[UNCOVERED] SH5 officially left for dead!

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

SH5: Released to soon, killed by the "fans".

So it would seem.

[THE_MASK]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

SH5: Released to soon, killed by the "fans".

The truest statement ever on subsim . However modding and sales might bring back the dead in the future .

[jdkbph]

Originally Posted by SteelViking

Aye its true. The advancements made over the past couple weeks have been incredible. People just need to be a little more patient though, as some of them are still behind the scenes and need to be perfected.

You know, I really appreciate the efforts made by the talented folks in this community. Most of the mods are very good - as good as we've seen from the professional devs - and some of them far surpass anything we've seen form the professionals.

My concern with SH5 is not about what can be done by modders, but what can't be done. If there are significant issues with SH5 that simply can't be fixed due to lack of access (legally or technically) to the affected files and code, then I would guess most of the modders will be asking themselves "what's the point?".

Some of these significant issues that no one (to my knowledge) has touched yet are:

• Extending the campaign to 1945, which would necessarily require development or activation of the relevant techology, platforms and AI.
• Building and importing new platforms, such as more merchant types (what do we have now... 4?)
• Rewriting the campaign to remove the mission, target and tonnage based objectives, and restore the free flowing patrol based campaigns of SH3 and SH4.
• AI that behaves in a reasonably believable manner.
• Etc.

If that stuff can't be fixed, I'm never going to play it... no matter how good the water and sky look or how great the latest interface is (with apologies to those working on interfaces and environment).

JD

[SteelViking]

Originally Posted by jdkbph

You know, I really appreciate the efforts made by the talented folks in this community. Most of the mods are very good - as good as we've seen from the professional devs - and some of them far surpass anything we've seen form the professionals.

My concern with SH5 is not about what can be done by modders, but what can't be done. If there are significant issues with SH5 that simply can't be fixed due to lack of access (legally or technically) to the affected files and code, then I would guess most of the modders will be asking themselves "what's the point?".

Some of these significant issues that no one (to my knowledge) has touched yet are:

• Extending the campaign to 1945, which would necessarily require development or activation of the relevant techology, platforms and AI.
• Building and importing new platforms, such as more merchant types (what do we have now... 4?)
• Rewriting the campaign to remove the mission, target and tonnage based objectives, and restore the free flowing patrol based campaigns of SH3 and SH4.
• AI that behaves in a reasonably believable manner.
• Etc.

If that stuff can't be fixed, I'm never going to play it... no matter how good the water and sky look or how great the latest interface is (with apologies to those working on interfaces and environment).

JD

Well, the AI has essentially been fixed by TDW. He has already completely redone the AI for ships and planes, and he is currently working on redoing the AI subs. However, the rest of the problems you outlined are currently untouched, and they are definitely among my list of problems with the game as well.

What is the word on editing the campaign? I hate to say it, but I am out of the loop on that one.

[THE_MASK]

Originally Posted by jdkbph

Some of these significant issues that no one (to my knowledge) has touched yet are:

• Rewriting the campaign to remove the mission, target and tonnage based objectives, and restore the free flowing patrol based campaigns of SH3 and SH4.

If that stuff can't be fixed, I'm never going to play it... no matter how good the water and sky look or how great the latest interface is (with apologies to those working on interfaces and environment).

JD

SH5 already has the boring go to patrol area , exactly the same as SH3/4 . What it also has is a fun and challenging dynamic campaign with dynamic objectives . There is no way i would ever go back to the boring patrol here only like in SH3/4 .

[Will-Rommel]

Yeah me too sober. The game really is more fun and challenging to me when going to sea with a clear objective.

[John Channing]

Like they did in real life.

I don't understand why people don't like historical accuracy in a simulation.



JCC

[jdkbph]

Seroiusly... like in real life? I may be misinformed, but in all I've read about sub warfare in both major theaters, I don't recall captains being dispatched with orders to sink X tons, or to hunt and sink X number of battleships or cruisers before a specific date.

I may be wrong but to the best of my recollection subs were assigned patrol areas and told to hunt. At best they were given orders to target specific, broad category ship types, such as merchants, or warships.

Barring an occasional SpecOps type mission, or later on in the PTO, being assigned to "lifeguard" duty (usually a detour or interruption on the way to or from a patrol area), I really don't see how the campaign in SH5 - out of the box - can be viewed as anything other than a "lets jazz things up for arcade game crowd" type of implementation. The only thing missing is power-ups and health packs.

Yeah, it may be more fun and challenging, but real? No. Sorry.

