What is dynamic about this campaign?

[VonGeezer]

This isn't a complaint or anything, but I'm curious about something. I've always taken the term "dynamic campaign" to mean that the results of your actions in one mission affect what you will see in future missions. If you manage to take out an airport in one sortie, you won't have airstrikes to worry about in the next, you know, that sort of thing.

After completing eleven patrols, I have seen nothing to indicate that what I do has had any effect on the campaign. I figure if I repeatedly sink merchants in one particular area, eventually the defences will become unbearable there, but my favorite hangout still has the usual merchants/escorted convoys passing through and only the occasional lone warship.

So far my campaign just feels like a sequence of random missions. Will I notice the "dynamic" aspect later on?

[VonGeezer]

This isn't a complaint or anything, but I'm curious about something. I've always taken the term "dynamic campaign" to mean that the results of your actions in one mission affect what you will see in future missions. If you manage to take out an airport in one sortie, you won't have airstrikes to worry about in the next, you know, that sort of thing.

After completing eleven patrols, I have seen nothing to indicate that what I do has had any effect on the campaign. I figure if I repeatedly sink merchants in one particular area, eventually the defences will become unbearable there, but my favorite hangout still has the usual merchants/escorted convoys passing through and only the occasional lone warship.

So far my campaign just feels like a sequence of random missions. Will I notice the "dynamic" aspect later on?

[quillan]

What is dynamic is that there are no scripted missions at all. The ships run on historical routes, it's up to you to hunt them. Most games have a sequence of scripted missions; the hardcore fan base didn't want that. In this case, the developers listened and did what the fans wanted.

[VonGeezer]

So technically it isn't a dynamic campaign at all, and as I observed, a sequence of random missions (traditional shipping routes that are randomly populated).

The missions themselves can most certainly be considered dynamic...once you blow one up entropy takes over and the rest stray from course etc..., but the campaign has nothing dynamic at all going on.

Like I said though...not complaining. I can live with dynamic missions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Capt._Tenneal]

This happens a lot in the Il-2 games also. I guess it depends on one's definition and what is acceptable to them : does Dynamic mean you can change the result of the war OR does it mean only that you don't get scripted or linear missions so you have variety if you replay the campaign, but the historical results stay the same ?

[missouridrifter]

You want a dynamic example?

Read the post here "Personal Captain's Diary - U-50 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=857101043&m=7881051703)"

This game ebbs and flows and nobody is a "super-hero"

Skill, daring and mostly CHANCE will bring you "home".

But yes (in a way)... If my RL life was really on the line, I wouldn't have done half the things the character I play has done. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Kpt_Zig]

I'm happy if the definition of "dynamic" means simply no scripted crapola. I could care less about influincing the war, all I want is a cure for my throat-ache. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[quillan]

I think you're slightly missing the point, VonGeezer. It isn't a set of random missions, because there are no missions at all. Everything I've read (admittedly little) seems to indicate that the Uboat captains were quite literally turned loose; they were told "Here's your section of the ocean, go kill any allied ships you find" and the rest was up to them. You might find yourself ordered to patrol near Norway during the invasion (I did), or near Gibraltar during the struggle for Africa (again, I did), but you won't get any "Go here and sink the Warspite" type missions at all. You have the entire world's oceans to hunt in, providing the fuel and ammo holds out. The rest is up to you.

[VonGeezer]

Erm, I don't think I've missed the point at all. In fact I acknowleged "the point" by saying the missions themselves are dynamic (non-linear would be more correct). That isn't what I was asking about.

The point you seemed to have slightly missed is that I was referring to the term "dynamic campaign", campaign meaning the sum of numerous missions (or whatever you want to call them).Say's it right on the box... "New dynamic campaign". For a game to have a dynamic campaign, the outcome of one mission/sortie/patrol must influence what you see in future missions. Unless they meant each patrol is a campaign, in which case they should have said "New dynamic campaigns" (plural).

Still...not complaining. Just making an observation.

Here's a quote from the box:

"NEW DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN
Create your own realistic naval war story. Your military career will be influenced by successful command decisions in an unscripted and in-depth, WWII campaign."

If getting and giving medals and promotions is what makes this campaign dynamic I can't help but laugh. Maybe there's more to it and I just haven't gotten far enough into the game. Either way I'm still happy with my purchase.

[msxyz]

Yes the campaign is not dynamic. Some ship do not spawn before a certain date, but that's all.

You can sink the same ships over and over again, mission after mission or even in the same mission if you are at least 25 km away from the spawn point and a certain amount of time has passed. Aside from getting new toys to play with (subs and power ups) the campaign seems to loose its purpose after a handful of missions.

Just patrol the assigned square for 400 renown points and then wander through the ocean alone in search of targets. The lack of wolpacks alone killed for me half of the fun.

And more: no histhorical events, no differrent type of missions. From a dynamic campaign I'd expect to find around may/june '40 some british warships fighting in the norwegian fjords or the waters around Dunkerque full of small vessels evacuating troops. In SH3 There is a Fiji cruiser staying at Loch Ewe from 1940 to 1945 while the "real Fiji" was lost in the mediterranean sea in 1941.

And more: having the freedom of choice does not mean that, every once in a while, we're assigned to different mission rather than "patrol grid xx for 24 hrs". Did you know -for example- that mines laid down by uboots in english harbours sank a total of 115 ships? These mission were very dangerous: sneak past the harbour defense, lay the mines and leave unspotted. Perfect to bring some adrenaline in a long singleplayer campaign.

[quillan]

Oh, I see. So we're simply applying different definitions of the phrase "dynamic campaign". I prefer this one, to be honest, though I would like to have some scripted events mixed in with the freeform campaign. A scripted one, even dynamically updated, wouldn't have nearly the replay value. Have you been playing computer games long enough to recall Wing Commander? That one had a campaign similar to what you're describing (not exactly, but similar). You'd play the first mission, then the second mission would change depending on whether you won or lost the first. It had a branching mission structure. If you lost enough, then the campaign would end in a loss. As long as you kept winning enough to stay in the brackets, you'd make it through to the end, where you had to win or lose the final mission to decide the ending of the campaign. The problem is, once you've played the missions, you know what's coming.

[Sgt_Serge]

I agree... the campaign is disappointing because it is actually not a campaign but seems to me like a repeat of the same order over and over again - go to field XYZ and stay there for 24 hours, after that do what you please. It would have been great to have something like 'kill at least xy tonnage' or 'interrupt fuel supply by killing tankers'.

There are really good game mechanics, I just hope somebody finds the time and interest to mod a nice campaign.

Serge

[missouridrifter]

In a BIG way, I agree in that I don't think no matter what I do Germany will win. I know I'm on the loosing side.

But for this, I live the life (but for a while) of a U-Boat Captain and although I know my patrol area will be mundane, I know getting there and self-patrols afterwards (until I have nothing left to shot), will be random... and so will the lives of each crew member.

[msxyz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quillan:
(...)Have you been playing computer games long enough to recall Wing Commander? That one had a campaign similar to what you're describing (not exactly, but similar). You'd play the first mission, then the second mission would change depending on whether you won or lost the first. It had a branching mission structure. If you lost enough, then the campaign would end in a loss. As long as you kept winning enough to stay in the brackets, you'd make it through to the end, where you had to win or lose the final mission to decide the ending of the campaign. The problem is, once you've played the missions, you know what's coming. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I remember very well Wing Commander. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's also one fo the first games I've tried to mod. (there was a primitive text editor done by some smart fellow who figured how to make a mission editor).

Wing Commander was marketed as a cinematic game where the player influenced the events along a narrated storyline. It's true that -fun aside- after playing the game a couple of times, there wasn't much left.

