Campaign End?

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

something that no virtual Kaleun is going to be able to do anything about.

More ship sunk = less weapons for england = you start winning the war.
While this is a really fantastic equation (like e=mc^2), adding to this a randomness factor representing other sectors, is a monumental coding task which I'm sure would take developers decades to achieve.

In the meantime we should just sit back and accept the inevitable.

[Sailor Steve]

In LucasArts' Their Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain, they had a campaign mode that did let you change the outcome, of that battle at least. I played it once, one the battle for Germany, and never played campaign mode again. It felt pretty stupid for one pilot to have that much influence.

In the SH series you can sink 10 times as much tonnage as any real kaleun ever did. That in itself is so unhistorical that it makes me cringe. Changing the outcome of the war in a game where you play a top general or admiral, sure. In one where you play a single ship captain? The only word that comes to mind is LAME.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by vanjast

More ship sunk = less weapons for england = you start winning the war.
While this is a really fantastic equation (like e=mc^2), adding to this a randomness factor representing other sectors, is a monumental coding task which I'm sure would take developers decades to achieve.

In the meantime we should just sit back and accept the inevitable.

Again, unless you are sinking 800k GRT by yourself, per month, which was the Kriegsmarine's estimate for the minimum tonnage required to make a noticable impact on the ground and air war, no notable difference will be made. As Steve pointed out, attaining anywhere near this figure is completely a-historical, not for the least reason that should you begin to approach the 200k mark, you should would be promoted to a squadron command and be spending the rest of the war as a desk jockey. Once we enter the realm of the a-historical, we stop talking about a simulation and begin talking about Super Mario Brothers. That is fine if that is what you want, but I do not believe that it should be the aim of a simulation.

[vanjast]

You're missing the point completely

The 'equations' are simple to implement in a game, it no more than about a weeks work including testing for the dev. The implementation doesn't require the 'nuking' of the sea lanes.

You efforts are simply a representation, with random factors thrown in for the big picture. In a way very much the same thing that happened in WW2.

If this type of thing is done, it would lead to a large online co-operation game with surface and submerged forces, and tactical decision making.

[E.Luden]

The thing is that a). you can never achieve any real measure of realism as you will (hopefully) not be malnourished, cold and in fear for your own life while playing this game (unless like me you have to endure the trials of my mothers cooking and hospitality... but that's another story) but my point is that if you were to say turn off limited fuel and ammo and turn on invulnerability, and embark on an Arnold Schwarzenegger style mission of "if it floats and does no say "quacK" sink it mission then a fully dynamic campaign would let you win the war

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by vanjast

If this type of thing is done, it would lead to a large online co-operation game with surface and submerged forces, and tactical decision making.

Ah, so you are only speaking hypothetically. I see. Well, I'll add that I would have absolutely zero interest in a naval WoW.

[E.Luden]

well it wouldn't be WoW, but the idea of a naval version of WW2 on-line might have some appeal, however that would require ubi to resurrect destroyer command (I didn't have a chance to complete my last post due to the afore mentioned mother demanding a chore or two be completed) however I must confess that the idea has some merit, but unfortunately for such a game to work you'd need some pretty stringent rules on realism and that alone would restrict what would be a pretty small market.

Anyway back to my previous point(s) there were, marked differences in the pacific and Atlantic theatres as well as objectives remember Hitler never REALLY wanted an extended war vs the UK and initially at least he wanted to force a peace, now you can say one captain can't make a difference and that's fine but no matter how onerous the win conditions may be I still feel that if a campaign is going to be TRULY and I quote the back of the box "fully dynamic campaign" then there should be a "win" scenario for the axis even if it is a bitter peace in the west, and as to what is and isn't realistic as a fan of and participant of living history realism can only be taken up to a certain point and then a bit of fun and reward for your effort just gets involved e.g you never heard of Capt Luth having to finish patrol early to go pick up the kids from school, or sticking patrol on pause so he can "pop out and get some milk, or help the missus in"
if you want realism quit your job, move your computer into a damp metal tube buried in the back garden stock it with bad food and move about 20/30 friends in there with you and share bunks with them and only install one small toilet... after three or four weeks living like that (just for that final fear factor) make an arrearage with some "friends" that in the event that you get depth charged in game they should toss a couple of grenades in there and flood it with freezing water so that the compilation of concussion and hypothermia can dull the pain of realising that your computer (and probably most of your friend are about to (if not already) die... unless you'r a technophilic-wizard and have managed to waterproof your computer, in which case your can just get high on the chlorine gas being given off by your cracked battery cells... now THAT is realism

[Takeda Shingen]

Simple: If billed as a simulation, then I want a simulation, and that's why I buy and play these games. That means realism. No cartoonish power-ups, no alternate history scenarios, no MMOs. You can make of fun me for it all day, but realism is what we strive for on SubSim. I love other types of games; I am a die-hard Fallout junkie, but I play simulations because I like them to realistically simulate the vehicle and environment. Many of the problems of SH5 are that they took the game in the direction that you are describing. Yes, simulations are a niche market, they have always been. And every time that developers try to water them down in an attempt to give them mass appeal, they fail, as was the case here. That's all there is to it.

