UBOAT
UBOAT > General Discussions > Topic Details
This topic has been locked
A DIFFERENT WAR, A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
Just a Idea.
We have the Historical campaign. And it's great!
The problem is,....I know no matter how awesome I could ever be, I will never affect the outcome of the war.
How about a, " What If " campaign?
These are just some ideas I've thought about. Any better ideas, I would love to hear them!!
If you could agree to an amount of how many ships HAVE TO sail say to Britain, North Africa PER
year. Then you could determine a percentage how many of those ships have to be sunk to set the Allies back a year. EX: Say, 60-70% freight of 1941 sunk.
And it should also contain numbers of warships for that year. EX. More warships as the war progresses vs. how many warships are actually taken out the previous year. Thereby weakening the enemy navy through the war.
The idea being. Losing North Africa, the Med, France wouldn't actually happen in the Historical years, but would be pushed into the next year.
If the Player is successful in sinking 60-70% of the new year's annual, then events get pushed another year.
For example,
Allies can't take North Africa because 60-70% of it's annual freight for that year was sunk. If Player continuously sink's 60-70% of freight from 1941-44, then Normandy cannot happen.
But,
I see a problem. How can 1 Uboat EVER sink that much freight a year? He can't. One Uboat would never have that much effect.
Unless,...
Somehow a ratio could be tied in to NPC activity against enemy freight. Thereby including NPC ships sunk numbers for that given year. And somehow factoring it in to the Player's performance for that given year.
Make this go on to, say ,.....1955. If the Allies haven't taken their objectives by then, they lose, and you win the campaign.

Wouldn't that be a great Dlc?
Last edited by Klaus Von Kraven; Dec 2, 2020 @ 10:58am
< >
Showing 31-45 of 81 comments
ToreDL87 Dec 14, 2020 @ 1:22pm 
Originally posted by McDewgle:
Oh! Well of that I have no doubt. I wasn't making that statement for the devs, they aren't the ones that need to hear it, I'm certain. They've shown to have a good head on their shoulders so far and I'm sure the campaign they have in mind will be respectful, fun and engaging.

Agreed :)
But the devs are Polish (Oh, speaking of which, Polish webshops have been offering cased versions of the game for quite some time now).
I felt that worth reminding ourselves of, since we are on about history and all that, Poland, more than any other Allied nation, were excessively backstabbed by the others (not just Germany).
I'd be willing to bet they're not as emotionally attached to the prospect of players affecting outcome in Uboat campaign/sandbox-mode, as one might think.

Originally posted by McDewgle:
To the disappointment of some, I'm sure. The devs are certain not to let the player win the war in the name of Germany. But I would certainly be quite chuffed if they gave a good or bad ending to the player's career depending on the decisions they made during the course of their play.
If that's "all we get" then I'd be more than happy!
Heck, I'd be good with bugs sorted, much less the opportunity to use my skills to affect the outcome of the conflict as depicted in the game.
But I found the topic interesting, and so here I am!

Originally posted by McDewgle:
Would probably be best if it were based on fictional skippers, not only to avoid historical debates but also since the game allows your skipper to die without a failure state and promote someone else in their place.

Agreed, come to think of it, if it was based on fictional uboats/skippers then that would detach the game from reality even more, then who is to say where the game might go? ;)

Originally posted by McDewgle:
Hmm, interesting.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2320972985
A meme?
Also, avoiding political backlash by not including #1 in the quote, noticed ;)
untugendbold Dec 14, 2020 @ 1:23pm 
As the dynamic (fantasy) campaign is not supposed to substitute the historical campaign, but to add another option i fail to see a problem regarding war outcome. Why care if it is realistic? One U-Boat could not change the war, so what? All U-Boats could perform better based on the players success.

If i took a ww2 game serious enough, that i would not want germany to win, I also would not want to sink a single ship. Its pixels, bits and bytes and has as much impact on real life as Wolfensteins nazi robo dogs.

