Forced retirement (merged) - Page 13

NZ_Wanderer · 05-05-07, 06:56 PM

If this had been an option in the game/Simulation right at the start when it was released, then this whole thread would never have existed, people that wanted it as real as it gets would have the option turned on, those that liked to be able to play the whole war would have it turned off...
Why oh Why, didn't they put it in?? - Or as some others have mentioned IS it a bug??? - Honestly we don't know, there has been no comment from the powers that be..

Edit: I was wrong, it has been mentioned by the powers that be (Neal)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

So did a lot of RL Skippers. I like the idea of getting cut after 5-8 patrols but I think I should be an option to continue.

mookiemookie · 05-05-07, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZ_Wanderer

Why oh Why, didn't they put it in?? - Or as some others have mentioned IS it a bug??? - Honestly we fdon't know, there has been no comment from the powers that be..

Wrong. There has been. In fact it was a coulple pages ago in this very same thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elanaiba

I understand you want not to be retired after 5 patrols. The game was never meant to be that strict. And some people are still playing after more than 5 patrols, on this forum.

Obviously they're aware of the issue.

NZ_Wanderer · 05-05-07, 08:24 PM

My appoligies, I never clicked on the link which lead me to what Neal said the first time I went through the thread, I must have missed his message saying that...

Hopefully, when the next patch is released there will be an option in the reality settings that will let us choose to play out the whole war instead of only a couple of years...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Wrong. There has been. In fact it was a coulple pages ago in this very same thread.

Beery · 05-05-07, 09:23 PM

Let me be totally frank here. I think a big problem the arcade and less hardcore crowd are running into here is that the hardcore crowd have been sidelined for so long that when a game comes along that includes a hardcore element like enforced career limits we jump to its defence as if we're defending our very civilization (which, in a way, we are). The fear I have, and I'm sure many hardcore simmers feel the same way, is that this realism feature will be taken away from us completely, and we'll be forced to create our own half-assed way of ending careers after a realistically short length of time (as we had to for SH3 until SH3 Commander came along). The non-hardcore players might be happy with removing the career patrol limitations altogether, but it will leave us hardcore folks sidelined yet again, as we have been in so many (SO MANY) so-called simulations that failed to simulate to the degree we prefer.

What's needed here are options, but sadly all too often we hear calls for this realism feature to be removed altogether. The more casual players don't want such realism and they don't really consider that there are a bunch of players who DO want this feature. If we have options we can all have what we want. So I guess this is a call to all of the more casual players out there: don't just say "This sucks!" or "why does it have to be this way?" or "Remove this ridiculous limitation". Remember that some of us prefer it this way and suggest (as some have done) that not having a limitation be an option.

NZ_Wanderer · 05-05-07, 09:36 PM

All I would like to see is an option in the realism settings to be able to turn realistic patrol lengths ON or OFF...

Nothing more, nothing less... That way everyone gets what they want..

joea · 05-06-07, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beery

Let me be totally frank here. I think a big problem the arcade and less hardcore crowd are running into here is that the hardcore crowd have been sidelined for so long that when a game comes along that includes a hardcore element like enforced career limits we jump to its defence as if we're defending our very civilization (which, in a way, we are). The fear I have, and I'm sure many hardcore simmers feel the same way, is that this realism feature will be taken away from us completely, and we'll be forced to create our own half-assed way of ending careers after a realistically short length of time (as we had to for SH3 until SH3 Commander came along). The non-hardcore players might be happy with removing the career patrol limitations altogether, but it will leave us hardcore folks sidelined yet again, as we have been in so many (SO MANY) so-called simulations that failed to simulate to the degree we prefer.

What's needed here are options, but sadly all too often we hear calls for this realism feature to be removed altogether. The more casual players don't want such realism and they don't really consider that there are a bunch of players who DO want this feature. If we have options we can all have what we want. So I guess this is a call to all of the more casual players out there: don't just say "This sucks!" or "why does it have to be this way?" or "Remove this ridiculous limitation". Remember that some of us prefer it this way and suggest (as some have done) that not having a limitation be an option.

