US, Japan and German Sim.

[Marhkimov]

If only SH3 were more moddable......... *sigh*

[Harry Buttle]

Originally Posted by VonHelsching

There is a lot of room for development for the Jap subs, if the Devs decided that the war could not end in 1945 and the player was given the power to change the outcome of history.

The only credible change to history is Japan losing faster.

The Japs built a heap of white elephants, used them badly and wound up wasting most of their subs on futile resupply (of island bases) missions.

By 1945 they were, for all intents and purposes, completely out of fuel.

Now would be a good time to drop the idea that playing a Jap sub in any vaguely realistic fashion would be fun.

I'd rather see them concentrate on getting the US boats right and leave the options open for Modders to do the Brits and Dutch.

[giganoni]

Well, I see a Japanese sub sim as very viable and very challenging. There are plenty of chances to make such a sim "fun". Japanese subs were off hawaiian waters even before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Due to conflicting orders and probably some hesitation being deep in enemy water they did not do a whole lot. However, a player could certainly rectify that and perhaps do more than just damage the Sara. Many were off the West Coast as well and while historically they did little (Carl Boyd attributes to the Submariners considering it a leisure patrol) a player could certainly have some fun patrolling the West Coast.

There is the Dutch East Indies early in the war and the Japanese had great success in the Indian Ocean until late 43-44. There was no real BDU in the Japanese Navy which is why many times after the war went bad for reasons sub captains could not control, they had to supply or evacuate troops. However, most subs did this as an ad hoc mission. Supplying a garrison one mission, going on patrol for another. Not all Japanese subs did this either, but SHIV developers could create a new mission where the sub commander has to travel from port a to port b and gain renown for delievering supplies. Not only would it be challenging with the US ASW, but there is nothing to stop the player from firing on targets of opprotunity.

Then later in the war intrepid submariners would have to try and damage the invasion fleets as they got closer to Japan.

As for single missions, why any sub fan wouldn't want to try their hand at sinking the Yorktown in the I-168 is beyond me.

I know SHIV will probably be US subs, but it would have been nice to have gone the road no one has traveled (except modders) instead of the well worn and easy road of the US PTO sub.

[Harry Buttle]

Originally Posted by giganoni

they had to supply or evacuate troops. However, most subs did this as an ad hoc mission.

No, it was an assigned mission and pretty much became their primary role.

Originally Posted by giganoni

Supplying a garrison one mission, going on patrol for another. Not all Japanese subs did this either, but SHIV developers could create a new mission where the sub commander has to travel from port a to port b and gain renown for delievering supplies.

Ah yes, what a hoot, a transit mission - I just can't see many players really enjoying that.

Originally Posted by giganoni

Not only would it be challenging with the US ASW, but there is nothing to stop the player from firing on targets of opprotunity.

Except for the Japanese doctrine that pretty much precluded it. and the fact that most supply missions were conducted without torpedoes, to increase the available cargo space.

Originally Posted by giganoni

Then later in the war intrepid submariners would have to try and damage the invasion fleets as they got closer to Japan.

You are forgetting about not having the fuel and being tasked to provide beans to the Truk garrison.

Originally Posted by giganoni

As for single missions, why any sub fan wouldn't want to try their hand at sinking the Yorktown in the I-168 is beyond me.

Terrific, a single instance that might be fun. not really worth committing the resources to though, is it?

Originally Posted by giganoni

I know SHIV will probably be US subs, but it would have been nice to have gone the road no one has traveled (except modders) instead of the well worn and easy road of the US PTO sub.

There is a reason why it is a well worn path - people are interested in it and, with a reasonable level of realism, it can be both fun and interesting.

The amount of interest in playing the Japs is tiny, with any amount of realism the game would be ridiculous and without it whats the point? and credible doctrines mean you won't get to shoot at much.

