Carriers/dynamic campaign

[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

[Banquet]

I had the battle of Coral Sea happen in one of my patrols yesterday.. and my orders sent me to patrol hundreds of miles away! I was so tempted to say stuff the orders and head for the battle area and try and get some carriers.. but I'm trying to play on 100% realism and I guess that means obeying orders too.. So far playing like this I haven't seen a carrier, much less sunk one!

It is a shame in a way that ships re-spawn, at least until the point they were sunk.. but the rate at which some people are sinking ships, would some then moan if there was nothing left to sink after their 4th patrol?

I don't know how many combat ships are sailing around during the campaign. Maybe there are too many? In the war they were in port longer than they were at sea.. is this modelled in SH4? Maybe the Carrier TF's should have more ASW escorts? I think one answer would be to reduce the chances of seeing a carrier.. reduce the intel from messages.. if you can't find a carrier, you can't sink one and, if you do find one, it will be the highlight of your career rather than 'oh another carrier, suppose I better sink it'

[JFL1]

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the concept of "dynamic campaign" take into account the fact that a carrier or any other capital ship is indeed sunk?

If I have no direct impact on the conflict around me, how can I call this a dynamic campaign? I understand that we cannot alter history. So we should not call this a "dynamic campaign" but more a "somewhat reanacted campaign".

Would have been good to have an option whereby you could choose to stick to history or to have a real impact on it.

[Seeadler]

Originally Posted by JFL1

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the concept of "dynamic campaign" take into account the fact that a carrier or any other capital ship is indeed sunk?

Yes, f.e. Falcon 3.0 introduced a real dynamic campaign where the success of each individual employment affected the situation for the following employment.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is a feature

[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)...

[nimitstexan]

Originally Posted by Seeadler

Yes, f.e. Falcon 3.0 introduced a real dynamic campaign where the success of each individual employment affected the situation for the following employment.

The Falcon campaign is the completely wrong model for any WWII, simply for the fact that no single WWII sub (or plane) would be able to affect the outcome of campaigns to the extent possible in the Falcon series. Falcon is great for simulating a short, high intensity modern war, but it has little bearing on how a WWII career should play out.

That said, it would be nice if the game tracked specific ships, though the fact that we are missing several class of IJN CVs and CVLs (Hosho, Akagi, Kaga, Shoho, Junyo, Ryujo, Ryuho, Unryu, and Shinano) means that the Hiryu and Shokaku are going to have to stand in for other ships as well.

However, it is true that the stock campaign, for gameplay purposes, generates a much more target-rich environment than would have been found in rea life. Seeing an enemy carrier was for most sub commanders a once-in-a-lifetime shot. If the campaign files are modded to present a realistic number of task forces (a project that I am sure will be soon undertaken, if it has not been already), the chances of running into inordinate numbers of Hiryus would be greatly reduced, simply because you would not be seeing that many carriers at all.