This was 15 years ago... heck I was a student in a college and my father just purchased me a 386DX-33.

But 15 years after I'm expecting something more from a game which boasts a "dynamic campaign". And where is the fun of going mission after mission around the globe sinking a couple of C2s, some small merchants and evading the occasional destroyer? Playing in the campaign mode I don't feel the war progressing. I don't feel I'm part of it. See the ship, sink the ship. That's all. I still remeber the fun in Aces of the Deep of calling for help, hunting a convoy night after night, feeling a whole world alive around me. I couldn't find that feeling in SH3.

Heck, the band at the docks does not even stop to play during the night... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[VonGeezer]

Well, I wasn't expecting a scenario where a lone U-boat would win the war, heh heh. I just figure since they called the campaign itself dynamic, that I could at least expect a heavier enemy warship presence in the area I attacked in the previous patrol. Or maybe concentrating on some of the heavier destroyers in one patrol would make that area easier-going for the next patrol or increase air patrols...whatever.

I'll just learn to look at it for what it really is...a series of random missions with a progressive award system giving the semblence of a campaign, and not a dynamic campaign (I recall reading about the mission editor and how the game would place enemy units randomly for you, and I now assume it is that way in the campaign too).

I still love it though. Now that I've memorized the hull depth of the higher tonnage ships, watching my fish swim right under lesser targets in a convoy makes me grin every time.

[S_Z]

I really like how the campaign works now, dynamic or not. The important thing to me is that it’s not build upon a series of static missions. I would probably not have bought the game if it were.

One single U-boat would not have had the power to change the outcome of the war so I’m glad the war isn’t affected by my actions. Unlike msxyz I think the world around seem very alive and feel the war progressing. The allies starts to protect their convoys making it tougher for the U-boats just like it was in the real war.

I’m not sure what kind of missions you would like. As far as I understand patrolling different areas making life hard for the allied ship/convoys was what the U-boats did. It would be fun to have wolfpacks though.

[gonzie2005]

Id have liked the campaign to give me a little veriety each time i play it.

So far, it makes me patrol pretty much the same places as it did on my previous install/campaign.

First it's AN16, then AN64 or something etc.

A slightly more dynamic campaign woulden't have sucked, i think it feels like pre defined missions with dynamic shipping, perhaps, not a dynamic campaign.

[VonGeezer]

I don't really have a problem with the way the missions are. I was just pointing out that the claims of a dynamic campaign on the box are um, open to interpretation...at best, heh heh.


Now as for what kind of missions I'd like (in a sequel perhaps), well, like I said, affecting traffic by hanging out to often in one area, such as more heavily guarded convoys, less merchants, more air patrols etc (in future patrols)...

Ultimately, the map could include the sites of all major land battlefronts so you can choose to attack the enemies supply line to a particular battlefront, affecting the outcome of land-battles (which are only statistically calculated) and earning renown accordingly. You could even monitor bbc radio broadcasts for news on various fronts, deciding to focus in one area and assisting your ground troops. Hearing about yourself (the u-boat curse everyone wants to destroy) in said broadcasts would be a nice touch too. And while I'm dreaming, being able to lay out waypoints for not only yourself but your wolfpack squadron with a complete per-waypoint command system and of course the ability to switch to full control of any sub in your squadron.

[Panaka_NL]

Well, for most of the campaign is pretty well done.
Here's the but:
But, what I would have liked to see is:
If I kill destroyer X, I don't want to see that particular destroyer ever again. If I kill Ilustrious then I don't want to find it two patrols later near Island.

Doesn't matter If I loose the war in may 1945. But I would like to have seen some influence from your actions.

[Johnny_JG2]

I don't really consider the campaign "dynamic".

Think about it- what is the incredible campaign technology at work here? We get assigned random sectors to patrol for 24 hours, then we go off and do whatever we want.

Sure, I like it, but I don't consider anything dynamic about it, really. I mean, there are shipping lanes and convoys spawn and head down those lanes, and blah blah- but nothing I do has any sort of effect at all on the war.

Dynamic campaigns imply that they *change* during the course of the war, and that you are an active participant in the greater war. This certainly isn't the case in SH3.

It's cool to be able to go wherever you want and such, but that means it is only dynamic to your little experience you are having at that particular time. It has no effect at all on anything with the larger war, and only matters to you in terms of tonnage sank.

[Frumpkis]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Johnny_JG2:
I don't really consider the campaign "dynamic".

Think about it- what is the incredible campaign technology at work here? We get assigned random sectors to patrol for 24 hours, then we go off and do whatever we want.

Sure, I like it, but I don't consider anything dynamic about it, really. I mean, there are shipping lanes and convoys spawn and head down those lanes, and blah blah- but nothing I do has any sort of effect at all on the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what effect on the war would you like to have, as one very small cog in that very large machine?

Do you want to sail to the Pacific to knock out the ship carrying Fat Man or Little Boy? Or maybe detect the D-Day invasion fleet and give advance warning?

C'mon... this is a reasonable simulation of what one U-boat skipper could have accomplished. It's not about some theoretical uber-U-boat-man who changed the course of the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dynamic campaigns imply that they *change* during the course of the war, and that you are an active participant in the greater war. This certainly isn't the case in SH3.

It's cool to be able to go wherever you want and such, but that means it is only dynamic to your little experience you are having at that particular time. It has no effect at all on anything with the larger war, and only matters to you in terms of tonnage sank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Dynamic campaign" means different things to different people, and in different simulations. It depends on the scale of what's being simulated.

I've played helicopter sims that had the kind of dynamic campaign you're talking about. If you took out enough enemy air bases, your ground forces could advance. It worked because the scale of the conflict was small... a theoretical regional hot spot in Korea or Afghanistan... not a *world war* like we're dealing with here.

Nothing you can do as a U-boat captain can beat the industrial strength of the U.S. (and the technical achievements of both the U.S. and England with things like radar and decryption) once it started getting into gear, combined with the pressure from Russia on the eastern front.

So what exactly do you want to see in this sim, that you're able to affect... personally?

[altstiff]

I love IL-2 campaign system. Kill that ace, never see him again. Lose your ace wingman, rookie replaces him.

Get sent to attack the 20 tanks at the front, kill 10, the next day only 10 are there.

I do like the idea that SH3 is not scripted but to call it "dynamic" is a bit of a stretch.

I do wish we could rescue downed pilots and place mines as mentioned above. I know Silent hunter had some of these features.

[Charlie901]

Some great ideas posted here.

However, I think we might have to wait till
SH 4 for a better, more "Dynamic", campaign system.

I don't think the code exists, presently, to add "dynamic" elements to the campaign, based on your actions.

I too would like to see more or less ships operate in a particular area based on your actions, even though this won't ultimately effect the total war outcome.

Who knows maybe if an expansion is released we can see the campaign engine incorporate some of these ideas and really flex it's muscles.


Until then I'm really hoping some good modders out there can add some more, random, Port activity and some more historic events, like the evacuation at Dunkirk, D-Day, and the invasions of Italy and Sicily (all done as accuratley as possible). This alone, IMHO, would add some additional excitement to the already great campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[sdj420]

It sure seems dynamic enough to me. In one mission I was patrolling off the SE coast of England when I sank 7 single, unescorted ships in about 12 hours. The next 24 hours or so I was crash diving every hour or so as the area was literally crawling with destroyers searching for me. Maybe it was just a coincidence, but it sure seemed like they were there because of my actions the previous night.

So while there may be no mission-to-mission dynamism in that the enemy reacts to you as an individual, the enemy does react to your actions within the mission and within the scope of several days.

