Campaign ends 1943 ?

gambla · 12-04-11, 07:50 AM

Hi,
just a simple question: Why does the campaign end 1943 ? Did Ubisoft say anything about the reasons ?

cheers,
gam

Kapitanleutnant · 12-04-11, 08:20 AM

Their justification is that it's pointless to play any later than 1943 as it became too difficult to survive. Basically it's more pandering to the mass market casual subsim audience that doesn't exist.

Sirkam · 12-04-11, 09:19 AM

And Ubisoft got a good reason to do that... try to evade the spikes of the escort ships at the end of the war and the ASDIC is almost unavoidable.

gambla · 12-04-11, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirkam

And Ubisoft got a good reason to do that... try to evade the spikes of the escort ships at the end of the war and the ASDIC is almost unavoidable.

Thanks guys,

for sure it was hard in these late years, but it's a fact that surviving was not impossible. And as in SH3, i found it a great challenge and very exciting to try to stay alive. I enjoyed this realism much more than others going for new tonnage records. And we shouldn't forget, that we players today are fully aware of the radar threat. I think it was a bad decision.

Commander Mysenses · 12-04-11, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gambla

i found it a great challenge and very exciting to try to stay alive. I enjoyed this realism much more than others going for new tonnage records.

I recommend Open Horizons II for a full and varied career from '39 - '45.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=189818

Sailor Steve · 12-04-11, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

Basically it's more pandering to the mass market casual subsim audience that doesn't exist.

Well said!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirkam

And Ubisoft got a good reason to do that... try to evade the spikes of the escort ships at the end of the war and the ASDIC is almost unavoidable.

True, but shouldn't that be the players choice to make? Once again they take the road of forcing you to play the way they think you should.

gambla · 12-04-11, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

True, but shouldn't that be the players choice to make? Once again they take the road of forcing you to play the way they think you should.

That's what i have to conclude. It's called a Sim and it worked in SH3, so why do they do this to us players ?

And thanks for the recommendation of OH II. I'm happy to have read about it already.

Sirkam · 12-05-11, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

True, but shouldn't that be the players choice to make? Once again they take the road of forcing you to play the way they think you should.

Yes, of course, but surviving in SH3 with GWX 3.0 is... painfull

. Its to difficult to obtain a good firing solution due to the elite escorts.
And i think that Ubisoft run out of funds to continue the war

.

Sailor Steve · 12-05-11, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirkam

Yes, of course, but surviving in SH3 with GWX 3.0 is... painfull

. Its to difficult to obtain a good firing solution due to the elite escorts.

True, but nobody makes you play in the later years. That's your choice. While I still feel that way I was wrong about that option being available for SH5.

Quote:

And i think that Ubisoft run out of funds to continue the war

.

Elanaiba, who was the main guy behind the whole thing, just explained the real reason a couple of posts above. I think we can take his word for it.

Hinrich Schwab · 12-04-11, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

Their justification is that it's pointless to play any later than 1943 as it became too difficult to survive. Basically it's more pandering to the mass market casual subsim audience that doesn't exist.

To put this a bit more bluntly, the execs at Ubisoft just do not care about the simulation market and tried to push a nerfed product hoping to make up for the fact that sub sims are a niche market in the world of gaming. All they did was alienate the very community that gave them the money to develop III, 4 and 5 to begin with.

elanaiba · 12-04-11, 03:32 PM

You're making too many assumptions.

The execs at Ubi had nothing to do with the campaign ending in '43. The dev team decided it and for no evil reason other than to focus on the first part of the game and deliver a superior experience depicting it. We felt that 43' - '45 requires a lot of attention from us to do properly, esp. in the context of the dynamic campaign.

Now you will say we have failed - maybe - but don't assume evil intentions behind it.

Sailor Steve · 12-04-11, 03:36 PM

Thanks, Dan. There's nothing like a word from someone who knows the whole story.

Hinrich Schwab · 12-04-11, 04:19 PM

It looks like I cannot say anything without putting my damn foot in my mouth. I think I will go back to lurking, since I am obviously not doing any good.

Sirkam · 12-05-11, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elanaiba

You're making too many assumptions.

The execs at Ubi had nothing to do with the campaign ending in '43. The dev team decided it and for no evil reason other than to focus on the first part of the game and deliver a superior experience depicting it. We felt that 43' - '45 requires a lot of attention from us to do properly, esp. in the context of the dynamic campaign.

Now you will say we have failed - maybe - but don't assume evil intentions behind it.

I thought that Ubi cut off the funds to continue the game... now i know it for sure, thanks elanaiba

.

Shiplord · 12-04-11, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gambla

Hi,
just a simple question: Why does the campaign end 1943 ?

The invested money went out, plain and simple!

If Ubisoft had not produced the game in Eastern Europe, the campaign would end in 1941

12-04-11, 07:50 AM	#1
gambla Gunner Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Frankfurt, Germany Posts: 97 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	Campaign ends 1943 ? Hi, just a simple question: Why does the campaign end 1943 ? Did Ubisoft say anything about the reasons ? cheers, gam

12-04-11, 08:20 AM	#2
Kapitanleutnant Frogman Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 305 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	Their justification is that it's pointless to play any later than 1943 as it became too difficult to survive. Basically it's more pandering to the mass market casual subsim audience that doesn't exist. __________________ Oh worse than Hitler! You wouldn't find Hitler playing jungle music at three o'clock in the morning!

12-04-11, 09:19 AM	#3
Sirkam Frogman Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Spain Posts: 289 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	And Ubisoft got a good reason to do that... try to evade the spikes of the escort ships at the end of the war and the ASDIC is almost unavoidable. __________________

12-04-11, 03:32 PM	#11
elanaiba Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 1,058 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 3	You're making too many assumptions. The execs at Ubi had nothing to do with the campaign ending in '43. The dev team decided it and for no evil reason other than to focus on the first part of the game and deliver a superior experience depicting it. We felt that 43' - '45 requires a lot of attention from us to do properly, esp. in the context of the dynamic campaign. Now you will say we have failed - maybe - but don't assume evil intentions behind it. __________________ With strength I burn... Last edited by elanaiba; 12-04-11 at 05:16 PM.

12-04-11, 03:36 PM	#12
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Thanks, Dan. There's nothing like a word from someone who knows the whole story. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

12-04-11, 04:19 PM	#13
Hinrich Schwab Grey Wolf Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 908 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 0	It looks like I cannot say anything without putting my damn foot in my mouth. I think I will go back to lurking, since I am obviously not doing any good.