Banned
There are two issues that seem to keep surfacing in this (…and other) threads: …..”Wolfpacks” and “Multiplay”.
……..And while both of them may provide amusing options within the context of an “Entertainment Level Game”; …….It’s time for an historical “Reality Check”!
In Real Life, even during the “Glory Days” of Wolfpack activity, there was virtually NO tactical level communication between U-boats at sea.
They received orders and exchanged contact information with Headquarters:
They even overheard the radio transmissions from other boats:
....But the exchange of tactical level information while actually “on contact” was virtually non-existent. When a Wolfpack was actually attacking a convoy, the individual U-boats were essentially all conducting independent, individual attacks. Information on the status and position of the other U-boats in the pack was pretty much limited to listening to depth charges detonating in the distance. (….and as every GI has said all throughout history; “Better you than ME!”)
Frankly, …..I have always been amazed that significant numbers of U-boats weren’t lost to “friendly fire”!!
But just where does the historical reality leave us on the issues of “Wolfpacks” and “Multiplayer”???? …….Almost nowhere!!
Without the addition of historically inaccurate Tactical Level Communications between boats, both features can’t offer much to the Computer Gamer: …..And from my personal point of view, the only sort of “Multiplayer” environment that would be both historically accurate AND interesting would be one where the various players involved all “manned” various stations on the SAME U-boat!!
Think about it: …..Go back and re-read your books: ……Boat-to-Boat communications just didn’t happen often enough to be worth simulating!!
klcarroll
Junior Member
Good point KLCarroll.
As Lehmann pointed out, there are not thay many involved in multi-player anyway.
The only tactical level interaction I would like to see would be in the form of radio communications back and forth from B.d.U. and one's own boat, and possibly other boats that the AI has in the area.
A Wolfpack could be set up by B.d.U. sending a message out to a number of boats, one's own included. The player would take up his own position irrespective of what the AI was doing with other boats. The only interaction would be what is heard on the radio.
Maybe the AI could have the other boat/boats attack the convoys, but as you rightly point out, the pack boats had no tactical interaction or co-ordination at all, only a measure of control from B.d.U..
GWX people did a great job incorporating extra communications into SH III, so I guess it might be done in SH V. The only difficulty I see, due to my complete ignorance about how this programming stuff works, is being able to generate B.d.U. signals co-ordinated with AI boats and one's own, and the replies from the other boats.
One other point is the use of homing beacons which boats generated when they found a convoy for other boats to home in on. Could AI boats do this for one's own boat to follow?
As long as they get the ports and harbours looking like the original layout, and the correct German language engine room telegraph orders right, I will be happy! Wolfpacks would have me overjoyed!
Senior Member
Greetings, GKane,
Loads of questions with little or no responses/answers.
Are we going to get any answers?
Or is it going to be like III and IV where the community was left in the dark until release date, only to find that we were bamboozled? I can appreciate a good Flim Flam. But it gets all of us a little flustered to be promised the moon and only get a rock.
Should we all be over at Subsim to get any info?
I ask, because it seems like information is released to an unofficial forum long before it reaches this "Official" forum.
Nothing against Neal and the gang but, why does this occur?
Junior Member
Junior Member
THANKS KLCARROLL for the reality check.Originally posted by klcarroll:
There are two issues that seem to keep surfacing in this (…and other) threads: …..”Wolfpacks” and “Multiplay”.
……..And while both of them may provide amusing options within the context of an “Entertainment Level Game”; …….It’s time for an historical “Reality Check”!
In Real Life, even during the “Glory Days” of Wolfpack activity, there was virtually NO tactical level communication between U-boats at sea.
They received orders and exchanged contact information with Headquarters:
They even overheard the radio transmissions from other boats:
....But the exchange of tactical level information while actually “on contact” was virtually non-existent. When a Wolfpack was actually attacking a convoy, the individual U-boats were essentially all conducting independent, individual attacks. Information on the status and position of the other U-boats in the pack was pretty much limited to listening to depth charges detonating in the distance. (….and as every GI has said all throughout history; “Better you than ME!”
