PDA

View Full Version : SH3 is a good game, but is it a good sim?



Mik1984
08-28-2005, 04:47 AM
I would rather say that only a decent one. I'm a quite new player in SH3, I've spend only about 40h with this game yet, however I can percieve that phisics in the sub dehavior leave a lot to wish in especially those two areas:

Diving/Surfacing the boat:
There are two measures to change the depth of a boat: depth steers and balast. Would be more realistic when you could manage manualy with both, however the biggest problem is when you blow balast tanks. The ship doesn't gain any horizontal speed on it in the game. In real life a sub being at 150m depth could change its position singificantly for a depth charche attack by
only blowing the balast and not using engines at all(app. 2m for each m of depth). This is due to the forces which occur also when you squeeze a wet soap: although you don't push it forward, it jumps out in that direction. In this situation the sub finds itself in a water flow from up to down, on which she simply sails. This can be enchanced if you decide to keep the front your boat at a small angle upwards. In this situation the sub raises slower, however it can move further. This feature was included in SH1 and SH2, It would be nice if you could choose between those two options also.

Would be nice if you could also surface the ship and remain if full dive alertness, it means don't open the vents, nobody goes on the deck, diesels are off and so on. The reason is that if you jump out of the water, because you were evading depth charges, you only want to go down, before the destroyer turns the turrets in your side.

Hydroacustics:

Where is the thermograph? Thermal layers of water have a high influence on hydrograpth and sonar. If you manage to dive into a layer of colder water, the sound will partially delfect from the border between those two. It is recomended to stay relatively close to this border, because then the waves coming in the direction of your ship hit it at a lower angle. Of course it makes almost no difference if the enemy destroyer is horizontally less than 300m away, then you rather want to be deeper to have more time on evading depth charges. Take a look at the Jane's model in this area. Weather, tepm of the water, shape of the bottom of the sea , those influences are included.

Minor issues:

The radio should inform you about naval movements also, patrols, larger ship groups. Not only about the enemies, but also on your own, so you know which waters are safer for you. Sinking merchants is fine, however it would be nice if you could occasionally nail something thougher, like a crusier or carrier, not by chance, but with purpose.

Fires should damage the surface ships, not only be a cosmetic issue.

Where are the other U-boats?

It should be possible to order the AA guns to shoot at a ship. They would be helpful, when fighting a patrol craft on surface.

There is a problem with the time lag at higher time warps. When you're attacked by an airplane the lag makes it to be upon you, before you're told that it's spotted. You don't even have time to man and grab the AA.

What is the reason of having limited personal resources in the base, if they respawn after you turn on the crew screen in the base again?

I'm not a pessimist, as it might seem from this post.I'm happy with the half-full glass, however it is my ritual that when I like a game I describe everything that must be corrected in it in my opinion. I hope that someone else also shares it, as well as that I will find enough people, who will bother to read such a long post.

Nitrotoluene
08-28-2005, 05:19 AM
Mik1984

I would not disagree with you on the technical points. However, after having played out one whole career, I came to the opposite opinion of SH3 - I think it's a good enough sim, but not a very good game. No matter how brilliant your career is, you can make absolutely no difference to the over-all results of the war. For this reason I gradually got bored with it. I'm sure others will not share my view, but that's how it affected me.

.

joeap
08-28-2005, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by Nitrotoluene:
Mik1984

I would not disagree with you on the technical points. However, after having played out one whole career, I came to the opposite opinion of SH3 - I think it's a good enough sim, but not a very good game. No matter how brilliant your career is, you can make absolutely no difference to the over-all results of the war. For this reason I gradually got bored with it. I'm sure others will not share my view, but that's how it affected me.

.

Yea I don't share your view. How can one u-boat captain, no matter how brilliant make a difference to the overall results of the war?

@mik1984 there are lots of mods that deal with some of your points...esp. relating to operations and radio messages etc. Go and have a look you get messages about task forces with the latest RUB mod which has an ops mod built in for example the invasion of Norway. I got radio messages concering freindly groups as well. Time lag...well planes fly quick so 1024 times say 200km/h you can figure you won't have enough time, better lower the TC in high air activity areas.

I agree about the point concerning fire, and REALLY agree about surfacing but not having anyone on deck...sorry don't think it's the captain's job to play with dive planes and the like. I am sure thermal layers are modelled but that the KM had no way of mesuring them unlike the USN. Do a search it has been discussed here on the forum.

chkdsk
08-28-2005, 07:01 AM
oh,it surely is...!

Cpt_Walrus
08-28-2005, 07:44 AM
SH3 is a good game, but is it a good sim?

Yes

Mik1984
08-28-2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nitrotoluene:
Mik1984

I would not disagree with you on the technical points. However, after having played out one whole career, I came to the opposite opinion of SH3 - I think it's a good enough sim, but not a very good game. No matter how brilliant your career is, you can make absolutely no difference to the over-all results of the war. For this reason I gradually got bored with it. I'm sure others will not share my view, but that's how it affected me.

