My 2 cents.

Julhelm · 06-25-12, 05:29 PM

I dunno, I have SH4 and played it extensively, but the gameplay is little more than randomly generated intercepts and approaches, and there is no larger goal in the campaign except "survive this encounter". If this online game has a global campaign that can be influenced by player action that's a massive improvement IMO. Something like Pirates! where yes it is dynamic but there's still a big picture to fill in as you go.

Megla · 06-26-12, 06:13 PM

Personally id love to see them do what starshatter did.

Basically both sides have a finite amount of ships. Each ship destroyed is gone for good. With AI engagements happening and so on.

Basically turn the whole thing in to a "What if" scenario. That would also mean that crippling an assault fleet would give your guys a bigger chance to win and so on.

But i just dont see it working at all as a MMO.

Julhelm · 06-27-12, 03:50 PM

Maybe it isn't an MMO MMO.

Sailor Steve · 06-27-12, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julhelm

I dunno, I have SH4 and played it extensively, but the gameplay is little more than randomly generated intercepts and approaches, and there is no larger goal in the campaign except "survive this encounter".

Just like real life, which is the point of a 'sim'.

Quote:

If this online game has a global campaign that can be influenced by player action that's a massive improvement IMO.

And that's exactly what will keep me away from it. Less 'sim' and more 'game'. Thanks but no thanks.

Julhelm · 06-28-12, 05:31 AM

I don't see how completely ignoring player actions in the campaign is "just like real life". For instance, it is possible to sneak into Tokyo Bay early in 1942 and sinking a whole lot of battleships and carriers and if this had been done IRL such an action would have massively impacted future events like Midway or Coral Sea, but all that happens in SH4 is another Yamato or Akagi is randomly spawned later as if they come off a never-ending supplyline. Is that really more true to real life? At the end of the day I don't really care much for "realism" if it negatively impacts the fun factor by turning the game into a meaningless grind. Sure you can spend hours sneaking into this or that harbor and doing all kinds of daredevil, beat-the-odds attacks or sink 15 Yamatos but the only noticeable impact it has on the game is your personal tonnage.

This is why I've always preferred the dynamic campaign as it was done in Red Storm Rising where you can readily lose the war if you are not careful and events can be unpredictable. Strike Fighters does this too and its campaigns have lot more replayability than SH4.

Sailor Steve · 06-28-12, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julhelm

I don't see how completely ignoring player actions in the campaign is "just like real life". For instance, it is possible to sneak into Tokyo Bay early in 1942 and sinking a whole lot of battleships and carriers and if this had been done IRL such an action would have massively impacted future events like Midway or Coral Sea, but all that happens in SH4 is another Yamato or Akagi is randomly spawned later as if they come off a never-ending supplyline. Is that really more true to real life?

That's a good point, and true. I would counter-argue that sneaking into Tokyo bay is as unrealstic as you can get, being impossible. I do agree that ships should not respawn. Supposedly that was fixed in SH5.

Quote:

At the end of the day I don't really care much for "realism" if it negatively impacts the fun factor by turning the game into a meaningless grind. Sure you can spend hours sneaking into this or that harbor and doing all kinds of daredevil, beat-the-odds attacks or sink 15 Yamatos but the only noticeable impact it has on the game is your personal tonnage.

I guess I've been playing subsims so long that the "meaningless grind" is what appeals to me. Unfortunately the only raid on a major naval base was Prien's expedition to Scapa Flow, and that required prior planning at the highest levels. That you can sneak into a base that has battleships and carriers at all is something I find most annoying in these games. It wasn't done because it couldn't be done.

Quote:

This is why I've always preferred the dynamic campaign as it was done in Red Storm Rising where you can readily lose the war if you are not careful and events can be unpredictable. Strike Fighters does this too and its campaigns have lot more replayability than SH4.

As I've said elsewhere, in LucasArts' Their Finest Hour: The Battle Of Britain you could play the German side and actually end up with a successful invasion. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened that way, but replayability? I did it twice and ended up bored. For me a campaign like AOD/SH3/SH4 is just about perfect.

Julhelm · 06-28-12, 10:19 AM

Actually the Barb and the Tirante both infiltrated heavily defended enemy anchorages at night and wreaked havoc among the anchored Japanese convoys there, so doing so was certainly possible. That it wasn't done a lot probably has more to do with the subs primary mission being interdicting commercial shipping.