A Sim should be realistic how it models technical/physical game aspects. It can, but does not have to be in all other facets and can take some liberties where fun and playability might warrant it. Who would want the 24 hours race of Le Mans to always take the full 24 hours in a racing sim?

I do not think an open ended dynamic campaign will happen, but I highly doubt it will be because of realism or morale issues. It is hard to make is all.
Last edited by untugendbold; Dec 14, 2020 @ 1:24pm
Kaiser Reinhart Dec 14, 2020 @ 1:33pm 
Originally posted by ToreDL87:

I've sunk nearly 150 ships in the span of less than 1 month in my current campaign, incl 2 carriers, probably closer to 350 ships total so far (and counting).
Edit: And that's not including the dozens more sunk by AI Uboats (that I've seen).
You're telling me that wouldn't have put ANY dampener on British Operations of War? :)


Yes actually, to quote the Wikipedia article on it:

"In only four out of the first 27 months of the war did Germany achieve this [300,000 ton] target, while after December 1941, when Britain was joined by the US merchant marine and ship yards the target effectively doubled. As a result, the Axis needed to sink 700,000 GRT per month; as the massive expansion of the US shipbuilding industry took effect this target increased still further. The 700,000 ton target was achieved in only one month, November 1942, while after May 1943 average sinkings dropped to less than one tenth of that figure.

By the end of the war, although the U-boat arm had sunk 6,000 ships totalling 21 million GRT, the Allies had built over 38 million tons of new shipping."

Even if all those ships were preem targets 10,000 ton each it's a drop in the ultimate bucket and just a very very good uboat month, one that would spur the allies to change tactics, increase escorts and aviation.

But alas, my doubts beset me, at most one can pull 4 patrols from Lorient to the north of Ireland in a month, and even if every ship sunk with 1 torpedo that's at most 56 ships sunk.
Last edited by Kaiser Reinhart; Dec 14, 2020 @ 1:35pm
ToreDL87 Dec 14, 2020 @ 1:52pm 
Originally posted by lizard2547:
I don't think that's a very good idea...

(Didnt want to quote everything you said and clutter it all up)

If the Western allies hadn't invaded Europe (because they lost too many ships for them to even be able to keep up the logistics in the first place), they might have reached a compromise with the Germans.
If you sank over half the convoys coming in, every month, for 3 years, and, faced with the prospect of handing the Soviet much territory, the allies might not only rethink their position, they might even reach an agreement.

Let's say they didn't.
There were over 1.6 million German troops bound up in the Western theatre, if the Allies couldn't get enough tonnage through to make the invasion happen in 1944.
Who's to say what might have happened if a good portion of those 1.6 million troops were brought to bear on an already all-in committed Red Army?
German victory? I doubt it.
Soviet's re-thinking how, if they suffered too many casualties, a certain eager Patton might get the go-ahead to keep spearheading through a reduced Red Army and onto Kremlin?
(Haag/Geneve were rather interested in having a small talk with Stalin, after all).
I'm not saying that would have happened, but it IS a distinct possibility.

Yes, the Type VII, even by it's last itteration, was hopelessly outmatched by Allied ASW capabilities, experienced Uboat commanders & crew told Donitz as much.
And as a consequence, Donitz put said commanders behind a desk and replaced said commanders, with fanatics, and bolstered crews with tens of thousands of farmers.
What little more the experienced Uboat-arm could have done didn't matter, because it was rendered hopelessly ineffective.

I'm enjoying a lot of success in my current campaign, despite the fact that escorts, a lot of the time, are able to fire cannons through 50 meters of water (at an angle, so approx 300 meters of water).
Despite the fact that you can't use historical tactics to get into convoys.
Despite the fact that you can't use (historically proven) surface attacks inside of convoys because you'll be instantly spotted.

Why? Because I know where the convoys HAVE to go through, and it coincides with where most of the Uboats are (so I can get reinforcements) and the ocean floor is at a perfect depth for my boat to use Bold and avoid sonar, and even stop leaks+make repairs, without reaching crush depth.
I know how to position my uboat for an attack, and I know how to use the TDC.