[brannonsweet]

I think that in reality, a uboat captain would be told to go to an area and hunt/kill the enemy. More so, what to kill. I also think someone would let him know that he's done well(when he has), and advise him when he's failed.

I feel that, so far, this game has no direction. What if I could have been there at the time. I feel like I have no influence. Why try to win when the game says that your going to lose.

I just don't feel like a superior being is guiding me through the missions.

[brannonsweet]

By the way. "Dynamic" does mean that your actions alter the games progression and outcome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Johnny_JG2]

Well lets see.

Here is the definition of Dynamic:
1. a. Of or relating to energy or to objects in motion.
b. Of or relating to the study of dynamics.
Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress: a dynamic market.
2. Marked by intensity and vigor; forceful. See Synonyms at active.
3. Of or relating to variation of intensity, as in musical sound.

O.K., so that's a no. - well except for the objects in motion part.

I would think that dynamic meant that the enemy responds to what I am doing. For instance, what if there had been a real life captain that performed as I do- meaning sinking at least 50000tons every single patrol? I could go to a certain area every single patrol and sink everything that comes by in a small area next to a busy port. After doing this for 10 or 20 missions and sinking a million tons or so, you would think that there would be some escorts for those merchants dying in the same exact place every time... but of course there never is.

The game doesn't "care" what you do.

Maybe I'll go to Scapa Flow and sink nothing but destroyers every patrol. I bet there would be at least double the defense there if I did that in real life every single time.

My "little" part as a cog in the war machine takes on a whole new significance when I'm completely decimating any area that I choose to, every single patrol- and there is never ever any change- as if I had never been there in the first place.

[Simmoxx]

well i wouldve thought that throwing in a scripted(historical patrol) mission at random,into the campaign, every now and then ,and done in a way that wouldnt be entirely obvious that it is in fact scripted, done with the date or something?,would be an excellent way to break up the samey syndrome.
a little of both worlds, instead of all of one,would be nice

[sdj420]

The term "Dynamic Campaign" is gaming term that was first used, to my recollection, by Dynamix in their Red Baron, Aces of the Pacific, Aces Over Europe and Aces of the Deep games to describe their method of generating missions as opposed to the fixed, scripted missions of many other games. It also described the way that your actions could affect your ability to gain newer and better equipment within the campaign.

I think SH3 is as good a "Dynamic Campaign" as contained in any other single player game, with the possible exception of Falcon 4.0, which I never had the desire to try.

[blue_76]

sh3 features a dynamic campaign. no mission is ever the same. you cannot predict when the next ship is going to appear nor can you know when you'll be attacked by an airplane. in sh2 for example, you could predict exactly when and where a ship would appear. as for going out and sinking enough ships to change the course of shipping.. that could be a feature in a dynamic campaign.. comparing IL2 dynamic campaign to sh3 is like comparing oranges to apples, two different breeds.. lets face it, this sim is at its infancy.. yes, there are some features missing in the dynamic campaign, but its nothing that can't be included later.. with a patch.

[indylavi]

I think SH3 has a pretty good dynamic campaign. I think what people are looking for is more variety in the missions. Such as random radio calls to pick up a downed pilot. I think different mission types would be good but overall think the campaign is about right.

U-Boats were pretty much given what we do now. Your assigned what we call today a kill box. Any enemy in that box is to be hit. The problem with having missions of, go here and sink this ship and then go here for these two, is that they aren't really realistic. Granted sometimes this would happen but most of the time you just bumped into ships like in the game. A lot of talk is made about how much tonnage U-Boats sunk but little is made of how much actually got through.

This is a big reason why Germany lost the war. They were bogged down in a war of attrition. Germany really had not tactically thought out it's use of it's Navy like the Allies did. This game models that quite well. It also depends on when you play in the war and where it's at. If I sink many ships near Dover even in the early years, I get both planes and destroyers patrolling that area making my life harder. That's to be expected. You would not send half the Navy or Airforce because 5 or 6 ships are sunk or even a Convoy is attacked. It's an acceptable loss.

Think in terms like drug dealers today. It's accepted that a certain amount is going to get intercepted. In fact it's to your advantage. When they are busy with that shipment 3 more and coming in the other way.

I think the DC could be better but is quite good. You could sink a lot of ships in a given area. I mean, if a boat is headed for Dover there is only so many ways it can go. All of them are going to end in Dover. I think some things need to be assumed.

Your in your home base for about a month. It even takes a couple days or a day to get back to base. So even if they patrol as soon as you leave they are already a day behind. The Royal Navy is not going to patrol one area because 4 ships were lost for an entire month. Not when you have to defend the entire shipping lanes. When you go back to the same grid and sink more just figure that they are off protecting another convoy. Again, if I sink a boat and half the Navy comes after just me how many more boats will be lost. I think SH3 simulates this quite well

[msxyz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blue_76:
sh3 features a dynamic campaign. no mission is ever the same. you cannot predict when the next ship is going to appear nor can you know when you'll be attacked by an airplane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is not dynamic this is random!

Many people here don't not seem to understand that'a big difference between saying something is dynamic and something in random.

Open the editor and see for yourselves how SH3 campaign works: a spawn point generating a new ship (the type is either random or pre-determined) in the same location at fixed interval hours, some waypoints and, after the last, the ship magically disappears. Routes are always predetermined, although it's possible to ranomize to a certain extent the waypoints.

This bahaviour is not what I call dynamic; the game does not care about your actions nor the situation evolves according to them: there are certain BF or AM girds where you can sink hundreds of ships mission after mission by just waiting there. And NO, destroyers coming nearbay starting to chase the subs are not dynamic either: it's their AI programmed to start searching for a sub if they happen to cross, during their scripted route, the location where a sub is operating.

[uncle_newt]

I can not believe what some of you are saying. Is this the mind-set of todays gamer? Do you need to be taken by the hand and led through the game, level by level? Do you need the developers to write the whole story so you can just follow along and watch the pretty cut scenes? Here the developers have given you this wonderful living, breathing world, the ultimate sandbox(or bathtub http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) to play in, and all you can do is cry, "I don't know what to do. I don't where to go."

Far to long PC games have been nothing but race through the level, view cut scenes then on to the next level, Ugh! Silent Hunter III has it all. This is old school gaming at its finest. You are the captain. You make your own story. You don't need any cut scenes to advance the plot. Your story is there, you just have to find it. Use your imagination, immerse yourself in this world full of danger, excitement and yes, sometimes even boredom.

The dynamic campaign isn't about sinking ships, shooting down aircraft and evading destroyers. It's all about the experience.

[Tomus]

It would be good to perhaps get a radio message saying "Invasion of Norway taking place large concentration of enemy shipping in grid XX XX" and the leave it up to you whether to go or not.

But I would dread to see semi-scripted missions chucked in. Also and i know this sounds obsessive but the save and reload qualities mean that you can have an absolutely Uber patrol every time as there is no deficit for getting killed so you can be as aggressive as you like.

Try and play without save reload gameplay and it makes the game that much harder and more realistic. I found when I do that on a mission I am way way more cautious as I have a real issue if I get sunk.