It's too easy to do so in SH4, but this is much due to the AI and the fact the game is obviously designed around approaches only. But the point remains that if someone should have the guts to try (and succeed) such a strike should have a major impact on how the rest of the campaign plays out.

Sailor Steve · 06-28-12, 10:27 AM

Attacking a harbor, even one "heavily defended" by several patrol boats, is not the same as slipping undetected into the enemy's primary naval base. This is not to demean Fluckey's or Street's accomplishments. They were heroes of the first order and did take on long odds and win, and fully deserved their decorations. But there was a reason no one ever attempted to attack Tokyo.

Takeda Shingen · 07-03-12, 04:35 PM

Having come off a year-long stint in an MMO, I cannot say that I am terribly excited. MMOs tent to attract a type of gamer that is, shall we say, different than the simulation enthusiast. MMOs are all about who you play with, and I cannot say that I enjoyed my previous company in this vein. Take the worst troll, flamers and grognards in the history of SubSim and multiply that by 100. This is what you get.

I could be proven wrong.

06-28-12, 10:27 AM	#8
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Attacking a harbor, even one "heavily defended" by several patrol boats, is not the same as slipping undetected into the enemy's primary naval base. This is not to demean Fluckey's or Street's accomplishments. They were heroes of the first order and did take on long odds and win, and fully deserved their decorations. But there was a reason no one ever attempted to attack Tokyo. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

06-25-12, 05:29 PM	#1
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	I dunno, I have SH4 and played it extensively, but the gameplay is little more than randomly generated intercepts and approaches, and there is no larger goal in the campaign except "survive this encounter". If this online game has a global campaign that can be influenced by player action that's a massive improvement IMO. Something like Pirates! where yes it is dynamic but there's still a big picture to fill in as you go.

06-26-12, 06:13 PM	#2
Megla Nub Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 2 Downloads: 46 Uploads: 0	Personally id love to see them do what starshatter did. Basically both sides have a finite amount of ships. Each ship destroyed is gone for good. With AI engagements happening and so on. Basically turn the whole thing in to a "What if" scenario. That would also mean that crippling an assault fleet would give your guys a bigger chance to win and so on. But i just dont see it working at all as a MMO.

06-27-12, 03:50 PM	#3
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	Maybe it isn't an MMO MMO.

06-28-12, 05:31 AM	#5
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	I don't see how completely ignoring player actions in the campaign is "just like real life". For instance, it is possible to sneak into Tokyo Bay early in 1942 and sinking a whole lot of battleships and carriers and if this had been done IRL such an action would have massively impacted future events like Midway or Coral Sea, but all that happens in SH4 is another Yamato or Akagi is randomly spawned later as if they come off a never-ending supplyline. Is that really more true to real life? At the end of the day I don't really care much for "realism" if it negatively impacts the fun factor by turning the game into a meaningless grind. Sure you can spend hours sneaking into this or that harbor and doing all kinds of daredevil, beat-the-odds attacks or sink 15 Yamatos but the only noticeable impact it has on the game is your personal tonnage. This is why I've always preferred the dynamic campaign as it was done in Red Storm Rising where you can readily lose the war if you are not careful and events can be unpredictable. Strike Fighters does this too and its campaigns have lot more replayability than SH4.

06-28-12, 10:19 AM	#7
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	Actually the Barb and the Tirante both infiltrated heavily defended enemy anchorages at night and wreaked havoc among the anchored Japanese convoys there, so doing so was certainly possible. That it wasn't done a lot probably has more to do with the subs primary mission being interdicting commercial shipping. It's too easy to do so in SH4, but this is much due to the AI and the fact the game is obviously designed around approaches only. But the point remains that if someone should have the guts to try (and succeed) such a strike should have a major impact on how the rest of the campaign plays out.

07-03-12, 04:35 PM	#9
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	Having come off a year-long stint in an MMO, I cannot say that I am terribly excited. MMOs tent to attract a type of gamer that is, shall we say, different than the simulation enthusiast. MMOs are all about who you play with, and I cannot say that I enjoyed my previous company in this vein. Take the worst troll, flamers and grognards in the history of SubSim and multiply that by 100. This is what you get. I could be proven wrong.