"Given their size, range, speed, and torpedoes, Japanese submarines achieved surprisingly little. This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces. This approach gave a significant return in 1942 when they sank two fleet carriers, one cruiser, and a few destroyers and other warships, and also damaged two battleships, one fleet carrier (twice), and a cruiser. However, as Allied intelligence, technologies, methods, and numbers improved, the Japanese submarines were never again able to achieve this frequency of success. For this reason, many argue that the Japanese submarine force would have been better used against merchant ships, patrolling Allied shipping lanes instead of lurking outside naval bases. Bagnasco credits the Japanese submarine fleet with sinking 184 merchant ships of 907,000 GRT. This figure is far less than achieved by the Germans (2,840 ships of 14.3 million GRT), the Americans (1,079 ships of 4.65 million tons), and the British (493 ships of 1.52 million tons). "

It would make for a long, dull war. except for the fact that -

"Compared to German submarines, Japan's huge boats were relatively easy to sight visually and with radar, slow to dive, hard to maneuver underwater, easy to track on sonar, and easy to hit. Japanese hulls were also not as strong as those of German boats, and therefore could not dive as deeply nor survive such rough treatment. Also, they lacked radar until the first sets were installed in June 1944, and never had sets as good as the Allies possessed."

"Compounding these deficiencies, Japan was at war with the United States and the United Kingdom, two nations embroiled in a vast conflict with hundreds of U-Boats in the Atlantic, and hence two nations which poured lavish resources into anti-submarine warfare (ASW) research and development. As an example of the fruits of this research, in June 1944 the US Navy sank the I-52 by using code-breaking to discover her schedule, finding her at night with radar-equipped carrier-based aircraft, tracking her underwater with sonobuoys dropped by those aircraft, and sinking her with acoustic homing torpedoes dropped by the same aircraft. The Japanese could achieve none of these technological feats at that time."

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

Which all rather suggests that it would in fact be quite a short game.

[Torplexed]

Wow! Quite the well-thought out response. I'm gonna start calling you Harry Re-Buttle.

Aside from a few single mission scenarios like the I-19's and I-15's attack on the Wasp and Hornet carrier group, or the aforementioned I-168, I just don't see too many interesting historical Japanese sub battles. As a career campaign it wouldn't be much fun for the reasons mentioned above. When I played with Japanese subs (in the service of the Kriegsmarine) in SH2 it was fun until about 1941. Then once radar equipped Allied escorts drove you under and homed in on your slow, shallow, and sluggish hull it wasn't long before you were visiting your ancestors. Hopefully nobody out there will clamor for midget subs. I know they have their crazed adherents but those were pretty much one-shot suicide missions.

[giganoni]

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

No, it was an assigned mission and pretty much became their primary role.

Actually, that was what was wrong with Japanese Submarines, the navy never actually gave them a true Primary Role. They were pressed into supply missions because of sudden circumstances and if you look at the troms, subs went on supply missions and war patrols. Other times they went chasing after warships that weren't there or they couldn't catch. Still at times they hunted and sunk merchantmen. The supply missions were as well only carried out by certain sub groups. After things went bad in Guadalcanal (which Japanese Subs extensively patrolled or picketed) you have 11 subs doing transport duty out of the Sixth fleet which at the time had 26 subs. Japan started WWII with 65 submarines. The Seventh Submarine Group later ran supply runs to Lae. Meanwhile the Eigth Submarine Group was enjoying great success and other subs were doing war patrols as well.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

Except for the Japanese doctrine that pretty much precluded it. and the fact that most supply missions were conducted without torpedoes, to increase the available cargo space.

What doctrine? If they came across an enemy ship on a supply mission, the conditions were favorable and their cargo allowed it, they would engage. Troms only mention certain times unable to attack due to the nature of the cargo or a reduction in torpedeo strength. Even in evacuation missions they would fire on the enemy. I-176 sinking the USS Corvina is a prime example. Look, unless you like real time a lot of time in SHIII is going to be spent staring at a map at 1024x as you move to your assigned patrol area. Do you always stay in your assigned patrol area? No, I sure don't. So if I play the IJN am I not allowed to fire on a ship I stumble on while on a supply or evacuation mission? That would be like not being able to leave your patrol area in vanilla SHIII.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

You are forgetting about not having the fuel and being tasked to provide beans to the Truk garrison.

