Carriers/dynamic campaign

[oche]

Now i know that there are limitations to the game engine and i don't to whine about the dynamic campaign found in SH3 and SH4 because at this moment it is perfect for me as it is (I hate linear campaigns just like the one found in SH2 nevertheless thankfully the modding community took care of that), and I know how dissapointing it is to see those carriers appearing again and again after being sunk or even other Battleships, i wonder if someone out there is taking into account the thousands of G4M bettys and other planes roaming the skies of the pacific in SH4?, so this basically calls attention proving that the dynamic campaign is no different than the one found in the original Silent Hunter a decade ago and not much superior to the one found in Silent Service II which is even older. I don't know if it's too much to ask to see in the near future a WW2 dynamic campaign either made by the dev team or modding community implying that if you sink or destroy something it wouldn't appear again in your patrols or missions, but i guess we have to conform with what we have so far.

[joea]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

This isn't real life. Play more and you will come to enjoy the Dynamic Campaign for what it is

You don't know who you're posting too? Look at the location.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by joea

You don't know who you're posting too? Look at the location.

:rotfl: "Play more" he says!

[JFL1]

This "dynamic" concept is interesting me. Please, do not think that I try to bash the game. I leave that to others... Besides, I would not title this thread "Huge Bug". It is misleading...

I played Falcon 3.0 back in its time and, although not perfect, it was truly dynamic. A successful raid on an airbase, for instance, prevented foes from starting from there for a few weeks... Destroying munitions and fuel dump had visible impacts on the evolution of the campaign. Loosing planes or not achieving your mission had its toll too...

Anyway, I am wondering which part of the SH4 campaign can be assessed as truly dynamic. It seems that the tonnage I sink (merchant or war) has no impact whatsoever on the war. Japan will still invade Borneo on the set date, will still loose at Iwo Jima as expected, etc. That's a given. So, what is dynamic?

The mission objectives I receive seems more randomized than dynamic, since I can receive the same one twice in a row, sometimes three times out of six (incredible the number of spys I infiltrated and pictures of Japan I took!), so did SH3. Planes seem to follow scripted routes, ships too, just like SH3. Harbours are available and lost according to the scripted "historicaly accurate" dates, or so it seems ( I am no expert), as in SH3.

So, I am asking anyone in the know: what makes this campaign "dynamic"? It seems to be a big plus in the reviews I read and, of course, one of the focal point of the marketing campaign. I just cannot see distinctly in what the mechanics of this campaign are radically different from the ones in SH3, since they are both based on a historical conflict and leave almost no place for digression.

Thank you in advance for your answers (and, please, no "the game sucks", "Ubi lied", "SH4 is much better than SH3", "Ubi rocks", etc. - does not help)...

[tater]

There is certainly a point to be made that "dynamic" in reference to a campaign implies that the course of the war will change depending on player actions, at least in his area of operations. Random convoys, etc is NOT a dynamic campaign, it would be better described as "campaigns with randomized encounters!" So you are right, JFL1, this game has no dynamic campaign that I can see.

It would be very cool if there could be a masted ship list for the campaign generator with each class of ships given a number next to it, and the random encounters are each drawn from that list. Note that to the player it doesn't matter if the whole game world (pacific theater) has too many of any particular type at sea at that moment since the player will only see a small number of contacts where he happens to be. What is important is that the likelyhood of seeing X, Y, or Z declines if they are sunk.

From a modding standpoint, I have no idea how the scripting layers work. I have been looking at the mission editor though, and it shows promise. Seems to me that the random "task forces" could be seriously reduced and instead replaced with accurate groups of ships sailing on specific dates (since much of the RL data for IJN forces is available online at http://combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm as TROMs).

That would at least ake the likelyhood of all of them getting sunk lower. Having the CVs steam at a decent rate of speed using real IJN doctrine (WIDE spacing of CVs) would make attacking more than one pretty unlikely. I also think the Hiryu Class in game is far too easy to sink. 2 torpedos sinks her every time for me.

[sea enemy]

I also think the Hiryu Class in game is far too easy to sink. 2 torpedos sinks her every time for me.

Technically, Japanese carriers should be a bit on the easy sink side..Japanese damage control was about universally bad during the war, and the mobile fleet ships were avgas timebombs, generally.

The big sinking gripe I have is with Yamato class...We have plenty, plenty of historical info on this one ....A ship that took 19(mus) and 17(yam) torpedoes (though aerial) shouldn't sink with 2-4 hits, as it does in SH4

[Biggles]

The campaign is dynamic because you can go whereever you please and you don't get scripted orders(or do you? don't have the game yet)
Also, the location of the enemy is (mostly) ramdon.(again, not certain)

example:
You head for Australia, you meet a Task Force with a carrier on the way. This little meeting was not scripted for you, maybe it was supposed to be there at the given time, but the player could have been on the other side of the ocean as far as the game knows. And the game won't spawn in ships just because you're bored and haven't met anything in weeks (this is the case in SHIII,where I would often be without a single contact for 7-14 days....)

