PDA

View Full Version : 75% casualties - will that be accurately modelled?



Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2004, 11:53 AM
75% (or so) of U-Boat crews didn't survive the war (at least according to the movie Das Boot). Now I've played a lot of sub sims, but I don't recall ever surviving a full war career. Will SH3 be like all the other sub sims - i.e. will it be impossible to survive the war? Or will I have a 25% chance of getting through a career? It's easy to make a sub sim (or any other sim) without considering a nicely balanced casualty rate - you can easily make convoy attacks verge on the suicidal, but it's very difficult to get a realistic balance in this regard. I'm hoping that if I play conservatively I will have some chance to survive the war.

AKA44
11-08-2004, 11:59 AM
it's 80%
lol

Yarrick_
11-08-2004, 12:01 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
Here's where U-flaks will play a big part, as I said in another forum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

As in most things, patience is the key. I think that a lot of crews survived, and I supose it will be not so hard to do so if you navigate with schnorkel, or submerged, or during the night, and do not want to take only a few days to complete a patrol. Also, not hoping to sunk too much tonnage and attacking in the right moment should play a big part. And finally:
The best way to survive is to get the first XXI elektro-boat right after it gets out of the dockyard!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
I supose that one of these were capable of carrying out an attack to the entire allied fleet and sunk a ship or two before banishing, as in the last day of the war was about to happen!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

bertgang
11-08-2004, 12:03 PM
Lot of real captains had a corservatively attitude, as you wish to play, but at the end they were in the 75%.

jeroen-79
11-08-2004, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Or will I have a 25% chance of getting through a career? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean "will 25% of all players survive the war?"?
Only the best 25% will survive.

But the game shouldn't roll a dice to see if you live or die, it should realistically model your boat and the enemy.
Then you can survive by being good enough to avoid getting sunk.

E.Thang
11-08-2004, 12:15 PM
Jeroen has a point, you may not survive a carerr becasue you're not good enough. You can't charge in to a convoy in 45' like you would in 41' or 42'. Unfortunatly you have to be more conservative towards the end if you wish to survive.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2004, 12:30 PM
it's 80%
lol

My point is that it wasn't 100%. And 75% to 80% was for the crew. Captains had a mortality rate of only 25%.


Originally posted by Bertgang:
Lot of real captains had a corservatively attitude, as you wish to play, but at the end they were in the 75%.

Not true. Many surviving captains were very audacious. the reason their mortality rate was so low was that, unlike crewmen, they were reassigned to shore duty after between 3 and 16 patrols, yet I've never seen a sub sim where any captains survived. That's 100% mortality. It's not realistic.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2004, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen-79:
[But the game shouldn't roll a dice to see if you live or die, it should realistically model your boat and the enemy.
Then you can survive by being good enough to avoid getting sunk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not asking the game to roll dice. I'm saying that the simulation should give a conservative player a realistic chance of survival based on the difficulty of the sim. It's not a question of dice being rolled. It's a question of whether the sim models the aspects of the simulation well enough to give a conservative player an accurate result in regards to survivability.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2004, 12:41 PM
The reason I think this is such an important consideration is that this is a crew sim as well as being a sub sim. If the casualty rates are similar to older sub games (which, as far as I've been able to figure are 100% - I've never known any player to have survived even a relatively short career) then the crew management aspects become moot. If your boat can only possibly last 1 or 2 patrols you will have no chance to really train a crew. This was a problem in B-17 II. It had a great crew management feature but loss rates were about 3 times what they were historically (even for veteran players who played very conservatively), so you never really got to use the crew management part of the game because your crew did not survive long enough to become good. In reality, many crews survived tours. If the game had done its job in terms of balancing the difficulty to match reality, then it would not have wasted this great aspect of the game. I just hope SH3 doesn't make the same mistake that Wayward Design did with B-17 II.

mlody111
11-09-2004, 12:32 AM
I dont see what your asking for or have a problem with. Just because you do not know any people who survived campaigns, that doesnt mean no one did it.

IMO, it is impossible to model the 75% and the extra difficulties (ie. CO2, Batteries, etc.) because it all depends on the player. Real commanders had to dedicate their lives to survive (even the ones that didnt dedicated their life to this) so it would be hard to model realism and then turn around and say... oh we want to live 75% percent of the time. This is entirely dependent on how good the player is and how difficult the player has made his game (the options).

btw once at least in 4 times is not a good example. If you really want your chances you can take the amount of commanders that went out to sea and died and divide it by the total commanders that went out to sea. Remember, amount of crew returned home is not the same as commanders survived. Also you can role the dice 10 times and still not hit the "surviving number." Each time you roll the die (each patrol) your chances are (lets say) 1/4 to survive. The next time they are also 1/4 and not any higher.

Jose.MaC
11-09-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Lot of real captains had a corservatively attitude, as you wish to play, but at the end they were in the 75%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but I've never seen a sub sim where any captains survived. That's 100%. I don't mind 3 of my captains being in the 75%, but 1 out of every 4 (if all 4 are played conservatively) should survive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you play the same way with all captains, you'll be unable to survive. You've to test new tactics, try mew aproachs and be always open to adapt to the situation.

bertgang
11-09-2004, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Lot of real captains had a corservatively attitude, as you wish to play, but at the end they were in the 75%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but I've never seen a sub sim where any captains survived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then I have the pleasure to tell you that at least one of my virtual captains survived the war, playing AoD at 100% realism.

He acted like Otto Kretschmer; he ordered to abandon his badly damaged boat, instead to try the usual player's way (wait quite impossible repairs hoping for the best).
Obiouvsly, he become a POW, like other real survivors.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2004, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mlody111:
IMO, it is impossible to model the 75% and the extra difficulties (ie. CO2, Batteries, etc.) because it all depends on the player. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's like saying it's impossible to model any aspect of any sim because it all depends on the player. But it doesn't 'all' depend on the player. If I do everything right in a well-crafted sim it should be possible to get higher than a 20% survival rate among my U-Boat crews. If not, the sim is inaccurate in some way. That is only logical. To say that 'human error' makes it impossible for a sim to get close to realism in terms of casualties is simply not true. Risk can be modelled accurately based on assessments of human performance. This is 100% of what combat simulation is all about. It is a developer's job to tune a simulation so that it gives users an approximation of reality. That's their whole job. If you're saying that no simulation developer can do that job, then I must disagree.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2004, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
I have the pleasure to tell you that at least one of my virtual captains survived the war, playing AoD at 100% realism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, but how many careers did you run? For that one captain to represent a realistic survival rate you can only have run 3 or 4 other careers. If you ran more, then the survival rate was porked (as I'm sure it was). Plus, how long did you play this guy until his capture? Not more than a few months I'll bet. Those old games did a horrible job regarding survivability - there was a perception (which still exists today I'm sad to say) that "if it wasn't REALLY deadly it wasn't realistic". As a result, campaign games were completely screwed-up. Not that it really mattered back then, but like I say, this is in part a crew management sim, and if the possibility to get a realistic survival rate is not given good consideration, then it will mess up that part of the sim.

Note that having a realistic survival rate doesn't mean that some arbitrary die is cast making a crew survive an encounter: what it means is that all the aspects of the sim are made as realistic as possible so that real results come out at all levels. What we normally find in simulations is that developers who want to provide an exciting sim do stuff like expand explosion radii and increase depth charge damage effectiveness so that a depth charge has much greater effect than a real one. This makes the game more exciting but less realistic. We should have realism options for those of us who like arcade excitement and options for those of us who want realism in all its unexciting mundanity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Basically, all I want is the possibility for some of my captains to survive a campaign. I've never yet had that experience in a sub sim - and not for want of trying.

bertgang
11-09-2004, 07:45 AM
The career of my "survivor" was really close to Kretschmer's one for lenght, tonnage, and awards.
He lost a type IX during his 12th patrol; he started as captain of a type II (four or five patrols), then was commissioned to a VIIB (four or five patrols too).

Now, another successfull character (more successfull) is sailing for is 12th patrol; let's cross my fingers.

The number of my captains lost at sea surely excedes your rate, but I think it's mainly by my fault; being a player sitting on a comfortable chair, sometimes I am less cautious than a Kapitanleutnant should be.

Anyway, real captains rarely fought the whole war; the best of them had an opportunity to leave the service at sea and, strangely for a subsim player, they were very pleased by that.

