Go here - Sink that

jdkbph · 03-24-10, 02:54 PM

I started to post this in another thread, but I didn't want to hijack it with general comments and questions for debate.

Does any one else find this whole notion of mission success based on "Go here-Sink that" completely off the wall?

[rant]

IMO, it's totally ridiculous! One mission says sink a bunch of AMCs and two carriers. Another says go sink a couple of battleships!

You sink multiple cruisers and the game treats that like it's not good enough?

Nonsense!

Many top aces, recognized as being among the best in the craft, went whole careers without sinking a cruiser. In reality only a small handful of capital ships were sunk by submarines during the entire war... mainly a result of blind luck (stumbling into the right place at the right time). Most sub skippers never even eyeballed an enemy capital ship through the periscope, much less fired upon and sunk one!

With a few very specific exceptions (the X craft attacks on Tirpitz for example) I don't think any RL sub or sub commander was ever sent out with the specific task of sinking a CV or BB - or a set number of ships or a specified amount of Merchant tonnage - like we are in SH5.

They weren't given orders to sink 25,000 tons, or else fail. They weren't commanded to sink an Aircraft Carrier, or else fail.

Ridiculous.

As far as I know, submarines were typically sent out on "patrols" not missions. And they called them "patrols" for a reason... they went to an assigned area, nosed about for a period of time, attacked what came their way, and were hailed as heroes if they came home with a few decent kills.

OK so they were assigned the occasional mission, to be sure. But these were atypical - usually recon or spec ops type missions - not nautical assassinations.

[/rant]

So I've taken notice that the modders have already reduced some of the totally unrealistic tonnage requirements for mission success. But I think it needs to go quite a bit further. I think the tonnage requirements should be removed altogether... particularly when we (eventually) get a reasonable variety of ships to hunt, rather than every other one being a 10,000 ton tanker.

And of course, all success criteria bound to a specific number and/or type of ship (other than perhaps a general distinction between merchants and warships) should be removed entirely.

If the game is properly balanced, I think it's enough to say "Proceed to <specified area> and sink one or more <ships/merchant ships/warships>", depending on the type of assignment given and any high level operations (blockade, seaborne invasion, surface force transit, area denial, etc) being conducted in the assignment area.

Anything more than that is arcade. Success in the campaign, at the submarine commander level, should not depend on hitting a grand slam home run every time you step to the plate!

What say you?

JD

sergei · 03-24-10, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdkbph

I think it's enough to say "Proceed to <specified area> and sink one or more <ships, merchant ships or warships>", depending on the type of assignment given and any high level operations (blockade, seaborne invasion, surface force transit, area denial, etc) being conducted in your assignment area.

Anything more than that is arcade. Success in the campaign, at the submarine commander level, should not depend on hitting a grand slam home run every time you step to the plate!

Agree 100%

THM · 03-24-10, 03:06 PM

Yeah, that's really a crappy campaign. Arcade is a fitting description for it.

One of the most disappointing issues, because it's completely non-historic and cannot fixed easily.

I am unable to guess why UBI deviated from accurate mission orders to such a FPS nonsense. If they are trying to attract more casual gamers, it's a complete fail. It's like implementing air strikes in a golf simulation.

robbo180265 · 03-24-10, 03:21 PM

Yeah I'm not a fan of it either. I find myself having to leave merchants alone because I'm not in the right area and I can't afford to waste eels. This goes against the grain somewhat.

I can see what they were trying for (and probably for casual players it works fine) but for me - I'd prefer something more in keeping with the actual history of the U boats, or indeed the original SH3 idea of patroling a specific area only.

I'm also finding the lack of variety of ships to sink a tad worrying too - I'm not sure if SH5 will keep my attention if all I can sink is tankers and freighters.

Highbury · 03-24-10, 03:23 PM

Another agreement. The whole concept of the mission based campaign is wrong IMO. I am quite sure that the most common mission was "patrol and sink commerce!"

