I'm concerned about game ballance on the American side of things.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Aimbot

Sure, technology increases still aply, but America advanced quicker than Japan in that regard too. It seems to me that this would produse an inverse learning curve, which is not a good thing for a video game...

Following this logic all computer games that present things from the winning side make for poor games? History doesn't care about play-balance or steeper difficulty curves. Some of us just wish to re-live an little military history. U-Boats were fun, but since SH2 we've been doing that subject for six years now. Change of pace would be nice.

[Safe-Keeper]

Following this logic all computer games that present things from the winning side make for poor games?

No, he wrote that games that got easier as you went along make for poor gaming, which in a sense they do. On the other hand, there's some pleasure in it, too, struggling to get started and then seeing the enemy get driven back and your patrols get easier and easier.

[hyperion2206]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Following this logic all computer games that present things from the winning side make for poor games? History doesn't care about play-balance or steeper difficulty curves. Some of us just wish to re-live an little military history. U-Boats were fun, but since SH2 we've been doing that subject for six years now. Change of pace would be nice.

As Colonel David Hackworth once said:" If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.":rotfl:

[AJ!]

Well this will make for some interesting gameplay.
Besides no matter how late in the war we get, the enemy wont get any easyer.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by hyperion2206

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.":rotfl:

TRUE

[Aimbot]

Originally Posted by hyperion2206

As Colonel David Hackworth once said:" If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.":rotfl:

Sure, but he didn't fight from his Den and, should he have died in combat, he wouldn't have respawned.

[Safe-Keeper]

SH3Gen sometimes told you to go recon neutral (and enemy?) harbours. It did have this tense atmosphere, even though I knew the neutrals wouldn't hurt me. Recon missions on enemy harbours - now there's a different thing entirely.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

SH3Gen sometimes told you to go recon neutral (and enemy?) harbours. It did have this tense atmosphere, even though I knew the neutrals wouldn't hurt me. Recon missions on enemy harbours - now there's a different thing entirely.

I am glad someone noticed that it does that

I went to great lengths to get that type of "neutral port" - mission, like in "Das Boot" (supply in Vigo) or a fictional reconnaissance in swedish port.

Now there still that Gibraltar-breakthrough mission in the back of my head ..

Regarding concerns expressed in this threads: SHIV will be perfectly balanced through mods, I'm 100% sure. The interesting change is that the game will be very hard in the beginning, and getting easier later on - the exact opposite of the German U-Boat campaign. I say interesting because I prefer to play early war patrols, and they should be a real challenge for the Americans.

[Aimbot]

I just realized something else. The Gato is HUGE. I think it's about 50 feet longer than the IX. Are there any classes more in line with the VII.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Aimbot

Sure, but he didn't fight from his Den and, should he have died in combat, he wouldn't have respawned.

And

If you play dead is dead you still have the adavantage of learning every thing from your mistakes where as real skippers were well dead.:p

[hyperion2206]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

And

If you play dead is dead you still have the adavantage of learning every thing from your mistakes where as real skippers were well dead.:p

To avoid that you'll have to behave like Ensign Parker for the first 3 missions, that should do the trick.:p

[THE_MASK]

Originally Posted by Aimbot

I have to say I'm interested to try a sub sim of American exploits, as I know virtually nothing about it, but what little I do know seems to make for a poor video game.

1. American torpedos, particularly the Mark XIV, were extremely unreliable up until ~1943. There was the ocasional dud on the German side of things, but from what I have read working American torpedos were the exception rather than the rule. The most famous proof of this was the Seawolf, which launched four Mark XIVs at the stationary and anchured Sagami Maru under ideal conditions and photographically recorded a 100% rate of falure. It was only when they resorted to the Mark X that they had any success. The odd dud just makes things tense, but If I have to worry about duds to that extent that's one realism setting I'll have in the "off" position.

2. Japanese strength was greatest early in the war, and America's was weakest. That of course was inverted by the end of the war. What we have here seems to me to be an inverse learning curve. Sure, technology increases still aply, but America advanced quicker than Japan in that regard too. It seems to me that this would produse an inverse learning curve, which is not a good thing for a video game...

Like SH3 there will be boxes to check/uncheck regarding realism i am sure 100%.
I am sure there will be a box that says enable realistic torpedo failures or something so you dont have to worry . Like SH3 it will be up to you if you want arcade or 100% realism or anything in between . This is a great feature .

[THE_MASK]

Bad torpedoes

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by sober

Bad torpedoes

Dud torpedoes. :p

[Sgian Dubh]

Well, I just pre-ordered and I am really looking forward to this.

I have been waiting since the original Silent Hunter for a return to the Pacific. Ahh, the hours spent waiting near Truk for some really juicy targets, or perhaps a warship to show up. Basking in the South Pacific sun, Hula girls, submarines that were actually designed to be lived-in, Hula girls, fleet operations (please, please, please), Hula girls, and Hula girls.

The pacific has always been my preferred theater of operations.

The variability of mission tasking (if present) will really make this a great sim. If someone only wants to sink ships, and nothing else will do - then I would venture to say "Stick with SHIII.".

And, I have to admit, that it will be nice to be going about a campaign career knowing that there is a reasonable chance of making it through the entire war

I like SHIII, but it is a little depressing knowing that after a certain point you are really in for it. That you are holding off the inevitable, so to speak.

Did I mention I am looking forward to Hula girls?

I will say that I am *very* concerned about rumors that SHIV has been "dumbed down" from SHIII. But I will hope for the best....