Actually, subs continued to patrol into 45, the sinking of the Indie should be a clear example. However, you are forgetting the sub operations again in the Indian Ocean, the Eastern Solomons of 42-43, the Mariana's, Carolines of 44. The sub ops for the Phillippines (especially Leyte) and Gilbert Islands. Then even when things are going really bad for Japan you have sub operations off Iwo Jima and Okinawa. These are certainly more dangerous and exciting than trying to deliver beans, as it were. In many of these operations the smaller, more manuverable RO subs were used. However, it wasn't sub design that hampered the Japanese sub force as much as inexperienced command, miscommunication, and no clear purpose.

Look with a US PTO campaign you'll certainly have an easy time, until perhaps the Matsu class destroyer and ASW tech becomes a bit more prolific. Even then a game might have to fudge the realism a bit to make it harder. However, late in the war there is not much to sink, most of it has been sunk. As the IJN you have opposite. You have decent amount of targets early in the war, with okay ASW depending on where you are (say around Hawaii for instance). Mid war ASW gets at little tougher, merchant ships are still around esp in the Indian Ocean and supply ships, carriers, warships are easily available to try your luck at in the Solomons. Late war, like SHIII it would be very tough for the IJN subs, even with newer sub designs having less noisy machinery, radar, and anti-sonar coating. However, there would certainly not be a lack of targets, especially around the invasion fleet areas. The key is to avoid all that ASW. That just sounds interesting to me, maybe to others it isn't, but that is why people have opinons.

[Harry Buttle]

Originally Posted by giganoni

Actually, that was what was wrong with Japanese Submarines, the navy never actually gave them a true Primary Role.

No, they had a primary role - sinking warships, but they were crap at it. So they wound up supplying irrelavant, bypassed garrisons (and they were crap at it).

Originally Posted by giganoni

The supply missions were as well only carried out by certain sub groups. After things went bad in Guadalcanal (which Japanese Subs extensively patrolled or picketed)

and achieved nothing whilst picketing and patrolling.

Originally Posted by giganoni

you have 11 subs doing transport duty out of the Sixth fleet which at the time had 26 subs. Japan started WWII with 65 submarines. The Seventh Submarine Group later ran supply runs to Lae. Meanwhile the Eigth Submarine Group was enjoying great success and other subs were doing war patrols as well.

I think you are going to have to define 'great success' in the Eigth Sub group context, historically none of the Japanese sub groups experienced anything like great success.

Originally Posted by giganoni

What doctrine? If they came across an enemy ship on a supply mission, the conditions were favorable and their cargo allowed it, they would engage.

No. Japanese doctrine largely precluded attacks on Merchants (not considered worth a torp) and Japanese Submarines were so inferior that they largely precluded attacks on warships.

Originally Posted by giganoni

Troms only mention certain times unable to attack due to the nature of the cargo or a reduction in torpedeo strength. Even in evacuation missions they would fire on the enemy. I-176 sinking the USS Corvina is a prime example.

as a 'prime example' the Corvina is (by definition) the perfect example of a one off incident, it also shows IJN subs on task only attacking where there in no chance of retaliation and whilst I-176 was transiting Rabual to Truk, I wouldn't mind seeing a cite that shows it was on a resupply mission.

Originally Posted by giganoni

Look, unless you like real time a lot of time in SHIII is going to be spent staring at a map at 1024x as you move to your assigned patrol area. Do you always stay in your assigned patrol area? No, I sure don't. So if I play the IJN am I not allowed to fire on a ship I stumble on while on a supply or evacuation mission? That would be like not being able to leave your patrol area in vanilla SHIII.

So you don't believe that Japanese doctrines and limitations should be enforced. fair enough, why do you care where the game is set or which subs you drive? just pretend that the USN subs are Jap.

