1. #21
    Celeon999's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    12,335
    Well, i think this thread goes on so slowly because there was already an excessive discussion about an possible SH4 in many threads throughout the last months.

    Most peoply already shot away all their powder on this topic.

    Ok here is my part :

    The problem with the japanese navy idea is that their u-boats played only a minor role in ww2.

    Yes sure they had lots of different innovative sub types like the mini subs used in the attack on pearl harbor or the idea for an aircraft carrier sub.

    They had excellent torpedoes but their torpedo planes were the only ones who could use them effectively.


    The japanese sub fleet never got the chance to show their capabilitys because it was even more unready for an war than the german U-Boot Waffe was in 1939.

    It never established an effective warfare plan for its sub fleet because it suffered a lot of an lack of logistics, and technical issues that should had been solved before they entered the war.

    But just like it was in germany the politicians determined the date for the beginning of the war and not the military.

    The battle in the pacific was lead entirely by their powerful combined Air/Surface Sea forces.

    The point is that in my opinion there is not enough to develop an whole game out of it.
    Share this post

  2. #22
    The problem with the japanese navy idea is that their u-boats played only a minor role in ww2.

    Yes sure they had lots of different innovative sub types like the mini subs used in the attack on pearl harbor or the idea for an aircraft carrier sub.

    They had excellent torpedoes but their torpedo planes were the only ones who could use them effectively.


    The japanese sub fleet never got the chance to show their capabilitys because it was even more unready for an war than the german U-Boot Waffe was in 1939.

    It never established an effective warfare plan for its sub fleet because it suffered a lot of an lack of logistics, and technical issues that should had been solved before they entered the war.

    But just like it was in germany the politicians determined the date for the beginning of the war and not the military.

    The battle in the pacific was lead entirely by their powerful combined Air/Surface Sea forces.

    The point is that in my opinion there is not enough to develop an whole game out of it.
    So what...as if this game mimics real-life anyway? How many Kapitans managed 400,000 carreer tons like some people here do? And how many had 30 patrols under their belt?
    Computer games are just that: games. You can bend the rules a little here and there.

    If they make an exapnsion to SH3 which includes changing a few dials, milk cows etc. I and most other people will not buy it. To be frankly honest that would just appeal to the gaming anoraks (those that count the rivets on their sub). If they make a totally new game with a new campaign and theatre of operation, then I and many others will probably buy it.

    Face it, they are in this to make money. They have to appeal to the much larger audience and not many would spend money just to buy what is essentially some patches. How else can you expand SH3? I don't see it myself?

    SH4=In the pacific. Or forget it.
    Share this post

  3. #23
    Kaleun1961's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    5,750
    Originally posted by Celeon999:



    But just like it was in germany the politicians determined the date for the beginning of the war and not the military.

    The battle in the pacific was lead entirely by their powerful combined Air/Surface Sea forces.

    In Japan it was the military that determined the start date of the war. General Tojo was effectively running the country, not the civilian politicians. The Army was determined to conquer countries which held the resources Japan needed for its economy. The Navy was in charge of transporting those troops and pre-empting the American response by attacking the Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto hoped to inflict enough damage on the Pacific Fleet to render it impotent long enough for Japan to consolidate their gains and build up a defensive ring around their gains so strong as to force the Americans to seek a political resolution.

    If the Japanese submarine forces were not ready for war, the fault lay totally with Japan's military leaders, who alone were responsible for starting a war with the U.S.
    Share this post

  4. #24
    I agree totally.

    You can't turn a sub sim into an action style game. The result would be pure foolishness. I think that's obvious.

    If the deve team wants to supplement their sales of SH3 and actually make this game somewhat profitable, stay the hell away from a whole new engine/game. Take this game and finish it. Tweek it. Adjust it.

    Maybe you can add some new graphical effects. I think it is unforgivable that the game does not feature sailors in the water following a sinking. I find the "moral reasons" justification for not including that to be extremely weak. At the very least give us lifeboats.

    Also, adapt the death screen. Make destruction more interesting and immersive.

    Wolfpacks aren't huge to me, but I really fail to understand the conventional argument that somehow coding the AI for this would be fantastically complicated. I don't buy it. What you'd have to produce here is basically a FPS AI model in bloody slow motion. How difficult can that possibly be?

    So that's it then. Don't make an entirely new game. Don't make a simple expansion pack. Make an expansion pack plus. I guarantee you if you sold 50000 + copies of the orginial, you'll sell 30000 of the pack at least. Time that with a new release of the game.

    What Ubi needs to understand is that if you produce a good simulation line at a time when no one else seems willing to do so and you support that line, you will ensure the loyalty of a niche market of hardcore gamers. People who will actually buy the ****ed thing out of respect for the company.

    Ubi, please don't listen to much to the hard hard core realists. There is nothing wrong with realism, but the balance struck between realism and playability in SHIII is pretty well perfect. All it needs is some AI tweaking and a little bit more attention to the details. It's the little things that count. Things like playing through the sinking of the sub, varied radio messages, marine life, randomly encountered icebergs, winter conditions etc.

    That's the stuff that makes the game immersive for me anyway.

    Demosthenes
    Share this post

  5. #25
    IMO, the next logical step in the development of the SH sub sim series is...Destroyer Command 2. Give it an optional standalone/merged installation, ( like Pacific Fighters ) and watch the sales of SH3 rocket as the standalone guys realise they want it all.

    It really is a no-brainer, as our friends across the pond would say.
    Share this post

  6. #26
    Kaleun1961's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    5,750
    Good post, Demosthenes. I agree with most of what you say, the only exception being the part about hard core gamers. This game is a pretty good balance already between realism and playability. A future game could in a similar manner maintain that balance, if they continue to offer the choice of difficulty options, like manual or automatic targeting.
    Share this post

  7. #27
    it wos like a diman
    Share this post

  8. #28
    What you do is you play BdU too. You move your available resources on the map, you build ports etc that you want to operate from depending on the campaign strategy you choose. Air recon and raids is part of this.

    Then when you go on patrol you know why and what you are trying to find.

    You can select to play the entire mission, or you stay in the campaign screen and when an uboat icon starts to blink, double click on it to either play the entire attack yourself or have it automatically resolved.

    This will give the player the choice how hardcore they want to play when it comes to the search phase and the attack phase, and then difficulty options for weapon and vehicle simulation.

    ---

    As it is now everybody is forced to search and many many hours pass just doing this and not all people want to spend their time doing this.
    Share this post

  9. #29
    It's all said here. What I would like (and buy) is an expansion pack +, which should include:
    1. A fix of the bugs that are still in the game.
    2. A proper "Let me die" function, like Schiffmorder described so well.
    3. The ability to walk to other parts of the sub (engine rooms, quarters, torpedo rooms).
    4. wolfpacks, lifeboats.
    5. USN vs. IJN Pacific campaign along with the ships, subs etc. that goes with it.

    This would make SH3 really a near-perfect game.
    It's good in its present state, but the things above will make it so much better.
    --------------------------------
    I agree 100% with this post, it sums it all up
    Regards RT
    --------------------------------
    Share this post

  10. #30
    RedTerex's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,373
    As this thread is covering realistic feedback issues I have decided to "sticky" it until further notice.

    I would like some feedback/interest/comments from Ubi-soft, and hope its not too much to ask.

    This community is still alive and kicking.
    Regards RT.
    Share this post