You make it look like you want players to get easily killed unless they instantly skedaddle at first sight of trouble, instead of letting them put time, skills and efforts into effect.
... I'm just checking here, but you did want people to buy this game, right?
Last edited by ToreDL87; Dec 14, 2020 @ 2:27pm
Xealot Dec 14, 2020 @ 2:22pm 
Originally posted by untugendbold:
As the dynamic (fantasy) campaign is not supposed to substitute the historical campaign, but to add another option i fail to see a problem regarding war outcome. Why care if it is realistic? One U-Boat could not change the war, so what? All U-Boats could perform better based on the players success.

If i took a ww2 game serious enough, that i would not want germany to win, I also would not want to sink a single ship. Its pixels, bits and bytes and has as much impact on real life as Wolfensteins nazi robo dogs.

A Sim should be realistic how it models technical/physical game aspects. It can, but does not have to be in all other facets and can take some liberties where fun and playability might warrant it. Who would want the 24 hours race of Le Mans to always take the full 24 hours in a racing sim?

I do not think an open ended dynamic campaign will happen, but I highly doubt it will be because of realism or morale issues. It is hard to make is all.


Totally agree. the game has a lot of realistic aspects in it and it seems like they will add a lot more without undermining the fun. Which means surviving the whole war would be the most satisfying endgame goal.

I have a different idea,
It would be really nice if the missions we got from the commanding officer are getting more and more harder as the war progresses. and only way to change the mission is by using reputation points. You cannot change the mission unless ask for a favor from your commanding officer.
ToreDL87 Dec 14, 2020 @ 2:25pm 
Originally posted by Kaiser Reinhart:
Originally posted by ToreDL87:

I've sunk nearly 150 ships in the span of less than 1 month in my current campaign, incl 2 carriers, probably closer to 350 ships total so far (and counting).
Edit: And that's not including the dozens more sunk by AI Uboats (that I've seen).
You're telling me that wouldn't have put ANY dampener on British Operations of War? :)


Yes actually, to quote the Wikipedia article on it:

"In only four out of the first 27 months of the war did Germany achieve this [300,000 ton] target, while after December 1941, when Britain was joined by the US merchant marine and ship yards the target effectively doubled. As a result, the Axis needed to sink 700,000 GRT per month; as the massive expansion of the US shipbuilding industry took effect this target increased still further. The 700,000 ton target was achieved in only one month, November 1942, while after May 1943 average sinkings dropped to less than one tenth of that figure.

By the end of the war, although the U-boat arm had sunk 6,000 ships totalling 21 million GRT, the Allies had built over 38 million tons of new shipping."

Even if all those ships were preem targets 10,000 ton each it's a drop in the ultimate bucket and just a very very good uboat month, one that would spur the allies to change tactics, increase escorts and aviation.

But alas, my doubts beset me, at most one can pull 4 patrols from Lorient to the north of Ireland in a month, and even if every ship sunk with 1 torpedo that's at most 56 ships sunk.

Well, the question wasn't directed at you :)
But I digress.
By the end of the REAL war, yes, agreed.
But in the war the game is currently presenting, I'm inflicting completely unsustainable losses, and that's with mods that make the game HARDER.

Also, North of Ireland? Lorient?
I'm working out of Rochelle, with a relatively short transit to the area just South of Ireland.
It's teeming with convoys, and has quite a few other Uboats for me to call on for support.
They really shouldn't be bringing that much tonnage in from the South, but they are, and so I'm there.
What then if they add the Type IX? I'd be getting nearly twice the torpedoes, and even a few knots extra speed, nullifying any disdvantage I might have had with the Type VII using Lorient as a base.
Last edited by ToreDL87; Dec 14, 2020 @ 2:30pm
ToreDL87 Dec 14, 2020 @ 2:34pm 
Originally posted by Xealot:
I have a different idea,
It would be really nice if the missions we got from the commanding officer are getting more and more harder as the war progresses. and only way to change the mission is by using reputation points. You cannot change the mission unless ask for a favor from your commanding officer.