I forgot a point: sometimes AoD gives the above mentioned option, but lot of players prefer to stay at sea...

ParaB
11-09-2004, 08:17 AM
You are missing the main point: SH3 is a computer game.

Nobody will like to do three or four war patrols and not sink a single ship, which happened quite a lot in reality. That means SH3 will provide us a much more hero-like, arcade version of the actual events. Mind you, I'm not saying this in a negative way. It's just the way a computer game works.

In every subsim I've ever played (back to Silent Service I) I usually sank more ships than several of the top aces together. SH3 will be no different.

On the other hand, if you set out on a patrol in mid-44 with a type VII U-boat without snorkel your life expectancy should be quite low...

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2004, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Anyway, real captains rarely fought the whole war; the best of them had an opportunity to leave the service at sea and, strangely for a subsim player, they were very peased by that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope there will be options to have similar non-combat-related reassignments possible in the game. As you say, many captains were assigned to desk jobs and other stuff. It would be nice if the occasional reassignment opportunity came up (a chance to stop your career and survive the war). You could accept it or turn it down. I think that would be an easy addition that would add tons of immersion (and some tenseness as you worried whether to cut and run by taking the desk job, or go on to try to be a top ace).

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2004, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParaB:
You are missing the main point: SH3 is a computer game.

Nobody will like to do three or four war patrols and not sink a single ship, which happened quite a lot in reality. That means SH3 will provide us a much more hero-like, arcade version of the actual events. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would you ever have to experience non-contact patrols? As you say, this is a computer game: we're not limited by real world annoyances such as patrols where nothing happens. Why model all patrols as if they were all 'contact patrols'? - it's unrealistic and it doesn't add anything to the fun. All it does it add many more patrols to the campaign than are needed. There's another option: why not only model 'contact patrols'? That's what they do in flight sims to keep both the realism and the excitement strong. You get back from a patrol and the game informs you that "Your next two patrols are uneventful. 6 months have passed. It is now May 1943". There's an idea that's easy to implement, and which keeps realism and fun at a premium.

bertgang
11-09-2004, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
There's another option: why not only model 'contact patrols'? That's what they do in flight sims to keep both the realism and the excitement strong. You get back from a patrol and the game informs you that "Your next two patrols are uneventful. 6 months have passed. It is now May 1943". There's an idea that's easy to implement, and which keeps realism and fun at a premium. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Genial! I am for http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Iohann Moritz
11-09-2004, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Why model all patrols as if they were all 'contact patrols'? - it's unrealistic and it doesn't add anything to the fun. All it does it add many more patrols to the campaign than are needed. There's another option: why not only model 'contact patrols'? That's what they do in flight sims to keep both the realism and the excitement strong. You get back from a patrol and the game informs you that "Your next two patrols are uneventful. 6 months have passed. It is now May 1943". There's an idea that's easy to implement, and which keeps realism and fun at a premium. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I Completely disagree. In submarine warfare, detecting the enemy is generally up to you, instead of depending on external support like radar stations in a combat flight simulator.
The problem with U-Boats towards the final years wasn't that no enemy ships were spotted, but that they were extremely well-defended. Uneventful patrols were rare. The player will always have to show his experience during an air attack, for example.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2004, 09:15 AM
You could also have the game make your chances of getting an uneventful patrol based on your watch crew's quality. If your watch crew are inefficient the game might generate a 60% chance of each patrol being uneventful (and thus skipped) while a veteran watch crew might decrease the chances of getting an uneventful mission to 30%. This would make it essential to carefully manage the people you assigned to the watch.

All of this stuff is easy to do and adds heaps to both the fun and the realism of the game.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2004, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iohann Moritz:
I Completely disagree. In submarine warfare, detecting the enemy is generally up to you, instead of depending on external support like radar stations in a combat flight simulator.
The problem with U-Boats towards the final years wasn't that no enemy ships were spotted, but that they were extremely well-defended. Uneventful patrols were rare. The player will always have to show his experience during an air attack, for example. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that can be modelled too. If uneventful patrols late in the war were rare, then the patrol generator can model that - have late war patrols be uneventful in only 10% of cases. You cannot call a game a simulator if it fails to simulate something as basic as contact vs. non-contact missions. U-boat captains and crews were very efficient, and if they didn't spot anything during a patrol, it wasn't because they weren't trying hard enough. It was because there was no contact to be made. Sometimes luck plays a role, and rather than spend hours running a patrol where I'm not going to run into any ships, I'd prefer to have such patrols skipped - luck wasn't with me on those patrols. Similarly, rather than have the game pretend that all patrols were eventful when in fact they were not, I'd rather have a realistic state of affairs where I didn't have to experience twice the danger that a real life submarine commander had to face. Why not have more realism AND more fun? There's nothing more annoying than playing a career that is so long that you know 1. that it's unrealistic, and 2. that it's impossible to survive because there are many more contacts to be made than in reality.

P.S. In regard to the 'radar' thing, he flight sim I was thinking about was Red Baron 3D. A mod was made to model contact/no contact missions. Radar wasn't invented until after WW1, so WW1 air combat had a lot in common with WW2 submarine warfare (at least in that regard).

bertgang
11-09-2004, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iohann Moritz:
In submarine warfare, detecting the enemy is generally up to you...The problem with U-Boats towards the final years wasn't that no enemy ships were spotted... Uneventful patrols were rare... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you, in a general way.
The reason why I like the suggestion for some automated uneventful patrol is different.
I never had a really uneventful patrol and, starting early in the war, usually I get a knight cross in short time.
Automated news about uneventful patrols, or some duty different from active service, could help us to travel in wartime without to be the amazing top aces we often are.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2004, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Automated news about uneventful patrols, or some duty different from active service, could help us to travel in wartime without to be the amazing top aces we often are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get me wrong: I still want to be a top ace, but I want to achieve it on a level playing field. I don't want to be given some sort of artificial cheat feature (such as more contact patrols than were historically likely) so that I don't have to work as hard as the real aces in order to achieve it. I want to beat them fairly, or fail fairly. I think that's only respectful towards their accomplishments

Yarrick_
11-09-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParaB:

In every subsim I've ever played (back to Silent Service I) I usually sank more ships than several of the top aces together. SH3 will be no different.

low... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, you cannot compare, because Otto Kreschtmer, the best of the best, did his career in only the first years of the war, and you do your career in the game trough the hole war, only to achieve a slightly bigger amount of tonnage, and after playing the most important operations, like maybe Scapa Flow, and finding lots of merchants and convoys in every patrol. If you were not unable to do that being the games heplpfull to the player and being able to "restart" you must be an idiot to not do so.
I mean, they had only one life, you have thousands, even if you begin a new career, you have previos experience.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2004, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
If you were not unable to do that being the games heplpfull to the player and being able to "restart" you must be an idiot to not do so.
I mean, they had only one life, you have thousands, even if you begin a new career, you have previos experience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you can only get so much experience. We are only human after all, and experience only gets you so far - as far as your maximized human abilities let you. But if a sim is not a good simulation - i.e. if it's skewed so that it makes you more effective than that of the top aces - more effective than a human being can possibly be, that's not a matter of you being able to get much more experience (as if playing a game for thousands of hours can make you more experienced than a captain who spent thousands of hours in real combat: as if the two can be compared, and as if the captain's experience can be found wanting when HIS LIFE is on the line and yours isn't).

What it comes down to is this - if you do a job for 40 years you're not going to learn much more in the last 38 years than you learned in the first two years, especially if those first years were in combat. If a player has the equivalent of 40 years of simulated U-Boat patrols under his belt, he's still not going to be an Erich Topp. Why? Because Erich Topp and the other top aces were working at the height of human achievement possibility when their lives were on the line. If the sim makes a computer game player (someone who is doing this for fun) out to be much better than Erich Topp, then there's something wrong with the sim.