.

Yea I don't share your view. How can one u-boat captain, no matter how brilliant make a difference to the overall results of the war?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By sinking 2.000.000 tons of merchant ships, the triple of the US yearly production during the war. When you've sunk alone as much ships as the rest of U-bootwaffe, it screems for having some influence on the things, because it is like the whole fleet had double forces.

The question remains why you're getting such good results in the game, wheras the other captains didn't?

Main factor is that you're more skilled, however there are other ones, which are significant alltogether:

-You don't loose you whole carrier if you get killed, so you can take higher chances.

-The AI is not doing everything what possible to make your task harder, it's patterns of behavior are predictable.

The solution is more challenging AI and "Iron man" carriers if chosen. It would then make the carrier last from the beginning up to when you get killed or the war is over. There would be one save slot, absolutely no going back in time.

When under this conditions, you still achieve such results, then we should think about an impact of them on the whole war.

Dominicrigg
08-28-2005, 08:17 AM
About blowing ballast, if you press E twice it has a better effect, the boat rises fast, but also it fires out air untill you reach the surface.

It does help you to surface very fast though. Press E then wait about a second, then press it again, if you watch the air gauge you can see if its worked or not as it starts dropping rapidly. I dont think this is how blowing ballast worked, but its as near as we can get to it in a game without compressed air.

As for your question yes it is a sim, but very limited. I think it was going to be a nice looking arcade game, and the community begged for a sim, so it ended being a hybrid, looks and simish, but neither.

chkdsk
08-28-2005, 08:18 AM
¤¶¥"*~!

lecek
08-28-2005, 08:20 AM
There are two measures to change the depth of a boat: depth steers and balast. Would be more realistic when you could manage manualy with both

Both are in the game, just like in real life, you don't directly manipulate either. Though sometimes I wish you could. However that would make like as a captain impossibly complex. Your guys are constantly adjusting both.


Hydroacustics:

Where is the thermograph? Thermal layers of water have a high influence on hydrograpth and sonar. If you manage to dive into a layer of colder water, the sound will partially delfect from the border between those two. It is recomended to stay relatively close to this border, because then the waves coming in the direction of your ship hit it at a lower angle. Of course it makes almost no difference if the enemy destroyer is horizontally less than 300m away, then you rather want to be deeper to have more time on evading depth charges. Take a look at the Jane's model in this area. Weather, tepm of the water, shape of the bottom of the sea , those influences are included.


Those things are included in the game. But just like real life U-Boats you don't have a thermograph. They didn't know when they passed a thermal layer, they just knew it could happen.

See: http://www.silent-hunteriii.com/uk/videos.php

One of the videos is a U-Boat Captain talking about thermal layers. (Top row 2nd from right.)


The radio should inform you about naval movements also, patrols, larger ship groups. Not only about the enemies, but also on your own, so you know which waters are safer for you. Sinking merchants is fine, however it would be nice if you could occasionally nail something thougher, like a crusier or carrier, not by chance, but with purpose.

It does and you can. It is just that most of the ships are either not yours or not warships.

The warships (not destroyers) travel at some 21 kts and they are hard to intercept unless they happen to be heading towards you.

I intercepted and sank a Nelson battleship.

Mik1984
08-28-2005, 09:33 AM
It does and you can. It is just that most of the ships are either not yours or not warships.

The warships (not destroyers) travel at some 21 kts and they are hard to intercept unless they happen to be heading towards you.

I intercepted and sank a Nelson battleship.

When talking about "naval movements" I thought about task forces with large warships. It should inform for example that a CA group is swimming through the English Channel east, so then you could take your position in the straits near Dover and wait having a high chance that the task force will bump on you.

Maybe you accidentally sank HMS Nelson, however that's not the thing.

Kaleun1961
08-28-2005, 11:26 AM
If someone sinks 2 million tons of shipping in this game, it says two things: They are playing with unrealistic settings, and they are in their career in the game far longer than a real life captain. I find it highly amusing how people are on their 49th patrol, etc. Nobody did that many patrols. Most successful skippers did 10 to 12 patrols and then got transferred to shore commmands.

And the word is career not carrier.

lecek
08-28-2005, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Mik1984:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It does and you can. It is just that most of the ships are either not yours or not warships.

The warships (not destroyers) travel at some 21 kts and they are hard to intercept unless they happen to be heading towards you.

I intercepted and sank a Nelson battleship.

When talking about "naval movements" I thought about task forces with large warships. It should inform for example that a CA group is swimming through the English Channel east, so then you could take your position in the straits near Dover and wait having a high chance that the task force will bump on you.

Maybe you accidentally sank HMS Nelson, however that's not the thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yes it does. You get task force contacts just as you get convoy contacts.