Frankly, …..I have always been amazed that significant numbers of U-boats weren’t lost to “friendly fire”!!
But just where does the historical reality leave us on the issues of “Wolfpacks” and “Multiplayer”???? …….Almost nowhere!!
Without the addition of historically inaccurate Tactical Level Communications between boats, both features can’t offer much to the Computer Gamer: …..And from my personal point of view, the only sort of “Multiplayer” environment that would be both historically accurate AND interesting would be one where the various players involved all “manned” various stations on the SAME U-boat!!
Think about it: …..Go back and re-read your books: ……Boat-to-Boat communications just didn’t happen often enough to be worth simulating!!
klcarroll
I must apologise for how I worded my Wolfpack SH5 dreams for the future.
I was not even contemplating ANY interaction with other UBoats on the scene and coordinating attacks other than thru Radio Messages on the Convoys Position so all available UBoats in the area in such a mission could attack the convoy independanty over the coming days.
My wolfpack wishes comes from the Historically significant Uboat/Luftwaffe attack on the scattered PQ17 Convoy of July 1942 as it headed for Murmansk.
Remember the threat of the Schlachtschiff Tirpitz coming out to possibly attack Convoy PQ17, made First Sea Lord Pound scatter the convoy which lead to 25 of the 36 vessels to be lost over the coming days to UBoats and the Luftwaffe.
That is exactly the type of Wolfpack scenario that I would love to see. Historical missions NOT Gameplay for the sake of unrealistic gameplay ,by co-ordinating Uboat attacks which as you so rightfully pointed out did not happen, but often I have radioed to HQ the position of a convoy and wondered what it would be like to just see or hear in the distance the sounds and sights of attacks by other UBoats on the Convoy I am attacking.
For years I have been an enthusiast of the Schlachtschiff Bismarck and Tirpitz and whilst Bismarcks career was short and glorious, Tirpitz was long and pitiful, PQ17 was a timely reminder of how cautious the Germans were of exposing Tirpitz to enemy action and while they delayed sending the Tirpitz out against PQ17, the very thought of her attacking the convoy lead to the Uboats and Luftwaffe taking advantage of the scattered Convoy PQ17.
U-255 sunk 4
U-457 sunk 2
U-334 sunk 2
U-703 sunk 2
U-88 sunk 1
U-456 sunk 1
U-355 sunk 1
U-376 sunk 1
Not together but independently thru Radio & Luftwaffe reconnaisance etc. over those subsequent days of the attack.
I should have been more to the point with the suggestion of a PQ17 type mission for SH5, various Uboats independently attacking the same Convoy thats all, not a coordinated Wolfpack attack.
Its just a suggestion and I thank KLCARROLL for his historical insight which made me express my wish for a PQ17 scenario I shouldve pointed out in my earlier post.
Right or wrong on my part, Im happy to have been corrected and hopefully all that matters in the end is the best possible UBoat Simulation we can get from SH5.
PS...Ubisoft, any chance of a Schlachtschiff Bismarck simulator, now that would be a dream come true, successfully breakout into the Atlantic and wreak havoc on the Convoys, whilst staying out of the Home Fleets way and get back safely to home waters. Oh well I can dream cant I!!!!!!!
PSS Thanks ,already for the SH Bismarck pick up the war diary scenario, that was fun to get to the Bismarck and then watch the ensuing battle.
ALARM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heres to continued debate and to Silent Hunter 5
Banned
@shaene2007;
I did not intend my post to be a "personal correction" aimed at you!! .....I'm sorry if it came across that way!
I was merely pointing out, for the benefit of all, that there were terrible limitations on boat-to-boat communications in the 1940s.
I completely agree with you that some specific historical missions like the ones involving both Bismark and Tirpitz would be fascinating gaming opportunities!
....And by all means, keep making suggestions!! ....That's how we eventually get the games we want!
klcarroll
Junior Member
I can understand the desire of many to have an historically accurate game. On the other hand, catering to the die-hards will only ensure an even smaller market for a franchise that is already considered to be in a "niche" of limited appeal.
