On the subject of RPG elements

[onelifecrisis]

Most of us have had a good joke or two about the RPG side of SH5, but I've been thinking... is it that bad? How could it be better? People have commented that making the boat turn faster and dive deeper is unrealistic because these things are fixed in real life. Okay, but in that case what would you replace these "abilities" with?

Obviously some things are easy to code and are realistic too. More experienced gunners will hit their targets more often and maybe even reload faster; a weapons officer who gives dodgy firing solutions which get less dodgy as he "levels up" would also be great IMO; but beyond that? How do you factor the importance of the crew's experience into a simulation of a boat that actually has fixed performance parameters? Seems to me the only answer is: you unfix them and make them variable, which is exactly what the devs have done.

We've all seen the quote "all you need is good men" in GWX. How would you build that into the game?

[Mud]

As long those abilities are not beyond believe it could be fun.
But please dont make uber torpedoes just because the torpedo man replaced the explosives with mini nukes, it ruins the game.
But if you gain a few seconds with reload the tubes or crashdive after a few patrols due experience, yeah why not.
But like I said, it must not go beyond believe.

Mud

[d@rk51d3]

Maybe "RPG elements" is their way of saying that the watch crew are armed with RPG's.

[Alex]

Good post, OLC, I was wondering whether I was the only one thinking this way, I'm glad I'm not.
I understand very well this kind of new parameter can easily bring hesitation to all players as it was rather unexpected.
But, since the future of the SH franchise depends on the success of this upcoming game , anyone would say the devs have not been implementing absurd and senseless new features that would give folks reasons to protest and criticize the game only.
Give it a chance and test it before complaining, people.

[vergol]

Certifications in SH3 gave a boost in 'efficiency' for specific sections of the sub. Crew member rank (gained by completing patrols) increased it even further.

You could certainly do away with laughable RPG-like abilities by implementing a more detailed certification/rank/experience system.

[onelifecrisis]

It wasn't meant to be a lecture. I'm curious to know if the anti-RPG people have any better ideas than what's being done in SH5.

Originally Posted by vergol

Certifications in SH3 gave a boost in 'efficiency' for specific sections of the sub. Crew member rank (gained by completing patrols) increased it even further.

You could certainly do away with laughable RPG-like abilities by implementing a more detailed certification/rank/experience system.

And what do you suppose that "efficiency" translated to in gameplay terms in SH3? Did a low efficiency in the engine room make the boat go slower, for example? If so, isn't that just as bad as an "ability" that makes it go faster? And if it didn't reduce speed in SH3 then what did it reduce? Did that green bar really mean anything at all?

[vergol]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fullness of the green efficiency bars in SH3 governed the speed and effectiveness of repairs, accuracy of your deck and flak guns, reload times for torpedoes, and the likelihood of successfully spotting enemies at longer ranges.

It wasn't a perfect system, but it certainly had a role in the game. I wouldn't call it meaningless.

[Schultzy]

And what do you suppose that "efficiency" translated to in gameplay terms in SH3?

This may well be the crux of the matter.
I don't think anyone would object to a well crafted, well reasoned promotion based system whereby experience translates to better performance.

After five patrols and many hours drill, I really do hope that my Torpedomate can now do his job so well, that it's almost second nature, and that as a consequence, the torpedos load 1 or 2 seconds faster.
I don't mind the idea that my Chief Engineer knows the limits of his boat because he's been to sea in her so many times, and that his inate knowledge adds a few feet of depth before crush is reached.

So, while perhaps it's engaging in semantics, it's no less valid to say, that as a player, seeing (for sake of argument) a pop up box offering the player a level two soup upgrade: crew don't tire as quickly, the suspension of disbelief is eroded.
It sounds and feels more like a we're playing a game, which we don't want to be reminded of.

have any better ideas than what's being done in SH5.

I'm not entirely sure it's a case of a better idea being needed, rather that the current idea be better implemented. Make the levelling up less overt. Give it context.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by vergol

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fullness of the green efficiency bars in SH3 governed the speed and effectiveness of repairs, accuracy of your deck and flak guns, reload times for torpedoes, and the likelihood of successfully spotting enemies at longer ranges.

It wasn't a perfect system, but it certainly had a role in the game. I wouldn't call it meaningless.

Correct, but how much impact did those things really have? As I said, I'm not sure the engine room bar did anything at all. Same for the command room bar. The deck gun only ever got used on large unarmed targets at short range, so the crew experience made little real difference there, and the flak gun never got used at all except by idiots. Torpedoes are reloaded after all the depth charges have stopped and you're back on the surface in TC. I don't think I ever managed to get back into a firing position before the crew had finished loading them. So none of those bars made any appreciable difference at all to my game.