[InfectiousDust]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uncle_newt:
I can not believe what some of you are saying. Is this the mind-set of todays gamer? Do you need to be taken by the hand and led through the game, level by level? Do you need the developers to write the whole story so you can just follow along and watch the pretty cut scenes? Here the developers have given you this wonderful living, breathing world, the ultimate sandbox(or bathtub http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) to play in, and all you can do is cry, "I don't know what to do. I don't where to go." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to relax. Not everyone looks forward to, and enjoys games in the same way you do. There is no need for insults. In my opinion, this game really could benifit from at least a little bit of structure. Ubi did not bother including historic sea-based events in SH3's campaign, like the D-Day convoys for example. I think this omission really detracts from the dynamic nature of the campaign.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tomus:
It would be good to perhaps get a radio message saying "Invasion of Norway taking place large concentration of enemy shipping in grid XX XX" and the leave it up to you whether to go or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. It's that sort of thing that really could have made SH3 a deeper and more enjoyable game.

[Frederf220]

SHIII Now with new Randomly Generated Strings of Missions Campaign Engine didn't have the same ring to it.

[Tomus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uncle_newt:
I can not believe what some of you are saying. Is this the mind-set of todays gamer? Do you need to be taken by the hand and led through the game, level by level? Do you need the developers to write the whole story so you can just follow along and watch the pretty cut scenes? Here the developers have given you this wonderful living, breathing world, the ultimate sandbox(or bathtub http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) to play in, and all you can do is cry, "I don't know what to do. I don't where to go."

Far to long PC games have been nothing but race through the level, view cut scenes then on to the next level, Ugh! Silent Hunter III has it all. This is old school gaming at its finest. You _are_ the captain. You make your own story. You don't need any cut scenes to advance the plot. Your story is there, you just have to find it. Use your imagination, immerse yourself in this world full of danger, excitement and yes, sometimes even boredom.

The dynamic campaign isn't about sinking ships, shooting down aircraft and evading destroyers. It's all about the experience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right but I don't think anyone is saying that we want a levelling blastathon with cut scenes and cinematics. I think what people are asking for is for the campaign as it stands to remain fundamentally the same, the same essence of gameplay and the same concept. But for the game to just give you the odd nudge towards historical fact. This could be a radio message such "Russia Invaded" or "France Taken" or something. Then the game could position relevant ships or whatever in that area. Whether you choose to go there or not is left at your own discretion. As it stands the game follows history as at certain points certain ports are won or lost to your cause, having some ability to interact with that would merely be a bonus to an already great game. IN fact merely being told about it would also be cool. Scuttlebuts are excellent devices IMO and add to the sense of place and time.

So no we don't want a semi dynamic branching campaign, nor do we want any real changes to what we have. The option to get involved with historical events would be nice.

[missouridrifter]

I think it would be great as in Das Boot that you (once in a while) are given orders to go to port “xâ€Â� and interact with characters ashore or on another ship where-in you are given “specialâ€Â� orders to do something… you choose to accept them or decline… if you decline you get â€"200 renown, if you accept and fail you get â€"100, if you accept and get it done you get 500... however, I currently have over 6k renown and nothing to spend it on. *grin

But then again, the game doesn’t have “*****housesâ€Â� in it either LOL!!!

I think it would be neat (yet dangerous) if late in the war your sub base was being bombed as you entered or left port and Ike’s policy of “containmentâ€Â� reflected a bit more. This MAY already be the case as I am just now entering April, 1941.

In a way, the convoys that you do get news of are like that but no plus or minus renown for participation.

[msxyz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frederf220:
SHIII Now with new Randomly Generated Strings of Missions Campaign Engine didn't have the same ring to it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. So Here comes some marketing to the rescue.

SH3 is actually being much closer to a WW1 sub simulation (lots of lone merchants ships, little comunications with the Kriegsmarine, "search and destroy" type of missions) that to recreating a plausible WW2 scenario in north Atlantic.

If some of you like duck shooting and one-man-shows, well that's fine and good: SH3 is the product for you. But people who were expecting a realistic uboot simulation with and a dynamic (not random) campaign like me are rightfully pissed. In this game there's a lot of misplaced realism. Things like crew micromanagement or having to manually plot down contacts on the map are features present to try to cover the huge void in the campaign mode.

Sh3 has a lot of untapped potential: it's fun if you consider it an "action" game but it appeals more to the casual gamer that to the simulation community. Unfortunately the direction where the industry is heading is towards more dumbed down games for mainstream gamers because it's where most of the money come.

[VonGeezer]

Like I said, even having the software track what ports the ships you sink are headed to in order to affect totally fictitious battles being fought on land would add a fairly dynamic element without having to change the gameplay. If you sink all the troop carriers going into a particular port, then the allies might lose that battle (assuming you've been monitoring radio broadcasts etc...) getting you a new kind of renown and adding a feeling of continuity to the campaign. You can chose to ignore it all and sink whatever, but sinking, say, five consecutive vessels going to a port near a major battlefront could clue the game into the fact that you're supporting a particular battle and start awarding renown for it. Lots of battlefronts to chose from or to ignore...whatever you want. That would turn this sequence of random missions into a dynamic campaign without adding anything but a small statistical land-battle outcome calculator.

I'm still not complaining though...I still love playing the random missions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[indylavi]

I think people are wanting the ability to change history in the game. Which is not a bad thing I will say. The problem though with purely historical events taking place on the right day is that you have something the Germans (or Allies depending on the battle) didn't have at the time. Full knowledge of the events.

On June 6, if you get a message saying France is under attack and to proceed to grid XXXX to stop and wait for the main assault and that grid is positioned off of Calais instead of Normandy. You know that Calais is not the main target and to go to Normandy. That's something the German's didn't fully know that day.

Or if you are sent to guard the Bismarck but you have to find it first. Well, there's no need for that because you'll know exactly where it's at. Granted it would be fun but for me it would take away a little from the game. I don't want to know what I'm getting into before I get there. But if the devs made a campaign with random dates for invasions and all of that. People would complain about the dates being wrong and all of that.

I'm fine with playing a lonely U-Boat Capt. If they can't see into the future and know they are going to get into a big battle then I don't either. It's more fun for me that way. It might be fun for you the other way and that's fine. Just as in IL2 hopefully a modder will create a Dynamic Campaign engine for SH3. Even in IL2 I perfered the 3rd party generator to the IL2 one. So maybe we can have both here

[Dominicrigg]

Someone has probably said this already but dynamic means constantly changing. The campaign is constantly changing.

If you attack a ship off the coast of south england aircraft and destroyers will come and search for you. Sail off America early war and there are only neutral americans later they will be agressive and later still have better equipment.

Convoys constantly change, aircraft ranges change, your crew and boat changes, bases change hands.

All dynamic. I think what the original poster means is "THIS CAMPAIGN IS NOT REACTIVE!" Which it is reactive in small realistic doses but you cant put England out of the war single handed, which is impossible.

So actually it is Dynamic and reactive! ~Lucky us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ... just wish they had put in historic events! grrrrrrr

[rupert77]

You're right ofcourse that would be a severe advantage for the player since they'd know where and when the events would take place, which is why the game should handle it like "Hearts of Iron" does. For those of you who aren't familiar with HoI, in it historical event's get triggered by certain basic requirements and as a result might randomly appear within a certain timeframe (spanning over several months, even years) beginning with that basic requirement's start off date until the event either gets triggered or the requirement falters.

When I read 'dynamic campaign' I thought the game was on the right track. I disliked the mission based system of SH2 and immediately thought 'Aces of the Deep', which for me atleast is the best subsim ever. For the first few days I also thought that finally a game aka SH3 lived up to AOTD, but quite frankly it doesn't.

I agree with what msxyz has said, that's my opinion aswell and the impression I got from the game. Also agree with what Tomus mentioned on 'radio messages', I too believe that is one of the main faults within the campaign and as someone else said doesn't seem 'alive' not to mention 'dynamic'. My understanding of 'dynamic' is likewise, your actions have an impact on the overall picture, this doesn't mean winning the war but atleast the game reacting to your actions.