And as for this 'restart' thing that you speak of, I don't know what you're talking about. A simulation player doesn't 'restart' a mission during a sim career. You get your career and you play it through - no going back. In my opinion no one who calls himself a simulation fan hits the restart button - at least not if he has any self-respect or any respect for the sim. I've heard rumours of the odd sim fan restarting when they felt they died unfairly, but I don't believe them; and I've heard that some folks even restart to sink more tonnage - but if that sort of squalid behaviour is true it's beneath contempt.

mlody111
11-11-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If the sim makes a computer game player (someone who is doing this for fun) out to be much better than Erich Topp, then there's something wrong with the sim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No... its an enjoyabel sim that you play in your pjs at night. Remember... alot of gamers out there also have real lives and I personally would not want to play a game that I cannot succeed at. If I fail the first few 20 times.. ill keep on playing, but if I keep failing until my 200th time, I will quit and call the game crappy.

This "great feature" would eventually be the downfall of the game because people do no like being "put down" by a game (bad for ego) and we play computer GAMES (these are still just games for your free time) to get away from out cubical worlds to be someone larger than the rest.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-11-2004, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mlody111:
No... its an enjoyabel sim that you play in your pjs at night. Remember... alot of gamers out there also have real lives and I personally would not want to play a game that I cannot succeed at. If I fail the first few 20 times.. ill keep on playing, but if I keep failing until my 200th time, I will quit and call the game crappy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be able to succeed. In fact I'm all for options that allow everyone to succeed, no matter how poor they are at playing computer games. But if you count 'failure' as not being able to outscore Kretschmer by a factor of ten (or even by a factor of two over a similar career period and length - let's not forget that Kretschmer was a ship-sinking genius), then that's not something that a sim should cater to (at least not in 'full realism' mode) - such scores are simply not realistic or desirable in a simulation. This is a simulation, not just an arcade game. Unlike an arcade game, an historical-based simulation has a responsibility to be somewhat faithful to historical fact, otherwise it's not a simulation.

Anyway, a high score is not what a simulation fan is in the game for. The scores don't matter. Success is gauged in terms of how close your crew's experiences in the sim come to what real crews experienced in the real world. Success is playing the game so well that your crew survives a career. You can be successful while getting a very low tonnage score because real crews got low tonnage scores - that is reality and if you achieve a low tonnage score and still get that closeness to reality that a really good simulation can give you, such a career can be much more satisfying than one where you sunk heaps of ships yet didn't feel that sense of realism. Sometimes (and I'm sure this will be almost incomprehensible to those who don't count themselves as hardcore simulation fans), success in terms of a simulation is getting sunk on your third patrol, because that's reality too.

Success for a simulation fan is not gauged by beating the top aces in terms of tonnage. Such things are irrelevant to a simulation player's goals. Those things might suffice for casual or arcade-oriented players, but, at least as far as I'm concerned, a high tonnage score doesn't cut it if the other parts of the sim don't behave realistically.

But then again, maybe you're not in it for the simulation aspects. In that case there should be arcade settings where you can gauge success by outdoing the great aces. That's fine, but in my view it's not simulation because if you're outdoing reality by a large factor, then you're not simulating the reality. That is a simple truism. What you're playing, at that level, is just a game. It doesn't aspire to be anything more. You should have that option - in fact I'll fight for your right to have that option. I'll also fight for my right to have the option of playing the game as a simulation. Everyone should have the ability to play the game as they prefer - that's what optional settings are for, and if a developer doesn't give us the options to play the game as we like, then he's not doing his job properly.

Yarrick_
11-12-2004, 11:45 AM
What I meant by restart" was that you could begin another career when you finish one. Mayebe I should have said "replayability"!!

About this uneventfull patrols, another interesting thing could be to add training patrols when you get a new sub, obviously non-interactive patrols. I think that I would not like to only sail around in a sub like those "flight simulators".
Another thing to do, could be the Kriegsmarine command putting you for a few months in another dutyes and then returning to patrols. These could be options to no being patrolling the whole war.
There was any commander which spent the hole war (39-45) patrolling? I don't think so...

Pr0metheus 1962
11-12-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
There was any commander which spent the hole war (39-45) patrolling? I don't think so... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I also hope they allow for the leave period between patrols, which was quite long in some cases. I hope the game doesn't have you finishing a patrol one day and starting the next patrol a day later. I think all these options should be available for those of us who want realistic leave periods, reassignments and training periods.

SailorSteve
11-12-2004, 02:22 PM
Well said Beeryus, this post and the long one above. One of the things I loved about AOD was the 20-30 day downtime between patrols (and even longer if you came home damaged-I once spent 97 days in port!).

I also wholeheartedly agree on 'replayability' vs 'restarts'; I like being able to start a career anytime during the war (not every captain started in September 1939), but I really hate SHII's "if you die-or even don't sink the required tonnage-you play the same mission over" attitude.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-12-2004, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SailorSteve:
I also wholeheartedly agree on 'replayability' vs 'restarts'; I like being able to start a career anytime during the war (not every captain started in September 1939), but I really hate SHII's "if you die-or even don't sink the required tonnage-you play the same mission over" attitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I LOATHE, LOATHE linear campaigns, and it is contemptible for someone who seriously calls himself a game developer to put a linear campaign with required success and call the game a simulation. People have been shot for less.

The stuff you mention is absolutely essential to a great simulation - realistic downtimes and being able to start a career anytime during the war are essential elements of a true simulation. I just hope the developers of SH3 have put these features in their sim.

CB..
11-12-2004, 06:52 PM
i agree ...to be honest i don't consider myself to be a hard core simulation fan...but i find it extremely odd to be placed into a simulated game world where the rules are in fact so different from reality as to render the idea of the game redundant..any sim that forces you to replay a mission because you didnt complete the objectives is not a sim...it's a ego trip..

im in it for the atmosphere ..the story-line (wether real or imagined) behind my adopted commanders career...i like subsims because of the slow pace...the exploration, the unknown..what is over the horizon...if i find escorted shipping ..dare i attack? can i attack...? if so how and where and when?

the graphics are top class in SH3 (by the looks of things) so even chugging along at ten knots on the surface is going to be a huge pleasure..(as it can be in SH2 somtimes) that pleasure, even relaxation is contrasted against the tension of the combat situations and it's the contrast between the two that makes sims like this so interesting..your not being rushed into the game as if it might fall apart if your not racking up a score some where or another..the last thing i want from a game is to be told by the game devs, how what and why, i should enjoy their game. i want to discover the game for my self...create me a simulated world that is convincing in it's scope and it will automatically "write you a story" as you play it..a story that will have all the romance, poetry, tension, fear, excitement...elation that can be experienced from reading a favourite book or watching a favourite movie..
all with the added element that not only is it interactive and you are playing your part in it...it is allso dynamic (if it has a dynamic engine) and the plot and events change each time you play it thru..add some **** top score fetish to it and it dies on it's feet before it's even started, because from then on in your imagination is constantly fighting against the games design , instead of running with it....all this probably sounds a tadge "sad" perhaps...but given that games are now out selling Hollywood movies .....the genres of visual arts as depicted on screen and the defining edges between them are beginning to blur (wether it's a telli-vision, the cinema or a computer screen) films are becoming games /games are being made into films...it seems games can become more than just pure games and start to become grown up fully rounded entertainment "experiences" in their own right..an allmost unique new genre for the visual arts..with the same sort of artistic values...games can tell storys but the real beauty of games is that they are the only genre that can tell a different story each time you click on the icon and start a new career..
sounds over blown????
i think not...

what started out as pong; can end up as Shakespear or Speilburg ....all it takes is slight adjustment in expectations...

games as a fully fledged artistic medium with the same standards as other such creative mediums.. and that includes the gameplay...top scores aint going to cut it in that field..thats the joke that falls out your Christmas cracker..fun for a second nothing more..

for right now in fact take a look at the wonderfull screenshots...if you came across those blown up and framed in an art shop (putting aside the legal elements copy right etc for a second here) you would be reaching for you wallet to buy them with not a thought for the fact that they might have been generated by a game engine in fact i dont know why the game devs dont actually do this them selves. why dont they produce profesional quality prints from their screen shots and distribute them for sale in the major art/poster/print shops ..there is plenty of demand for such pictures ..tho there might be some protests form genuine artists..(now there's a debate waiting to happen!!!)
but you see what i mean..games are allready more than just games...any of us who enjoy looking at art in any sense of the word cannot fail to notice that lots of games have graphics which do in fact have the same sort of impact ...and can be savoured in much the same way..(if the player is left alone to enjoy the game from his own persapective and at his/her own pace) game devs who put limits on the players ability to purue their own interpretation of the games objectives are shooting themselves in the foot..and doing them selves a disservice..