All these missions for Capitol ships.... grrrr.. as someone once said on the SHIII forums. "My job is not to look for a fair fight. My job is to destroy enemy shipping"

McHibbins · 03-24-10, 03:29 PM

This dynamic thing is crappy imho. Would like to have campaigns like in SH3+SH4.
I hated SH2 for this kind years ago and so i do now.

kylania · 03-24-10, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHibbins

This dynamic thing is crappy imho. Would like to have campaigns like in SH3+SH4.
I hated SH2 for this kind years ago and so i do now.

We've got the editor, go to it!

I'm sure we'll see a player made campaign more along the lines of "patrols" rather than "bag x number of unrealistic kills" stuff once the game it stable.

robbo180265 · 03-24-10, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kylania

We've got the editor, go to it!

I'm sure we'll see a player made campaign more along the lines of "patrols" rather than "bag x number of unrealistic kills" stuff once the game it stable.

How do I access the editor? Had bit of a poke around but not found it yet.

AVGWarhawk · 03-24-10, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kylania

We've got the editor, go to it!

I'm sure we'll see a player made campaign more along the lines of "patrols" rather than "bag x number of unrealistic kills" stuff once the game it stable.

Agreed. Right now it is 'go bag an unrealistic number' but that is for the guys who like to blast stuff. Nothing wrong with that. We are missing a lot of things yet to make it more realistic. Hell, all of my torps work! Not one dud! In due time fellas.

Juliano · 03-25-10, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THM

It's like implementing air strikes in a golf simulation.

THAT, my friend, would be totaly awesome!

PS: Can we have dinosaurs with lazers too?

Noren · 03-25-10, 10:03 AM

that would be like eating having an orgasm, eating sushi and flying helicopter at the same time! Totally awesome that is.

SabreHawk · 03-25-10, 10:18 AM

Hmmm ya know this brings a thought about something thats been on my mind lately. There is that option when in base before shipping out where one talks to the commander, and in that dialog there is the option of starting patrol without selecting a mission.
So it seems to me now that one can if one so wishes, simply do just that. Go out on patrol to anywhere you wish and sink whatever you wish. The ships and tonnage will count, and you can rack up quite a score. The only thing is none of it will count towards the missions and campaign.

But what im thinking is, that what you can do is mix it up and sometimes just go on patrol without a mission, and sometimes select a mission so that you can have campaign progress.
So just do every other patrol as an official mission for instance, and the others in between as non mission patrols. Thereby satsflying one's need to roam where you see fit, sinking what you see fit.

Hmmm, freedom of choice. What a grand idea.

thyro · 03-26-10, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdkbph

IThey weren't commanded to sink an Aircraft Carrier, or else fail.

Aircraft carriers were used on WW2 against Germany?? If I'm not wrong they were mainly used on Pacific war.

alexradu89 · 03-26-10, 06:36 AM

We really shouldn't blame the devs for this because most of the guilt belongs to Ubisoft. It's Ubisoft's fault that they made the game more arcade (commercial; because every 10 year old kid wants a WW2 german submarine simulator for his birthday or under the Christmas tree instead of evil, un-christian games like shooters, action-adventure games etc. it's not like anybody enjoys shooters right?). The devs actually had a very tight and strict deadline, because like any major international company, Ubi doesn't really care about anything other than profit (who cares if the game is bought by a subsim fan or a casual gamer as long as "we get teh monee!1") and it's just not that easy to create a game in a small period of time.There's also the fact that the devs didn't really had full liberty of making the game, lots of "instructions" were being sent from the central Ubi headquarters even though those people had no idea what a submarine is(but that's just how everything goes).The devs of course have their share of guilt for various game malfunctions and lack of quality in the game but then again nothing's perfect (and some people just fail at doing their job).