The main problem is without doubt the silent radio and the missing of other Uboats. In AOTD you'd get more varied radio messages from BdU, giving you certain instructions or informing you of something. At other times you'd pick up distress calls by other Uboats or success messages. All of this made that campaign seem very much 'alive' and what you were doing relevant to the 'bigger picture'. In SH3 the radio is dead. Like msxyz said it's more like 'WW1 lonewolf' not the wolfpacks of WW2 constantly in contact with eachother. Mind you before I read this thread I wasn't aware of the fact that wolfpacks didn't exsist, since this seemed mandatory in a game dealing with this scenario. In AOTD wolfpacks did exsist and other ships/Uboats reacted upon your actions and radio messages. You'd also have the nightclub informing you of certain events and giving you a 'feel' for the timeframe and war situation.

It's also some AI matters that bug me terribly. Like for instance you intercept a DD without getting detected, you fire torps at it which turn out to be duds but still explode either on the ocean floor or sometime in the water but yet the DD still continues it's course without any reaction. Or take the evasive manouveres in general, in AOTD faster ships would race away using their superior speed to evade subs, in SH3 they begin zigzagging with constant (often very slow) speeds. Real convoy routes are a good thing but in reality the Allies switched those routes 'dynamically' especially when Germans had exposed them. In the game though you can sink ships in certain areas but still the next freighter will use the same route instead of avoiding it. Sometimes a sinking freighter might not get a distress call out but all attacks seem to be ignored constantly. Other things are why the Sonarman actually never calls out targets, I can hear them why can't he? Furthermore why are radio messages on convoy sightings and the like in the non-god's eye mode not marked on the map, it's not like Uboats never used lati- and longitude positioning, setting up a wolfpack would have been close to impossible otherwise. AOTD didn't have harbours as such as do we but apart from the eyecandy they seem pointless since there's no ship activity in them, a crying shame.

AOTD just seemed more immersive and the campaign -although not scripted- was just more rewarding and interesting. I don't mean to bash this game, it has a lot going for it but some of this needs to be fixed and I don't mean in 'SH4' or an expansion in several months time but via a patch and hopefully soon.

[Sgt_Serge]

After reading through the thread I would venture to say that SH3 actually doesn't have a campaign at all - what is called 'career' in SH3 seems to me like a continuous repeat of the same mission 'go to xy and patrol for 24 hours'. A campaign would consist of somewhat varying orders at least, ideally but not necessarily linked to historic events.

I think the map in the career should offer several options:

- go on patrol mission(the only mission we have today), especially good for beginners, and depending on reknown it should send captains to different areas with different kind of ship population

- go on historic mission, depending on the year there should be different 'historic scenarios'

- go on SpecOps mission, such as reconnaissance, delivery of a task force to a particular point, drop mines etc

- support/defend convoy, if more than x% of the convoy is destroyed you loose reknown

That would probably also satisfy most posters here - the ones who love the current campaign, the ones who would like to follow historic events and the ones who'd just like some variation.

I for my part have put SH3 aside for now, it's a great game but a bit too repetitive, if they'd invested just a little more time for the campaign....

Serge

[rdtwendt]

It's interesting that some people have been disappointed by the campaign. I've found it to be very rewarding. Having said that, I would like to add my perspective to the "dynamic campaign" discussion.

As many people have pointed out, "dynamic" can imply many things to the player, but I'm not sure many people understand what the advertising on the box is trying to say.

There are two possibilities here:

1) A dynamic campaign means a player will be able to recreate a U-boat career that is open ended and unscripted. Once given a patrol order, the player may choose whatever route, weapons, crew, etc. they wish to accomplish their objectives. They can go through the channel to reach BF17 if they wish, and risk being trapped by the English in shallow waters. Or they could take the long route around Scapa Flow, taking a safer but much longer route.

This is the heart of a "dynamic campaign" in the above sense; you choose how to employ your U-boat, where it goes, how it gets there, and what it does.

2) A dynamic campaign that carries over the results of one mission into the next, so that the impact of your actions are perceived to be continuous and meaningful.

It's inetersting to note that in the second definition, it's entirely possible to have a dynamic campaign that it very linear and scripted, but where your actions do have an outcome on the end of the war. Think of a "choose your own ending" book from middle school - your decisions can change the outcome of the story, but you still must choose from a finite number of scripted paths available to you.

It is my opinion that a truly dynamic campaign would incorporate both of these definitions, so that missions and the campaign as a whole are a connected collection of open ended, unscripted events that can affect each other.

SH3 did a great job on the first definition, and this is ultimately what makes the eye candy and damage modelling of the game so rewarding. I think they could improve their implementation of the second definition, because (as many have pointed out) there seems to be only superficial connections between each patrol.

Those who think that definition #2 is more important however, are sadly mistaken. The first one is definitely more satisfying for a game like this. I think they made the right decision by making the campaign open ended and unscripted first, and adding more career material later.

Of course I wouldn't mind if they added more content to satsify definition 2 in future patches. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[Frumpkis]

What I'm hearing in many of these posts is denial of the historical role we're supposed to be playing. People are asking for things like radio messages that tell us of a big naval action we can choose to support.... but that's just not how these boats were used, as I understand it. We're not a tank defending a crucial hill in the Battle of the Bulge, or an infantry division on D-Day. Our job in this war is more abstract. We're supposed to be hitting the enemy's supply chain, not dealing directly with event-shaping battles.

It's more like the strategic bombing missions for the allies. As a U-boat captain, you have no way of knowing exactly how the missing aircraft parts and tanks from that ship you just sank will affect future events. Your "success" is abstract and hard to measure, when the target is the enemy's supply chain and the final result is a ripple-down effect that might not show itself for months, or years. The only immediate consequences you should see from your actions is a merchant radioing your position, or increased DD patrols after you've sunk a ship or two in the area. If you're asking for more than this, you're asking for an unrealistic simulation (IMO).

And FWIW, I do see merchants calling in air support if I'm suddenly detected, and I do see (at least I think I do) increased enemy patrols in a grid after I've sunk a few ships there.

I agree that the sim could be better contextualized. There isn't enough "war atmosphere"... no sense of the big picture. I don't know if the U-boats received generic war reports along with specific orders, but that would help. Maybe we should have a newspaper on our desk every time we return to base with updates on current events?

And yes, participating in wolf packs would have been a nice break from solo feel of the game. But that's asking for a game that might have taken another six months to release. Maybe we'll see it in an update, or expansion pack.

[Pentallion]

The first dynamic campaign I ever played in was RB3D. You couldn't change the outcome of the war. Dynamic campaign does not mean you can influence the war. Some people want to make that definition but most people acknowledge that dynamic campaign does NOT mean that.

Find another expression for what you mean! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Dremond]

I'm mildly suprised to see that no one has mentioned the campaign in Apache: Longbow. Mind you, I'm not advocating that kind of campaign for SH ...

In Longbow, you were part of a team. You and your wingmate(s) were ordered to do something ... escort ground units, take out AA, take out armor/infantry at a certain spot. There were other teams active during your mission as weel, up and down the front. How well they performed their missions depended on how well you performed yours. If you succeeded, the rest would tend to succeed. Their success was not gaurenteed, though. The battlefront would ebb and flow depending on how well each team did their missions. Bases that were destroyed remained destroyed, destroyed units needed replacement, as did used ammo. This way, one chopper wasn't winning the war alone, but one good chopper did have a serious positive impact ...