What kind of harder mission? The only thing I can think of that would certifiably destroy a Uboat would be for it to enter the channel mid-late war, and they were banned from that in the real conflict (apart from the Albrecht coated boat).
Mine-laying in the Mediterranean?

Besides, currently I'm sinking so much shipping (outside of the patrol zones, I go into them for just a second, then off to do my own thing), that I could probably afford the reputation points to avoid dangerous missions and just keep doing what I'm doing anyway, by the time the missions ought to get harder, I will have so much points to spare, that I could easily earn 2-3 for each and everyone I loose.

And then common sense dictates, I'm sinking 700k+ in an area, and then they send me off elsewhere, to what gain? It would be to their detriment.

You would have to make it so the game forces players to keep uboats in their patrol zones (when they already don't get any budget for sinking tonnage in lone-wolf patrols), and Convoys would have to be spaced so far out and in-between that realistically speaking, there'd be no way for them to keep up the pace needed to win the war.
Last edited by ToreDL87; Dec 14, 2020 @ 2:37pm
lizard2547 Dec 14, 2020 @ 2:40pm 
Originally posted by ToreDL87:
You make it look like you want players to get easily killed unless they instantly skedaddle at first sight of trouble, instead of letting them put time, skills and efforts into effect.
... I'm just checking here, but you did want people to buy this game, right?

Later in the war I think that's mostly OK. A game of cat-and-mouse, including detailed damage control, decoys, a few homing torpedoes, etc. is still a game worth playing, especially if you've already gone through the easier parts of the war on that boat.

Keep in mind that by 1942, you can easily get a fully upgraded U-boat (or close enough, for 1942 ASW operations). By the end of 1941 I had EVERYTHING except the T4 radar detector (T1 is best until allies upgrade radar), and the last conning tower (too bulky for my taste). And there are still a few minor upgrades that could be added to the game. I agree that the stock Type VII would have a miserable time late-war, but this game is very generous with upgrades.

As for convoy infiltrating, I actually agree. Rewarding experience and planning is crucial to making a disadvantaged submarine work.

I think I gave the impression that I want this game to be as brutal as possible, but I don't. I just think that the end-game goal should be surviving a deadly war, not winning it. There are plenty of things the game could do to make things more difficult: better escort AI, supply shortages, and sonar upgrades to name a few. But I wouldn't implement those without a host of other fixes and improvements, like proper convoy infiltration, working Wolfpack tactics, and active sonar for U-boats. And magnetic detonation. Can't forget that.

Hopefully this clears things up. The game could use some additions that would make it both harder to play the way we do now and easier to use proper U-boat tactics, resulting in a more difficult but more rewarding experience.
Last edited by lizard2547; Dec 14, 2020 @ 2:52pm
ToreDL87 Dec 14, 2020 @ 3:22pm 
Originally posted by lizard2547:
Originally posted by ToreDL87:
You make it look like you want players to get easily killed unless they instantly skedaddle at first sight of trouble, instead of letting them put time, skills and efforts into effect.
... I'm just checking here, but you did want people to buy this game, right?

Later in the war I think that's mostly OK. A game of cat-and-mouse, including detailed damage control, decoys, a few homing torpedoes, etc. is still a game worth playing, especially if you've already gone through the easier parts of the war on that boat.


Actually I only bring T5's for the stern tubes, because the bulk of the escorts I've sunk has been done in while they're still kind enough to sail at the same speed and course as the rest of the convoy.
I pull out with Snorckel before the rest has a chance to find out what happened, and even if they extend far enough out to find me, they're leaving the convoy woefully unprotected = Convoy gets attacked by nearby Uboats.
Then I come back and decide whether to snuff out another escort or infiltrate the convoy.
Might even stop bringing T5's all together, because I rarely use them, mostly they just explode near the stern of an escort without any other effect (while Bismarck lost rudder control due to a lightweight torpedo dropped by a relic of an aircraft lol).
A lot of people are using the 3.15 method, I use the "1.00" method, sometimes just "0.15" or "0.30" method, and that speeds things up as far as I'm concerned, unsure by how much of a factor, but it definitely helps.