But they move at 21kts and if you get a message that a taskforce is going through the channel you had better already be there or you are not going to intercept them.

pmckelvy
08-28-2005, 12:53 PM
Just a couple thoughts. I find it funny that people cry about not being able to make a difference in the war. If I go out and sink a skizillion (it's a scientific term, look it up) tons of cargo shipping and don't stop the war dead in it's tracks maybe I should remember that the AI cargo/escorsts don't have a 3D view. Maybe they would enjoy the graphics as well. Let's not be AI racist here. Also, how long do you (honestly) think a sighting report of a taskforce/convoy would take to go from unit to HQ, through the intellegence staff to the comms to you, would take? Anyone with military experience would probally agree that the game is being generous in that respect. My point? It's a great game. We'll never get the perfect sim. And if we did, we wouldn't know it because none of us were u-boat commanders in WWII. Is the radar nerfed? I don't know I wasn't there. Is the deck gun reloading rate in RUB too slow? I don't know I wasn't a decky on a UBoat. I'm not trying to piss in anyone's wheaties I'm just saying enjoy a great game.

WHEW!!

Mac out

Anton_Reinhold
08-28-2005, 01:56 PM
Mik, it is possible to sink smaller vessels with the 20mm AA guns. I have taken out trawlers, fishing boats, and Elco Torpedo boats with them before. Any ships larger than that and all they seem able to do are take out secondary targets like cargo, ventilators, life boats, etc. I think though that you have to man the AA gun yourself to do it.
I do agree with you about the blowing ballast tanks issue. If anyone has seen the movie U-571, you know exactly what is being discussed. They blew ballast from a deep depth and used the diving planes to change the straight up rise into an angled one which also increased their speed and allowed them to get far enough away from the destroyer to actually get a shot off with the stern torpedo tube. I think that if you were to blow ballast while moving at flank speed, the dramatically increased boyancy, tempered by the hydrodinamics of the dive planes, would increase your forward momentum to maybe 10 kts, possibly more. I would like to see this effect in the game if they do another update.
Assome of the other players have already stated, the radio will "occasionally" inform you of both friendly and enemy naval movements.
As far as the thermoclines go, I know that Ubi is aware of them and their effects on sonar but I have no idea whether the game sim engine takes them into account or not. Certainly, the deeper you go, the safer and harder to detect you are. OF course, you cannot attack from that kind of depth so it is a catch-22. I have never heard of German subs having thermal layer measuring instruments but I have heard of U.S. subs of the WWII vintage having them.
As far as being ableto surface without putting any crew members on deck, that would be a neat addition to the game if they could do it. I'd also like to see the ability to pick which officer and crew members you prefer to be posted on watch if available. Sometimes I forget to move my watch officer up there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif and it should be automatic if the crew goes up there, in fact, he should be the first one up the ladder!
All in all, I know this game is the best sub sim game I have ever had the privelage of playing and I am sure it will keep me challenged for another month or two. Playing on a losing side where things continue to get more and more difficult is definitely a challenge and personally, I like it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mik1984
08-28-2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
If someone sinks 2 million tons of shipping in this game, it says two things: They are playing with unrealistic settings, and they are in their career in the game far longer than a real life captain. I find it highly amusing how people are on their 49th patrol, etc. Nobody did that many patrols. Most successful skippers did 10 to 12 patrols and then got transferred to shore commmands.

And the word is career not carrier.

I'm playing with max realism settings and I'm sure that even if I don't manage to sink 2.000.000 tons in my campaign up till the end, I'll be close enough. I sink per average 35000 tons per patrol. Thirdy patrols and I'm allready there.

The manual torpedo targeting is only tricky in the beginning, but after time you get used to it, you're quite comfortable with it. I give a full approval to this feature, it's planned very ergonomicaly. You actually only struggle with feeding the torpedo calculator with proper data, not with interface obstacles.

And if I were transferred to a higher position, wouldn't I do even more damage to the allies from there? Over two thirds of the U-boots went down without a single ship sunk. This was due to
low shore education. Even a slight improvement here would have had devastating effects.


And about the task forces, as I posted before maybe they should be up there more often. It is acceptable that you rarely get task force messages, because those secrets are harder to obtain, however it still leaves the impression that the task force movements where extreemly scarce. In this situation the germans woundn't have to hesitate sending thier warships to bombard the english ports and naval bases down to the ground. Good old tiny destroyers woudn't stop them.

On waters with high british naval presence accidentally bumping on a task force shouldn't be a miracle. Doesn't have allways to be a carrier with three battleships, but two light crusiers with three destroyers as escort should be a common bread in some areas.

Dominicrigg
08-28-2005, 03:06 PM
No! Look at the amounts of captains who "just bumped into" task forces, you can count them on two hands. Then work out the hours at sea the number of boats and captains. You will see it is very rare to bumb into taskforces.

