be confused with "radically changing the outcome." The devs have stated that they don't want a strict passive documentary and I support this notion. All WWII games I play I want to be plausible and believable interpretations of that scenario. Small scale differences are happy accidents that allow a unique story to be told within the larger known context.

Based on what I've seen the player not only controls 1 U-boot but probably the naval/sub strategy for an entire theater and possibly beyond that.

In actuality a WWII game where, say Market Garden was 100% successful would be pretty cool but only if it was an accurate representation of what would have actually happened. This is of course so difficult as to border on impossible. The world is such a complex place that any credible large-scale deviation from actual history is effectively beyond reach.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by JU_88

I was using it as an example, I was mearly trying to remind people that every SH3/4/5 patrol we undertake is pure fantasy anyway.
It never happened. the best the sim can do is convey a sense of what it was like.

Just answering your post as it was posted .

Originally Posted by JU_88

And so what if they do think that? Silent Hunter is a game, not an interactive history lesson for retards.
Anyway you could do the same Turkey shoot in the last two SH games on a low realism.

Hmmm, I think if someone really did wish that they'd been born in the 1910s / 1920s and also wished that they could have won the war for the Nazis, then they'd be a fairly strange fellow. There would be quite a lot wrong with it. (This part should be a nested quote, but that doesn't seem to work since multi-quote went in).

Originally Posted by JU_88

Theoretically it should be harder in SH5 because the game is allegedly able to respond to your actions (e.g by sending a bunch of escorts/planes to punish you for such reckless behavior.)

That would be a great improvement.

Originally Posted by JU_88

Sure I agree, by 1943, no matter what the player has done, the game should be giving off a STRONG Impression that its the begining of the end for the Uboats..
How do we know that this is not the case? I have not seen anything in that PDF that states "the player is able to secure an Axis victory and you vill be king of ze vorld!!'
Rather it says "will dictate the out come of the war on sea and land too" which is exactly what the U-boats did to some degree!
It doesn't say to what degree, its abit vague and open to interpretation

But of course people will jump to the worst possible conclusion... (again)

I was just posting what the two opposing views were. Once again, this is another example of how everyone has gone off down their own personal paths of despair, because Ubisoft has given out incomplete or vague information. People will assume the worst and hope for the best.

[Iron Budokan]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

So you guys think that the U-boats made no difference? That if Germany had not sent any of them to war then everything would have panned out exactly the same anyway? Wow. Why on earth would you even be interested in playing a game that simulates the command of such useless vessels?

Yes, Uboats had a severe economic impact on the Allies. History has proven this to be true.

NO, they didn't win the war. When a game has you winning the war, or affecting huge economic and materiel outcomes that are historically innaccurate, then it ceases to become a simulation and becomes a childish, cartoonish, arcade.

That's the difference.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

So you guys think that the U-boats made no difference? That if Germany had not sent any of them to war then everything would have panned out exactly the same anyway? Wow. Why on earth would you even be interested in playing a game that simulates the command of such useless vessels?

No one stated that the uboat did nothing. Altering the outcome of the war, win/lose, is the issue. I'm all for events changing within my uboat world but not the entire world. Sure, a change of shipping lanes because my presence in a particular part of the ocean is welcomed. I sunk an entire convoy so a large battle never took place as a result is ok. Winning the war or alternate reality does not work for me.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

No one stated that the uboat did nothing. Altering the outcome of the war, win/lose, is the issue. I'm all for events changing within my uboat world but not the entire world. Sure, a change of shipping lanes because my presence in a particular part of the ocean is welcomed. I sunk an entire convoy so a large battle never took place as a result is ok. Winning the war or alternate reality does not work for me.

"I sunk an entire convoy so a large battle never took place" is an "alternate reality".

[Safe-Keeper]

only 250 convoys?

You do realize they mean 250 convoy routes.