Originally posted by lizard2547:
Keep in mind that by 1942, you can easily get a fully upgraded U-boat (or close enough, for 1942 ASW operations). By the end of 1941 I had EVERYTHING except the T4 radar detector (T1 is best until allies upgrade radar), and the last conning tower (too bulky for my taste). And there are still a few minor upgrades that could be added to the game. I agree that the stock Type VII would have a miserable time late-war, but this game is very generous with upgrades.

Currently I'm on Snorckel 1, Turm 2, best Balkonggerat, Accumulators 2 and Toilets, and I'm sorely tempted to put the original Conning Tower back on just because it looks cooler and I don't need the extra AA anyway.
I agree, I could have gotten everything, and have 250k budget to spare.
Besides, what good would planes do them if they don't have the carriers to launch them with? Currently I'm on 2/14 carriers that the RN ever fielded in that conflict (though I have a sneaking premonition I'll be seeing a lot more than just 14 carriers) :)

Originally posted by lizard2547:
As for convoy infiltrating, I actually agree. Rewarding experience and planning is crucial to making a disadvantaged submarine work.

Nice ^^

Originally posted by lizard2547:
I think I gave the impression that I want this game to be as brutal as possible, but I don't. I just think that the end-game goal should be surviving a deadly war, not winning it. There are plenty of things the game could do to make things more difficult: better escort AI, supply shortages, and sonar upgrades to name a few. But I wouldn't implement those without a host of other fixes and improvements, like proper convoy infiltration, working Wolfpack tactics, and active sonar for U-boats. And magnetic detonation. Can't forget that.

Hopefully this clears things up. The game could use some additions that would make it both harder to play the way we do now and easier to use proper U-boat tactics, resulting in a more difficult but more rewarding experience.

Yeah I came off as a douche, and I apologize for that!
Let's just say we respectfully disagree about the end-game.
Another thing, I already have supply shortages and have to spend 3 days in-game loading T5's so the warehouse algorhitm gives me the T1-2-3's I require (I'll take whatever I can get so long as it's not T5).
If the game simulates supply shortages, then I take that as a signal that the devs won't let me play the game any more = I'll indulge them.
And I'm fairly certain I won't be the only one.

But we certainly do agree about everything you're saying should be fixed.
I've been wanting magnetic detonation for a good while now as well.
The only way I see this game becoming more challenging is if they make it like SH: Useless time-travel, clunky controls, and CTD every minute or so :)
At that point might as well heed Agent Orange and play Silent Hunter, at least you get Type II/IX/XXI and a myriad of different targets there ^^

I can't stress this enough: What makes me succeed so well in Uboat is the fact that Uboat simply plays THAT much smoother than Silent Hunter, instead of spending 2hrs ignoring weather reports while clicking + for time travel, I'm spending 2hrs getting to the lanes and sinking ships.
The devs of this game have obviously played Silent Hunter and strived to overcome it's shortcomings, something that they have clearly succeeded at! :)
Last edited by ToreDL87; Dec 14, 2020 @ 3:26pm
lizard2547 Dec 14, 2020 @ 4:25pm 
Originally posted by ToreDL87:
Actually I only bring T5's for the stern tubes, because the bulk of the escorts I've sunk has been done in while they're still kind enough to sail at the same speed and course as the rest of the convoy.

Same here. Usually I only fire them if I have a destroyer chasing me, then I drop a noisemaker and run. Half the time the T5 goes for some Liberty transport 5km away. Hopefully they'll fix the tracking in the future :)

Originally posted by ToreDL87:
Currently I'm on Snorckel 1, Turm 2, best Balkonggerat, Accumulators 2 and Toilets, and I'm sorely tempted to put the original Conning Tower back on just because it looks cooler and I don't need the extra AA anyway.

