PDA

View Full Version : Campaign discussion - getting past the 20th mission?



nstutt
03-12-2005, 01:12 PM
From what I have heard of the game so far it seems that a semi-dynamic campaign will be used. Another thread on what to include in any future patches got me thinking what I would like to see in terms of revisions to the campaign in a future patch.

I believe the present game engine uses scripted naval actions with probably preset trader routes to prey on standard convoys (obviously this is all assumed!). You dont seem to be able to affect the war effort on anything else. Although some elements sound fun like running out of fuel and weapons etc it sounds a lot like the campaign in B17 2. That game is actually very good but gets rather boring after a while when you soon realise that no matter how many targets you bomb nothing actually ever changes in the game, the game goes on the same totally unaffected by your actions. Similarly in Rowans Battle of Britain it soon dawns on you that no matter now many times you shoot down a few German bombers you know that the war will go on unabated and your actual efforts are pretty much meaningless. This tend to taint the enjoyment a little after time. Obviously the enjoyment is in playing the game but after the 20th mission how jaded will the games appeal seem (I dont want to sound dramatic hear just trying to start a discussion).

So I asked myself would I really want to see a fully synamic campaign in this game as part of a future patch such as is present in Falcon 4? Unfortunately what we have here is unlike Falcon 4 in that the events depicted are historical and cant be altered without becoming unrealistic. So if you could somehow manage to alter the war single-handedly or manage to cancel D-day etc you will sudddenly find yourself playing a game of an alternate reality. So can a fully dynamic campaign really be made to work with such a historical game?

One possible solution would be to enable players to run the Uboat war as a general and control the running of the whole war effort and dedicate mission strikes. But then, as I have seen in BOB, this starts to detract from actually playing the game. You spend more time worrying about running the war and actually less time playing each mission until each mission suddenly seems not all that important or fun.

But the question still remains - how much long term appeal will this game have? Will the chance of upgrades etc manage to keep a players interest past the 20th mission. Or will I eventually get bored and want to go back to Falcon 4? Its a major problem with all historical games that I have played so far.

Anyone have any ideas on this? My own view on thinking about it for a while is that there is actually no way you could actually do a fully dynamic campaign in such a historical game as this. I just hope theres enough variation in the gameplay to keep me playing past the 20th mission.

Nats

nstutt
03-12-2005, 01:12 PM
From what I have heard of the game so far it seems that a semi-dynamic campaign will be used. Another thread on what to include in any future patches got me thinking what I would like to see in terms of revisions to the campaign in a future patch.

I believe the present game engine uses scripted naval actions with probably preset trader routes to prey on standard convoys (obviously this is all assumed!). You dont seem to be able to affect the war effort on anything else. Although some elements sound fun like running out of fuel and weapons etc it sounds a lot like the campaign in B17 2. That game is actually very good but gets rather boring after a while when you soon realise that no matter how many targets you bomb nothing actually ever changes in the game, the game goes on the same totally unaffected by your actions. Similarly in Rowans Battle of Britain it soon dawns on you that no matter now many times you shoot down a few German bombers you know that the war will go on unabated and your actual efforts are pretty much meaningless. This tend to taint the enjoyment a little after time. Obviously the enjoyment is in playing the game but after the 20th mission how jaded will the games appeal seem (I dont want to sound dramatic hear just trying to start a discussion).

So I asked myself would I really want to see a fully synamic campaign in this game as part of a future patch such as is present in Falcon 4? Unfortunately what we have here is unlike Falcon 4 in that the events depicted are historical and cant be altered without becoming unrealistic. So if you could somehow manage to alter the war single-handedly or manage to cancel D-day etc you will sudddenly find yourself playing a game of an alternate reality. So can a fully dynamic campaign really be made to work with such a historical game?

One possible solution would be to enable players to run the Uboat war as a general and control the running of the whole war effort and dedicate mission strikes. But then, as I have seen in BOB, this starts to detract from actually playing the game. You spend more time worrying about running the war and actually less time playing each mission until each mission suddenly seems not all that important or fun.