Sometimes, you have to sacrifice realism for the sake of game play, especially if you want to encourage the causal gamer to part with their money. There's always the choice of adding optional realism settings, just as SH3 offered.
Multiplayer in SH3 is still alive and well, regardless of those who prefer playing solo in Career Mode stating the contrary. Ask organizations like Deep Raiders, Nordfront, ComSubsPac, and others. In fact, I have personally seen new sales of SH3 based entirely on the appeal of the multiplayer community. I just registered a guy a few days ago who placed his order on Amazon as soon as he got his membership approval notice. That isn't the first time that's happened and it won't be the last.
Having as broad as base as possible means more sales and a wider popularity, even if it offends the purists. Multiplayer used to be a novelty but it is an expected part of any game with today's customers. Ignoring or marginalizing that aspect for SH5 only ensures lost sales. Take a look at games that were expected to do well, but largely failed because the multiplayer action just wasn't up to the standards players demand.
You can only do so much with scripted missions and campaigns. Multiplayer introduces the human element, which means you can play the exact same mission dozens of times and it will unfold differently every time. That element of replay value can never be duplicated by even the most sophisticated game AI available.
Banned
@GrafPaper;
Well, ….I have to admit that I disagree with virtually ALL of your points: …..Sorry!
SH3 and SH4 are SIMULATIONS; …….and the whole point of a simulation is to model “Reality” as closely as possible. If you depart from that concept, you have moved your game into some other genre.
You said: Sometimes, you have to sacrifice realism for the sake of game play, especially if you want to encourage the casual gamer to part with their money.
That was the approach UBI took with the initial release of SH4, ….and it was a total disaster! The “Casual Gamers” that you want to attract were horrified at the complexity of the game, and upset because they felt that UBI had misrepresented the product. ….And the people who bought the game in the expectation that it was a proper simulation were unhappy with many of the “Arcade” features that had been injected in the effort to attract “Casual Gamers”! …….In short, NEITHER side of the aisle was happy!
Producing hermaphrodite,” half-this, half-that” products that do no one job well is the fastest route to the “Discount Bin” that I can think of!
You also said: ” Multiplayer used to be a novelty but it is an expected part of any game with today's customers.”
Wow!! ……Now THERE’S a broad generalization!!!!!!! “ANY GAME”???? …..Really??? It seems pretty clear to me that some genres and titles lend themselves very well to multiplayer implementations, and others do not. FPS titles are typical examples. ……And simulations where “group tactics” and “tactical level communication” are part of the reality being simulated are good examples of practical multiplayer platforms within the “Simulation” genre. (Aircraft and AFV sims, for example.)
….On the other hand, a game that simulates 1940s Submarine Warfare, where the “Group Tactics” and “Tactical Level Communication” were either rudimentary or non-existent does not lend itself to a Multiplayer approach. (At least if your idea of “multiplayer” involves multiple boats!) ….And your suggestion that such tactical level features should be added “for the sake of game play” is a poor idea: …..All that does is degrade the quality of the basic simulation, and create a “Fantasy World” for your multiplayer game to rattle around in! If fantasy features “for the sake of game play” are really desirable, ……why don’t we just add “Demonic Enemy Ships From A Parallel Universe That Blow Up Really Good” and call the game “U-Doom”??
Now some might point out at this juncture that SH3 has features like “difficulty variables” that are not technically accurate: ……And they would be right. …..But there is a fundamental difference! Those “difficulty variables” were put in place to make it just possible for a Novice Player to survive long enough to actually learn the game: …..NOT to forever distort the Simulation or create a fantasy environment!
….And finally, you made reference to “Die-Hards” and “Purists”: …….I would suggest that you go lightly with “labeling” people! ……..After all, I’m sure you would be unhappy if someone “labeled” you as a “Lightweight” just because you are looking for a more arcade type game experience!
klcarroll
Junior Member
Hi KL Carroll!
Many thanks for your continued words of wisdom.