Originally Posted by giganoni

Actually, subs continued to patrol into 45, the sinking of the Indie should be a clear example.

Your problem is that you are being forced to lean on 'one off' incidents (a CA that was running as if it was peacetime) to try to back up an argument that the Jap subs were not ineffectual.

Why not look at how many ships all up the Jap subs sank in 1945 for a more realistic indication of why playing them is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by giganoni

However, you are forgetting the sub operations again in the Indian Ocean, the Eastern Solomons of 42-43, the Mariana's, Carolines of 44. The sub ops for the Phillippines (especially Leyte) and Gilbert Islands. Then even when things are going really bad for Japan you have sub operations off Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

No, I'm not forgetting them, they were ineffectual, they sank trivial amounts of targets - the top 4 u-boat aces sank almost as much shipping by tonnage as the entire IJN sub force.

Originally Posted by giganoni

These are certainly more dangerous and exciting than trying to deliver beans, as it were. In many of these operations the smaller, more manuverable RO subs were used. However, it wasn't sub design that hampered the Japanese sub force as much as inexperienced command, miscommunication, and no clear purpose.

No. it was crap boats, crap doctrine, being so far behind the curve in relation to sonar/radar as to be a joke, poor comsec, farcical leadership - none of which sounds like fun to play and if you change it, you might as well just use a 688i

Originally Posted by giganoni

Look with a US PTO campaign you'll certainly have an easy time, until perhaps the Matsu class destroyer and ASW tech becomes a bit more prolific. Even then a game might have to fudge the realism a bit to make it harder.

20% casualties does not equal easy.

Originally Posted by giganoni

However, late in the war there is not much to sink, most of it has been sunk.

Historically you just wind up with smaller targets and different missions.

Originally Posted by giganoni

As the IJN you have opposite. You have decent amount of targets early in the war, with okay ASW depending on where you are (say around Hawaii for instance). Mid war ASW gets at little tougher, merchant ships are still around esp in the Indian Ocean and supply ships, carriers, warships are easily available to try your luck at in the Solomons.

except historically the Japanese were incapable of doing much of any of that, so you need to ignore real doctrines to try to make it work.

Originally Posted by giganoni

Late war, like SHIII it would be very tough for the IJN subs, even with newer sub designs having less noisy machinery, radar, and anti-sonar coating. However, there would certainly not be a lack of targets, especially around the invasion fleet areas. The key is to avoid all that ASW. That just sounds interesting to me, maybe to others it isn't, but that is why people have opinons.

except historically the Japanese failed almost entirely at doing the part that you say is of interest, which rather suggests that their kit wasn't up to it and, since their sub commanders largely avoided combat, it also suggests that they knew it.

There is almost no market for a Jap sub sim. there is a reason for that, as a realistic subject it is untenable.

[giganoni]

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

No, they had a primary role - sinking warships, but they were crap at it. So they wound up supplying irrelavant, bypassed garrisons (and they were crap at it).

Actually, pre war their main role was to scout for the fleet, then attempt to sink the battle ships on their way out to meet the Japanese BBs, it changed often to the will and whim of the fleet. Read Carl Boyd's book if you need sources.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

and achieved nothing whilst picketing and patrolling.

Your right, when they patrolled and picketed the Santa Cruz Islands/ San Cristobal/ Guadalcanal during that time they only managed to damage the USS Saratoga (a second time) sink the USS Wasp, damage The North Carolina, and sink a few lesser ships.

Originally Posted by giganoni

you have 11 subs doing transport duty out of the Sixth fleet which at the time had 26 subs. Japan started WWII with 65 submarines. The Seventh Submarine Group later ran supply runs to Lae. Meanwhile the Eigth Submarine Group was enjoying great success and other subs were doing war patrols as well.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

I think you are going to have to define 'great success' in the Eigth Sub group context, historically none of the Japanese sub groups experienced anything like great success.