But the question still remains - how much long term appeal will this game have? Will the chance of upgrades etc manage to keep a players interest past the 20th mission. Or will I eventually get bored and want to go back to Falcon 4? Its a major problem with all historical games that I have played so far.

Anyone have any ideas on this? My own view on thinking about it for a while is that there is actually no way you could actually do a fully dynamic campaign in such a historical game as this. I just hope theres enough variation in the gameplay to keep me playing past the 20th mission.

Nats

dse1010
03-12-2005, 01:54 PM
If they did that and kept it realistic, you could only effect the war with super unrealistic settings.

hauitsme
03-12-2005, 01:58 PM
It's already a pseudo-world with the exclusion of so much stuff. Whoever says this is a 'realistic' sim is off their rocker!

Antrodemus
03-12-2005, 02:08 PM
Any chance you could define what you would accept as a, "realistic simulation", in the context of a lone U-boat?

A.

Pr0metheus 1962
03-12-2005, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nstutt:
...Although some elements sound fun like running out of fuel and weapons etc it sounds a lot like the campaign in B17 2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, B-17 II had a scripted campaign designed to appear like a random or dynamic campaign. It sounds to me like this game is much freer than that, although I may be wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...Obviously the enjoyment is in playing the game but after the 20th mission how jaded will the games appeal seem... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to me, a random campaign is the perfect campaign system: you're not playing a restricted linear storyline (which is the worst kind of campaign) and you're not causing history to change (which quickly makes the game into a fantasy). I played Red Baron 3D for three years straight, and it was a very similar campaign engine to this. Sure, every convoy sighting will mean going through the same procedure, but that's historically accurate. It was a grind, and there's no reason for a simulation of that reality to be any different. Real life is not a movie with a defined beginning, middle and end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>can a fully dynamic campaign really be made to work with such a historical game? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, it can. But in order to do it, it would have to be very complex. In my opinion, such complexity is unnecessary, since the focus of the game is a single sub, and no single sub could have affected the war to any great extent. A random non-dynamic campaign will work fine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But the question still remains - how much long term appeal will this game have? Will the chance of upgrades etc manage to keep a players interest past the 20th mission. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won't need upgrades to keep my interest level high. Each mission is different enough without the need for the game to model dynamic or war-shaping events.

hauitsme
03-12-2005, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Antrodemus:
Any chance you could define what you would accept as a, "realistic simulation", in the context of a lone U-boat?

A. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure. How about FIDO torps? Enemy submarines. At-sea resupply. In-use Carrier A/C. LIFEBOATS.

That's only 5 things. Need more?

Pr0metheus 1962
03-12-2005, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hauitsme:
It's already a pseudo-world with the exclusion of so much stuff. Whoever says this is a 'realistic' sim is off their rocker! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Realistic' doesn't mean 'completely real'. There are always aspects that a simulation doesn't model, but that doesn't mean it's unrealistic. A realistic sim by its very nature is intended to make a good approximation of reality - not a perfect representation. To suggest that people are 'off their rocker' for suggesting that a simulation might be realistic is nonsense. It's like saying someone is mad for suggesting that someone neither of you have ever seen might have blue eyes. You simply can't know enough about it to make a valid judgement, so if anyone's off his rocker, it's you (but that shouldn't be much of a surprise to the forum membership).

hauitsme
03-12-2005, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hauitsme:
It's already a pseudo-world with the exclusion of so much stuff. Whoever says this is a 'realistic' sim is off their rocker! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You simply can't know enough about it to make a valid judgement... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The DevTeam said themselves there would be NO lifeboats, FIDO torps, etc. How can it be 'realistic' if it doesn't have the weapons and defenses that were available at the time that the u-boat had to contend with? Not just a FEW, but ALL. Let alone, when did the Captain of a boat have 'points' to spend for upgrades?

JavDog
03-12-2005, 02:37 PM
Beeryus, I have to agree with you.

It's a simulacra or simlulation of a reality that took place 65 years ago. But it is not it.

If you enjoy the "hyperreality" of it, the first go around, then you will likely pick it up again.