Maybe I am asking the program too much in hoping for some AI generated Wolfpack orders. The ancient and arcane mysteries of what goes on inside a PC or a program, are way beyond my poor old grey matter.
However, there is one thing that occurred to me recently and that deals with weather. At various times during the war, B.d.U. allocated certain boats to act as weather stations. In SH III the only weather available is from the Watch Officer. From all that I have read, there was a certain amount of weather forecast information passed on to U-boats, and other vessels, informing them of anticipated weather patterns. Could SH V order a patrol as a weather boat, as part of its regular patrol duties, thus requiring regular reports transmitted to B.d.U.
I wonder, as the AI creates the various weather conditions in the sim, could it also generate forecast signals that more or less give the player an idea of weather that may be encountered?
All the copies I have of KTB's from Freiburg show a serious interest in recording weather conditions including, wind speed and direction, sea state, temperature, cloud cover, levels of fog, rain, etc., and several include the barometric pressure. In SH III I have made up some of these figures when completing my KTB's so that can more accurately replicate the originals. It would be nice if greater weather detail could be included. (If any would like to see the sort of KTB's I do, contact me off list and I will forward one on.)
Fierce weather, when encountered in the Atlantic, was a major factor in whether conoys could keep formation or not, and could result in stragglers.
Cheers
Brad
Junior Member
Dear KL Carroll,Originally posted by klcarroll:
@shaene2007;
I did not intend my post to be a "personal correction" aimed at you!! .....I'm sorry if it came across that way!
I was merely pointing out, for the benefit of all, that there were terrible limitations on boat-to-boat communications in the 1940s.
I completely agree with you that some specific historical missions like the ones involving both Bismark and Tirpitz would be fascinating gaming opportunities!
....And by all means, keep making suggestions!! ....That's how we eventually get the games we want!
klcarroll
Absoultely no offence was taken by me in any of your remarks. So never worry about that ever, fire all tubes as I dont mind being told Im wrong, its refreshing debating all things as our ultimate goal is the best historically accurate UBoat Simulator SH5 developers can give us.
For all my Wolfpack PQ17 type mission dreams for SH5 I would never want a U Doom type arcade game ever, just for the excitement or Multiplayer. I want to dive and carry out operations in Uboats of the Second World War as accurately as it can be made. Thats the whole point of a UBoat simulator isnt it. Its not all about excitement and thrills for as we know Uboat Missions were very gruelling and very frustrating so often with fruitless searches for potential targets for endless weeks at hand.
Im for historically accurate as it can be with maybe the occasional what if situations in Missions if it permits, just like the previous mentioned pick up Bismarcks War Diary mission in the earlier SH, it was fun to actually achieve what no UBoat was able to do in May 1941 and actually rendevous successfully at sea with Bismarck and pick up the War Diary. And as Ive already said it would be great if there was an occasion where I was attacking a convoy that had maybe another UBoat was attacking it at some distance in a mission. YES IM OBSESSED WITH THAT, SORRY!!!!! BRING ON PQ17!!!
Anyway long fruitless patrols as well as fruitful patrols were all a part of Uboat warfare in WWII and Id hate future SH games to deviate from the true course of what attracted me to SH in the first place, commanding a UBoat at sea in WWII, as realistically as I can.
So i guess my suggestion for this Q&A Post is please keep SH5 as real as possible. I think to try and keep both historically accurate and exciting arcade gameplay totally defeats a UBoat Simulator. As KL Carroll already expertly pointed out.
That doesnt mean I dont want what if Missions, Id just hate to have unrealistic Uboat invulnerabilty with unlimited torpedoes and easy unlimited targets and a cloaking device with shields. I want to feel the thrill of a calculated attack on a Convoy and the heartpounding dread of an unrelenting depth charge attack by a protective destroyer escort who will not stop until my UBoat is blown out of the water.
Thats just my suggestion, whatevers best for SH5, thats whats this Q&A is all about.
Grafpaper lets keep all suggestions rolling in comrade, its always great to hear another point of view as we all want SH5 to be a success.
ALARM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CRASH DIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heres to SH5 being the best UBoat Simulator EVER!!!
