PDA

View Full Version : I sank a Japanese DD with a Narwhal Boat! in SH4



IsaanRanger
02-08-2007, 10:06 PM
Finally did it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I had to reverse to avoid the sinking.. lol just kidding I took this screen shot in the Sub Challenge mission in Battle Stations Midway, yes its Arcade like, but pretty fun.

http://sangi.hp.infoseek.co.jp/Image1.jpg

Stuntcow
02-08-2007, 10:14 PM
Sad, this is just sad... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AO1_AW_SW_USN
02-08-2007, 10:45 PM
@ Stuntcow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


@ IsaanRanger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

TheRealPotoroo
02-08-2007, 11:18 PM
That screenshot does make you appreciate SH3 though, warts and all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

IsaanRanger
02-09-2007, 12:23 AM
Honestly I want SH4, I want a real game. the Eidos game is just a kids game, thats all, but whats SAD is the NARWHAL is not in SH4, but its apparently in the EIDOS arcade game and the Type B Japanese sub. Also the sad thing is there is a mission where you work with AI subs, hence whats missing from SH4 still. even its just a shooter game.

klcarroll
02-09-2007, 11:25 AM
I agree: ....Attention to historical detail and high quality modeling are where UBI has the opportunity to set themselves apart from other games.

I'ts a shame that they seem content to let the aftermarket modders do their "heavy work". I would think that as a company, UBI would be horribly embarrassed by supermods like GWX: ....After all, THEY'RE the ones with the paid staff, and here are a bunch of people working for free to fix the product! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

*

TheMoon7x
02-09-2007, 12:01 PM
its been said many times that game manufacturers who produce simulations always get NO slack from their audience b/c they just can't do enough to make their sim "real enough". so in response to "gamers having to do the heavy work", thats b/c the ppl playing the sims have such high standards that will never be lived up to. each silent hunter game has been an improvement on the previous. but there will always be ppl wanting more more more. i'm sure when sh4 comes out, ppl on here will be saying "man, it would have been better if it had this or that, they just left stuff out, its not real enough" and that will continue with every single simulation anyone ever creates. period. so enjoy what they sell ya, enjoy the mods ppl make, and let it go! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

klcarroll
02-09-2007, 12:57 PM
......its been said many times that game manufacturers who produce simulations always get NO slack from their audience b/c they just can't do enough to make their sim "real enough".

There's a big difference between "picking nits" on points of technical accuracy, and major distortions of history inspired by deadlines imposed by the marketing department.

The omission of the Narwhal Class boats is not only a distortion of history, but an indication that the "planned gameplay" is just the "Atlantic Tonnage War" transplanted into the Pacific: Nothing could be further from the truth. U.S. submarine operations in the Pacific were far more varied and complex than a simple "Tonnage War".

The real question here is: "Do you want a good simulation, ....or just a glossy, high resolution "shoot-˜em-up"???

(......And BTW, as an citizen of the U.S., I find it just a tiny bit offensive to have our history modified to fit a game company's production schedule.)


Finally, you said; "....so enjoy what they sell ya,...":

........But I'm curious, ...do you follow the same philosophy when you buy a car????

*

3.JG51_Molders
02-09-2007, 01:59 PM
I believe Ubi could make more money and maintain a stronger customer base selling an expansion pack of SH3 that fixes the major bugs, adds more sub types, adds AI subs...etc then they could forgeting about us and releasing SH4. Just my two cents.

klcarroll
02-09-2007, 02:11 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

*

Kaleun1961
02-09-2007, 04:25 PM
I still can't get over the omission of wolf packs in a game devoted to the U-boat campaign in the Atlantic during WW2. Yes, I've heard the excuses about deadlines and the "difficulty" of coding the AI. To that I reply, "bulls-h-i-t!" Aces of the Deep, a U-boat game in the days of DOS and 486 CPU's could handle it. It's lame to tell us that it can't be done. Maybe game development should be turned over to the Japanese auto companies.

AO1_AW_SW_USN
02-09-2007, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
Maybe game development should be turned over to the Japanese auto companies.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Yeah, I guess they're a little more motivated in regards to quality output.


Like in a previous post, I stated that most of us would agree to a longer development cycle rather than a rushed product to the gaming shelves. But that all boils down to expenses and maintaining a budget. Why pay an extended employee payroll when you could just say "it's a desired feature, but unfortunately the current development cycle..."?