HeibgesU999
11-12-2004, 07:10 PM
One of my favortite parts of looking through all the old logbooks of my careers. I would only go on 5 patrols with each career so I had a couple of dozen active carreers saved at one point, plus a half dozen or so ships on the Wall of Honor. I would always start my careers six months apart and it was interesting which commanders averaged better starting at different times in the war.

I would say the most common way I was killed in SH1 was getting rammed on the surface at night during poor visibility. i almost never got killed by DC's. And once you get radar aircraft is really no threat.

the advantage we have in getting killed is that we retain our knowledge. I have 20 years of knowledge from playing subsims. there wasn't even a single german commander who had that kind of experience when the war started.

they can take my boat and my crew, but no one take take my been there done that knowledge.

but there are somethings they can do in this game to make it very deadly at certain instances if you embark on foolhardy courses of action that could really boost the casualty rate.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-13-2004, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CB..:
it seems games can become more than just pure games and start to become grown up fully rounded entertainment "experiences" in their own right..an allmost unique new genre for the visual arts..with the same sort of artistic values...games can tell storys but the real beauty of games is that they are the only genre that can tell a different story each time you click on the icon and start a new career..
sounds over blown????
i think not...
...game devs who put limits on the players ability to purue their own interpretation of the games objectives are shooting themselves in the foot..and doing them selves a disservice.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely with everything you wrote. Sometimes I find it hard to believe that it's been nearly 15 years since the first simulations that included random or dynamic campaigns came out, yet many simulation developers still issue games with linear campaigns, and some with non-branching linear campaigns. If that level of incompetence occurred in any other field, the company that produced it would be out of business within a year, but because computer game developers can get away with mediocrity if the graphics are nice, some of these companies flourish.

Anyway, back to your main point, which is art in computer gaming. There are some games out there which stretch the limits of the industry and which give an artistry and freedom of play that goes well beyond what the genre normally produces. Have you ever played Knights of the Old Republic? It is an Adventure/Roleplaying Game based in the Star Wars universe. What the developer did with that game was incredible: KotOR almost singlehandedly introduced a dynamic campaign into a genre which was generally seen as being unable to support such a feature. Although it's like a standard adventure game in that it follows a linear storyline, it breaks from convention in that the way you choose to follow the story is up to you, and your character's actions determine which side of the conflict you fight on. It's an incredible game, and I urge anyone to try it even if the genre and the subject is not to their taste.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-13-2004, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CB..:
for right now in fact take a look at the wonderfull screenshots...if you came across those blown up and framed in an art shop (putting aside the legal elements copy right etc for a second here) you would be reaching for you wallet to buy them with not a thought for the fact that they might have been generated by a game engine <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's really interesting that in-game graphics are now at such a high level that the introductory movies often use the in-game graphics rather than using higher quality graphics in movies created specially for the game as they used to do. That's a real leap forward in my opinion, and it shows how far graphics have come in the last ten years.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-13-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
the advantage we have in getting killed is that we retain our knowledge. I have 20 years of knowledge from playing subsims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the only problem with that is that your knowledge is gained much slower because you're not under real threat of death. Real sub commanders had to REALLY concentrate on the best way (not just a good way that would probably work, and if not, oh well) to run their subs. You learn a lot more much quicker if your life is on the line than you do when it's just for fun. I would say that the ratio is probably 50 to 1 in terms of how quickly a simulation player learns the ins and outs of sub command versus how quickly a real submarine commander learns his job. Besides, there's only so much that can be learned, and sub sims are meant to reward the tactics that were really used - so real skippers have a huge advantage. It's not like you can learn more than a real sub skipper because your game is built with the specific goal of making the best players act like a real skipper. Let's face facts: if computer simulation players could gain more knowledge than a real sub skipper, the Navy would be recruiting in EB Games stores. The fact that the Navy doesn't even come near a computer game store says a lot about the differences between games (even simulations) and reality.

One massive consideration is that games tend to make players reckless with their 'simulated' lives. You certainly don't want a real submarine to be commanded by a person who will go for the short term goal of a massive tonnage score, but who has no concept of the need to keep the sub safe. Simulation players don't have that consideration - at least not really. They may think they play as conservatively as possible, but put the most conservative sim player's stats next to any real sub commander's and you'll see that the sim player gets his captains killed far more frequently than real life stats. Mostly that has to do with the fact that sub sims are primarily an entertainment tool, so they don't really simulate the reality - reality tends to be far less bloody than a sim even without the 'suicidal skipper' syndrome that's caused by players not being under real threat of death. Players generally want the excitement without the boredom, so game developers cater to that. It results in sims which don't simulate very well because they overstate the chances of finding an enemy (no one wants non-contact patrols), they overstate the speed with which a player can inflict damage (everyone wants to see huge explosions), and most importantly, they minimise the player's willingness to act in a way that is safe (everyone wants to see action and danger). All these things tend to make simulations basically just a higher form of arcade game: they look real on the surface, but if you look closely they don't act real. No one, except me and a few others (the sort of people who use the 'realism' patches that I've made for games like Red Baron 3D and B-17 II), would really want to play a game that simulated reality to an extent that made a game's stats look similar to real stats. Most players wouldn't want that even if they realised it was an issue, which they often don't. Heck, I've been roasted alive on forums just for saying this kind of stuff: most sim players like to think that sims are built to be realistic, and when someone comes along and tells the truth, it's heresy. Hell, I've been roasted alive just for making patches that made games more realistic, because some players just don't like the threat to their appreciation of the game that an optional realism patch presents.

CB..
11-13-2004, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
One massive consideration is that games tend to make players reckless with their 'simulated' lives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

spot on Beery!!

this is precisely why everything else you said is allso spot on..i get strangely depressed when most folks talk about realism and so on, as what they seem to be saying (behind the rhetoric) is that they want to imagine that if , in fact, they were to be transported into the actual reality the sim is trying to represent they would be able to get exactly the same results...frankly i'm with you this is not only insane..it's entirely missing the point of the game!!

im not a hard core sim fanatic..and it still drives me round the bend..and is one of the reasons i never play multiplayer matches in any game....there i am enoying the scenery glancing around looking for the enemy...getting into the atmosphere...blam i get killed and then some-one calls me a looser...and i think you know what ;if this was realistic i wouldnt be able to hear/read them saying that...shame they didnt incorporate that level of realism into the gameplay..LOL!!

most folks are enourmously selective about realism , the sort of realism they want is the sort that enhances the illusion that they are skilled uber aces...not the sort of realism that shows them that life is more complicated than that....i want extremely high realism from a game...i want to be able to discuss tatics and swop storys with the AI commanders in the bar...(ultra realsim that one) i want to struggle to get any tonnage at all!! (realism again)
if the game is well thought out enough this will not be in any way "boring" or over difficult...but im not that bothered about the technical aspects of realism ..i dont really mind if the tops speed of my sub is one or two knots too fast or too slow same with the DD's etc...if the gameplay is well balanced then it won't matter..
for me it's all about creating a convincing world ...then setting the war in that world..
the world should be centered around the sea, the weather, your family ,your fellow crew members , your fellow sub commanders , your flottilla , your commanding officer.. and then the submarine and the enemy surface traffic...and the last thing on the list should be the war...which is for me realism...i should have so much invested in the all the other aspects of the sim that i quite definitely , without a hint of a doubt in my mind...don't want my commander to die..
this is because i have no interest in simulating the career of a uber hero tonnage king...im interested in simulating the career of a sub commander who wants to survive the war and get home to his wife and kids...that for me is realism..

i'm with you Beery...folks have tunnel vision when it comes to realism, they forget that you can model just about anything in a sim..and it's about time game manufactures started to explore all aspects of realism..

anything that makes you think about the game rather than it being just another tool for playing "top score ace" keep them patches coming!!!

i think i spent about a year on my DES5v3 patch for SH2 and still thought it didn't really do the trick..but it did balance the gameplay out slightly..i was determined to make the sub/dd encounters more dynamic and interesting..and it did manage to do that..some folks like it a lot (thanks guys!!) others dont..(not a problem)
but there's nothing i could do to rid the game of it's top score ace core motivation unfortunately..that can only be done by game devs to start with..other wise all you do is disguise it ..if you find as you finish a patrol that the first thought on your mind is "why havent i got a medal for that?" not "wow that was great.." then the game is a "top score ace" sim;

top score ace stuff is fine in it's place ..i was a Quake addict for i dont know how long .loved playing that on line because it never pretended to be anything other than what it was..it had no pretensions of realism at all..brilliant game, completely, gloriously; mad

but i was never that great at it and began to develop "Quake twitch" sleepless nights, bizaare hand movements, nervous blinking etc!!