One thing not on your list is the radio room bar. That made quite a big difference to the ability of the sonar guy (and presumably the radar guy) which did have quite an impact on gameplay, as did the ability of the watch crew which you mentioned, but in both cases it was a negative impact on gameplay. The sonar guy was like a deaf mute until he had the full green bar at which point he became like a deaf mute with a hearing aid. And the watch crew couldn't spot **** with less than a full green bar.

The only good one was the repair crew, who could really make the difference between life or death in some situations, but even then only after modding. The stock repair team could repair anything in five seconds with no experience at all.

So, all in all, the SH3 system was not a good system IMO.

[ichso]

There are some aspects of the boat's handling that could be effected by crew experience. Like maintaining depth which could be more steady while a young LI would maybe make the boat rise and dip a bit. With all those factors involved to trim a submarine experience could factor in in an abstract way.

Also the engine management and maintaince could be effected. Rising/falling fuel consumption could be a result of this. Engine failures could be a bit more unlikely with experienced personnel, especially when going high speed for a longer period of time.

It would be really great if navigation would become less accurate with an inexperienced navigator. You would expect him to do his job well under normal conditions, but when the weather gets rough...

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Schultzy

So, while perhaps it's engaging in semantics, it's no less valid to say, that as a player, seeing (for sake of argument) a pop up box offering the player a level two soup upgrade: crew don't tire as quickly, the suspension of disbelief is eroded.
It sounds and feels more like a we're playing a game, which we don't want to be reminded of.



I'm not entirely sure it's a case of a better idea being needed, rather that the current idea be better implemented. Make the levelling up less overt. Give it context.

Well if the game actually says "level 2 soup upgrade" then yeah, my disbelief will not be very suspended. Do we have that much information on how it's been implemented?

Edit:
ichso, I like the sound of that!

[martes86]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

[...] and the flak gun never got used at all except by idiots.

Count me in!

Now, seriously, those bars made indeed a difference for Torpedo Rooms, Hydrophone, Bridge, Deck Weaponry, and the Repair teams. For instance, if the bar in the Forw. Torp. Room was, say, at half, it would take half much longer to reload torpedoes than if it was at full. Also, if the bar was too low in the engines, they could even tell me there's not enough crew to operate them.

Cheers

[Iron Budokan]

The RPG aspect is interesting, although the replayability factor might wane after a while. The real problem isn't the RPG, imo, it's the full-blown fantasy elements that go along with it.

[LGN1]

Hi,

from what I have seen, the whole language and atmosphere is completely off ('Hello, big boy'. I cannot imagine that anyone talked like that on a U-boat in WWII ). I also don't think that the captain knew much about crew members, their past,... maybe a little bit about the other officers, but not about the regular crew. This was not a holiday trip with friends.

I have read that especially on a U-boat the captain had to have a strong authority and had to keep distance from the crew because everthing was so cramped. The spatial closeness required an especially large distance between the captain and crew. Buchheim once mentioned that it was a very rare event if the captain broke out of the usual 'commanding language'. And it seems that Lehmann-Willenbrock was one of the more friendly commanders.

Well, SH5 anyway seems not to be intended to be a realistic simulation of WWII submarine warfare, so this aspects does not make things any worse (I hope, one day there will be an Oleg M. in the sub sim business ).

Cheers, LGN1

Regarding the crew skills: I don't know how much influence the commander had on his crew. I guess the crew was just assigned to him and that was it. He then could do some diving excercises,... but not really train them. Just by surviving long enough and getting more experience they improved (and this can be modeled well without these crazy dialogues).

[mookiemookie]

The problem is by default our sub is extremely reliable. You always know exactly where on the map you are. Your sub's engines always run without problems. Your depth is always exactly what you order it to be. Torpedoes are usually reliable, no matter what the year.

Introducing some level of uncertainty for the player would be the first step in having a crew experience system that means something. An experienced navigator would be more accurate when plotting your position in the world. A more experienced LI would be more adept at preventing and solving problems with sabotage and breakdowns. A better diving officer would be better at maintaining your desired depth. More competent torpedo mixers could cut down on the number of duds - presumably because they're better at maintenance activities.

About the only one I agree with in Ubi's lineup of abilities is actually the level 2 soup upgrade - a good cook was highly prized and better food generally means better morale.