I strongly feel that the only way we (the gaming community) could obtain a quality product that we all desire, is to back up the modding community financially and develop our own games. Since that is considered far fetched and pure wishful thinking, we are stuck with what is dished out to us from the "corporate world".

3.JG51_Molders
02-09-2007, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by AO1_AW_SW_USN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
Maybe game development should be turned over to the Japanese auto companies.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Yeah, I guess they're a little more motivated in regards to quality output.


Like in a previous post, I stated that most of us would agree to a longer development cycle rather than a rushed product to the gaming shelves. But that all boils down to expenses and maintaining a budget. Why pay an extended employee payroll when you could just say "it's a desired feature, but unfortunately the current development cycle..."?

I strongly feel that the only way we (the gaming community) could obtain a quality product that we all desire, is to back up the modding community financially and develop our own games. Since that is considered far fetched and pure wishful thinking, we are stuck with what is dished out to us from the "corporate world". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well considering Ubi's marketing efforts with IL2, they have plenty of cash. The game I am waiting for from Team GT, a three year old development team, is Knights of the Sky. It was supose to be released during this month but was pushed back to the end of 2007 to put more features and enhancements into the game. I suggest Ubisoft learn from them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

mastergas
02-09-2007, 09:04 PM
is battle station midway all ready released or is that the demo. i really think the game is pretty cool letting you control the subs, surface ships, and aircraft of all sorts. I thinks its sorta a cross bread between sh3 and destroyer command, and il-2 but changed into a first person shooter sorta.

WilhelmSchulz.
02-09-2007, 10:03 PM
Dont tease us. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

GoldenEagle8
02-09-2007, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
(......And BTW, as an citizen of the U.S., I find it just a tiny bit offensive to have our history modified to fit a game company's production schedule.)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif I Personally get PO'd when someone modifies history to their, or a groups liking, Or to fit something else.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


I believe Ubi could make more money and maintain a stronger customer base selling an expansion pack of SH3 that fixes the major bugs, adds more sub types, adds AI subs...etc then they could forgeting about us and releasing SH4. Just my two cents.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gifx500

rodan54
02-10-2007, 03:23 AM
I'ts a shame that they seem content to let the aftermarket modders do their "heavy work". I would think that as a company, UBI would be horribly embarrassed by supermods like GWX: ....After all, THEY'RE the ones with the paid staff
Not to discredit the modders, but I really wouldn't say that they did the "heavy work". Ubisoft Romania did the "heavy work". The modders (and fans) out of love for this wonderful series, wanted something more, so they took it upon themselves to expand an already Amazing game. And to that end they did a wonderful job, and I'm sure we'll see the same excellent mod contributions for SHIV as well. Furthermore, I doubt Ubisoft is embarrassed by the community mods. If anything they're probably honored that people take such an interest in their game to put all that extra effort into it that they do.


here are a bunch of people working for free to fix the product!
They also have all the time in the world compared to Ubisoft.


The omission of the Narwhal Class boats is not only a distortion of history, but an indication that the "planned gameplay" is just the "Atlantic Tonnage War" transplanted into the Pacific: Nothing could be further from the truth. U.S. submarine operations in the Pacific were far more varied and complex than a simple "Tonnage War". Unfortunately some things always have to get put on the bottom of the priority list during game development, and here the Narwhal happens to be one of these things. And, honestly it was a good decision. As much fun as it may be to command a V-Class boat, they're not all that essential to the represented campaign (yes I know they were a part of the PTO, but not nearly on the scale of the boats we are getting). Also, how does the exclusion of the V-Class translate into a game of "Atlantic to Pacific tonnage war replant"? Because thats not exactly what we've seen thus far.


"Do you want a good simulation, ....or just a glossy, high resolution "shoot-˜em-up"??? Of course we want a good simulation, which is exactly what SHIV will be. What it wont be is a perfect simulation that fulfills all the expectations (unrealistic or not) of the SH community. And this is exactly why the world has modders.