As for the plottings the Uboat HQ does send you Taskforce sightings, they are marked warship with a diamond instead of a square and move a lot faster, again its hard to get into position if you are not near. This is realistic really.

lecek
08-28-2005, 03:40 PM
I think that if you were to blow ballast while moving at flank speed, the dramatically increased boyancy, tempered by the hydrodinamics of the dive planes, would increase your forward momentum to maybe 10 kts, possibly more. I would like to see this effect in the game if they do another update.


I have been to 10 kts in a type VIIB doing just that. You need to be at least 50M deep but going very deep such as 200M doesn't help you.

Go to flank and wait until your speed reachs 8kts. Hit 'E', wait a few seconds and hit 'E' again. You will reach 10 kts as you get to shallower depths.

In regards to taskforces, I have bumbed into them more then once. In addition I have been close enough to lock on them with the periscope but not to intercept.

This makes sense, most ships are smaller DD's and Merchants. How often did real U-boats sink battleships out in the open ocean?

Nitrotoluene
08-28-2005, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by joeap:

How can one u-boat captain, no matter how brilliant make a difference to the overall results of the war?


Obviously he cannot in reality, but if it was more of a GAME, as opposed to a SIM, your own performance could be taken as somehow representative of the whole U-boat force, just as Mik1984 said. That would then give your activities some strategic relevance as you (and by implication, the other U-boats) try to cripple Britain's war effort, without losing any of the nice tactical elements of the sim. To me, that would have made it a lot more enjoyable.

Kaleun1961
08-28-2005, 10:40 PM
I'm playing with max realism settings and I'm sure that even if I don't manage to sink 2.000.000 tons in my campaign up till the end, I'll be close enough. I sink per average 35000 tons per patrol. Thirdy patrols and I'm allready there.

Okay, I concede the point, perhaps it might be possible to sink a hell of a lot of tonnage. But that is in a game, doing 30 patrols? Again, my point is, the gamer has advantages which the real life commmanders did not. And I could guarantee that no commander would have the mental or physical stamina to do 30 patrols. This is the point where SH3 becomes a game, not a sim.

Real U-boat commanders didn't always have such a nice stream of single targets and convenient radio calls telling them where these easy targets were to be had. You cannot extrapolate game performance into the real world. I use the dud torpedo settings in the game and still have nowhere near the dud rate that the Germans had. Otto Kretschmer once said that if they had been provided with properly functioning torpedoes they could have sunk twice the tonnage.

Please don't let's start quoting that piece of Hollywood **** U-571 as an authority on real world U-boats. Running around under water firing off torpedoes at unseen contacts as if they were on a modern Los Angeles hunter killer sub. Aside from Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan, most of the war flicks from Hollywood are just hokey ****. My opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Hoatee
08-29-2005, 05:58 AM
It's pretty unsim for so much smoke to be coming out of the funnels.

Mik1984
08-29-2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
Real U-boat commanders didn't always have such a nice stream of single targets and convenient radio calls telling them where these easy targets were to be had. You cannot extrapolate game performance into the real world. I use the dud torpedo settings in the game and still have nowhere near the dud rate that the Germans had. Otto Kretschmer once said that if they had been provided with properly functioning torpedoes they could have sunk twice the tonnage.


This is however what I'm trying to imply. Let's be consequent. If you sunk 2.000.000 tons of merchants, it is surely unrealistic to make this fact have no influence on the war. However as if we want to make SH3 more of a sim, we have to rethink all the factors which made this so easy for you.

Kretschmer is overestimating the dud rate problem. There were two problems: contact detonators being too little sensitive and magnetic ones being too much sensitive. 20% of torpedoes went off too early in 1941, this rate was much higher at the beginning of the war. However if the decided for contact only, here there was a larger problem. Magetic detonator's oversensitivity however caused that if it hit the target, it blew up in very vast majority of times. When it comes to the came, the dud rate for contact detonators only is OK, however if you use contact + magnetic they don't go off early as often as they should.


I have been to 10 kts in a type VIIB doing just that. You need to be at least 50M deep but going very deep such as 200M doesn't help you.

That is still very unrealistic. Those forces exist not only when your're at 50m, but at 200m also and not only when you are at flank ahead but also when you're at full stop. When your're at full stop, you can decide in which side you want to go(ahead/backwards)by priorly tilting the boat to the right side. There are many sophisticated manouvers possible with the balast as well as with the diving planes. Make the sub a real sub. Those manouvers made the difference between U-boot aces and the whole rest. They could silently evade depth charches and the others not.


No! Look at the amounts of captains who "just bumped into" task forces, you can count them on two hands. Then work out the hours at sea the number of boats and captains. You will see it is very rare to bumb into taskforces.

