Carriers/dynamic campaign

High Command · 04-04-07, 08:16 AM

Somethings very wrang...

I have Sunk 4 times the amount of Hiryu Class carriers the Japanese ever buildt????

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

looooooooooooooooool - what is this...??

High Command · 04-04-07, 08:32 AM

NOT GOOD

Quillan · 04-04-07, 08:34 AM

This is technically not a bug. It's just how the dynamic campaign scripting works. SH3 did the same thing. Basically, the campaign script file will have a spawn point for a ship, convoy, or task force. It has a random chance of appearing every so often. When it does appear, each ship in the group has a chance of appearing and a list of possible types it could be. Because of this, it's quite possible for there to be an infinite number of Yamato class battleships or Hiryu class carriers over the course of the war. The game doesn't keep track of how many are in existance at any given moment, nor does it subtract the number sunk from the historical total.

High Command · 04-04-07, 08:38 AM

Well so much for being a simulation.

Here i sit with a huge list and photos of Japanese ships, and write them off one by one, and thay arnt evan sunk, after i sink them!!!

mookiemookie · 04-04-07, 08:41 AM

Thems the haps, bub. It happened in SH3 as well and Quillian nailed it in his explanation.

Not such a big deal, really.

elanaiba · 04-04-07, 08:42 AM

But, I'd like to point out, that the Hiryu won't appear after it was sunk "in real life". And, its supposed to stand in for other early war classes that were not modelled.

High Command · 04-04-07, 08:46 AM

Its sad.

I see here, i have sunk TWISE the amount of total Carriers Japan had intill March 1941.

Thay just semes to have some form for UNLIMITED Storage of Carriers.

Not to mantion, that a singel sub isnt supose to be able to faind ALL the Japanese Carriers...
Way to many and way to easy to faind them..

ReallyDedPoet · 04-04-07, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elanaiba

But, I'd like to point out, that the Hiryu won't appear after it was sunk "in real life".

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

PeriscopeDepth · 04-04-07, 08:44 AM

I don't think they model sanitary tank blowing either. False marketing at its finest, SH4 is really a game you should be putting quarters in. Blast you Ubisoft Romania!

PD

Seadogs · 04-04-07, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I don't think they model sanitary tank blowing either. False marketing at its finest, SH4 is really a game you should be putting quarters in. Blast you Ubisoft Romania!

PD

That really bugs me too. SWIMMER IN THE WATER! PUMP THE CHT!

toby66 · 04-04-07, 08:57 AM

Cool down. It's obvious that the campaign has to have some kind of scripting. It would be nice if a function deleted a sunken ship from the campaign layer. But it doesn't. That's not a bug nor a big mistake. Perhaps a moddder can give us this feature sooner or later. If not, SHIV is still a lot of fun IF you want it to be.

The world isn't perfekt, this game isn't. Chill.

Onkel Neal · 04-04-07, 10:06 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-04-07, 10:29 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-04-07, 10:39 AM

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 · 04-04-07, 10:39 AM

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.

04-04-07, 08:16 AM	#1
High Command Swabbie Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 13 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Carriers/dynamic campaign Somethings very wrang... I have Sunk 4 times the amount of Hiryu Class carriers the Japanese ever buildt???? lol how is this possible.. I have sunk Carriers that dosnt exist looooooooooooooooool - what is this...??

04-04-07, 08:34 AM	#3
Quillan Samurai Navy Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 579 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	This is technically not a bug. It's just how the dynamic campaign scripting works. SH3 did the same thing. Basically, the campaign script file will have a spawn point for a ship, convoy, or task force. It has a random chance of appearing every so often. When it does appear, each ship in the group has a chance of appearing and a list of possible types it could be. Because of this, it's quite possible for there to be an infinite number of Yamato class battleships or Hiryu class carriers over the course of the war. The game doesn't keep track of how many are in existance at any given moment, nor does it subtract the number sunk from the historical total. __________________ We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

04-04-07, 08:41 AM	#5
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	Thems the haps, bub. It happened in SH3 as well and Quillian nailed it in his explanation. Not such a big deal, really. __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

04-04-07, 08:57 AM	#11
toby66 A-ganger Join Date: May 2005 Location: navis longa Posts: 73 Downloads: 17 Uploads: 0	Cool down. It's obvious that the campaign has to have some kind of scripting. It would be nice if a function deleted a sunken ship from the campaign layer. But it doesn't. That's not a bug nor a big mistake. Perhaps a moddder can give us this feature sooner or later. If not, SHIV is still a lot of fun IF you want it to be. The world isn't perfekt, this game isn't. Chill. __________________

04-04-07, 08:32 AM	#2
High Command Swabbie Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 13 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	NOT GOOD

04-04-07, 08:38 AM	#4
High Command Swabbie Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 13 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Well so much for being a simulation. Here i sit with a huge list and photos of Japanese ships, and write them off one by one, and thay arnt evan sunk, after i sink them!!!

04-04-07, 08:42 AM	#6
elanaiba Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 1,058 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 3	But, I'd like to point out, that the Hiryu won't appear after it was sunk "in real life". And, its supposed to stand in for other early war classes that were not modelled.

04-04-07, 08:46 AM	#7
High Command Swabbie Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 13 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Its sad. I see here, i have sunk TWISE the amount of total Carriers Japan had intill March 1941. Thay just semes to have some form for UNLIMITED Storage of Carriers. Not to mantion, that a singel sub isnt supose to be able to faind ALL the Japanese Carriers... Way to many and way to easy to faind them..

04-04-07, 08:44 AM	#9
PeriscopeDepth Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 1,894 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	I don't think they model sanitary tank blowing either. False marketing at its finest, SH4 is really a game you should be putting quarters in. Blast you Ubisoft Romania! PD

04-04-07, 10:39 AM	#14
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	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

04-04-07, 10:39 AM	#15
OddjobXL Torpedoman Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 119 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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.