[timmyg00]

The options, as I see them, are thus (with possible variations):

1) Random campaign: a mode of gameplay in which the player accumulates points/rank/experience while playing the same entity/character throughout multiple individual sessions. Random elements include enemy/antagonist units spawned by the game. Also known as "career mode" (or as I like to call it, randomly-generated career-mode campaign, or RGCMC, gotta love acronyms...). An example of this mode exists in the original Silent Hunter. IF YOU DIE: you start a new career!

2) "Branching (semi-dynamic) campaign: a mode of gameplay in which the player attempts to complete specifically scripted goals during each gameplay session, the results of which will have an effect on subsequent gameplay sessions. The player accumulates points/rank/experience while playing the same entity/character throughout multiple individual sessions. Random elements can be included, but certain outcomes are pre-scripted based on the results of previous sessions/scenarios. Each time the campaign is played, it is possible that the results of each mission, and ultimately the entire campaign, will be very different from previous attempts. IF YOU DIE: you keep playing that mission till you get it right, then you can advance...

3) Scripted campaign: a mode of gameplay in which the player attempts to complete specifically scripted goals during each gameplay session, the results of which have no effect on subsequent gameplay sessions. The player accumulates points/rank/experience while playing the same entity/character throughout multiple individual sessions. Very few random or dynamic elements are included. Replaying individual scenarios yields similar results every time. An example of this mode exists in Silent Hunter II. IF YOU DIE: you keep playing that mission till you get it right, then you can advance...

Please post and explain your choice... stimulate the discussion...

TG

[wolfy]

I like the first one. That is sort of like in "Aces of the Deep" I think. But you were able to save the game so that if you did die you could start from a previous point in your career or even from a previous point in the mission itself.

[Frank]

I like the ability to save at any point for one important reason. As a single parent the need to do more then one thing always arises. Cooking supper, laundry, and playing sometimes occur at the same time. So the need to stop the game and continue real world issues and NOT lose where I was is quite important in reducing the stress.

Frank

[Hitman]

Good poll

Think it resumes very correctly the possible options.

I hope that this easy-to-check polls are useful to the developers.

This is real market-sounding :wink:

[Overseas]

No doubdt a carrer mode is needed, as I found it motivating and close to real feelings in SH-2 or European air Wars aswell. Be trained throught single missions is quite necessary, but you certainly do not act and manage the same way when the bid is your "life" ! :huh:
For instance, I recently took the risk to get surfaced, and gunned the closest damaged ship :dead: assuming to be cannoned myself... Sure I won't never do the same in career mode !

[Sniper_1]

Hi all....

I think we are getting a bit bogged down on this random/dynamic/scripted issue. The question is don't we want a campaign that is:

1. Interesting.
2. Historically accurate.
3. Non-Linear (notice i did not say random or dynamic).
4. Where our actions as a U-Boat captain can have an affect on the outcome fo the war (this can be included as an option).
5. Fun and challanging to play, with adjustable levels of difficulty/immersion for all types of players.

Often pure 'ramdom' campaigns are very boring, there is no sense of progression through a campaign, misions are stand alone and not in any way linked to each other (or the overall campaign). Missions need to be 'embedded' into the campaign, you need to feel that they are contributing something to the overall campaign/war. Also 'historical' 'scripted' missions are a great way to add to the immersion and enjoyment of a campaign (and not as stand alone single missions). As an example the 2nd SH2 camapign created by the guys on this Forum was, i thought excellent, it really lifted the SH2 experience to a higher level. So 'good' scripted missions in a linear campaign can be enjoyable.

Bear with me here cause i'm going to try and set down in outline form what i think the campaign should look like:

The campaign is a series of 'scripted' missions, some are 'historic' missions and some are just general missions. However the scripts of the missions are not 'set in stone', they have probability factors associated with them (probability of inclusion in campaign, escorts, convoys, weather etc). However the campaign engine can create mission scripts 'on the fly' in response to game conditions (using a series of 'templates', and the allready existing scripted missions as a basis). The campaign engine is responsibe for both the allies and axis 'strategic' decision making during the war. In a campaign which is set 'historically' the campaign engine has little or no influence, the war progreses as it did historically. Missions are generated based on this and are a series of 'historical' and 'random scripted' missions.

If a non-historical campaign is selected then the campaign engine takes over. It controls the overal force levels of both sides and the tactics and technology of the antagonists. It can adjust the introdiuction of new weapons/tactics in response to the situation in the overall war (essentialy there is a high level war being wagerd in the background by the campaign engine). This 'war' is decided by tonnage sunk, U-boats sunk, and merchant tonnage still afloat. It is easy to model the allies tonnage demands during the war and keep track of losses (you as a U-boat commander determine the 'average' efffectivenes of the U-Boats, if you sink 50,000 tons per patrol then that becomes the u-boatwaffe 'average' etc).