JD

BBW did massive amounts of work on the Campaign files.
But took the summer off waiting for Units to be imported.

I'm busy creating Add-ons for S3d that allow working with SH5 Controllers
in S3D, along with other Tools all may need.
This will allow new Ships to be imported by the masses that use S3D.

We do what we can, when we can, as fast as we can.
Even when we are working with less then minimum system specs.

[longam]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

SH5: Released to soon, killed by the "fans".

Seems to be a ME ME world anymore.

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by jdkbph

Seroiusly... like in real life? I may be misinformed, but in all I've read about sub warfare in both major theaters, I don't recall captains being dispatched with orders to sink X tons, or to hunt and sink X number of battleships or cruisers before a specific date.

I may be wrong but to the best of my recollection subs were assigned patrol areas and told to hunt. At best they were given orders to target specific, broad category ship types, such as merchants, or warships.

Barring an occasional SpecOps type mission, or later on in the PTO, being assigned to "lifeguard" duty (usually a detour or interruption on the way to or from a patrol area), I really don't see how the campaign in SH5 - out of the box - can be viewed as anything other than a "lets jazz things up for arcade game crowd" type of implementation. The only thing missing is power-ups and health packs.

Yeah, it may be more fun and challenging, but real? No. Sorry.

JD

Then you had better read some more.

During the Norwegian campaign Sub commanders were specifically ordered to concentrate on Naval vessels and, if necessary, to ignore merchant shipping.

As I said in aother thread, given the Doenitz knew exactly how much tonnage he had to sink on a monthly basis to bring England to surrender, and given that he had around 40 operational U-Boats, do you really think he told the commanders just to go out to Grid X and see what you can find? Do you think his orders to Prien was to drop by Scapa Flow and have a quick look see?

Of course they had mission requirements.

JCC

[Faamecanic]

Originally Posted by SteelViking

What is the word on editing the campaign? I hate to say it, but I am out of the loop on that one.

Please please PULLLEZE someone mod the horrible campaign we were left with.

If you do.... this little puppy will give you a BIG LICK!!

[Ducimus]

Silent Hunter 5

"The Hold Out crowd"

No Patch's, No super Mod's, No problem.

[jdkbph]

Originally Posted by John Channing

Then you had better read some more.

During the Norwegian campaign Sub commanders were specifically ordered to concentrate on Naval vessels and, if necessary, to ignore merchant shipping.

Then here we're agreed. Broad category target types, such as merchants or warships... as I stated.

We may want to start our "reading" by reading the post we're replying to, eh?

As I said in aother thread, given the Doenitz knew exactly how much tonnage he had to sink on a monthly basis to bring England to surrender, and given that he had around 40 operational U-Boats, do you really think he told the commanders just to go out to Grid X and see what you can find?

I would expect a bit more in the way of verbal encouragement, but words to that effect, yes.

What you're referring to is a strategic not an operational consideration. That would place it even above Doenitz' position at the start of the war. At Doentiz' level (operational), the task was to create the appropriate doctrine, ensure an adequate level of training, then to position his assets at the right place and at the right time in order to satisfy his directives. If planned and executed correctly, and given the required resources, the required tonnage would be sunk.

That it didn't happen historically is in no way an indictment of the u-boat crews (ie, failed missions), or even of Doenitz himself. If blame needs be placed, it would have to be laid at the door step of the pre and early war naval planners (Hitler, Raeder, et al). Clearly the resources were not adequate to the task given Doenitz early in the war, and from there the strategic priorities and subsequent investment in the u-boat arm did not permit the technology or the numbers to keep pace with the allies.

So no... I stand by what I said. At the individual unit level this kind of thing (go to location X and sink Y tons) just didn't happen. It most certainly was not the norm, as it is portrayed in SH5.

Now, if you have credible references to the contrary I'd be happy to stand corrected.

Do you think his orders to Prien was to drop by Scapa Flow and have a quick look see?

Do you think he had orders to sink Royal Oak? Did he even have orders to sink a battleship (specifically)? Would he have returned again and again to get Royal Oak, or some other battleship (specifically, if he missed the first time? What if he had sunk Courageous or Ark Royal instead? Would that have been a "mission failure"?

Sorry, but from an historical perspective, this just doesn't play.

And neither does SH5.

JD

[Kapitanleutnant]

Originally Posted by jdkbph

I may be wrong

You're not wrong. The subsim staff just have battered wife syndrome and will defend SH5 to the hilt, including making excuses for its failure with disingenuous and intellectually dishonest arguments.