True compared to the U-boat campaign they did not have great success. The point is, people complain that Japan used there subs a certain way, when in actuallity they used them many ways. The Eighth Sub Group is a concentrated example, but by no means the only example, of subs enjoying easy merchant prey.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

No. Japanese doctrine largely precluded attacks on Merchants (not considered worth a torp) and Japanese Submarines were so inferior that they largely precluded attacks on warships.

Most of the sinkings Japanese did were Merchantships. On war patrols they sunk enemy ships it didn't matter what. They also went on communication intercept missions, which main goal was enemy commerce. They were assigned to fleets, so often they would have to scout or were specifically ordered to chase down sighted warships such as carriers and constantly shifted their patrol zones. The shifting orders is what caused much mishap. American subs would take similar missions as well, they simply had better intelligence. Look, I boats were designed to travel with the fleet. They needed range, surface speed, and endurance. They had that. A smaller, more manuverable boat that would in theory be better against big warships at the time was not available. Those boats didn't have the range or speed needed to stay with fleets which would engage the Americans. It is nice in hindsight to say, "Oh, their boats were crap, they were too big for warships" except before the war it was only their I and K boats that had the operational range to go across the pacific to areas like Pearl harbor and the west coast of America.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

So you don't believe that Japanese doctrines and limitations should be enforced. fair enough, why do you care where the game is set or which subs you drive? just pretend that the USN subs are Jap.

In SHIII you are one sub, there are no other subs. You go to your patrol area, patrol for 24 hours, then you can go home. Very boring if you don't bump into anyone and there is so much fuel left too (depending on the type). I would go out of my patrol area and look for ships, because it is a game and I don't want to be bored to death. So if SHIV lets you play as the IJN, if your transporting supplies or on your way to evacuate troops and stumble on an enemy ship you should be able, if you choose, to fire at it. Sure, give me reduced torpedeos as some of the Troms mention since I'm transporting. Hey, if I destroy the enemy ship, maybe it will give away my prescence to the americans and I'll be dodging planes for the rest of the trip, it is my choice. BDU doesn't prevent me from running the english channel, why should I be prevented from firing on a ship when I am able? Specific designed transport subs had no torps, not those pressed.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

Your problem is that you are being forced to lean on 'one off' incidents (a CA that was running as if it was peacetime) to try to back up an argument that the Jap subs were not ineffectual.

Why not look at how many ships all up the Jap subs sank in 1945 for a more realistic indication of why playing them is a waste of time.

I never said they were not ineffectual you said there was nothing for them to do Late in the war, except run out of fuel or deliver beans to Truk. I was simply disproving that. This is a game we are discussing, and even though an operation historically had limited success, a player could certainly have more. It is not a waste of time, in the end the U-boats were ineffectual for stopping Britian and America. They lost and were obliterated as any effective force, why waste our time playing them? Because they sunk a lot of ships? Some U-boats didn't sink any. SHIII campaign only had one sub it wasn't historical, you could sink millions of tons and not have one impact on the "greater war".

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

No, I'm not forgetting them, they were ineffectual, they sank trivial amounts of targets - the top 4 u-boat aces sank almost as much shipping by tonnage as the entire IJN sub force.

Again, historically, the U-boats failed yet I don't mind playing as them. This is a game where you can sink as much tonnage as your able to. In SHIII you could sink maybe a couple 100k or less in a career or maybe millions, it all mattered on skill and luck of the player, not historical facts.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

No. it was crap boats, crap doctrine, being so far behind the curve in relation to sonar/radar as to be a joke, poor comsec, farcical leadership - none of which sounds like fun to play and if you change it, you might as well just use a 688i

Really? I have plenty of fun in an IIA with no radar, sonar, crap range, and few torps. It all depends on taste of the player I'm afraid, not on specs.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

20% casualties does not equal easy.

Yes, 53 lost, 45 to combat patrol. I'd still take my chance on a US sub in the pacific rather than a U-boat or an I-boat.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

except historically the Japanese were incapable of doing much of any of that, so you need to ignore real doctrines to try to make it work.