OFF TOPIC:
Another game with a good "dynamic" campaign? Combat Flight Simulator 3. I remember looking at the status of an enemy airfield, and it said: "Fighting strength: Bf-109:100%" or something like that. So when I went to the area to bomb a factory I also decided to have a go on the enemy airfield.
So I destroyed every aircraft on sight, then dropped my bombs on the factory (or vice versa, don't remember) and headed home. Then after an update I checked the enemies airfield status: "Bf-109:9%"
So I didn't destroy them all, but maybe some of them was in the sky somewhere during my attack. And the enemy air resistance was very limited in the area after my attack.....
That's what I call dynamic!

[Safe-Keeper]

I thought the developers said that when you sunk a ship, it wouldn't reappear? Wasn't that implemented, then?

Or are you talking about ship classes, not ship types? In which case I don't think there's a workaround, as the game probably cannot count how many ships you've sunk and act on it.

Compared to other campaigns, the SH III and 4 campaigns aren't really dynamic at all, in that your patrol doesn't have much of an effect. Each patrol may be dynamic, in that your objectives change when pilots go down near you, for example, and you are free to go whereever you want, but the campaign itself, with some exceptions, really isn't.

I don't know if that can be helped, seeing we're talking a histroical game where things are expected to take place in a certain fashion (people buy them and expect to see a historically correct Battle of Midway, for example). However, I don't really mind either way. I love Falcon 4.0 AF's truly dynamic campaign, where every unit and building interacts with every other unit and building (for example, if you destroy an airfield, the time it takes for it to be repaired is dependant on the enemy AI's organization, supplies, and so forth). Falcon's campaign is truly dynamic, and it's easy to get spoiled by such experiences.

If a dynamic campaign was to be added to SH4, I think it'd have to be through the use of either manual editing of files or an external application akin to SH4 Commander, which edited campaign layers, radio messages, and the like between missions depending on different parameters including your performance. Would be one Hell of a job, though, and I would sincerely pity the person or persons taking it upon themselves to launch such a massive undertaking (yes, I know of the game that lets you control the whole navy and then fight battles using SHIII. That's not really what I'm talking about).

[tommyk]

For casual players? :hmm: If you sink 10 you get a power up (faster torpedos!)? scnr

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by High Command

Well so much for being a simulation.

Well, how many sub skippers were able to sink 4 carriers? You can't slam SH4 for not being a simulation when you are not playing it like a simualtion; you are playing it as a game. Try 100% realism and see if you can sink 4 carriers

[Tat2demon]

lol how is this possible.. I have sunk Carriers that dosnt exist

If you want something EXACTLY like WWII, watch a good documentary. SH4 may be fairly historically accurate but remember this is first and formost a game/subsim. Not a step by step account of the war.

[Onkel Neal]

High Command, please don't interpret my response as criticizing you, mate. Playing SH4 as a game is perfectly fine, I'm just pointing out, with the game out a mere 3 weeks, the only way a guy could sink 4 carriers is by playing with the realism settings turned down. In that light, I contend it isn't accurate to dismiss the simulation competence of SH4.

cheers
Neal

[OddjobXL]

The main problem is that most people toss around the phrase "dynamic campaign" a bit freely. What they mean is an "unscripted campaign" in many cases. True dynamic campaigns are fairly rare and hugely complicated to pull off. I'm a big fan of games like Rowan's Battle of Britain, the best example of a dynamic campaign with a truly wargame-like strategic element, and Falcon 4 which had some very complex modelling of the interaction between air and ground assets to change the complexion of a battle. This stuff can be immersive as hell when done properly.

On the other hand you can have true dynamic campaigns along the lines of Enemy Engaged which are just so simplifed that a player can see the wires pretty easily and start pulling them himself - "Oh, let's stop tanks 'spawning' so we'll blow up the tank factory" stuff. That sort of defeats the purpose of a dynamic campaign in a sim. You shouldn't personally be winning wars but rather feel like you're immersed in a war effort involving hundreds if not thousands of other units. Having cause and effect displayed, if usually a minor effect, gives a player an incremental and cumulative sense of accomplishment.

Sometimes the most immersive campaigns aren't even dynamic at all but "randomized." The most highly praised "dynamic" campaign in recent memory wasn't one of the more complex efforts but that of Red Baron 3D. And it, like the campaigns in SH3 and SH4, was randomized to simulate the feeling of a dynamic campaign but without getting bogged down in the often technical weeds. The best way to keep a player from getting in the mindset of 'beating the war singlehanded' to experiencing a simulation is to keep the resolution of the war out of his hands. Focus on missions and the emergent properties of a good randomization effort.

It's too soon for me to judge how successful SH4 is. I need to get it to stop crashing long enough to really indulge. But from what I've experienced so far it's growing on me even over SH3 GWX. The interaction via mission reporting/assigning at sea and war updates from HQ is wonderful. Just wish they could limit FOX reports to nearby units, task forces and convoys to keep the clutter down.

[Tat2demon]

Neal,

Not to get off topic but what makes it so hard to sink carriers? I ran into a Task Force on I believe my 3rd mission. The only thing I dont have at 100% is manual targeting (Im still a bit scared of that :p), also no mods and no files have been tweaked. I was able to hit periscope depth at close range and sink two carriers, with two torpedoes each. They both went down very quickly.

I know I may have gotten very lucky but I have a hard time believing that just doing the math myself would make it that much harder to sink carriers.

Am I missing something?

Thanks

[E.Hartmann]

Game is broken take it back!!