Also, Battlefield 2 is right around the corner, so don't worry too much about being entertained in the long run. IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Grauwulf
03-12-2005, 02:42 PM
Agree fully with Beeryus, I also played Red Baron many years, and until now... (awaiting SH III) I think this is still the best combat simulation around.
It appears to me that you like to have an arcade style of simulation -winning the second world war with one U boot? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Bored after 20th missions? The kick of playing these Dynamic(read:realistic career)campaigns comes from SURVIVING and then PERFORMING better than...This all in a realistic environment creates for me the best "game" you can get.

As far as I have seen so far SHIII let's you take the role of an U Boot commander in the second World war as realistic as I have never seen before. And that's exactly wat I wanted for many many years...

stevenwhiting
03-12-2005, 02:58 PM
WWIIOnline is based on World War II obviously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif In that history can change. I use to play that and during the short time that I did, I was always the British. And we kept losing the war and the German side would win.

This didn't make the game unrealistic, all that changed was history.

But yeah, I guess 1 u-boat wouldn't have much of an effect, but it would be good if it affected something like the Allies supplies etc etc.

Pr0metheus 1962
03-12-2005, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stevenwhiting:
I guess 1 u-boat wouldn't have much of an effect, but it would be good if it affected something like the Allies supplies etc etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just don't see why. As you say, U-Boats didn't have that much of an affect on Allied supplies. If a simulation modelled something that never happened it wouldn't be a very realistic simulation.

HeibgesU999
03-12-2005, 07:46 PM
I fully agree Beeryus.

LPV
03-12-2005, 11:45 PM
A semi-dynamic campaign seems interesting. some questions.
While on Patrol I encouter the Bismarck in her final moments what will happen if I have sunk the Rodney and King Geogre already will those ships only appear in the game after the sinking of the Bismarck?
Its a no win situation surely those two battleships were at sea before June 1941 and if you sink them it takes an act of god to salvage them unless you sunk them in scarpa flow.

GabberHardcore
03-13-2005, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LPV:
A semi-dynamic campaign seems interesting. some questions.
While on Patrol I encouter the Bismarck in her final moments what will happen if I have sunk the Rodney and King Geogre already will those ships only appear in the game after the sinking of the Bismarck?
Its a no win situation surely those two battleships were at sea before June 1941 and if you sink them it takes an act of god to salvage them unless you sunk them in scarpa flow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well if you have such situations where you could help the bismarck, prevent it from sinking and such, one or 2 subs can have disastures influence in the outcome of warfare. Only problem is, we dont know what the Bismarck could have done to the warfare. Surely a lott, but that would make it indead a fantasy. The big IF...

Indead it goes about how long can you servive, on missions that are not scripted. How hard can you make it yourself.
If you make it 20 missions, where you very carefull, lucky or can you do the next 20 missions taking a lott more risk and still servive. Or search for a more brutal way of attack, and new daring ways of escaping. Even if you done that, try to do the same missions with couple more handycaps. No AA guns, no deckguns, limeted fuel. Obviously you started with those handycaps in the type IIB, can you apply those new brutal, riskfull daring ways of attacks with those limits?

If you done that, properly there will be a new patch out with a new feature, or you can try your new daring attack online using elite players in wolfpacks.

I think challeging yourself with these ideas, you might not get bored after mission 80.. imagen what time you have spended on SHIII by then.

nstutt
03-14-2005, 02:50 PM
I will no doubt love the game thats for sure. I cant say how long I will play it though. With B17 2 I similarly love it and have played it almost to death. I still keep going bcak to it from time to time.

Problem with many sims is that theres no save facility - take B17 2 for example. It can take several hours to do a proper mission during which you cant save the game at all. Considering a save facility is in SH3 - for one thing it will at least make the game more immediate. Handy for those of us with jobs we have to unfortunately go to from time to time!

As for the long term interest created by such things as upgrades, new boats, new missions etc well, we'll see when we start playing the game. But from the subsim review it certainly sounds like a great game. Shame about the lack of a wolfpack, fuel resupplies and nets/traffic/mines around ports. This last element may actual ruin a bit of the realism for me at least - I would love to try an attack on a UK port a few times just for fun! Wolf pack and refuels dont bother me a massive amount but they would be nice to get.

Nats