To do something like this wouldn't work in SH without being given the opportunity to change the outcome of the war. But the enemy should react to repeated patrols hitting the same sector, by defence or rerouting. We also need to feel we are not the only boat in the German navy, be it through wolfpacks or action reports.

[msxyz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frumpkis:
And yes, participating in wolf packs would have been a nice break from solo feel of the game. But that's asking for a game that might have taken another six months to release. Maybe we'll see it in an update, or expansion pack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they include wolfpacks in an expansion I won't buy it. This politics encourage the game industry to publish half-finished products and later charge some more money for features that should be included from the start.

And people still fail to realize how untrue is the statement that the campaign is dynamic. As someone said, in a dynamic campaign shipping lanes will change from mission to mission according to ship losses. Patrols will be moved to hunt in the areas more infested by uboots. A warship torpedoed in a past mission will stay gone for good and not respawn.

The SH3 campaign is uttelry static with some degree of randomization. If you don't believe me, open the editor and see for yourselves.

[fishlore]

Wouldn't it be great if all of the ideas in this thread would come true? We could interact with NPCs on shore, rescue downed pilots, transport nuclear material and have a fully "dynamic" campaign, using whatever definition you wish to attach to dynamic.

Yes it would be great. We'd also still be waiting for the thing to be released. Maybe the scope creep could have doomed the title to have never been finished. We're dealing with video game developers with severly limited resources, limited time and pushed to ridiculous limits by bottom-line watching suits at the publishing companies. We're lucky to get what we have.

Personally, I don't care if it's dynamic or static or none of the above. I care if it's fun to play or not. As soon as it stops being fun to play I'll stop playing it and move on.

[VonGeezer]

Anyways, to reitterate, I love the game the way it is and while there are always improvements to look forward to in the company's future effort, I'm not implying that I'm not satisfied.

I have noticed that alot of the "but it IS dynamic" crowd refuse to make the distinction between a patrol and the campaign. Yes planes in the area come after you, yes ship alter their courses yada yada. That has nothing to do with the campaign. And anyone who thinks a dynamic campaign does not mean a game in which your actions in one mission affect what you get in the next mission had better do some research instead of just arguing for the sake of hearing their own voices...because if you're right then all those game-developers and magazine editors/reviewers are all wrong and could probably stand to be educated by you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The (wonderful) lack of scripted events does not make the patrols "dynamic campaigns", it makes them "non-linear missions" or patrols. You can pull out Webster's dictionary and cite the definitions of "dynamic" all you want. It does not change what the term "Dynamic Campaign" means in the electronic games business. And sorry to say, but the claims of a dynamic campaign (not the missions, but the entire sequence of missions...why is that difference so hard to grasp for some?!!) are totally bunk and they shouldn't have used the term at all. Period. They should have touted the "Non-linear missions" instead, as the issuing of medals and promotion in itself does not qualify the campaign as being dynamic either.

Still in love with it though, and there is NOTHING wrong with the game itself. It is simply that bit of, oh, I'll try not to put a bee in anyone's bonnet and just call it "misleading advertising" on the box.

It just bugs me when I see terms like that wrongly used by publishers, and makes me worry that others will follow suit and dummy-down what is already becomeing a nintendish computer games world. It's like "Tactical"...what the heck does that mean aymore? I heard the word "tactical" to describe a game and I thought "Ghost Recon" and "Operation Flashpoint". Now so many games have a "tactical" label that I think game devs are throwing the word around to describe any game where you can't shoot while bunny-hopping.


If I read the phrase "Dynamic Campaign" on a box, I expect more than a series of random missions where my rank goes up with time. I expect a dynamic campaign. The fact that I keep repeating that I'm not disappointed with SH3 despite it's complete lack of a dynamic campaign speaks volumes about the quality of the title...I'd still recommend it to any gamer with a modicum of intelligence as it is different, involves a reasonable amount of thinking and planning, and just plain rocks!

Good job to the devs...keep'em coming!

[rupert77]

That's a weird attitude fishlore, I think everyone here wants to play a good game as soon as possible but a rushed project is of no use either. A game one can play for weeks is a game worth waiting for that has been my experience. SH3 doesn't feel rushed but it seems unfinished in some respects. Sure one can move on as soon as one gets bored but people paid good money for software and have a right to be entertained for more than a few days (in some cases just hours).

Which is VonGeezer's point I guess, misleading slogans on the package. I have about a hundred games on the shelf behind me. I'd say about 75% of them are either full of misleading advertising mainly on gameplay or apparent features which weren't included, are rubbish in general, have replayability close to zero unlike promised, are full of bugs or simply were overrated by the game press who I consider part in this huge conspiracy against the consumer!

I'm a big fan of Blade Runner for instance, quite naturally I bought the game. They too advertised a dynamic realtime world, everything one does has an impact on this world and it's characters, huge replayability no game is like the other, anyone could be a replicant of up to 40 characters, riiight.
It turns out that only two characters might or might not be replicants, almost all of the world is non interactive with the player being led from one cutscene to the next and the only event which gets triggered by the player is a office exploding sometime midgame. I still like the game because I like BR, but otherwise I definitely felt robbed and I could name plenty such games.

The games industry is the only industry I know of which can advertise and promote all kinds of false features without anyone ever telling them off. Quite on the contrary the consumers still buy the games and actually reward this attitude and marketing policy.

To make one thing clear I don't feel robbed when it comes to SH3 but I do think a WW2 sim dealing with German subs in the North Atlantic has to include wolfpacks, there's no dodging this and especially not via expansion packs.

[InfectiousDust]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by indylavi:
I think people are wanting the ability to change history in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so much change it as wanting to be a part of it...

[privateschultz]

your campaigns ARE "dynamically reactive" guys. trouble is my U-48 is tearing the enemy a new one in sectors you haven't patrolled & i have noticed an influx of destroyers, torpedo boats & escorts in those areas so THAT is why when you return to your stompin grounds it appears business as usual as the enemy is using all its resources to try and contain me. i pity your careers.

[S_Z]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msxyz:
Sh3 has a lot of untapped potential: it's fun if you consider it an "action" game but it appeals more to the casual gamer that to the simulation community. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you are very wrong on this point. SH3 has been received very well on the sim forums I normally visit (like simhq for example). I see many flightsimmers (me included) really enjoying this game. I can not see were you getting this idea that SH3 is more for the “casual gamerâ€Â� than for sim fans. You may not like it but I think it’s the best sim released in a very long time.

About the game being “unfinishedâ€Â� I have to agree with fishlore. As far as I understand they already delayed the release to include this “dynamicâ€Â� campaign (which im very glad they did) and they can’t keep on delaying it forever. The publisher would not like that. It’s not an unusual at all that developer canâ´t include all the features they wanted to into the game. I would gladly pay for an add-on that included wolf packs.

[Frumpkis]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msxyz:
And people still fail to realize how untrue is the statement that the campaign is dynamic. As someone said, in a dynamic campaign shipping lanes will change from mission to mission according to ship losses. Patrols will be moved to hunt in the areas more infested by uboots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know to what degree actual convoy lanes were shifted around as a result of U-boat attacks, but there couldn't have been much flexibility for that.... other than maybe a temporary re-routing for a day or two, and then back to more or less the same route.

Cargo ships leave point A, and take a great circle route to point B. Any drastic deviation means a delayed delivery, more fuel spent, and maybe even greater risk of attack because you're spending more days at sea. It makes sense to me that the convoy lanes wouldn't change very much, during the campaign. But maybe someone who knows more about the actual history will correct me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A warship torpedoed in a past mission will stay gone for good and not respawn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since we aren't able to ID any of the ships in the dynamic campaign, it doesn't break the immersion for me to see more warships pop up in the same area.