PS: Oh and, I don't think that the u-boat orders back in those days sounded like "go to this area, patrol around and sink 50k tons worth of ships and 5 destroyers 3 battleships 1 carrier, because even though we don't know where the enemy is, we just know that by some strange miracle, a british task force will just happen to be passing by". Some dynamic campaign this is. Really Ubi ?!

mookiemookie · 03-26-10, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexradu89

We really shouldn't blame the devs for this because most of the guilt belongs to Ubisoft. It's Ubisoft's fault that they made the game more arcade (commercial; because every 10 year old kid wants a WW2 german submarine simulator for his birthday or under the Christmas tree instead of evil, un-christian games like shooters, action-adventure games etc. it's not like anybody enjoys shooters right?). The devs actually had a very tight and strict deadline, because like any major international company, Ubi doesn't really care about anything other than profit (who cares if the game is bought by a subsim fan or a casual gamer as long as "we get teh monee!1") and it's just not that easy to create a game in a small period of time.There's also the fact that the devs didn't really had full liberty of making the game, lots of "instructions" were being sent from the central Ubi headquarters even though those people had no idea what a submarine is(but that's just how everything goes).The devs of course have their share of guilt for various game malfunctions and lack of quality in the game but then again nothing's perfect (and some people just fail at doing their job).

03-24-10, 02:54 PM	#1
jdkbph Captain Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 508 Downloads: 104 Uploads: 0	Go here - Sink that I started to post this in another thread, but I didn't want to hijack it with general comments and questions for debate. Does any one else find this whole notion of mission success based on "Go here-Sink that" completely off the wall? [rant] IMO, it's totally ridiculous! One mission says sink a bunch of AMCs and two carriers. Another says go sink a couple of battleships! You sink multiple cruisers and the game treats that like it's not good enough? Nonsense! Many top aces, recognized as being among the best in the craft, went whole careers without sinking a cruiser. In reality only a small handful of capital ships were sunk by submarines during the entire war... mainly a result of blind luck (stumbling into the right place at the right time). Most sub skippers never even eyeballed an enemy capital ship through the periscope, much less fired upon and sunk one! With a few very specific exceptions (the X craft attacks on Tirpitz for example) I don't think any RL sub or sub commander was ever sent out with the specific task of sinking a CV or BB - or a set number of ships or a specified amount of Merchant tonnage - like we are in SH5. They weren't given orders to sink 25,000 tons, or else fail. They weren't commanded to sink an Aircraft Carrier, or else fail. Ridiculous. As far as I know, submarines were typically sent out on "patrols" not missions. And they called them "patrols" for a reason... they went to an assigned area, nosed about for a period of time, attacked what came their way, and were hailed as heroes if they came home with a few decent kills. OK so they were assigned the occasional mission, to be sure. But these were atypical - usually recon or spec ops type missions - not nautical assassinations. [/rant] So I've taken notice that the modders have already reduced some of the totally unrealistic tonnage requirements for mission success. But I think it needs to go quite a bit further. I think the tonnage requirements should be removed altogether... particularly when we (eventually) get a reasonable variety of ships to hunt, rather than every other one being a 10,000 ton tanker. And of course, all success criteria bound to a specific number and/or type of ship (other than perhaps a general distinction between merchants and warships) should be removed entirely. If the game is properly balanced, I think it's enough to say "Proceed to <specified area> and sink one or more <ships/merchant ships/warships>", depending on the type of assignment given and any high level operations (blockade, seaborne invasion, surface force transit, area denial, etc) being conducted in the assignment area. Anything more than that is arcade. Success in the campaign, at the submarine commander level, should not depend on hitting a grand slam home run every time you step to the plate! What say you? JD

03-24-10, 03:29 PM	#6
McHibbins Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Good old Germany Posts: 739 Downloads: 80 Uploads: 0	This dynamic thing is crappy imho. Would like to have campaigns like in SH3+SH4. I hated SH2 for this kind years ago and so i do now. __________________