Look at the amount of captains who were competent enough to sink anything. And many captains saw taks forces through the periscope, but were not in position to do anything. It's wrong to think that taskforces are flagship groups. There were many small ones consisting of two or three light crusiers patroling the waters in the belt between iceland and england in order not to allow the Kriegsmarine to operate freely on the west side of england, which would bring to a total halt any convoy activity. RN lost more warships because of U-boots than because of the Kriegsmarine.

The reasons why the Naval Activity seems so scarse that many question thier existence is the fact that there is little random activity in sea. Besides of some fixed patrols and some coastal units in some areas, taskforces and ships spawn in as you recieve the message and dissapear after they reach some certain distance from your ship. There is at least very little casual activity in the sea.


It's pretty unsim for so much smoke to be coming out of the funnels.

That's true for oil-propeled ships. For older type coal-propeled merchants, a well as for the obslolete auxiliary cruisier(I guess coal propeled also) it's just it. I wouldn't mention this otherwise, however such masses of smoke make the identification and spotting ships easier, so smth could be done with it also.

Kaleun1961
08-29-2005, 06:00 PM
Ok Mik, I get your point. Yes, if you are able to sink 2 million tons of shipping in game it should have an overall effect as to the course of the war. Sounds logical. I think the intention of the game is that no matter how effective the individual is, you are still going to suffer from the Allies' superior technological advances as the war progresses. I remember that playing Aces of the Deep was the same. So, the way the sim currently is, is intended to make you feel the frustrations of the real U-boat guys, and in that respect it succeeds.

The only sim I ever played where individual success or failure was extrapolated onto the general war effort was Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, by LucasArts, way back in the days of 386 and 486 processors. If you were the Americans and really clobbered the Germans with your bombing raids, then the end of the war came sooner. If you were the Germans and did well, you would be able to delay the Allies and if I recall correctly, you could advance the deployment of ME 262 jet fighters and build them in great numbers. But that was many years ago, so my memory may be rusty.

Mik, the only way as I see it now of extrapolating individual performance is by joining one of those online communities like Wolves at War. They track the tonnage of their individual members to track how the war is progressing. I haven't yet joined them, as I am still progressing to 100% settings in the game. My biggest thing holding me back is my inability to "see" the ships at night. My watch officer can see them, but I cannot. I think it has something to do with gamma settings or monitor adjustment.

I think I get your point now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mik1984
08-30-2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
My biggest thing holding me back is my inability to "see" the ships at night. My watch officer can see them, but I cannot. I think it has something to do with gamma settings or monitor adjustment.


Try out "Adobe Gamma".

CRSutton
08-30-2005, 10:23 AM
Its a good game and a good sim. Not great, but fun enough to play. There is lots of room for improvment. Huff-Duff, milk cows, wolfpacks to name a few. Thermal layers would be nice as well and a lot of other minor fixes. I don't care about total hard core realism. Truth is, if it was a total realistic sim about German subs in WWII-only masochists would play it. lets face it, who wants to die a lot? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

I think I have gotten my moneys worth.

Mik1984
08-31-2005, 02:07 AM
Believe me, there are eatalbe ways to include those improvements in the game, so you don't have to be a masochist to play it. As a noob, it won't be crucial to know all the quirks of the game to play it and for advanced players this realism will turn it into a never-boring one.

Maj_Solo
08-31-2005, 05:35 AM
I would really like total realism, not just in the attack part but perhaps more in the things you do 99.9% of the time when you are not attacking.

I had a pretty weird feeling a couple of days ago, I jumped into the boat, sailed out of port, saw the ocean, and I felt calm, it was a feeling of "coming home" ..... that was weird .... "feeling home inside a computer game" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .....

Anyways, I'll sign up for any future subsim game, I just want the devs to try harder next time ....

joeap
08-31-2005, 03:00 PM
Oh look you guys really need to read some history. Sinking 2 million tons by one skipper would NEVER happen in real life and NEVER DID. You say you had 30 patrols Mik1984? NO skipper ever did more than 18. So what you're asking for is pointless and would turn the game into an arcade or a Hollywood movie, with an Axis twist. Hero sub skipper single handed wins the war. BS I've never been convinced by extrapolating singel palyer skills onto the war as a whole. If you want to do that play a strategic game like Hearts of Iron.

Oh and U-boats were part of the Kreigsmarine. Big warships were sunk but there were a lot of captains only a few had the chance to sink warships.

Mik1984
09-01-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Oh look you guys really need to read some history. Sinking 2 million tons by one skipper would NEVER happen in real life and NEVER DID. You say you had 30 patrols Mik1984? NO skipper ever did more than 18. So what you're asking for is pointless and would turn the game into an arcade or a Hollywood movie, with an Axis twist. Hero sub skipper single handed wins the war. BS I've never been convinced by extrapolating singel palyer skills onto the war as a whole. If you want to do that play a strategic game like Hearts of Iron.