[nstutt]

Well I cant really see how a fully dynamic campaign could be made to work in a game such as this where you are meant to be representing real life historical events. If the game was fully dynamic like Falcon 4 for example you would move away from history quite quickly - for example you may decide to improve on wolfpack tactics and actually win the battle of the atlantic somehow. The game developers ovbiously decided that they didnt want to move away from historical events in this way. The only problem with the game that I can see is that becuase its quite narrow in focus in terms of missions it is likely to get pretty boring quite soon unfotunately. I really like the game - best thats been brought out for ages, but I would have liked a bit more variation in the missions. But Im glad there are no scripted missions - I really hate those.

[fishlore]

I don't understand what's weird about my attitude. You're the one admitting to being burned by "false advertising" in one paragraph and then complaining about consumers still buying games and rewarding bad behavior in the next paragraph and closing it out with a complaint that this game burned you for lack of wolfpacks.

"I think everyone here wants to play a good game as soon as possible but a rushed project is of no use either."
Exactly, and to make the game that everyone here was expecting would take a long time to make. Developers don't make their own release dates and they don't have infinite resources. A line has to be drawn at some point.

I'll be the first to admit that the publishers are wrong for doing it. They did falsely lead people to believe things that aren't true about this game. That's why I read reviews of games before I buy them. That way I know exactly what to expect. Like you said many, many other games mislead to even worse degrees than this one. I don't feel mislead or slighted in the least. This is a $30 video game afterall.

We're not talking about Halo here. We're talking about a niche market, pc, submarine simulator. We're lucky to get a game in the first place let alone one with fully dynamic everything. Fully dynamic everything would take longer to develop and cost more at the same time. For a niche market such as this, maybe it's not worth it. It's changing to a world where companies have to make a game that plays on Xbox, PS2, GameCube and PC at the same time just to turn a profit.

Is this game better than SH2? If not, as a slighted consumer your choices are to try to get your money back or to never buy another ubi game again. Fight the power.

[privateschultz]

more radio contact, illusion of significance of ones efforts toward enemys war effort during successive patrols. picture of hitlers **** in the command room. anything else we're missing?

[rupert77]

Sorry fishlore, meant no offence. Actually I do agree with most of what you said but for a moment there it sounded to me asthough we should be thankful for unfinished products.

I do understand that not everything can be implemented and I likewise acknowledge that the real bad guys are the publishers. But if you or I were to make a simulation on WW2 subwar in the North Atlantic you'd expect the last thing to be left out or implemented to be the wolfpacks, right?

I really like the harbours for instance and wouldn't want to miss them but why on earth have we got empty harbours with no ships but a Uboat war without other Uboats and wolfpacks? I don't mean to say leave out harbours or anything but if it comes down to priorities and limited resources other subs and wolfpacks just seem more fundamental to a game of this sort.

[S_Z]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rupert77:
I really like the harbours for instance and wouldn't want to miss them but why on earth have we got empty harbours with no ships but a Uboat war without other Uboats and wolfpacks? I don't mean to say leave out harbours or anything but if it comes down to priorities and limited resources other subs and wolfpacks just seem more fundamental to a game of this sort. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Im pretty sure the guys making the harbors would not have been the ones implementing wolfpacks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The harbors are made by 3D artists but wolfpacks would have required a lot of additional coding by programmers. If there were wolfpacks we might not have had the "dynamic campaign" (which both require coding) and I rather have a "dynamic campaign" and no wolfpacks than wolfpacks and a campaign build of static missions.

[reumatiib]

gosh guys get a grip - its a good game. what's dynamic? well your men tend to improve a tiny bit. The truth is sub sims don't make a lot of money - most people can't stand them, yet they are costing more and more to produce. what i've noted over the years is that sub-simmers can't be choozy.

[rupert77]

You're right ofcourse S_Z and I really tried to come up with something better but couldn't think of anything. Because I really do think it's a good game and that it has tremendous potential. Which is why I'd like to see everything stay as it is but have wolfpacks and other shortcomings implemented in the coming weeks without any tradeoffs.

[alanschu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is not dynamic this is random!

Many people here don't not seem to understand that'a big difference between saying something is dynamic and something in random.

Open the editor and see for yourselves how SH3 campaign works: a spawn point generating a new ship (the type is either random or pre-determined) in the same location at fixed interval hours, some waypoints and, after the last, the ship magically disappears. Routes are always predetermined, although it's possible to ranomize to a certain extent the waypoints. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that's the case then it's not random at all.

If it were random then I'd have a chance of bumping into a convoy in the middle of the pacific (albiet with a lower probability).

I also still think that people overestimate their impact in the war.


As for "dynamic" and stuff, I notice the Dido and Fiji cruisers don't respawn at Scapa Flow and Loch Ewe after I sunk them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


As a final point, I think it's absurd that you think your definition of Dynamic Campaign is correct, and the ones that see this game as having a dynamic campaign are the ones that are wrong. You can quote Webster's all you want, but it doesn't mean anything if that's not how the term is used. Clearly there are people that see the campaign style of SH3 as being one that fits under the heading of "dynamic campaing." It is illustrated in this thread alone. I would suspect it is very possible that the person on the production team that coined this campaign as being dynamic interprets it the exact same way.

This thread shows that what constitutes a "dynamic campaign" is subjective, so there is no grounds that anyone can be "wrong," even if you hold yourself to the constraints of the current interpretations of what it means to be a dynamic campaign (that is to say, if I argue Half-Life is a dynamic campaign, I could be labelled "wrong" since I would likely be the only person making such claim....and the game mechanics of Half-Life are different than games that are labelled with the broad heading of "dynamic").

[JebUSMC]

What would have happened to Bismark if one U-boat had been in a position to torpedo Ark Royal before it had a chance to launch the torpedo strike that crippled Bismark? What would have happened if U-boats had been in position to torpedo the heavy cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk a couple hours before Bismark was in range? Hor much of a difference would Bismark and Prinz Eugen have made if their sortie had been more successful? Could just one U-boat have made a difference to the war in this way? Possibly but we'll never know. As for intercepting the D-day invasion convoys, if you stop to think about how many destroyers were present, how many aircraft were about, and how shallow those waters are, you would probably come to the conclusion that the English Channel near Normandy is no place for a U-boat in June of 1944. As for wolfpacks, target rich harbors, and a more interactive, less sterile/generic radio responses from BDU? Hopefully that'll come soon. (6 months?)

[VonGeezer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by alanschu:
This thread shows that what constitutes a "dynamic campaign" is subjective, so there is no grounds that anyone can be "wrong," even if you hold yourself to the constraints of the current interpretations of what it means to be a dynamic campaign (that is to say, if I argue Half-Life is a dynamic campaign, I could be labelled "wrong" since I would likely be the only person making such claim....and the game mechanics of Half-Life are different than games that are labelled with the broad heading of "dynamic"). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All this thread shows is that some people will argue for the sake of arguing wether thier argument makes any sense or not.

Here, I typed in "Dynamic Campaign" and "definition" at google and this was one of links that came up...a software glossary page.

http://www.frankdietz.com/softgloss.htm

According to this guy (and most major game developers/reviewers/publications I've read over the years.
"
Dynamic campaign
A campaign, in the context of a military simulation, is a series of interrelated missions that have to be played in sequence. Whereas a scripted campaign uses a predetermined series of missions, a dynamic campaign allows the outcome of missions to change the starting conditions of future missions."

But no, you're not wrong. If you want to believe Elvis is selling shoes at a Walmart in Arkensas then Elvis lives and you're not wrong there either... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif.. The term "dead Elvis" is simply open to interpretation.