I believe Ubi could make more money and maintain a stronger customer base selling an expansion pack of SH3 that fixes the major bugs, adds more sub types, adds AI subs...etc then they could forgeting about us and releasing SH4. Just my two cents. As much as the smaller fraction of the SHIII customer base might want these feature, it's highly unrealistic to expect that a SHIII ex-pack would sell more than SHIV (which is probably why Ubisoft didn't do it). Oh, and one more thing, could someone give me a list off all these "major bugs" that seem to have affected so much of the SH community so badly?

klcarroll
02-10-2007, 08:39 AM
Also, how does the exclusion of the V-Class translate into a game of "Atlantic to Pacific tonnage war replant"? Because thats not exactly what we've seen thus far.

My fear is that the exclusion of the V Class boats is a symptom of a larger problem.

We were told that the V Class was being excluded because "It didn't fit the planned Gameplay."

Just what does that mean???? The V-boats were not the only multi-mission boats in the PTO: ....The other Fleet Boat classes were routinely given similar missions. Does the above statement mean that those "other operations" are going to be ignored for the Baloa and Gato class boats too??? THAT is a HUGE distortion of history, not a minor technical point!!

Due to Early War Losses (read "Pearl Harbor"), the U.S. submarine fleet was forced to undertake a widely varied range of missions because there wasn't anyone else to do the job. These missions were performed with expertise and daring during a period of almost unrelieved loss and retreat for the U.S.

These patrols were, in many cases, very non-typical: They were "dumped" on the submarine service because in the first 18 months of the war, the IJN owned the Western Pacific, and any U.S. surface vessel attempting the same mission would have been simply a few minutes of amusing target practice for the Japanese air and naval forces!

The Submarine War in the PTO was FAR more than a simple "Tonnage War"!

.......And for those who consider the V-Boats to be statistically insignificant, consider this fact: .....On December 7th, 1941, of the 111 U.S. submarines in commission, 8 of them were V-Boats! This is not a statistically insignificant number.

Furthermore, ....If you doubt the effectiveness of these boats, do a google search on "U.S.S. Narwhal", and read about her 15 Combat Patrols, (!!!!) and the 15 Battle Stars she earned during the course of those patrols! ......And she wasn't alone! Her sister, the U.S.S. Nautilus did 14 Combat Patrols.


My central point is just this: .....If you're going to market a game as a historical simulation, then don't insult the people who fought and sacrificed by discarding large chunks of history, and "warping" the ones you can't ignore, simply because your marketing department insists on a particular delivery date.

Personally, I would be quite happy to wait another six months, if it meant a more historically accurate product: There are plenty of fanciful "Shoot-Em-Ups" on the market right now; .....so there's no real rush to produce another!

*

IsaanRanger
02-10-2007, 10:08 AM
Yes its out, I bought the full game. Several bugs to be worked out. But some interesting experiences. a challenge single player mission where I command the Fuso and escape 19 allied ships with only one ship to help me, the Yamashiro. But its kinda unrealistic, I had to sink all 19 ships to survive. The bad thing about destroyers and cruisers is they send out salvos of torpedoes, so you have to constantly reverse or evade the fish. It can be tricky with the BB. The Sub missions are ones where you identify cargo by sneaking close by, then verifying it and sinking it, and some are when you command 2 submarines and you conduct a raid, you command and you choose which to currently control, but the formation is under your orders.

My internet is somehow bad on the Multiplayer so its really not enjoyable, so I am stuck with single player mode for now, waiting for the patch to hopefully put in a skirmish mode offline so you can just play around with task forces and blow things up. just a fun afternoon game, but I really like real sub games like when I play SH3. I look forward to SH4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW, when you control a bomber or a plane in that Battlestations, its 3rd person, no cockput view as opposed to IL-2, but the effects and graphics are pretty fluid and nice. its nice Eye candy. and the AA part where you control AAA a ship, oh itslike a WWII movie. all the AAA get directed and if its on auto, they check out other planes as well. lotsa tracers and flak.

mastergas
02-10-2007, 10:17 AM
i may just buy this game

IsaanRanger
02-10-2007, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by mastergas:
i may just buy this game

Well just be aware that this game kinda screams console, but if you have an XBOX 360, you could get that one, but you know the PC one which I have will be patchable and have mods perhaps someday and its cheaper at 39.99 most places.

Unless you have a really good internet with cable or something (I am using 1.5MB DSL but my provider has some ports closed, which are not letting me connect very well in games, I see HIGH LATENCY blinking all over my screen when I try to play this game online) The thing people were complaining about is you must set ports for this game online and there are no dedicated server support. I can play SH3 just fine with other players without needing some sort of port open. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif