Yamato sighted. | Forums

[HeibgesU999]

In the hundreds and hundreds of SH1 patrols i went on comprised of dozens and dozens of carreers, i only ever sighted the Yamata once (sank her with 9 torpedoes and 1 Miss).

that is not to say she didn't steam by me a few times due to her high speed, and unfavorable heading and bearing when detected on sound or radar. but i only ever sighted her once.

i would rather see a random chance of .05% chance per mission of seeing the Royal Oak or the Bismark, than a scripted mission that is historically correct. But if a ship has been sunk during the War, it should not appear on that random encounter table.

this is why you would need a random encounter table for each patrol zone, for each time of day, for each weather pattern, for each month of the war. and the appropriate sub-tables to determine specific unit type.

[HeibgesU999]

In the hundreds and hundreds of SH1 patrols i went on comprised of dozens and dozens of carreers, i only ever sighted the Yamata once (sank her with 9 torpedoes and 1 Miss).

that is not to say she didn't steam by me a few times due to her high speed, and unfavorable heading and bearing when detected on sound or radar. but i only ever sighted her once.

i would rather see a random chance of .05% chance per mission of seeing the Royal Oak or the Bismark, than a scripted mission that is historically correct. But if a ship has been sunk during the War, it should not appear on that random encounter table.

this is why you would need a random encounter table for each patrol zone, for each time of day, for each weather pattern, for each month of the war. and the appropriate sub-tables to determine specific unit type.

[CB..]

yes i agree ..i dont agree with the concept of recreating exact historical encounters in a campaign (maybe a single mission or something interesting like the scapa flow incident perhaps) on the simple reasoning that

a)it smacks of the inference of "see if yu can do better than Prien" some folks even seem to half believe this.. quite rediculous and insulting ..

b) in order for a scenario to be truly historicalally accurate yu need to have no idea about what is going to happen...dont belive ww2 sub commanders had the abilty to travel forwards in time and say it's may the 18th 1943...let me see today thing A is going to happen at co-ordinates B and C...even more rediculous
i for one have no illusions that i could do the job of sub commander better than the genuine guys did ... neither in real life nor in a simulation.....and i don't want that sort of "kick" from a sim...i not comfortable with the ego-centric version of events so often rammed dow yur throat by simulations of ww2...quite frankly i'd rather find im not terribly good at it....but perhaps am able to maintain the struggle to survive..even if the result is im posted to mine laying duties or given a type II in the black sea...that would be far more interesting that trying to prove (insanely and insultingly) that im a better sub commander than Erich Topp....
it's un avoidable that setting a simulation during WW2 has some elements of oddity about it...but it really should try extremely hard to avoid this mad hero or zero insult

how much courage was needed to command a milch kow at the end of the war..no glamour all risk allmost certain death yet apparently in in our sophisticated modern world and simulations...the guy is just a "looser"

honestly this attitude promoted by games is just pathetic.....we CAN do better than this...so lets START doing better than this..

it's sick