Some people just don't want to acknowlege the difference between a mission and a campaign...you keep describing single missions when arguing that the "campaign" is dynamic, redering some arguments downright silly.

[Johnny_JG2]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>a dynamic campaign allows the outcome of missions to change the starting conditions of future missions." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly what most people are thinking.

On the one hand, we all really like the game, and I speak for most of us saying I love the ability to do whatever I want- to make my own script.

That doesn't mean, though, that the campaign is "dynamic".. it's just big and.. different. - but cool and fun.

If I go to X harbor this mission, it will be exactly the same as if I go there at the same date in another campaign. Not exact, but pretty much the same with the same 2 destroyers or whatever. Now this is all fine and dandy- but it shouldn't be the same if I had sunk a million tons in the same little area, compared to if I had never been there at all.

And yes, I could save the Bismark. No, it wouldn't change the war, but it would make for something different- maybe even another sos request from it someday. Maybe I'll answer it, maybe not - and so I could change what happens possibly.

[VonGeezer]

I don't know why some people are so hung up on historical accuracy anyways. Anything you do that isn't exactly like it was done back then changes history anyways. It is WWII, I'm a Sub Commander, and I couldn't care less if the Bismark gets sunk or even exists for that matter.

But like you said, we love the game. I was never saying I didn't, just pointing out that one of the claims on the box is suspicious.

[U161_Jaeger]

SH3: s dynamic or random campaign (or whatever you like to call it) is enough for me and i enjoy the game very much. However.. this thread reminds me of the campaings of Battle of Britain: Their Finest Hour and Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. Now those campaings were so much fun. Why? because your efforts affected the outcome of the war. Realistic? Nope. Fun? He** yeah! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[CaptainBeefhead]

Dynamic campaign would be defined as Random Scripted campaign. If itâ´s not a kind of 1942 PAW or (Rowanâ´s BOB, didnâ´t work sadly). Or a little bit of Close Combat 4-5. This is what I call a dynamic-like campaign.

[rupert77]

Good call U161_jaeger, remember those games too. The campaigns were great and never quite figured out why we've hardly seen such campaigns models since. Those games should have inspired a whole new generation of similar war sims.

[alanschu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All this thread shows is that some people will argue for the sake of arguing wether thier argument makes any sense or not.

Here, I typed in "Dynamic Campaign" and "definition" at google and this was one of links that came up...a software glossary page.

http://www.frankdietz.com/softgloss.htm

According to this guy (and most major game developers/reviewers/publications I've read over the years.
"
Dynamic campaign
A campaign, in the context of a military simulation, is a series of interrelated missions that have to be played in sequence. Whereas a scripted campaign uses a predetermined series of missions, a dynamic campaign allows the outcome of missions to change the starting conditions of future missions."

But no, you're not wrong. If you want to believe Elvis is selling shoes at a Walmart in Arkensas then Elvis lives and you're not wrong there either... .. The term "dead Elvis" is simply open to interpretation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finding a definition on Google doesn't mean anything.


As I said, this thread shows that there are people that consider the campaign in SH3 is an acceptable example of a "dynamic campaign."

It's likely that the development team also considers "dynamic campaign" to mean the same thing.

Just off the top of my head I can remember Freelancer being listed as a dynamic game as well.

[Dremond]

I don't think we should be able to go to a certain preknown location and accomplish something historic. But, say, we had "intel" that told us the Allies were planning something big across the Channel between May and July 1944. And that, at a random time during that period, a large fleet of vessels would cross the Channel at a random point.

The same logic could be applied to "saving the Bismark", "sinking the Hood (so what if subs didn't do it IRL)", etc ... at a time close to an historical event, a similar event happens in the game somewhere in the operational vicinity of the actual event. "Intel" has warned us of the impending event, now it's up to us to find it and get involved, or not ...

[marauderiv]

The only thing dynamic about SH3's campaign is your renown pts tied to choice of new technology. But the entire war is scripted. SH3's campaign is like a RPG game with a scripted story but with random monster encounter, so there's nothing dynamic about it and therefore replay value suffers. A real dynamic campaign is like that in Jagged Alliance 2 or Falcon 4.0. And I don't agree with claims that a sub doesn't make a difference. Even a single soldier can make difference in war (like Russian sniper Vasily Zaitsev in Stalingrad), even if it's only for propanganda and propangada certainly has its role in war in raising population morale. History is not just a set of events happened on set dates. History is dynamic. Whatever each and everyone of us does today influences what we'll be tomorrow. I remember an episode in Simpsons that Homer went back in time and accidentally killed the world's first amphibian, and the world today is all populated with fish. It makes me chuckle every time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VonGeezer:
I've always taken the term "dynamic campaign" to mean that the results of your actions in one mission affect what you will see in future missions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ten years ago, that's what the term 'dynamic campaign' meant. Now the term has been watered down to mean anything more than a scripted campaign. The campaign in SH3 is technically a mixture between a random and a scripted campaign: all the elements are scripted, but it has a randomizer which works with a percentage probability of spawning groups of ships. This effectively makes the campaign act like ships are randomly-generated, which allows the game to retain a long-term replay value that traditional scripted campaigns always lack.

[Messervy]

The dynamic campaign would mean that if two convoys follow each other (this has been a case in WWll) and you intercept one and sink several ships, the following one should change it`s route.
It would also mean that if you sink certain major combatant it should be withdrawn from the pool.

[VonGeezer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
The dynamic campaign would mean that if two convoys follow each other (this has been a case in WWll) and you intercept one and sink several ships, the following one should change it`s route. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you talking about changing it's route in the same Patrol? Because is so you would be describing a dynamic mission and not a dynamic campaign. If all convoys avoided that route until a heavier destroyer presesnce built up in the area or until some time had past (in one of your future patrols), then THAT would be a dynamic campaign.

But the other poster was right...some game devs are watering down terms and printing them on their boxes, and the average gamer (who just doesn't know any better) buys into it hook line and sinker and thinks he is playing a dynamic campaign (not realizing what he's missing).

Still a great game, but with bogus claims of a dynamic campaign.

[alanschu]

Don't just blame the developers.

It's the game players that propogate the "watered down" version of dynamic campaign.

[marauderiv]

Yes, at one point the dev team wanted to pursue the possibility of having war progression and outcome changed by your performance in the game. But some amateur history buff diehards insisted on sticking to historic timeline and events. SH3's partially scripted campaign is the result. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Frumpkis]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marauderiv:
Yes, at one point the dev team wanted to pursue the possibility of having war progression and outcome changed by your performance in the game. But some amateur history buff diehards insisted on sticking to historic timeline and events. SH3's partially scripted campaign is the result. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect to opposing views, I really don't understand how this would be practical. I could see changing the war's outcome if this were a strategy sim, and you were playing the German high command... not only directing wolfpack attacks but also setting priorities on submarine production vs. other war resources. Maybe then you could make a difference in the war's outcome.

But the focus of this simulation is a single U-boat. So how, exactly, is a lone U-boat commander supposed to affect the outcome of the war? That would be like playing a single B-17 crew and being able to win or lose the entire war based only on your crew's performance. It just doesn't make sense to me. It isn't appropriate to the scale of the simulation.

Other than maybe very short-term effects like temporary convoy re-routing, any affect you actually have on the war is is something you'd never see or know about, because you're hitting a supply chain, not directly participating in major battles. You're causing a few less tanks or supplies to show up on the battlefield (or a few more, if you screw up)... probably not enough to affect the outcome of something like, say, the Battle of the Bulge. Not from one sub, anyway. You just don't have enough torpedoes!