Go here - Sink that - Page 4

Nordmann · 03-25-10, 03:38 PM

Perhaps we shouldn't bash a country because of a game? After all, we all have our fair share of problems (*cough* Labour *cough*).

03-25-10, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nordmann

Perhaps we shouldn't bash a country because of a game? After all, we all have our fair share of problems (*cough* Labour *cough*).

All I was trying to emphasize is that while in Romania is not very easy to survive (to "survive", not to "live"), the SH5 devs earn a lot of money compared to some teacher, to some medic, to some engineer ... from the same country. That's OK, but at least, make a good game, damn it! To earn the money that UBI is giving you. The same money WE are giving to UBI. Otherwise, you can lower your life standards and try to live on your welfare. It would be more honest than BS-ing us with your pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game.

Noren · 03-25-10, 04:02 PM

Anyone accusing others of racism should take a ride through some of the eastern european countries (I did last summer), they are definitely less civilized than say Canada and Australia. But thats only my subjective perspective, Im sure that they consider themselves just as happy as anyone else.

Brag · 03-25-10, 04:30 PM

I think, blaming the Devs it totally unfair. With SHIII they have shown that they are more than capable of producing an excellent game.
I see the dark shadow of Ubi kommisars telling the Devs how to do things.

Méo · 03-25-10, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunnodayak

with your pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game.

Just wondering...

Why are you wasting your time reading and posting about this pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game.

----

Edit:

bah... don't need to reply, I know the aswser.

03-25-10, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Méo

Just wondering...

Why are you wasting your time reading and posting about this pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game.

It's simple, because it's a great disappointment regarding something I've expected to be done right, as a submarine simulator. And the way the ones who like the pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game are keep saying that, the same way I will say I don't. It's just the freedom of saying your opinion about a product you've bought any time you want.

Sorry, I've already replied, I forgot about your crystal ball that helps you know the answer to your question in the moment you've raised that question.

Nafod81 · 03-25-10, 10:43 PM

I kind of like the "dynamic campaign." I agree the tonnage limits are ridiculous (I use LC mod).

What I don't agree with is how is this a step back from SHIII and SHIV?

SHIII Go To X Grid and patrol for X hours.

SHIV Repeat trips to photo a cruiser in Tokyo harbour. Or the awful airmen rescue missions.

It's true the feeling to pass on a target because it's out of one's patrol area is unnerving. But I don't see it as any different than SHIII's go to X, then go wherever, sink whatever, we don't care.

That being said I think Capital ships are WAY too common in SHV. Considering I played SHIII for 4 years, I don't even know how many patrols, I only came within attack range of a task force twice. Only once was I even able to set up a somewhat decent attack. Although "realistic" it made the effort to model and include these capital ships rather pointless.

In SHIV they weren't common, but certainly were not rare. I recall several patrols where I'd pick off 2-3 capital ships each.

In SHV I've played 4 patrols, sunk 4 cruisers, 3 battleships and 2 carriers (And I'm not going into harbours). I see more task forces than convoys (two so far). Hell I'm passing up capital ships so I can meet my objectives.

LukeFF · 03-26-10, 12:30 AM

The thing I miss with the dynamic campaign is how it was done in Aces of the Deep: patrol a particular grid square for a while, and then one would receive orders from BdU to move to another grid square. None of this "no new objective, patrol another area of your choice" nonsense that we now have. Dönitz kept a tight reign on his boats and he (heck, the same with the USN) wouldn't let them just wander off and patrol wherever the heck they pleased.

Compelling orders and radio traffic: it's sadly lacking from SH5.

kylania · 03-26-10, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LukeFF

Compelling orders and radio traffic: it's sadly lacking from SH5.

Should be able to add it pretty easily though, right? Events + scripting = teh win!

thyro · 03-26-10, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdkbph

IThey weren't commanded to sink an Aircraft Carrier, or else fail.

Aircraft carriers were used on WW2 against Germany?? If I'm not wrong they were mainly used on Pacific war.

alexradu89 · 03-26-10, 06:36 AM

We really shouldn't blame the devs for this because most of the guilt belongs to Ubisoft. It's Ubisoft's fault that they made the game more arcade (commercial; because every 10 year old kid wants a WW2 german submarine simulator for his birthday or under the Christmas tree instead of evil, un-christian games like shooters, action-adventure games etc. it's not like anybody enjoys shooters right?). The devs actually had a very tight and strict deadline, because like any major international company, Ubi doesn't really care about anything other than profit (who cares if the game is bought by a subsim fan or a casual gamer as long as "we get teh monee!1") and it's just not that easy to create a game in a small period of time.There's also the fact that the devs didn't really had full liberty of making the game, lots of "instructions" were being sent from the central Ubi headquarters even though those people had no idea what a submarine is(but that's just how everything goes).The devs of course have their share of guilt for various game malfunctions and lack of quality in the game but then again nothing's perfect (and some people just fail at doing their job).

PS: Oh and, I don't think that the u-boat orders back in those days sounded like "go to this area, patrol around and sink 50k tons worth of ships and 5 destroyers 3 battleships 1 carrier, because even though we don't know where the enemy is, we just know that by some strange miracle, a british task force will just happen to be passing by". Some dynamic campaign this is. Really Ubi ?!

ReallyDedPoet · 03-26-10, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thyro

Aircraft carriers were used on WW2 against Germany?? If I'm not wrong they were mainly used on Pacific war.

Quote:

The Allies lost 9 aircraft carriers during the war, 3 of the 4 Royal Navy losses were to German U-boats.