03-25-10, 10:18 AM	#12
SabreHawk Captain Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Seattle, Wa. USA Posts: 530 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Hmmm ya know this brings a thought about something thats been on my mind lately. There is that option when in base before shipping out where one talks to the commander, and in that dialog there is the option of starting patrol without selecting a mission. So it seems to me now that one can if one so wishes, simply do just that. Go out on patrol to anywhere you wish and sink whatever you wish. The ships and tonnage will count, and you can rack up quite a score. The only thing is none of it will count towards the missions and campaign. But what im thinking is, that what you can do is mix it up and sometimes just go on patrol without a mission, and sometimes select a mission so that you can have campaign progress. So just do every other patrol as an official mission for instance, and the others in between as non mission patrols. Thereby satsflying one's need to roam where you see fit, sinking what you see fit. Hmmm, freedom of choice. What a grand idea. __________________ "Chance favors the prepared mind"

03-24-10, 03:06 PM	#3
THM Seaman Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 35 Downloads: 18 Uploads: 0	Yeah, that's really a crappy campaign. Arcade is a fitting description for it. One of the most disappointing issues, because it's completely non-historic and cannot fixed easily. I am unable to guess why UBI deviated from accurate mission orders to such a FPS nonsense. If they are trying to attract more casual gamers, it's a complete fail. It's like implementing air strikes in a golf simulation.

03-24-10, 03:21 PM	#4
robbo180265 Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Brighton, England.Party capital of the south Posts: 2,255 Downloads: 126 Uploads: 0	Yeah I'm not a fan of it either. I find myself having to leave merchants alone because I'm not in the right area and I can't afford to waste eels. This goes against the grain somewhat. I can see what they were trying for (and probably for casual players it works fine) but for me - I'd prefer something more in keeping with the actual history of the U boats, or indeed the original SH3 idea of patroling a specific area only. I'm also finding the lack of variety of ships to sink a tad worrying too - I'm not sure if SH5 will keep my attention if all I can sink is tankers and freighters.

03-24-10, 03:23 PM	#5
Highbury The Old Man Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: 51.557, -0.102 Posts: 1,311 Downloads: 177 Uploads: 0	Another agreement. The whole concept of the mission based campaign is wrong IMO. I am quite sure that the most common mission was "patrol and sink commerce!" All these missions for Capitol ships.... grrrr.. as someone once said on the SHIII forums. "My job is not to look for a fair fight. My job is to destroy enemy shipping"

03-25-10, 10:03 AM	#11
Noren 中国水兵 Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 284 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	that would be like eating having an orgasm, eating sushi and flying helicopter at the same time! Totally awesome that is.

03-26-10, 06:36 AM	#14
alexradu89 Lieutenant Join Date: May 2009 Location: Romania Posts: 259 Downloads: 94 Uploads: 0	We really shouldn't blame the devs for this because most of the guilt belongs to Ubisoft. It's Ubisoft's fault that they made the game more arcade (commercial; because every 10 year old kid wants a WW2 german submarine simulator for his birthday or under the Christmas tree instead of evil, un-christian games like shooters, action-adventure games etc. it's not like anybody enjoys shooters right?). The devs actually had a very tight and strict deadline, because like any major international company, Ubi doesn't really care about anything other than profit (who cares if the game is bought by a subsim fan or a casual gamer as long as "we get teh monee!1") and it's just not that easy to create a game in a small period of time.There's also the fact that the devs didn't really had full liberty of making the game, lots of "instructions" were being sent from the central Ubi headquarters even though those people had no idea what a submarine is(but that's just how everything goes).The devs of course have their share of guilt for various game malfunctions and lack of quality in the game but then again nothing's perfect (and some people just fail at doing their job). PS: Oh and, I don't think that the u-boat orders back in those days sounded like "go to this area, patrol around and sink 50k tons worth of ships and 5 destroyers 3 battleships 1 carrier, because even though we don't know where the enemy is, we just know that by some strange miracle, a british task force will just happen to be passing by". Some dynamic campaign this is. Really Ubi ?!