might try the Sar wars game you reccomened tho that sounds interesting..if i can get over my Star Wars phobia

Pr0metheus 1962
11-13-2004, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CB..:
i get strangely depressed when most folks talk about realism and so on, as what they seem to be saying (behind the rhetoric) is that they want to imagine that if , in fact, they were to be transported into the actual reality the sim is trying to represent they would be able to get exactly the same results...frankly i'm with you this is not only insane..it's entirely missing the point of the game!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. It's also NOT realISM - it's realITY. There's a big difference, but a lot of people don't understand it. Realism is not real - it just looks real. A simulation doesn't try to BE real; it simply tries to take you into a realistic environment and allow you to work within it. Basically, the way I see it is this: reality is like a nonfiction book - a history book for example, whereas realism is like an historical novel. In a history book, the facts can't be changed and the writer has little room for artistic expression or interpretation, whereas in a novel the writer creates a story based around real events. That's what a good historical simulation does - it allows us to create our own stories in an historical setting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>im not a hard core sim fanatic..and it still drives me round the bend..and is one of the reasons i never play multiplayer matches in any game....there i am enoying the scenery glancing around looking for the enemy...getting into the atmosphere...blam i get killed and then some-one calls me a looser... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm exactly the same way. Multiplayer just isn't structured enough for my taste. Too many people just in it to get a high score, and not enough people in it for the story.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>im not that bothered about the technical aspects of realism ..i dont really mind if the tops speed of my sub is one or two knots too fast or too slow same with the DD's etc...if the gameplay is well balanced then it won't matter.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. A lot of people think I'm crazy because I don't care about flight models and aircraft top speeds, roll rates, etc. but these things are just unseen details to me. Like you say, if other aspects of the game give it a realistic feel, then details (especially those you don't see) don't matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i think i spent about a year on my DES5v3 patch for SH2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wish I could have used it, but sadly I didn't get SH2 because I figured that without a random or dynamic campaign it would be a waste of money. Now my new computer won't run it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>might try the Sar wars game you reccomened tho that sounds interesting..if i can get over my Star Wars phobia <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a great game, and since it's set a thousand years before the movies it's quite different. It also has a much better story and more realistic characters. It really is one of those games that everyone should try, even if they hate the genre. I was never really an adventure/RPG fan until I tried it, and I've always had a love/hate relationship with Star Wars, but this game was just so darned good.

Yarrick_
11-14-2004, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
the advantage we have in getting killed is that we retain our knowledge. I have 20 years of knowledge from playing subsims. there wasn't even a single german commander who had that kind of experience when the war started.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have experience as a subsim player, but of course this is not the same as real experience, if someone put you in a real sub, you will not know how to do anything. BUT you have knowledge in playing subsims, you recongize AI tactics and learn new fast-keys and little tricks to evade detection. Then in the next campaign (and I think that all the games are the same, more or less, if you've seen one, it's difficult to be surprise, let's hope this time we get surprised) you can play better, because you've learned how to play the GAME. In real life, this is quite different.

Leif...
11-14-2004, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Well, the only problem with that is that your knowledge is gained much slower because you're not under real threat of death. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, since I€m not risking my life I can try tactics that would be insane to do in real life. I can push my luck until I die, over and over again. And while doing that I learn my (simulated) enemies tactics very well and much faster compared to a real commander that always has to drive on the safe side not risking to much. I can also push my sub until it breaks or fail learning exactly where the limits are, a real commander obviously has to be more careful.

Also thanks to history ( and replayability ) I know what kind of technology my enemy have to use against me. When a new system is used, I already know what it can do. They may catch me with surprise a couple of times. A real commander though will only be fooled once, then it€s game over for him.

If I where to play this simulator only once, then I agree I should not be much more successful then any other real ace, (I still have the advantage of history though). But if I play it again and again and still don€t do better then the aces, then the simulator is unrealistically hard.

Don€t you think the real Aces would score higher then they did if they where given the chance to start from the beginning again and again? I bet they would!

It seems to me as if you think the real commanders made the perfect run which can not be beaten no matter what. Well they didn€t, they did a darn good run, but you have to remember that no matter how motivated prepared and gifted they where, it was still only their first try.


Leif€¦

Pr0metheus 1962
11-14-2004, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leif...:
Wrong, since I€m not risking my life I can try tactics that would be insane to do in real life€¦ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...which is my point. A sub simulator rewards REAL LIFE tactics. It shouldn't reward 'tactics that would be insane to do in real life'. Those tactics should get you killed. They should not allow you to get much more tonnage than the real life aces. If they do, then it's a bad simulation because if a simulation does a good job, it SIMULATES!

You seem to assume that a sub sim should just drop your 'virtual immortal self' into an exact copy of a WW2 sub in an exact copy of the WW2 War in the Atlantic, and let you see how much tonnage you can get without any restrictions. That's not what a sim should do at all. A good simulation is more than just a copy: a good simulation must compensate for the advantages you have (you have infinite 'lives' and you have no fear and you're comfortable and playing when you want, and not in a cold sub on a tossing ocean, in fear for your life and at the whim of BdU). A good sim compensates for your advantages and enhanced abilities and makes you behave in a way that matches reality. If it doesn't do that, it's not a simulation, it's just a copy of a sub with an immortal, comfortable and unfearful commander at the controls. That doesn't sound very realistic to me, and it doesn't sound like much fun.

As for you having hundreds of tries to 'get it right', there is no 'right' to get. It is an art, not a science, and although you have your hundreds of tries, real sub commanders will always have the advantage because the game is built to match their achievements. It's not built to let the greatest sub sim player get 700,000 tons of shipping (twice what the highest-scoring boat got and nearly three times what the highest-scoring skipper got). If it allows anyone to do that, it's not a very good simulation because it has failed to do its primary job of SIMULATION.

We can argue all year about this, but the fact is, a sub sim is built to recreate a real event while allowing SOME leeway (not a lot, but some leeway - enough to make it fun) for personal skill to affect a player's achievement. If it doesn't match up to a general probability of what could have happened in reality, then the sim is at fault. No matter how much experience you have on sub sims, a simulation must be tuned so that even the best player cannot outdo the great aces by any substantial margin. If it does allow such unrealistic results it's no longer a simulation BECAUSE IT NOW HAS NO COMPARISON TO THE REALITY IT IS MEANT TO BE MIRRORING. At that point it becomes an arcade game, and in my view if it pretends to be a simulation while acting like an arcade game it does a disservice to those real men who fought and died in submarines. In my opinion a good simulation game is a memorial, whereas an arcade game is an insult because (if it makes unrealistically high accomplishments seem possible for even the best players) it trivializes the real life accomplishments of the people on which the game is based.

In short, the best and most experienced player's abilities are not an argument for a simulation to allow twice and three times the scores of the top historical aces (unless, of course, the player keeps his commander alive or in action twice as long as the best ace). If the sim allows an unrealistic score, then it is a poor simulation and an insult to the reality it is supposed to represent.

Jose.MaC
11-14-2004, 04:30 PM
Usually, sims still being games -and games must be fun, or may be only for militar training.

The posibilities of an encounter use to be about ten times highers than in reality. Even sims like Ace of Deeps, Silent Hunter I and Silent Service II allow you more chances to get a hit than a real comander would have. I don't mention Silent Hunter II, since the very nature of the game forced the player to score in every mission. Is not strange to score more than any ace in the war, since you get more oportunities.

And you can run a career from the very begining of the war until the last day. That's just ridiculous, a comander used to serve for about 10 patrols and then was transfered to administrative duties or to training bases. Some even did just 6 patrols or so. A realistic campaing is a very limited one, if you surviver 8 missions, you can quit and begin again in this very same year without feeling you're spoiling the game.

Btw, it means that every time we should pass the academy to get our level and a green or profesional crew.

This way, to get a XXI sub would be more difficult, and only for those plaing the last days of the war.