Oh and U-boats were part of the Kreigsmarine. Big warships were sunk but there were a lot of captains only a few had the chance to sink warships.

Isn't this what I wrote:



This is however what I'm trying to imply. Let's be consequent. If you sunk 2.000.000 tons of merchants, it is surely unrealistic to make this fact have no influence on the war. However as if we want to make SH3 more of a sim, we have to rethink all the factors which made this so easy for you.


I DON'T WANT TO BE ABLE TO SINK 2.000.000 TONS OF SHIPS WITH ONE HAND TIED TO MY BACK! That's my point! I try to indicate the areas of improvement that would make it a more realistic sim.

However, about those 30 patrols, just imagine you incarnate in another captain in the middle of it. It's not one of the most important leaning away from realism issues and also the one of the few I would prefer to preserve, among the time warp and automatic docking, when you're near a port. I find it just more fun having longer campains and I don't feel that this game will become a better sim, when you would be limited to 10 missions for campaign.

joeap
09-01-2005, 10:47 AM
Ok then. But you did admit to 30 patrols? Do you agree no Kaleun would have done so many?

joeap
09-01-2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by CRSutton:
Its a good game and a good sim. Not great, but fun enough to play. There is lots of room for improvment. Huff-Duff, milk cows, wolfpacks to name a few. Thermal layers would be nice as well and a lot of other minor fixes. I don't care about total hard core realism. Truth is, if it was a total realistic sim about German subs in WWII-only masochists would play it. lets face it, who wants to die a lot? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

I think I have gotten my moneys worth.

How do you know Huff-Duff is not in the game? I have been pegged late war using my radio. The SH3 devs said thermal layers are modeled we just can't tell in the game (as the Germans could not either, the USN had a device to measure them however.)

aaronblood
09-01-2005, 04:27 PM
After reading half-way thru Iron Coffins, seems like there's only a couple real shortfalls in the sim aspect.

1. AI captains and wolfpack tactics are most noticeably absent.

2. Torps seem more reliable yet not as destructive.

3. So far, I haven't read that Werner ever used my favorite tactic of peering thru the OB parascope while submerged. ;-D

Iohann Moritz
09-01-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Mik1984:
That is still very unrealistic. Those forces exist not only when your're at 50m, but at 200m also and not only when you are at flank ahead but also when you're at full stop. When your're at full stop, you can decide in which side you want to go(ahead/backwards)by priorly tilting the boat to the right side. There are many sophisticated manouvers possible with the balast as well as with the diving planes. Make the sub a real sub. Those manouvers made the difference between U-boot aces and the whole rest. They could silently evade depth charches and the others not. It's just a wild guess, but maybe that increase in speed is just that the speedometer reads any speed, including vertical (not quite realistic), so it increases its lecture when going up or down very fast even though you're not moving horizontally.


It's pretty unsim for so much smoke to be coming out of the funnels.


Originally posted by Mik1984:
That's true for oil-propeled ships. For older type coal-propeled merchants, a well as for the obslolete auxiliary cruisier(I guess coal propeled also) it's just it. I wouldn't mention this otherwise, however such masses of smoke make the identification and spotting ships easier, so smth could be done with it also. Some convoys were detected by the smell of soot before they were visible. And then there were some outstanding watch officers who could recognize the slightest trace of smoke on the horizon.

Kaleun1961
09-01-2005, 07:11 PM
I sure miss the watch officer from Aces of the Deep shouting out, "Rauch zoil on horizon, Herr Kaleun!" Smoke on horizon, not sure of German spelling, please enlighten me, German friends.

Pr0metheus 1962
09-01-2005, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
If someone sinks 2 million tons of shipping in this game, it says two things: They are playing with unrealistic settings, and they are in their career in the game far longer than a real life captain.

I agree. I defy anyone to sink even 300,000 tons of shipping using the game at 90+% difficulty level with RUb 1.43 and SH3 Commander installed and with SH3 Commander's 'realistic career length' checked. If you only have up to 16 patrols, and with contacts reduced to realistic levels, the arcade tonnage scores of the standard game are impossible.

fizilbert
09-02-2005, 06:01 AM
I accept that challenge Beeryus. I'm using SH3 Commander right now, with RUb. I'll let you know if I break the 300K mark.

Messervy
09-02-2005, 06:34 AM
I am over 200.000 on my 7th patrol.
92% realism (External cammera only for sight seing).

Pr0metheus 1962
09-02-2005, 06:56 AM
The 'realistic career length' is what will effectively put a cap on the tonnage. With only 16 patrols possible (and more likely only 8 or so) it's very hard to outscore the top aces.

walterlzw
09-03-2005, 06:32 AM
Yea I don't share your view. How can one u-boat captain, no matter how brilliant make a difference to the overall results of the war?
That is why he didn't say SH3 isn't a good sim, just not a good game. In that, I agree, with a game I want more control over the outcome. However, with a sim I would want more scripted histories. SH3 didn't succeed with that either. So SH3 is really an in-between of sim and game, which I enjoy but not neccessary consider to be perfect.