Bears repeating:

I mean the same thing could be said with the naval and merchant traffic, as well as air attack settings, thankfully those can be tweaked.

heartc · 05-06-07, 07:16 AM

I also agree with Beery, and I want to add something. While having it as an option would be most desirable - or, frankly might well be a necessity to cater to the market forces that be - from a sole simulation aspect, you have to ask where to draw the line. Even if implementation of this specific option would probably not be much of a fuss, you can be sure that every "casual" player out there could think up at least one more option he personally would like to have to take away from the realism of this game and make it more easy / casual for him to enjoy. Thankfully, this game can be modded, and we already have mods out there which will provide your sub with ubber deck guns, ubber torps, ubber armor etc. "to duke it out for the fun of it" and so on. If it wouldn't be as modable, there surely would be people demanding to have just these things also added to the "realism settings".

The problem is that in a software as complex as a subsimulation, where you have to implement a working TDC, radar sets, detection rules / AI and the lot, you got only so much time to deal with catering it towards every possible player type out there and still make it actually working properly in all those modes, when in fact by its very nature - being a simulation - it should be clear from the onset to everybody that when he buys it, he will be dealt more realism than he would with, say,
Half Life 2.

As Beery noted, there have been a myriad of so-called simulations since many years now that totally failed to deliver the promise of living up to their name. So I share the same reservations against when I see people coming in here to blast a realism feature for not being optional. This is a simulation, or at least it attempts to and has a hard time with it anyway in some regards. The only legitimate complaints in light of what I said should then only be directed against a lack of realism, not a lack of fiction. I realize the market forces disagree, but there is also a market of opinion out there and a forum dedicated to subSIMULATIONS ought to be the place where this may be spoken out frankly. U-Boat captains mostly sailed until sunk, captured, or the end of the war. US Skippers sailed until retired from combat duty after 5-7 patrols. This is not a bug, not a nuisance, not something to complain about, it is a realism feature in a simulation. If the devs decide to make this optional, all is well, but if they don't and leave it as it is, all is well, too.

There was a time when simulations were laudated and praised the more merciless realism features they could come up with. Today, when you read popular gaming mags and most boards, you realize that they are judged by
1. Graphics
2. Accessibility
3. Performance
Realism comes as an afterthought, with many reviewers not even able to judge on this because they are totally unfamiliar with the subject and have no idea what they are talking about.
If a developer team is still trying to produce ANY serious simulation in such a market environment, harrassing them over a realism feature is surely out of place in my opinion. We have enough Novalogic-type "sims" out there. And if people just want to blow stuff up, they have an even broader spectrum to choose from.

My 0.02$.

Takeda Shingen · 05-06-07, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beery

Let me be totally frank here. I think a big problem the arcade and less hardcore crowd are running into here is that the hardcore crowd have been sidelined for so long that when a game comes along that includes a hardcore element like enforced career limits we jump to its defence as if we're defending our very civilization (which, in a way, we are). The fear I have, and I'm sure many hardcore simmers feel the same way, is that this realism feature will be taken away from us completely, and we'll be forced to create our own half-assed way of ending careers after a realistically short length of time (as we had to for SH3 until SH3 Commander came along). The non-hardcore players might be happy with removing the career patrol limitations altogether, but it will leave us hardcore folks sidelined yet again, as we have been in so many (SO MANY) so-called simulations that failed to simulate to the degree we prefer.

What's needed here are options, but sadly all too often we hear calls for this realism feature to be removed altogether. The more casual players don't want such realism and they don't really consider that there are a bunch of players who DO want this feature. If we have options we can all have what we want. So I guess this is a call to all of the more casual players out there: don't just say "This sucks!" or "why does it have to be this way?" or "Remove this ridiculous limitation". Remember that some of us prefer it this way and suggest (as some have done) that not having a limitation be an option.

Actually, with the exception of a small number of very, shall we say, vehement proponents, the vast majority of those who are having issue with the feature in this thread are calling for it to be an option.

Beery · 05-06-07, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Actually, with the exception of a small number of very, shall we say, vehement proponents, the vast majority of those who are having issue with the feature in this thread are calling for it to be an option.

That may be true, but when the issue comes up initially it's always with a sort of high-pitched whine saying "Aaargh, BUG! The game keeps retiring me! Stop it!"

That first post is likely to be the one the devs read.

Anyway, I didn't say the folks calling for a nerf were in the majority. I just said their posts came up all too often.

Having said that, it seems clear from what the devs have said that this is a bug and only 'accidentally realistic'. As such it should be fixed, but in a way that preserves the realism for those of us who want it.

Mudrik · 05-06-07, 01:18 PM

I have just had to start a new career because of involuntary mothballing (ooh matron).

I have used the latest Flavoured to taste to hopefully stop this from happening again and started my new career from Jan 1943, the year that my old career was terminated.

One thing that I was quite miffed about was the fact that I lost all of my stats by starting a new career, so I looked into the situation and found that by editing the new "CareerTrack" UPC in my game save I could continue with my old tonnage and player ranking.

It would have also be possible to keep my old crew from the previous career but it would require so much editing of "ActivePlayerUnits" that I couldn't be bothered.

Maybe a helpfull tip though for all of you that have suffered the same loss of personal kudos

NZ_Wanderer · 05-06-07, 06:00 PM

Thank you for your 0.02$ worth, but I think the statement you made below is wrong...
This is a forum for people that have bought the game/simulation called Silent Hunter 4 (and others) - and as such we have a perfect right to come in here and voice our opinions about aspects of Silent Hunter 4 that we like or dislike.
I have been around here for quite a while now, and have read and posted a lot of messages both in praise and in disagreement with Silent hunter 3, and I plan on doing the same with Silent Hunter 4.
If my disagreement with this "feature" is out of place, then I expect a Mod or Neal to move/delete it, until then please respect my right to voice my options when I say that there should be an option for those that do not wish to be forced to retire from the game/simulation.
Notice, I am referring to SH4 as a "game/simulation", I am doing so, because IMHO it is both a game and a simulation, I treat it more as a game than a simulation (although I do try to play certain aspects as a simulation) whereas others treat it as a pure simulation..
Best regards and good hunting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartc

If a developer team is still trying to produce ANY serious simulation in such a market environment, harrassing them over a realism feature is surely out of place in my opinion. We have enough Novalogic-type "sims" out there. My 0.02$.

marky · 05-07-07, 12:12 AM

totally

this game is a disgrace, which is ironic cuz ive been a pretty damn good defender of thios piece of garbage

vindex · 05-07-07, 04:00 AM

Most of the discussion here revolves around giving people a choice between unlimited patrols and a realistic career. Yes, I agree the option should be implemented. But the "retirement" screens also need to be fixed. As it is now, it says your class sub is being retired (even if it isn't) and you're a big failure (even if you clearly are not). What a "realistic" option should do is give you a reasonable assessment of your career. If you really sucked, they should cashier you after 3 patrols and tell you "you suck". If you won the Congressional Medal of Honor (or whatever they're calling it), they should give you 7-8 patrols and then ship you back stateside to be a big hero. In between, you should get 5-6 patrols and then get a promotion to a staff job. It might also be nice if you could use your accumulated renown to beg your way back into a boat command that begins a year or two later, bringing your prior career stats with you (minus the renown you spent -- you're taking a risk). If it were designed this way, I might actually pick the realism option.

I cannot imagine that any of this would be too difficult to code. I remember playing games back in the late 1980s that gave you these kinds of assessments/options at the end. It's just a bunch of "IF THEN" directions.

FooFighters · 05-07-07, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vindex

Most of the discussion here revolves around giving people a choice between unlimited patrols and a realistic career. Yes, I agree the option should be implemented. But the "retirement" screens also need to be fixed. As it is now, it says your class sub is being retired (even if it isn't) and you're a big failure (even if you clearly are not). What a "realistic" option should do is give you a reasonable assessment of your career. If you really sucked, they should cashier you after 3 patrols and tell you "you suck". If you won the Congressional Medal of Honor (or whatever they're calling it), they should give you 7-8 patrols and then ship you back stateside to be a big hero. In between, you should get 5-6 patrols and then get a promotion to a staff job. It might also be nice if you could use your accumulated renown to beg your way back into a boat command that begins a year or two later, bringing your prior career stats with you (minus the renown you spent -- you're taking a risk). If it were designed this way, I might actually pick the realism option.

I cannot imagine that any of this would be too difficult to code. I remember playing games back in the late 1980s that gave you these kinds of assessments/options at the end. It's just a bunch of "IF THEN" directions.

If this would be possible.. I'll go for realism

Torpex752 · 05-07-07, 05:51 AM

The Only thing thats an issue for me is crew experience. All WWII sub CO's did only 4-5 patrols as CO, (a few did more after a break) however they did another 2-3 as XO and who knows how many as a Junior Officer? Same thing with the crew, at least 50% were seasoned vets. So ending the career after 5-6 patrols makes sense because by that 5th patrol you probably have been at sea for 10+. I just dont like that it takes 3-4 patrols to get a tough experienced crew.

Just a comment.

Frank

05-05-07, 09:23 PM	#184
Beery Admiral Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA (but still a Yorkshireman at heart - tha can allus tell a Yorkshireman...) Posts: 2,497 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Let me be totally frank here. I think a big problem the arcade and less hardcore crowd are running into here is that the hardcore crowd have been sidelined for so long that when a game comes along that includes a hardcore element like enforced career limits we jump to its defence as if we're defending our very civilization (which, in a way, we are). The fear I have, and I'm sure many hardcore simmers feel the same way, is that this realism feature will be taken away from us completely, and we'll be forced to create our own half-assed way of ending careers after a realistically short length of time (as we had to for SH3 until SH3 Commander came along). The non-hardcore players might be happy with removing the career patrol limitations altogether, but it will leave us hardcore folks sidelined yet again, as we have been in so many (SO MANY) so-called simulations that failed to simulate to the degree we prefer. What's needed here are options, but sadly all too often we hear calls for this realism feature to be removed altogether. The more casual players don't want such realism and they don't really consider that there are a bunch of players who DO want this feature. If we have options we can all have what we want. So I guess this is a call to all of the more casual players out there: don't just say "This sucks!" or "why does it have to be this way?" or "Remove this ridiculous limitation". Remember that some of us prefer it this way and suggest (as some have done) that not having a limitation be an option. __________________ "More mysterious. Yeah. I'll just try to think, 'Where the hell's the whiskey?'" - Bob Harris, Lost in Translation. "Anyrooad up, ah'll si thi" - Missen.

05-05-07, 09:36 PM	#185
NZ_Wanderer Machinist's Mate Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Posts: 127 Downloads: 65 Uploads: 0	All I would like to see is an option in the realism settings to be able to turn realistic patrol lengths ON or OFF... Nothing more, nothing less... That way everyone gets what they want..

05-06-07, 07:16 AM	#187
heartc Samurai Navy Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Munich Posts: 562 Downloads: 71 Uploads: 0	I also agree with Beery, and I want to add something. While having it as an option would be most desirable - or, frankly might well be a necessity to cater to the market forces that be - from a sole simulation aspect, you have to ask where to draw the line. Even if implementation of this specific option would probably not be much of a fuss, you can be sure that every "casual" player out there could think up at least one more option he personally would like to have to take away from the realism of this game and make it more easy / casual for him to enjoy. Thankfully, this game can be modded, and we already have mods out there which will provide your sub with ubber deck guns, ubber torps, ubber armor etc. "to duke it out for the fun of it" and so on. If it wouldn't be as modable, there surely would be people demanding to have just these things also added to the "realism settings". The problem is that in a software as complex as a subsimulation, where you have to implement a working TDC, radar sets, detection rules / AI and the lot, you got only so much time to deal with catering it towards every possible player type out there and still make it actually working properly in all those modes, when in fact by its very nature - being a simulation - it should be clear from the onset to everybody that when he buys it, he will be dealt more realism than he would with, say, Half Life 2. As Beery noted, there have been a myriad of so-called simulations since many years now that totally failed to deliver the promise of living up to their name. So I share the same reservations against when I see people coming in here to blast a realism feature for not being optional. This is a simulation, or at least it attempts to and has a hard time with it anyway in some regards. The only legitimate complaints in light of what I said should then only be directed against a lack of realism, not a lack of fiction. I realize the market forces disagree, but there is also a market of opinion out there and a forum dedicated to subSIMULATIONS ought to be the place where this may be spoken out frankly. U-Boat captains mostly sailed until sunk, captured, or the end of the war. US Skippers sailed until retired from combat duty after 5-7 patrols. This is not a bug, not a nuisance, not something to complain about, it is a realism feature in a simulation. If the devs decide to make this optional, all is well, but if they don't and leave it as it is, all is well, too. There was a time when simulations were laudated and praised the more merciless realism features they could come up with. Today, when you read popular gaming mags and most boards, you realize that they are judged by 1. Graphics 2. Accessibility 3. Performance Realism comes as an afterthought, with many reviewers not even able to judge on this because they are totally unfamiliar with the subject and have no idea what they are talking about. If a developer team is still trying to produce ANY serious simulation in such a market environment, harrassing them over a realism feature is surely out of place in my opinion. We have enough Novalogic-type "sims" out there. And if people just want to blow stuff up, they have an even broader spectrum to choose from. My 0.02$.

05-06-07, 01:18 PM	#190
Mudrik Gunner Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: passing thermal layer, silent running Posts: 94 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I have just had to start a new career because of involuntary mothballing (ooh matron). I have used the latest Flavoured to taste to hopefully stop this from happening again and started my new career from Jan 1943, the year that my old career was terminated. One thing that I was quite miffed about was the fact that I lost all of my stats by starting a new career, so I looked into the situation and found that by editing the new "CareerTrack" UPC in my game save I could continue with my old tonnage and player ranking. It would have also be possible to keep my old crew from the previous career but it would require so much editing of "ActivePlayerUnits" that I couldn't be bothered. Maybe a helpfull tip though for all of you that have suffered the same loss of personal kudos

05-07-07, 04:00 AM	#193
vindex Planesman Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 192 Downloads: 17 Uploads: 0	Most of the discussion here revolves around giving people a choice between unlimited patrols and a realistic career. Yes, I agree the option should be implemented. But the "retirement" screens also need to be fixed. As it is now, it says your class sub is being retired (even if it isn't) and you're a big failure (even if you clearly are not). What a "realistic" option should do is give you a reasonable assessment of your career. If you really sucked, they should cashier you after 3 patrols and tell you "you suck". If you won the Congressional Medal of Honor (or whatever they're calling it), they should give you 7-8 patrols and then ship you back stateside to be a big hero. In between, you should get 5-6 patrols and then get a promotion to a staff job. It might also be nice if you could use your accumulated renown to beg your way back into a boat command that begins a year or two later, bringing your prior career stats with you (minus the renown you spent -- you're taking a risk). If it were designed this way, I might actually pick the realism option. I cannot imagine that any of this would be too difficult to code. I remember playing games back in the late 1980s that gave you these kinds of assessments/options at the end. It's just a bunch of "IF THEN" directions.

05-07-07, 05:51 AM	#195
Torpex752 Lieutenant Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Deep River, CT Posts: 255 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	The Only thing thats an issue for me is crew experience. All WWII sub CO's did only 4-5 patrols as CO, (a few did more after a break) however they did another 2-3 as XO and who knows how many as a Junior Officer? Same thing with the crew, at least 50% were seasoned vets. So ending the career after 5-6 patrols makes sense because by that 5th patrol you probably have been at sea for 10+. I just dont like that it takes 3-4 patrols to get a tough experienced crew. Just a comment. Frank