CB..
11-14-2004, 04:32 PM
most of us have been attracted to sub sims thru watching the old submarine movies..

and the most praised of the movies is of course Das Boot..., which is a fabulous film/series etc...and yet on the patrol in question in Das Boot, what would have been his tonnage total?

does this make it a boring movie?
of course not...nor should it make a game boring...if the game companys really want to take the market by the scruff of the neck and propel it kicking and screaming into a fully fledged visual entertainment and artistic medium , then they need to completely overhaul their ideas about gameplay..if they don't, once the graphics revoloution grinds to a halt...the industry will drop stone dead..and frankly ..i don't give the graphics card revoloution more than another two or thee years..by that time if we don't allready have photo realism, then we will be as close to it as we are going to get..
and sensible folks will start asking why?

any half decent art student (worth his salt) can produce wonderfully convincing images with just a block of charcoal and a sheet of white paper...we have 32 million colours , and if some sort of photo realism cannot be achieved with that then forget it...were pretty close right now..and graphics don't come beter than photo realism this side of a star trek holo deck..

who will buy SH8 ? if it looks and plays exactly the same as SH7 ? no one in their right mind..nope gameplay is where the genuine revoloution will come from..

Pr0metheus 1962
11-14-2004, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jose.MaC:
Usually, sims still being games -and games must be fun, or may be only for militar training. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing incompatible with having both realism and fun, and often the two go hand-in-hand. I just don't see what's such great fun about getting killed ten times more often than real commanders did in real WW2 subs, or in sinking twice as many ships as a real ace sank (what's the point when it's that easy?), and I certainly don't see what's 'fun' in being forced to go on an un-historical marathon 30 patrols (rather than the historical 8 to 10 - or 16 to 20 for those who do a second 'tour of duty') which makes your crew's chances of surviving the war almost zero. After a while, endless explosions get monotonous and the certainty of death gets depressing. After a while even the most dedicated arcade fan yearns for a more realistic, subtle and suspenseful experience: I think that may be why arcade fans tend to be in their teens and twenties, while sim fans tend to be older. Let me ask you two key questions:

1. What do you think the difference is between a simulation and any other kind of game?

2. Do you consider simulations less fun, similar, or more fun than other types of games?

Leif...
11-15-2004, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
...which is my point. A sub simulator rewards REAL LIFE tactics. It shouldn't reward 'tactics that would be insane to do in real life'. Those tactics should get you killed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, but while getting killed I will learn valuable information about my enemy. That€s the kind of lesson a real commander can€t afford.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A good simulation is more than just a copy: a good simulation must compensate for the advantages you have.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there we DEFINITELY disagree. It should absolutely not add nor subtract from the real thing. This means that I eventually will score better then the Aces due to the benefits I have, this is not a fault of the simulation.

(The very high scores in previous sims are of course mostly due to an unreal amount of contacts with enemy convoys)


Leif€¦

Jose.MaC
11-15-2004, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Let me ask you two key questions:

1. What do you think the difference is between a simulation and any other kind of game?

2. Do you consider simulations less fun, similar, or more fun than other types of games? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Simulation tries to portray the conditions and enviroment of something in the real world, while a game may get details from real world and adapt in order to get something fun (worms is an extreme case). Since is impossible to portray reality in a machine, a simulation is just a mathematical aproach that uses theories about the behaviour of real world (You can play Caesar or Sim City almost perfectly if you have studied urbanism, Tank Platoon is stronger in the tactical/strategical side, but have serious lacks in the behaviour of ammunition, aiming abilities (can shoot almost perfectly at 6 km!), troops (cannot dig trenchs!) and an unbalanced game (4 tanks against a complete ruski batallion!)). This aproach may be as good or as weak as the resources and abilities of the developer, and the quality of the theories used: comercial games as Panzer Commander put more enfasis on troops stress than militar strategic games, wich in the other hand have better "damage" algorithms, but ends putting too much enphasis in big cannons and almost perfect troops. The ultimate war simulation are those wargames hold from time to time in every country army.

2. It depends on the simulation and on the game. I remember an old train simulation that was fun enought, thought there was an sprite every second (!). And there was an air controler simulation that was fine -after a time, accelerate until becoming an arcade, but the beggining was a fine simulation: this can lead to the difference between simulation and arcadish game! Worms or Tetris are really funny games, the first being cartonish, the second really abstract. SH is a good simulation, although enemy ships shows too easily, but Space Simulator due to the fact they mix relativist phisics with newtonian time, gets boring in no time -and very confusing: in a newtonian universe, I can accelerate until infinite speed but time remains the same, in a relativist universe, I cannot accelerate faster than light, and there is time compression.

Actually, I like both!

In SSII, they gave the best solution to keep the game more realistic: get cards, and whenever there is a contact, take one. If is under 10, don't engage the contact. This way, you can compensate the irreal number of contacts.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-15-2004, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leif...:
while getting killed I will learn valuable information about my enemy. That€s the kind of lesson a real commander can€t afford. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if it's a good sim you shouldn't gain lessons from doing something that gets you killed. The only lessons you should gain from such activity are the lessons that real sub commanders already knew. If you learn more than that, then it's not a good simulation, because it's giving you much more knowledge and ability than real commanders had, and it's allowing you to use information that was not available to real commanders to get an ahistorical result, and to me that screams 'BAD SIM'. After all, crews that were dying in WW2 subs didn't learn anything more than crews who survived learned. The crews who died were just unlucky. The idea that you are immortal and therefore learn more than commanders who survived is simply wrong - it assumes that dead commanders would have more knowledge if they were somehow resurrected than live commanders had. It assumes that gaining the same information over and over again somehow gives you more information than someone who has learned that same lesson once. Once is enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by me...:
A good simulation is more than just a copy: a good simulation must compensate for the advantages you have.

Originally posted by Leif...:
Well there we DEFINITELY disagree. It should absolutely not add nor subtract from the real thing. This means that I eventually will score better then the Aces due to the benefits I have, this is not a fault of the simulation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not saying it should add or subtract from the real thing, but don't you see that if it's not modified to counteract your enhanced abilities THAT IN ITSELF adds or subtracts from the real thing? If your abilities remain unchecked and if the sim allows you to be a virtually immortal (in terms of your avatar) 21st commander of a 1940s U-Boat, that it won't be a good simulation? How can it be when it's replaced a 1940s skipper with a 2000s computer game player? A good sim must change you from a 2000s game player into a 1940s skipper - at least in terms of the actions you perform in the sim. If it doesn't do that, and if it allows your in-game character to do things that no 1940s skipper could possibly do, how can we call it a simulation?

It seems to me that you want the sim and yourself to be completely separate. But when you play a sim your abilities affect the sim fundamentally. You cannot consider yourself separate from the sim - you are an inherent part of it. To me, your argument seems to be that the game shouldn't modify your abilities in order to make a simulation that acts historically. That's like saying that it's okay for a simulation of ancient warfare to equip your avatar with an AK-47 and give him access to tactical air strikes. If you lead troops in ancient Rome armed with an AK-47, and if you can call in an air strike on enemy positions, you'll tend to get results that varied from historical fact. It's not 'adding or subtracting from the real thing' to take your AK-47 and radio away from you and give you a Gladius, a pilum and a shield instead. That's what a good simulation should do, and it should do it in terms of making the sim as realistic as possible, and also it should do it in terms of toning down your 21st century knowledge and abilities as much as possible (by modifying the game so that those advantages are nullified or at least suppressed) in order to get the simulation to behave as realistically as possible.