[jdkbph]

I was somewhat intrigued by this discussion so I went through the campaign CFG files to see what would be required, as a minimum, to get a success (and just a success... not a MAJOR success) in every one of the sub campaigns (Drumbeat, Mare Nostrum, Western Approaches, etc).

In other words, near as I can figure, this is what the game designers intended a super successful sub captain (and we're all super successful in our own little game worlds, right?) should look like.

Here are the totals:

Warships/Combatants
11 CVs or BBs
12 CA or CL
11 DDs, FFs, or Corvettes
2 SS
3 AMC
7 AP
3 unspecified warships

This, to my mind, would represent the greater part of of a "world naval power" class battle fleet. Using approximate average displacement for these ships, the total would be around 496,000 tons.


Merchants

1,635,000 tons

In addition...

14 Tankers
5 Cargo ships carrying war materiel
5 Liberty Ships
27 generic merchants

And 3 unspecified ships (merchant or warship presumably)

Using approximate average GRT for the merchant ships called out by type, the total would be around 2,000,000 tons.

Would this (warshis/combatants + merchants sunk) be enough to affect the outcome of the war in Europe?

JD

[homsikpanda]

i'd like to point out a history changing event... what if you preventing the sinking of the bismark, and it's able to be repaired >.>; it would have had a HUGE impact on the war for the germans as it could almost singlehandedly blockade the usa-england convoy route, thus cutting england off, and with england cut off, no way for troops to reach it for the normandy invasion...... >.>

theoreticly you CAN change history in just 1 sub. i mean what if you sunk the queen mary while church hill was on it? huge moral blow to england, it loses a great leader aswell as the will to fight and surrenders to germany the following year.

just saying, they could have added in the history changing, =/

[Gargamel]

Or what about taking out Chruchill on his voyages to the US? Or taking out the troop ships landing in Norway? Or even if the Indianapolis had been sunk before delivering her cargo? There are events, influenced by a single U-boat, that would change history. There are even more if you can consider including the successes of multiple boats, like preventing resupplies to Africa or Murmansk.

Would the axis ever have won? I doubt it. With one of the major players (US) not having an active front to wage land battles, just remote ones they had to send troops to, made them pretty much immune to strategic production denial (ie, strategic bombings), and they still would have been able to produce arms in the numbers they did.

But it would be nice to see a more dynamic campaign, where capital ship losses by the RN would allow the kreigsmarine surface fleet to become a bigger part in the war. Imagine where they wouldn't have to worry about the RN sortie'ing multiple TF's to hunt one Battleship, most of the remaining capital ships would be required to do escort duty, etc etc.

But being able to program this, and do it intelligently, would be almost impossible IMO. Taking out Churchill would be such a huge game changer, in ways we can't really even imagine, that it would be impossible to model.

[homsikpanda]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

Or what about taking out Chruchill on his voyages to the US? Or taking out the troop ships landing in Norway? Or even if the Indianapolis had been sunk before delivering her cargo? There are events, influenced by a single U-boat, that would change history. There are even more if you can consider including the successes of multiple boats, like preventing resupplies to Africa or Murmansk.

Would the axis ever have won? I doubt it. With one of the major players (US) not having an active front to wage land battles, just remote ones they had to send troops to, made them pretty much immune to strategic production denial (ie, strategic bombings), and they still would have been able to produce arms in the numbers they did.

But it would be nice to see a more dynamic campaign, where capital ship losses by the RN would allow the kreigsmarine surface fleet to become a bigger part in the war. Imagine where they wouldn't have to worry about the RN sortie'ing multiple TF's to hunt one Battleship, most of the remaining capital ships would be required to do escort duty, etc etc.

But being able to program this, and do it intelligently, would be almost impossible IMO. Taking out Churchill would be such a huge game changer, in ways we can't really even imagine, that it would be impossible to model.

i beg to differ, i think if england fell then the rest of europe wouldn't be far behind, and then germany/usa would probably look to a ceasefire/ agreement to end hostilities in europe... imagine the normandy landings if all those troops/ships had to sail from new york instead of dunkirk >.> with the western front all but none existant (it would be a sea battle at the very most with america struggling to get a beachhead on solid ground) efforts can then be diverted to the eastern front and a new push into russia can commence with more troops/man power, and, (hopefully) more competent leaders... while success might not be attained in russia, the whole point of the assuilt would definately be obtained (the fuel supplies on the edge of the baltic sea )
and with that europe is won, and the advances to the heart of the russia motherland, or into northern africa can get a new boost in energy

(i play strategic games alot )