Pr0metheus 1962
09-03-2005, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by walterlzw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yea I don't share your view. How can one u-boat captain, no matter how brilliant make a difference to the overall results of the war?
That is why he didn't say SH3 isn't a good sim, just not a good game. In that, I agree, with a game I want more control over the outcome. However, with a sim I would want more scripted histories. SH3 didn't succeed with that either. So SH3 is really an in-between of sim and game, which I enjoy but not neccessary consider to be perfect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it depends on what you expect out of a sim. Traditionally simulations don't have scripted content. Scripted missions are the mark of an arcade game. Plus, from a gameplay aspect they lack longevity. For example, Knights of the Old Republic was a great game, but I only ever played it once because I knew exactly what was going to happen the second time around. The great thing about simulations is that they tend to have an infinite lifespan. Every time you play you get a different experience. In my view SH3 is the perfect blend of gameplay and realism, so it's the perfect simulation. So far in my experience there have only been 3 or 4 perfect simulations where great gameplay was an integral part of the experience, and SH3 is probably the best I've played.

Mik1984
09-03-2005, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walterlzw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yea I don't share your view. How can one u-boat captain, no matter how brilliant make a difference to the overall results of the war?
That is why he didn't say SH3 isn't a good sim, just not a good game. In that, I agree, with a game I want more control over the outcome. However, with a sim I would want more scripted histories. SH3 didn't succeed with that either. So SH3 is really an in-between of sim and game, which I enjoy but not neccessary consider to be perfect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it depends on what you expect out of a sim. Traditionally simulations don't have scripted content. Scripted missions are the mark of an arcade game. Plus, from a gameplay aspect they lack longevity. For example, Knights of the Old Republic was a great game, but I only ever played it once because I knew exactly what was going to happen the second time around. The great thing about simulations is that they tend to have an infinite lifespan. Every time you play you get a different experience. In my view SH3 is the perfect blend of gameplay and realism, so it's the perfect simulation. So far in my experience there have only been 3 or 4 perfect simulations where great gameplay was an integral part of the experience, and SH3 is probably the best I've played. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SH3 is not perfect, it has many areas of improvement as a U-boot simulation. As I described before, the sub could be turned into a sub, not just a ship that can change its depth. It's however a good game, because of the gameplay.

The limit of the missions in campaign and limit on sea movement as only measures to make tonnage outcomes more realistic is not a long term solution. There should be improvements in AI behavior. It is stupid, when a merchant, that is 6 km away from me starts to zig zag extensively making it only easier for me to catch up with him. If he would move straightly away from me, it would be much more trouble, even it would be harder for me to use my deck gun as deadly by simply shooting in the water line from the side. Moreover, those mechants don't do anything else as zig zaging. Shouldn't it be thier priority to disengage from me, instead of simply continouing thier journey only that zig zaging? Zig zaging is good however, if they know that I'm in vicinity, but not exactly where, otherwise specific manouvering would cause me more trouble. They should also react on premature detonations as well as try to ram me more often when possible.

Shouldn't there be some patrol directed to the area where I sunk something as a reaction, when operating on deeply hostile waters? If not the air force, I would completely feel like on friendly ones.

Pr0metheus 1962
09-03-2005, 11:48 AM
Well the perfect sim has yet to be invented, and I wouldn't hold my breath. In a thousand years they will still be waiting for the perfect sim. The issue is whether it's a good simulation, not whether it's a perfect one.

Mik1984
09-03-2005, 02:24 PM
Everybody knows that nothing is perfect and never will be. However if you can correctly nail an area where improvements are to be made, you strive towards perfection. Nobody needs SH4, which would be only as good as SH3.

Mylo42
09-03-2005, 06:49 PM
Maybe Topp, or Schultze, or Prein, or (pick your favorite U-Boat Capt) should play SHIII (if they were alive), and give us feedback on if they think it simulates U-Boat combat. All the rest of us, even the devs, can do is speculate.

To me, its a great game. I enjoy it very much and it has been money well spent. Is it a U-Boat simulation....I don't think so because if it was, it likely wouldn't be fun (for the masses). A naval "sim" without navigation just can't be a sim in my opinion. Having said that, the devs did a pretty good job on the stars.

Pr0metheus 1962
09-03-2005, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Mik1984:
Everybody knows that nothing is perfect and never will be. However if you can correctly nail an area where improvements are to be made, you strive towards perfection...

I agree. But striving towards perfection is not what this topic is about. As I said before, we're talking about whether it is a good simulation, not a perfect one.