CB..
11-15-2004, 11:36 AM
i keep coming back to the thought that what might be an interested compromise would be to have an AI system that allso gained knowledge of the players tactics (i'm fairly sure this is possible without getting vastly over complex about it..ie of it allways failed to kill/damage/detect you using one set of tactics ..it would try a different set of tactics untill over time during the campaign it would adopt the best tactics it had available in order to prevent YOU ,as an individual, from reaching and destroying shipping in a convoy)

if you get killed during the campaign then when you restart the AI would retain this knowledge forcing you to rethink your tactics or try that bit harder...this would bring a certain element of personality to the AI and give a dynamic to the difficulty level that would evolve specifically around your chosen method of attack..(so each persons game would in fact play slightly diferenty)
with the addition of an option to rest the AI to default on the start new campaign if you didn't want this to happen..(wiping the AI's memory clean)

i had an old Dreamcast driving game where you had the option to train the AI cars from scratch and then race your trained AI car against both the normal Ai cars and allso download and race yours against other peoples trained AI cars....i have to admit i found this utterly fascinating ..not least because it worked a whole lot better than you thought..

before you started training the AI car..it couldnt even move.. and what you did was to drive the car round the circuits and the AI would gradually "learn" what you did and where then copy it, averaging out your racing line, speed braking etc so if you did make a kistake you could negate that mistake by carrying on and not making it again..gradually the AI would average out that error untill it no longer made the same mistake (spinning of, on a courner for example)

it was possible in the end to develop an AI car that was far superior to the stock AI cars...if they had taken this the logical step further then you would have had a dynamic racing sim where if you got bored of racing against the normal AI drivers you could train your own..making the whole thing an extremly fascinating experience completely customisable to your own level of ability and desired style of driving..

given a small section of the game where you can train both the AI wolfpacks and the AI DD's would provide a whole new level of interest and dynamics to subsim...(or any simulation for example..a combat flight sim with this sort of thing built into it would be pretty interesting stuff...take your squadron out for training excersises etc and the enemys as well..)

with the added reduction in competivness over tonnage results etc as no one persons game would play at the same level of diffculty as evry one elses....
as long as there was an option to rest the ai behavuir to default again should you desire to this would be fine...

a game that evolves to suit your level of ability and personal style/tactics would surely be fascinating..there's allso the possibility of allowing players to up-load and download their own and other peoples train AI wolfpack command AI, DD AI etc..

this would add a dynamic growth in difficulty to the game that would negate slightly and add interest to, the competition between your gained replay experience but the DD's allso..

Yarrick_
11-15-2004, 11:47 AM
I don't like this system. There were lots of DD's in WWII, and not all of them used the same tactis and not all of them had the same skill. There were historical tactics. I think that leaving the dd's behaviour free will make realism fall a bit.

I find difficult to believe that there was anybody who both trained his wolfpack and on the same time was with all the subs to perform an attack.

CB..
11-15-2004, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
I don't like this system. There were lots of DD's in WWII, and not all of them used the same tactis and not all of them had the same skill. There were historical tactics. I think that leaving the dd's behaviour free will make realism fall a bit.

I find difficult to believe that there was anybody who both trained his wolfpack and on the same time was with all the subs to perform an attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you might have missed the point..perhaps...the AI for the DD's will likely be one for all anyway, with perhaps some adjustment for novice vereran elite etc but beyond that it will probably be a one size fits all ..so actually training the AI your self or having it learn for your tactics (you mean that if you allways go deep and slow that the AI shouldn't eventually suss this out and respond correspondingly? AI that actively learns is about as realistic as it gets)


trianing it your self would be some sort of external option along side with the mission editor perhaps NOT a part of the commanders role within the campaign ..same with the wolfpack...the idea being that you can customise the games performance to your own tastes...the chances are the AI would be tougher after your intervention than before..

again it is realims but a much more open ended sense of gameplay realism not technical detailling and so on...

Jose.MaC
11-15-2004, 02:10 PM
Hey! I cannot express how much I like your idea! If they can implement this kind of AI (wich just mean to have an small file with all this info), and they develope a way to interchange those files, so you can have your file plus some more from other people, it would allow to get a really dinamic AI able to be a truly defiament to the player!

Leif...
11-15-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:

But if it's a good sim you shouldn't gain lessons from doing something that gets you killed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As soon as you interact with the enemy you will learn something about him. The commanders who died while engaging the enemy learnt that their current tactic didn€t work. I can use this knowledge the next time. There is no way around that. So yes, dead commanders knew more. A simple example, some of them got to know exactly at which depth their boat where crushed.

And cutting it close once is not enough. During the war, vehicles, weapons system and tactics changed. The things you learn by one close encounter are not valid for a very long time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'm not saying it should add or subtract from the real thing, but don't you see that if it's not modified to counteract your enhanced abilities THAT IN ITSELF adds or subtracts from the real thing?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sim should not counteract my knowledge. That goes against everything a simulator is about. The sim has to assume that I don€t know more than the real commander did. There is no way for the sim to know how much I know and counter act that. What if I know nothing about U-boats, should the sim then help me instead so that I still get an historical average success? No.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A good sim must change you from a 2000s game player into a 1940s skipper - at least in terms of the actions you perform in the sim. If it doesn't do that, and if it allows your in-game character to do things that no 1940s skipper could possibly do, how can we call it a simulation?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what a simulation is all about, the ability to try different tactics. A good sim will let me try modern tactics if I want to see how that works. If it doesn€t allow me this then it isn€t a simulator, it€s a scripted string of events that forces me to act in certain ways to lead me to certain outcomes. That is the opposite of a simulator, that is a movie with some minor interactive ingredients.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It seems to me that you want the sim and yourself to be completely separate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is correct, I should be able to act as I want with the only restrictions being the equipment I have and the natural laws. And the sim should react and counteract in a believable and realistic way. That is what good simulators do.

And that is not the same thing as giving my avatars unrealistic weapons such as AK-47 when attacking ancient Rome. However I should be able to attack Rome with whatever modern tactics or formation I want as long as I use the weapons that where available at the time. Again, that is what simulators are about. If I choose to act historically the outcome should match historical outcome, if I choose some other tactics the outcome should be believable but not necessary the historical one.

It seems we have different views on what a simulator is. And since I€m not about to change my view and I guess you aren€t either, I think we have to agree on disagreeing on this one.

Leif€¦

Pr0metheus 1962
11-15-2004, 03:54 PM
I'm not going to argue about it anymore. We've both made our points and we just don't agree. At this point we're just going over the same arguments again and again. There's no point in confusing the issue by delving into minutiae and stating the same things over and over in slightly different ways. I think anyone who's interested can read our posts and make up their own mind.

bertgang
11-16-2004, 04:33 AM
On a theoretical point of wiew, a good simulation gives only historical weapons and context; a player who starts playing without deep knowledge of historical facts (by books or manuals) should be like an average man of that age.

But the simulation can't change that: players are able to die and to try again so, on the long run, they always will become veterans; real green fighters died only one time, for ever.

Lot of players make tests to know when and how they will die (i.e dive until the submarine crashes); real submariners surely avoided this kind of knowledge.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-16-2004, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
But the simulation can't change that: players are able to die and to try again so, on the long run, they always will become veterans; real green fighters died only one time, for ever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem with that. But what Leif is saying is that they should become much better than the aces - more veteran than the most experienced veterans. That doesn't make sense to me because there is only so much to be learned. Here's an example: if you're a cook, you can only learn to boil an egg so fast. An egg won't become hard-boiled in 3 seconds no matter what method you use to boil it. Leif seems to be saying that an egg boiling simulator should allow him to boil an egg in 3 seconds if he's become really good at egg-boiling. But his experience has nothing to do with the speed that an egg becomes hard. No matter how experienced you are you can't affect the speed at which heat enters the egg. If an egg-boiling simulator seems to have a well-modelled stove, a pan filled with realistic-looking water and a good-looking egg, yet it allows you to boil that egg in 3 seconds, it's just not a good simulator because eggs take minutes to boil. Leif doesn't see that there's a limit on a human's ability to exert influence over the physics of the stove. Leif is basically saying that the laws of physics stop at his kitchen - and he sees nothing odd in that. There was only so much that a sub commander could do in WW2. Reality imposes restrictions on human abilities. You can't run a mile in 2 minutes, you can't boil an egg in 3 seconds, and a WW2 U-Boat commander could not sink 700,000 tons in a career. If a simulator allows you to do any of those things, it's not doing its job properly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lot of players make tests to know when and how they will die (i.e dive until the submarine crashes); real submariners surely avoided this kind of knowledge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they had that knowledge. They were told that a sub had a safe diving depth and a crush depth. They didn't need to test for it because someone else had already calculated it. The calculation may have been off by a few meters, but you could usually trust it. What we learn by trial and error, real submariners learned by previous sub commander's experience, by scientific calculation, and by what was learned from accidents and fatalities.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-16-2004, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
... players are able to die and to try again so, on the long run, they always will become veterans; real green fighters died only one time, for ever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem with that. But what Leif is saying is that experienced players should become much better than the aces - more veteran than the most experienced veterans. That doesn't make sense to me because there is only so much to be learned. Here's an example: if you're a cook, you can only learn to boil an egg so fast. An egg won't become hard-boiled in 3 seconds no matter what method you use to boil it. Leif seems to be saying that an egg boiling simulator should allow him to boil an egg in 3 seconds if he's become really good at egg-boiling. But his experience has nothing to do with the speed that an egg becomes hard. No matter how experienced you are you can't affect the speed at which heat enters the egg. If an egg-boiling simulator seems to have a well-modelled stove, a pan filled with realistic-looking water and a good-looking egg, yet it allows you to boil that egg in 3 seconds, it's just not a good simulator because eggs take minutes to boil. Leif doesn't see that there's a limit on a human's ability to exert influence over the physics of the stove. Leif is basically saying that if he becomes REALLY good at boiling eggs, the laws of physics can stop at his kitchen - and so he sees nothing odd in an egg-boiling simulator that allows his eggs to boil in 3 seconds.

