[UNCOVERED] SH5 officially left for dead!

[jdkbph]

Originally Posted by SteelViking

Aye its true. The advancements made over the past couple weeks have been incredible. People just need to be a little more patient though, as some of them are still behind the scenes and need to be perfected.

You know, I really appreciate the efforts made by the talented folks in this community. Most of the mods are very good - as good as we've seen from the professional devs - and some of them far surpass anything we've seen form the professionals.

My concern with SH5 is not about what can be done by modders, but what can't be done. If there are significant issues with SH5 that simply can't be fixed due to lack of access (legally or technically) to the affected files and code, then I would guess most of the modders will be asking themselves "what's the point?".

Some of these significant issues that no one (to my knowledge) has touched yet are:

• Extending the campaign to 1945, which would necessarily require development or activation of the relevant techology, platforms and AI.
• Building and importing new platforms, such as more merchant types (what do we have now... 4?)
• Rewriting the campaign to remove the mission, target and tonnage based objectives, and restore the free flowing patrol based campaigns of SH3 and SH4.
• AI that behaves in a reasonably believable manner.
• Etc.

If that stuff can't be fixed, I'm never going to play it... no matter how good the water and sky look or how great the latest interface is (with apologies to those working on interfaces and environment).

JD

[SteelViking]

Originally Posted by jdkbph

You know, I really appreciate the efforts made by the talented folks in this community. Most of the mods are very good - as good as we've seen from the professional devs - and some of them far surpass anything we've seen form the professionals.

My concern with SH5 is not about what can be done by modders, but what can't be done. If there are significant issues with SH5 that simply can't be fixed due to lack of access (legally or technically) to the affected files and code, then I would guess most of the modders will be asking themselves "what's the point?".

Some of these significant issues that no one (to my knowledge) has touched yet are:

• Extending the campaign to 1945, which would necessarily require development or activation of the relevant techology, platforms and AI.
• Building and importing new platforms, such as more merchant types (what do we have now... 4?)
• Rewriting the campaign to remove the mission, target and tonnage based objectives, and restore the free flowing patrol based campaigns of SH3 and SH4.
• AI that behaves in a reasonably believable manner.
• Etc.

If that stuff can't be fixed, I'm never going to play it... no matter how good the water and sky look or how great the latest interface is (with apologies to those working on interfaces and environment).

JD

Well, the AI has essentially been fixed by TDW. He has already completely redone the AI for ships and planes, and he is currently working on redoing the AI subs. However, the rest of the problems you outlined are currently untouched, and they are definitely among my list of problems with the game as well.

What is the word on editing the campaign? I hate to say it, but I am out of the loop on that one.

[Faamecanic]

Originally Posted by SteelViking

What is the word on editing the campaign? I hate to say it, but I am out of the loop on that one.

Please please PULLLEZE someone mod the horrible campaign we were left with.

If you do.... this little puppy will give you a BIG LICK!!

[Ducimus]

Silent Hunter 5

"The Hold Out crowd"

No Patch's, No super Mod's, No problem.

[THE_MASK]

Originally Posted by jdkbph

Some of these significant issues that no one (to my knowledge) has touched yet are:

• Rewriting the campaign to remove the mission, target and tonnage based objectives, and restore the free flowing patrol based campaigns of SH3 and SH4.

If that stuff can't be fixed, I'm never going to play it... no matter how good the water and sky look or how great the latest interface is (with apologies to those working on interfaces and environment).

JD

SH5 already has the boring go to patrol area , exactly the same as SH3/4 . What it also has is a fun and challenging dynamic campaign with dynamic objectives . There is no way i would ever go back to the boring patrol here only like in SH3/4 .

[Will-Rommel]

Yeah me too sober. The game really is more fun and challenging to me when going to sea with a clear objective.

[John Channing]

Like they did in real life.

I don't understand why people don't like historical accuracy in a simulation.



JCC

[jdkbph]

Seroiusly... like in real life? I may be misinformed, but in all I've read about sub warfare in both major theaters, I don't recall captains being dispatched with orders to sink X tons, or to hunt and sink X number of battleships or cruisers before a specific date.

I may be wrong but to the best of my recollection subs were assigned patrol areas and told to hunt. At best they were given orders to target specific, broad category ship types, such as merchants, or warships.

Barring an occasional SpecOps type mission, or later on in the PTO, being assigned to "lifeguard" duty (usually a detour or interruption on the way to or from a patrol area), I really don't see how the campaign in SH5 - out of the box - can be viewed as anything other than a "lets jazz things up for arcade game crowd" type of implementation. The only thing missing is power-ups and health packs.

Yeah, it may be more fun and challenging, but real? No. Sorry.

JD

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by jdkbph

Seroiusly... like in real life? I may be misinformed, but in all I've read about sub warfare in both major theaters, I don't recall captains being dispatched with orders to sink X tons, or to hunt and sink X number of battleships or cruisers before a specific date.

I may be wrong but to the best of my recollection subs were assigned patrol areas and told to hunt. At best they were given orders to target specific, broad category ship types, such as merchants, or warships.

Barring an occasional SpecOps type mission, or later on in the PTO, being assigned to "lifeguard" duty (usually a detour or interruption on the way to or from a patrol area), I really don't see how the campaign in SH5 - out of the box - can be viewed as anything other than a "lets jazz things up for arcade game crowd" type of implementation. The only thing missing is power-ups and health packs.

Yeah, it may be more fun and challenging, but real? No. Sorry.

JD

Then you had better read some more.

During the Norwegian campaign Sub commanders were specifically ordered to concentrate on Naval vessels and, if necessary, to ignore merchant shipping.

As I said in aother thread, given the Doenitz knew exactly how much tonnage he had to sink on a monthly basis to bring England to surrender, and given that he had around 40 operational U-Boats, do you really think he told the commanders just to go out to Grid X and see what you can find? Do you think his orders to Prien was to drop by Scapa Flow and have a quick look see?

Of course they had mission requirements.

JCC

[jdkbph]

Originally Posted by John Channing

Then you had better read some more.

During the Norwegian campaign Sub commanders were specifically ordered to concentrate on Naval vessels and, if necessary, to ignore merchant shipping.

Then here we're agreed. Broad category target types, such as merchants or warships... as I stated.

We may want to start our "reading" by reading the post we're replying to, eh?

As I said in aother thread, given the Doenitz knew exactly how much tonnage he had to sink on a monthly basis to bring England to surrender, and given that he had around 40 operational U-Boats, do you really think he told the commanders just to go out to Grid X and see what you can find?

I would expect a bit more in the way of verbal encouragement, but words to that effect, yes.

What you're referring to is a strategic not an operational consideration. That would place it even above Doenitz' position at the start of the war. At Doentiz' level (operational), the task was to create the appropriate doctrine, ensure an adequate level of training, then to position his assets at the right place and at the right time in order to satisfy his directives. If planned and executed correctly, and given the required resources, the required tonnage would be sunk.

That it didn't happen historically is in no way an indictment of the u-boat crews (ie, failed missions), or even of Doenitz himself. If blame needs be placed, it would have to be laid at the door step of the pre and early war naval planners (Hitler, Raeder, et al). Clearly the resources were not adequate to the task given Doenitz early in the war, and from there the strategic priorities and subsequent investment in the u-boat arm did not permit the technology or the numbers to keep pace with the allies.

So no... I stand by what I said. At the individual unit level this kind of thing (go to location X and sink Y tons) just didn't happen. It most certainly was not the norm, as it is portrayed in SH5.

Now, if you have credible references to the contrary I'd be happy to stand corrected.

Do you think his orders to Prien was to drop by Scapa Flow and have a quick look see?

Do you think he had orders to sink Royal Oak? Did he even have orders to sink a battleship (specifically)? Would he have returned again and again to get Royal Oak, or some other battleship (specifically, if he missed the first time? What if he had sunk Courageous or Ark Royal instead? Would that have been a "mission failure"?

Sorry, but from an historical perspective, this just doesn't play.

And neither does SH5.

JD

[Jan Kyster]

Originally Posted by John Channing

Then you had better read some more.

Sorry for the OT...

- but couldn't resist because of the guesswork re. what BdU wanted or not. Do you know the entire BdU War Log has been compiled?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2199433/UB...s-1939-to-1945


Here you'll find all orders to each and every boat during the entire campaign (RL, not UBI) day-by-day.



Enjoy. It's only some 2500 pages...

Note it can be downloaded in PDF, Word and plain text.

[Placoderm]

Originally Posted by John Channing

Then you had better read some more.

During the Norwegian campaign Sub commanders were specifically ordered to concentrate on Naval vessels and, if necessary, to ignore merchant shipping.

As I said in aother thread, given the Doenitz knew exactly how much tonnage he had to sink on a monthly basis to bring England to surrender, and given that he had around 40 operational U-Boats, do you really think he told the commanders just to go out to Grid X and see what you can find? Do you think his orders to Prien was to drop by Scapa Flow and have a quick look see?

Of course they had mission requirements.

JCC

John, with all due respect, you and others keep bringing up this "Norwegian Campaign" as justification for SH5's myopic attention towards capitol ships...but in reality the 'campaign' was barely a footnote in the overall u-boat war both because of it's utter failure as a strategic doctrine and moreso because it was far, far from what most uboats were tasked to do. (quite frankly because of it's very failure to be of any use in helping the war effort)

Uboats were in virtually every other case specifically ordered to avoid any and all warships unless circumstances prevented otherwise. It was just too dangerous, and the uboats were too valuable to waste on such strategicall useless targets. Doenitz was trying to strangle England by cutting off it's supplies...not by attrition of it's warships. The fact that he was forced to do so with so few submarines (fewer than 15 on station at any one time when the war broke out) meant that he could not risk any unnecessary encounters with warships...he needed to stop the flow of goods into the UK. Doenitz did not have to sink ship tonnage to win the war...he had to sink supply tonnage. The ships that carried those supplies were just a means to an end.

The raid at Scapa Flow was not so that Prien could sink The Royal Oak...but was rather designed to be a psycological blow to both the people of Britain and it's navy. It would have been just as successful and probably just as historically significant if Prein had only sunk a few destroyers or barges...because the key was not what he sunk, but the mere idea that he was able to penetrate the defenses of the port that was the pride and the core of the Royal Navy.

There just is no intellectually honest way to defend SH5 on it's historical merits. It has none.

What SH5 does have is the finest graphics ever to grace a submarine game. It has beautiful water and gorgeous 3D modeling. It is gorgeously ambient, stunningly immersive, and captivating to the imagination. It portrays in ways never before acheived a sense of being there on the high seas in a tiny metal tube with the wind and the spray in your hair and purpose in your heart to return to base victorious!

In those ways, SH5 does what it does best.

But please don't kid yourself in thinking that there is anything historical about it. The dates are wrong, the targets are incorrect, the missions and the goals are nothing but pure fantasy. SH5 is to history what Star Trek is to science...it is exciting and inspiring, but eventually you have to come home from the convention, take off the pointy ears, and come to the realization that it was all just pretend and make-believe. There is no magic soup, and submarines never 'raced' to save the Bismark...One-eyed first officers stayed in port, and submarines were sent to destroy supplies, not taskforces.

I have learned to accept SH5 for what it is...not for what I wished it was. I had wished it would be a historical simulator. I accept that it is a very beautiful game.

It is easier to accept that simple truth than it is to re-write history.

[Kapitanleutnant]

Originally Posted by jdkbph

I may be wrong

You're not wrong. The subsim staff just have battered wife syndrome and will defend SH5 to the hilt, including making excuses for its failure with disingenuous and intellectually dishonest arguments.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

This sim is dead and buried. I really wanted to enjoy it but even the mods I installed can't help it. The only kudos I can give is to the modders who tried their best.

[SteelViking]

Originally Posted by John Channing

Then you had better read some more.

During the Norwegian campaign Sub commanders were specifically ordered to concentrate on Naval vessels and, if necessary, to ignore merchant shipping.

As I said in aother thread, given the Doenitz knew exactly how much tonnage he had to sink on a monthly basis to bring England to surrender, and given that he had around 40 operational U-Boats, do you really think he told the commanders just to go out to Grid X and see what you can find? Do you think his orders to Prien was to drop by Scapa Flow and have a quick look see?

Of course they had mission requirements.

JCC

I have to side with jdkbph on this one John. My research/reading does not point to specific missions being assigned very often if at all. Mostly it was assignments to a specific patrol grid. Of course, those patrol areas were not just random, they would be in major shipping lanes. And, as you stated sometimes they were assigned to combat warships.

So, I suppose what would be the most realistic would be a sort of mix of the two systems. Perhaps they(bdu) could give you a strategically placed patrol grid, and give you instructions on whether you are to concentrate on merchants or warships(and it could get a bit more specific).

However, the idea of being assigned to sink 2 battle ships here, sink 1 aircraft carrier there, now sink 100,000 of shipping in this other place, is not realistic by any means.

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

You're not wrong. The subsim staff just have battered wife syndrome and will defend SH5 to the hilt, including making excuses for its failure with disingenuous and intellectually dishonest arguments.

Statements like this are absolutely not called for. This does not help anyone's case. John, who puts his time and effort into making this a better place for all of us to communicate especially does not deserve to be insulted like this. His research could very well support exactly what he is saying, mine does not, but that does not make either of us disingenuous.