Bubblehead1948
09-03-2005, 09:32 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Is sh3 a good game? Sure. Is it a good sim? I'd say so. If you look at what has been accomplished with simulations in the past, this one hits the mark in a number of key areas, particularly with graphics and pure drama.

I've looked at the arguments here, pro and con.
Most of them are factual enough, but they are as varied as the folks that make them.

If you make the sim as realistic as some suggest, one would probably need a lot more education to cope with it, and the stress of running it would subtract a lot from the enjoyment.

A lot of the purists out there would like to see stuff added in until one average human being at a keyboard and monitor would need a whole crew of side men tied into it on a server
just to help him avoid a nervous breakdown.

At that point what was once intended to be a good example of interactive entertainment has now become a military training tool, and a lot of hard work. At some point the entertainment would cease, along with any reasonable retail cost.

I am particularly tickled by any notion that one sub and one crew should have an effect that could be extrapolated into a measurable effect on the war overall. For heavens sakes folks, is it a tactical simulator, or a strategic simulator? (whew) Thank God someone made THAT descision for us.

Compared to anything from 1980 until now; its a good simulation --trust me.

joeap
09-04-2005, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Beeryus:


Well, it depends on what you expect out of a sim. Traditionally simulations don't have scripted content. Scripted missions are the mark of an arcade game. Plus, from a gameplay aspect they lack longevity.

Well I don't agree entirely. Good sims can have both scripted and dynamic content, like the singel missions can be fun (once or twice). The sim part comes from the modelling of weapons damage etc. Flight sims have both: one of the most fun I've had simming was a 3rd party freeware campaign for CFS2 by the Groundcrew group where you played a Swordfish pilot reliving the war as told in the memoirs of RN FAA pilot Charles Lamb called "To War in a Stringbag". Scripted yes, but quite accurate history-wise missions within the limitations of CFS2 and with a fairly accurate Swordfish model to boot.

Pr0metheus 1962
09-04-2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Well I don't agree entirely. Good sims can have both scripted and dynamic content...

Yes. What I should have said was that 'purely' scripted content is the mark of an arcade game. After all, SH3 has some scripted content.

As for the CFS2 Swordfish thing, I never counted CFS2 as a simulation. It has a purely scripted campaign, and (like IL-2) its survival rate is so wildly inaccurate that it's fairly ludicrous to call it a sim.

Mik1984
09-04-2005, 11:38 AM
There are many good sims that lack the drama and fail to be a good game. There are also Jane's Simulations like the famous F-15 or F/A-18. I loved to play them. Their disadvantage however was that few people had the energy to read a 300 paged instruction manual. I broke through that and had many hours of pleasure out of it. Moverover the advantage of this is that your knowledge about modern air combat after getting deep into this game is enough impressive as for a civilian. Hard-Core sims can be eatable and have a stable demand for them, although not an extremlely big one.

However improving the phisics of behaviour of the sub under water and allowing to take advantage of it as an expierienced player as well as some other improvements suggested is not a jump towards a hard-core sim, from which SH3 is far away.

And I don't agree with the opinion that all said here is pure speculation, because we weren't there. We have knowledge about history as well as about phisics and we are able of making suggestions how to make the game better.

Mik1984
09-05-2005, 10:44 AM
I'll create a new post since this has nothing to do with the thing told before.

Another issue of hydroacustics, which I am afraid is not modelled in the game:

CAVITATION

Once the screws start to rotate with a speed that creates bubbles around thier blades, they become really noisy and can be heard from many NM. That depends from the depth and water temp creating a curve of which speeds can you relatively safe use at which depth. The hydroacustics officer can inform you, if your screws are cavitating or not.

In this situation using half-ahead on periscope depth with a destroyer 5 km away should expose you immediately.

joeap
09-05-2005, 12:07 PM
Are you sure that could happen in WWII subs? I thought only modern nukes or diesel-electrics could move fast enough?

Mik1984
09-05-2005, 02:30 PM
At all ahead flank, I think that so, especially with schnorkel. You have to take in consideration the fact that the screws in modern subs are larger and rotate much slower while on a 7kts speed and they are especially desined to minimise this effect. It's even animated whenever you look through the periscope backwards. The stupid thing is that it happens allways when you use the screws and that shouldn't. At periscope depth there isn't almost any pressure. Try moving with your hand quicker in the bath tub or in a swimming pool. You'll see the bubbles and certainly will hear the noise.

It comes to the situation were you really have to watch out on using higher speeds on periscope depth. XXI are fast enough to make this fact a problem for them.

I wonder also about the fact that if elcos would also try to use thier torpedos agains you, they would certainly justify the fact that they were constructed. They can get in the range of 1000m from the U-boot unstopped and launch a spread of two topedos against you. That would be deadly.

Also I thought about the issue of the weather. Couldn't we have in the game some most basic weather forecasts? It would be nice to know if the storm is going to calm down in next few days or if I shouldn't count on it.