Similarly, there was only so much that a sub commander could do in WW2. Reality imposes restrictions on human abilities. The most experienced runner can't run a mile in 2 minutes, the world's best chef can't boil an egg in 3 seconds, and the most experienced WW2 U-Boat commander could not sink 700,000 tons in a career. If a simulator allows you to do any of those things, it's not doing its job properly because it's failed to model a key restriction that exists in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lot of players make tests to know when and how they will die (i.e dive until the submarine crashes); real submariners surely avoided this kind of knowledge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they had that knowledge. They were told that a sub had a safe diving depth and a crush depth. They didn't need to test for it because someone else had already calculated it. The calculation may have been off by a few meters, but you could usually trust it. What we learn by trial and error, real submariners learned by reading manuals which were based on previous sub commanders' experience, by scientific calculation, and by what was learned from accidents and fatalities.[/QUOTE]

bertgang
11-16-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Leif seems to be saying that an egg boiling simulator should allow him to boil an egg in 3 seconds if he's become really good at egg-boiling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I think that's a misunderstanding.

Jose.MaC
11-16-2004, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lot of players make tests to know when and how they will die (i.e dive until the submarine crashes); real submariners surely avoided this kind of knowledge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they had that knowledge. They were told that a sub had a safe diving depth and a crush depth. They didn't need to test for it because someone else had already calculated it. The calculation may have been off by a few meters, but you could usually trust it. What we learn by trial and error, real submariners learned by previous sub commander's experience, by scientific calculation, and by what was learned from accidents and fatalities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no, no... this is just a simulation! Real subs were designed with a security factor, to overcome imperfections of both materials and shipyard. Even being militar material, the factor should be bigger than in civilian market, since the ship should sustain harder exigences.

To portray the real crush deep of a sub, you should need to follow a serie of stadistical experiments -in short, crushing some hundreds of U-boots of every kind.

Is unrealistic, but in short, a sub in a simulation has the crush depth given by the dev team. Can be a determinated depth with a random variable, as acurate as your guess.

However, real crush depth could be even 200% of calculated crush depth. Of course, factors as speed of movement and density of sea water may affect final result. At least, WWI subs reported to submerge really far from their calculated depth crush.

But usually, sub skippers had enought with a fair secure depth. So they didn't had to care even if their sub was in a very bad condition: there was a wide security factor.

Of course, if is modeled the way I suspect it actually was, lots of people will claim is innacurate. Just as if they try to get too close to the bottom at 10º and crasch the nose, because they don't considereer that the gauges get depth from the center of the ship and don't take into consideration the maths of this fact.

Leif...
11-16-2004, 07:52 AM
The egg example is so far away from what I€ve said that it€s actually funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What I€ve said is, and here we go again, that you should be free to try whatever tactics you want using historically correct equipment and while following the natural laws. So to sum it up, no super fast egg boiling and no AK-47 in ancient Rome. Besides I like my eggs soft-boiled.

Leif€¦

bertgang
11-16-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leif...:
What I€ve said is, and here we go again, that you should be free to try whatever tactics you want using historically correct equipment and while following the natural laws. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree: so, strangely, Beeryus shares your point of wiew...http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I wonder, anyway, if a good sim should require some further restriction.
I mean: sometimes I like to play as an escort killer, it's a challenging use of my weapons following natural laws: but, maybe, Bdu isn't pleased at all, the Admiral wants merchant tonnage sunk...

More difficult to say what was natural use of ancient weapons / units.
At the first sight, armement of romans and greeks looks similar; in fact it wasn't, so oplites were forced to linear formations, and a phalanx couldn't fight as a legion.

Jose.MaC
11-17-2004, 07:02 AM
Legions exploted the main weakness of Hoplites: they were constrained to attack just as a line, while a Legion could march as a squire... so a Legion could outflank Hoplites. And barbarians showed strategies unestopables by Legion, so the Roman Empire came to an end.

Curiously, in Swizerland this formation was resurrected by their powerful infantry (used by the French army, as stated by Machiavello). Later, spanish Tercios mixed guns with spears and showed all along europe how a bunch of the better soldiers were able to change the balance of power of battlefield.

Yarrick_
11-17-2004, 11:48 AM
Actually, I believe that the Roman Empire frontiers became too extended, and also the Government incomes too low to keep a military force controlling them all.

Barbarians had not the tecnhology, and their advantatge was his mobility, but lack of discilpline and organitzation must have been a problem for them!
The roman military did not vanished at all - the empire was divided in two parts- and the second one keept existing until the XV century.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
Barbarians had not the tecnhology, and their advantatge was his mobility, but lack of discilpline and organitzation must have been a problem for them! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only real evidence we have is Roman writings, which are naturally somewhat biased, so I'm somewhat skeptical about the idea that Barbarian armies lacked discipline or organization. At Teutoburger Wald in AD 9 the Germans quite effectively destroyed two legions - an accomplishment that no disorganized rabble could have accomplished, even if they had luck and terrain on their side.

Some authors have suggested that the Germans had a huge advantage in numbers in the Teutoburger Wald, yet during the Boudiccan revolt just half a century later, the Romans easily destroyed a much larger army than their own. I tend to think that the barbarian tribes of Northern Europe were (at least on occasion) a bit more organized (and less 'barbarian') than Roman writers would have us believe.

Hehe, can you tell that I've been reading the book 'The Battle that Stopped Rome' (about the Teutoburger Wald battle)? I've been on a Roman binge since 'Rome: Total War' came out.

Yarrick_
11-18-2004, 11:37 AM
I think that you misunderstood the word barbarian, as it does not means disorganized in any way, but "people who has another culture".
A roman would have called you barbarian for drinking beer, nor wine.
In this case, I used barbarian to refer to the german tribes, only because it was used before in the forum, but I recognize we tend to define erroneously this word.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
I think that you misunderstood the word barbarian, as it does not means disorganized in any way,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I think it simply means 'foreign'. But you said "lack of discilpline and organitzation must have been a problem for them!"

I was assuming that your idea that they were disorganized came from the writings that we have from the period, most of which were Roman, and which generally characterized foreign peoples as disorganized, uncouth, and primitive.

bertgang
11-19-2004, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
I agree. I think it simply means 'foreign'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original meaning of "barbarians" was "men with beards", then became "foreigns" as beards weren't popular in Greek and Roman world (maybe as better razors were available, here).

Speaking of Teutoburger Wald, the silly roman general was ambushed in a wild forest, where his men couldn't take a combat formation.

Yarrick_
11-19-2004, 10:39 AM
Well, I think that knwoledge of the last period of the roman empire, when it was falling, it is difficult because their documents were mainly lost or destroyed.

I purpose that we stop speaking of this topic because we're in the silent Hunter III forum and maybe it is not the right place or it is not allowed for us to speak about the ancient world...

bertgang
11-19-2004, 10:50 AM
I apologize, it's my fault.

I didn't want to speak about that, but my example about the realistic use of ancient weapons started the discussion.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Speaking of Teutoburger Wald, the silly roman general was ambushed in a wild forest, where his men couldn't take a combat formation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Romans fought in forests all the time, especially on the German frontier. From what I've read concerning the new evidence that has been found the problem wasn't the forest - it was the small raised footpath which caused the Romans to bring in their skirmishers, and the marsh on the right of the footpath which allowed no chance to form a proper defensive line.