Except this is a game. In history you didn't have million ton aces, in SHIII you do. Yet, despite all that, history doesn't change in SHIII, Germany still loses. In history subs off of pearl didn't stumble onto the carriers (except the Sara) in SHIV, as a player you might be able to.

Originally Posted by Harry Buttle

except historically the Japanese failed almost entirely at doing the part that you say is of interest, which rather suggests that their kit wasn't up to it and, since their sub commanders largely avoided combat, it also suggests that they knew it.

There is almost no market for a Jap sub sim. there is a reason for that, as a realistic subject it is untenable.

I would recommend "The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II" by Carl Boyd and Akihiko Yoshida, there is much more to the IJN Sub Force than you think. Your main argument is based on the assumption that all the subs did was supply runs, and therefore, not fun . The Japanese subs did a whole lot more than just supply runs (as the book proves) so any game based off them could be fun and challenging. Supply runs doomed the IJN subs when they were needed at a critical time which is why they are so often talked about, but it didn't tie up all subs and except for the transport subs, not all the time.

[U-Dog]

Good discussion, while Japanese subs would be different and might be fun, I think the need to create the surface/ASW cababilities of both the US & Japan would eat up alot of time and resources. Not to mention complicate AI programming.

However adding British and Dutch subs would be easier i would think.

[Type XXIII]

My suggestion to the developers:

Make SHIV a subsim dedicated to the American sub campaign in the Pacific.

But, make the game open for modding and converting. Make it rather easy to add new subs and warships.

What I am hoping is that SHIV will be two things.

1. A great subsim in itself.
2. A platform for modders to base their work on.

I'm also hoping that there will be a good community with talented, dedicated people that will make great mods to SHIV, in which they can include IJN, RN, KM (both of them) and other navies' subs.

And it's not a bad idea for Ubisoft, either. It has been shown several times (Half-life, Battlefield:1942, Falcon 4.0) that a game can extend its lifetime and sales by a moddability and a dedicated community.

[GlobalExplorer]

My 2 cents:

If SH4 uses the updated engine from SH3. Include all german U-Boats from SH3, but only Pacific theater. If it's the same engine, this should'nt be a lot of work. But it would mean that the community could mod the Battle of the Atlantic with all new features - so everyone would be happy. Right now the only thing in the way to model new TOO's is sub interiors.

If SH4 uses a new engine, I don't expect it having German subs. Which would be a pity because many people wouldn't buy it or end up disappointed with Sh3.

As to Japanese boats. Realistic or not, bring them on UBI! I am madly in love with everything Japanese. Their technology during WWII might not always have been up to standard, but the exterior design looked absolutely sexy! Just look at some Japanese WWII planes and you'll know what I mean.

[Sulikate]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

My 2 cents:

If SH4 uses the updated engine from SH3. Include all german U-Boats from SH3, but only Pacific theater. If it's the same engine, this should'nt be a lot of work. But it would mean that the community could mod the Battle of the Atlantic with all new features - so everyone would be happy. Right now the only thing in the way to model new TOO's is sub interiors.

If SH4 uses a new engine, I don't expect it having German subs. Which would be a pity because many people wouldn't buy it or end up disappointed with Sh3.

As to Japanese boats. Realistic or not, bring them on UBI! I am madly in love with everything Japanese. Their technology during WWII might not always have been up to standard, but the exterior design looked absolutely sexy! Just look at some Japanese WWII planes and you'll know what I mean.

I agree with you, but I must say that I'm much for a new engine (tha implies totaly new models, dinamics, effects, and an expanded experince).

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by Sulikate

I agree with you, but I must say that I'm much for a new engine (tha implies totaly new models, dinamics, effects, and an expanded experince).

What's wrong with the current one? I think it is the best naval engine on the market. Of course it can always be better, but I think would mean UBI would have to invest a lot of money. And of course, SHIV would not be out before 2007 / 2008.