From u-boat.net

The Courageous class aircraft carrier HMS Glorious. She was lost on 8 Jun 1940.

mookiemookie · 03-26-10, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexradu89

We really shouldn't blame the devs for this because most of the guilt belongs to Ubisoft. It's Ubisoft's fault that they made the game more arcade (commercial; because every 10 year old kid wants a WW2 german submarine simulator for his birthday or under the Christmas tree instead of evil, un-christian games like shooters, action-adventure games etc. it's not like anybody enjoys shooters right?). The devs actually had a very tight and strict deadline, because like any major international company, Ubi doesn't really care about anything other than profit (who cares if the game is bought by a subsim fan or a casual gamer as long as "we get teh monee!1") and it's just not that easy to create a game in a small period of time.There's also the fact that the devs didn't really had full liberty of making the game, lots of "instructions" were being sent from the central Ubi headquarters even though those people had no idea what a submarine is(but that's just how everything goes).The devs of course have their share of guilt for various game malfunctions and lack of quality in the game but then again nothing's perfect (and some people just fail at doing their job).

03-25-10, 03:38 PM	#46
Nordmann Commodore Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: England Posts: 628 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	Perhaps we shouldn't bash a country because of a game? After all, we all have our fair share of problems (cough Labour cough). __________________ "I must confess that my imagination refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea." - H. G. Wells

03-25-10, 04:30 PM	#49
Brag Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Docked on a Russian pond Posts: 7,072 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I think, blaming the Devs it totally unfair. With SHIII they have shown that they are more than capable of producing an excellent game. I see the dark shadow of Ubi kommisars telling the Devs how to do things. __________________ Espionage, adventure, suspense, are just a click away Click here to look inside Brag's book: Amazon.com: Kingmaker: Alexey Braguine: Books Order Kingmaker here: http://www.subsim.com/store.html For Tactics visit:http://www.freewebs.com/kielman/

03-26-10, 12:30 AM	#53
LukeFF Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Riverside, California Posts: 3,610 Downloads: 41 Uploads: 5	The thing I miss with the dynamic campaign is how it was done in Aces of the Deep: patrol a particular grid square for a while, and then one would receive orders from BdU to move to another grid square. None of this "no new objective, patrol another area of your choice" nonsense that we now have. Dönitz kept a tight reign on his boats and he (heck, the same with the USN) wouldn't let them just wander off and patrol wherever the heck they pleased. Compelling orders and radio traffic: it's sadly lacking from SH5. __________________ ROW Sound Effects Contributor RFB Team Leader

03-25-10, 04:02 PM	#48
Noren 中国水兵 Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 284 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Anyone accusing others of racism should take a ride through some of the eastern european countries (I did last summer), they are definitely less civilized than say Canada and Australia. But thats only my subjective perspective, Im sure that they consider themselves just as happy as anyone else.

03-25-10, 10:43 PM	#52
Nafod81 Loader Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Saint Louis MO Posts: 87 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	I kind of like the "dynamic campaign." I agree the tonnage limits are ridiculous (I use LC mod). What I don't agree with is how is this a step back from SHIII and SHIV? SHIII Go To X Grid and patrol for X hours. SHIV Repeat trips to photo a cruiser in Tokyo harbour. Or the awful airmen rescue missions. It's true the feeling to pass on a target because it's out of one's patrol area is unnerving. But I don't see it as any different than SHIII's go to X, then go wherever, sink whatever, we don't care. That being said I think Capital ships are WAY too common in SHV. Considering I played SHIII for 4 years, I don't even know how many patrols, I only came within attack range of a task force twice. Only once was I even able to set up a somewhat decent attack. Although "realistic" it made the effort to model and include these capital ships rather pointless. In SHIV they weren't common, but certainly were not rare. I recall several patrols where I'd pick off 2-3 capital ships each. In SHV I've played 4 patrols, sunk 4 cruisers, 3 battleships and 2 carriers (And I'm not going into harbours). I see more task forces than convoys (two so far). Hell I'm passing up capital ships so I can meet my objectives.

03-26-10, 06:36 AM	#56
alexradu89 Lieutenant Join Date: May 2009 Location: Romania Posts: 259 Downloads: 94 Uploads: 0	We really shouldn't blame the devs for this because most of the guilt belongs to Ubisoft. It's Ubisoft's fault that they made the game more arcade (commercial; because every 10 year old kid wants a WW2 german submarine simulator for his birthday or under the Christmas tree instead of evil, un-christian games like shooters, action-adventure games etc. it's not like anybody enjoys shooters right?). The devs actually had a very tight and strict deadline, because like any major international company, Ubi doesn't really care about anything other than profit (who cares if the game is bought by a subsim fan or a casual gamer as long as "we get teh monee!1") and it's just not that easy to create a game in a small period of time.There's also the fact that the devs didn't really had full liberty of making the game, lots of "instructions" were being sent from the central Ubi headquarters even though those people had no idea what a submarine is(but that's just how everything goes).The devs of course have their share of guilt for various game malfunctions and lack of quality in the game but then again nothing's perfect (and some people just fail at doing their job). PS: Oh and, I don't think that the u-boat orders back in those days sounded like "go to this area, patrol around and sink 50k tons worth of ships and 5 destroyers 3 battleships 1 carrier, because even though we don't know where the enemy is, we just know that by some strange miracle, a british task force will just happen to be passing by". Some dynamic campaign this is. Really Ubi ?!