The allies need certain ammounts of tonnage to meet their goals (like the TORCH invasion etc) and certain ammounts of U-Boats sunk (to trigger the build up for OVERLORD). If they do not meet these goals then these events do not happen at their historical time place (they might happen later when the goal is met, or not at all if their date slips by a few months).

Likewise the Germans need to meet certain tonnage goals sunk and U-boats in service to meet their campaign goals. The missions you go on and their 'structure/shape' are determined by the interplay of the relative states of the allies/germans in the overall strategic 'war'. Thus each mission is different each time you play a campaign and depends on the previous missions you played.

I know that the chance's of the campaign being like this in real life are pretty much zero but one can allways dream

Any comments/rants etc are welcome.

[Fletcher]

I think what will be key to the enjoyment and longevity of SHIII will be for it to include a very user-friendly campaign editor. Include a campaign editor that is intuitive and can create a wide variety of campaigns. :know:

This is not rocket science.

This editor should allow the campaign maker to input (with check boxes) a wide variety of variables (such as location, time of day, weather, units to deploy, as well as the ability to edit the individual unit statistics, etc) to create campaigns and make them interesting.

Including a campaign editor with a game has become standard practice for years.

A random campaign generator simply means that ALL enemy units will not be in the same place twice whenever the individual scenarios are replayed. This randomizes unit placement.

Cheers!

[AdamWarren]

I want something like what CFS3 did. It's Scripted, but the more planes you shoot down, things you blow up the weaker that area is....

Same goes for your side too....

[timmyg00]

[Glazier]

Like Silent Service 2 and SH1 please!

[Sniper_1]

timmyg00,

My 'take' on the campaign mode is that the 'campaign engine' runs in the background of the tactical sim. The player has no direct control over the actions of the campaign engine, but their actions influence it. The campaign engine would run only while you were in port, it would run its algorithms based on your last patrol and the overall position of the campaign, setting up the conditions for your next patrol etc... This style of camapign would result in different missions/campaigns everytime you played the game.

As an example of how it could work, say you (your 'career' captain) start in 1939 with a Type Viib boat. You are very sucesfull in your patrols and sink a greater average ammount of tonnage than the 'real life' u-boats did (remember that your sucesses are averaged out and converted into the average sucess rate per U-boat for each patrol, so sink 50,000 tons in your type Viib in November 1939 and the sim works out that the 10 or so other Type Viib's on patrol also sink the same average ammount....but with a bit of 'fudging' by the sim to vary the monthly overall totals).

Now the allied side's AI sees this and its reaction is to accellerate its escort building programm, increase the ammounts of aircraft assigned to Coastal Command, and transfer 100 modern destroyers to Western Approaches Command (the argument for the 100 destroyers came about after the battle of Britain when the threat of invasion receeded). So come the end of 1940 and the convoys are becoming better escorted and protected, making your job more difficult. But the German campaign AI seeing that you were more sucessfull than 'real life' increases the production of U-Boats to match, and increases the R&D for new weapons/ U-Boats etc. Remember that Donitz was allready thinking about new type to U-Boats to replace the Type VII and IX in late 1941 (the ever lenghtening range of allied airpower had convinced him of the obsolesence of his current U-Boat Fleet.).

With this type of campaign engine runing in the background you could get the huge mass of U-Boats which the U-Boatwaffe got in late 1942/early 1943 in say late 1941. What effect would this have on the allies? What if the allies had deployed those 100 modern destroyers to convoy escort in late 1940 along with the first long range bombers in coastal command rather than bomber command? Some historians argue that these 2 thing could have crushed the U-Boatwaffe in 1941 (when it was at its numerically weakest level).

I know that this type of campaign engine is probably deyond anything that will be deployed in SH3 but hope springs eternal!

Sniper_1

[timmyg00]

vewwwwy intewesting

oddly enough, i had similar thoughts about the campaign engine "running the numbers offline". Scary huh

TG

[Sniper_1]

well you what they say...great minds think alike etc....

But seriously, i don't think such a campaign would consume that much system resources, and as it would run in between missions, it overall resource usage would be of little concern. Even the algorithms should be relatively easy to design, usign historical data to provide 'trigger points' for the campaign AI to react to.

[timmyg00]

bump

TG

[Seehund]

Rather than just one campaign starting at the same time/place, I'd like to have many choices of careers in different theatres/periods. That way I could have multiple careers going at once, for ex., one with a flotilla based in Norway, another based in France, or Italy, or very long-range patrols (Paukenschlag, S. Africa, India, etc.). Everywhere U-Boats actually operated, with correct ships & planes for the time/place.

Tschuss,
Seehund