Are you sure you don't have the Turm 1? (Stock tower is Turm 0). I think the Turm 2 actually looks OK, at least for the extra protection. Turm 1 and Turm 3 are trash IMO.

Originally posted by ToreDL87:
Another thing, I already have supply shortages and have to spend 3 days in-game loading T5's so the warehouse algorhitm gives me the T1-2-3's I require (I'll take whatever I can get so long as it's not T5).
If the game simulates supply shortages, then I take that as a signal that the devs won't let me play the game any more = I'll indulge them.

Yeah, there's a small but important distinction between "shortage" and "unplayable". I think that a distinguished captain wouldn't have trouble finding some supplies; maybe in late-game you could use some of your reputation points at the Warehouse to get favorable treatment. I think that would be very important counter to add. Or maybe items should just get more expensive, who knows.

The T5 thing sounds like a bug. At least, there's no reason for it to be like that. Hopefully they'll limit it to ~4 in the inventory. Overstocking experimental homing torpedoes is kind of hilarious.
McDewgle Dec 14, 2020 @ 7:06pm 
Originally posted by ToreDL87:
A meme?

Yes, because red herring's should not be taken seriously.
Originally posted by ToreDL87:
2) In Silent Hunter 4 you get to do (almost) all the stuff that I said the U.S subs did (and they admittedly did nasty stuff), and that game sold like hot bread (until word got out how buggy it was anyway) with nobody commenting on how U.S sub crews conducted their business.
3) Look at Hearts of Iron 4, you can do pretty much whatever you want, donning whatever political agenda you want (including National Sosialism) = Nobody bats an eye.
^This is a red herring.

Hearts of Iron doesn't work here because that's a strategy game based entirely around picking a side and trying to win the war. It's a completely different genre of game designed specifically around winning with your chosen army.

And bringing up American atrocities and Silent Hunter 4 where you get to play as an American? Yes Americans committed atrocities in WWII but are you really using that as justification as to why you should be able to win as Germany in this, or any game, regardless of genre? That's whataboutism.

Originally posted by ToreDL87:
My point is this: Absolutely everyone made mistakes (for good or bad) in WW2, and I don't see how this game would be poking fingers one way or the other at our Veterans (and what they sacrificed so much for) even IF we had the opportunity to potentially change the outcome of said conflict as depicted in this gathering of 0's and 1's and pixels :)

I've already seen a few apologists, and some cultists popping up here and there in this community. Some don't stop at just restoring swastikas on their U-boat flag in the name of 'historical accuracy' but also on their conning tower and even their torpedoes.. Just why?

I'm not naive, I know such people play this game and there's nothing any of us can do about it. But I don't want to give such fanatics any more gratification to satisfy themselves with. But you can still have a great game where the ending is already decided. Some rogue-likes are a perfect example. Faster Than Light, Total Tank Simulator, etc.

So treat Uboat like a rogue-like? The ending is already decided, Germany loses the war. And you know your time in game is limited. But how you get there is up to you as the player. Give the player hard-choices to make along the way that add or detract from their honor. Whether those choices have to do with the crew of your own boat or the lives of your enemy. Some Uboat skippers were known to give survivors food, drink and directions to land, for instance. Or maybe a crewmen gets sick just when you receive word of a fat un-escorted convoy and you have to choose to go after it or return to port.

Make the 'goal' of the game about not just racking up as much tonnage as possible, but earning as many medals and achievements as they can and to get the 'honorable' or 'dishonorable' ending for their skipper and officers. You could even give the player cosmetic rewards as unlockables at the end of their career depending on their score and achievements so that the next play-through is even more interesting and fun.

It can still be a great campaign to play through without giving the cultists something to wet their shorts over. So why push so hard for an alternate outcome?
Last edited by McDewgle; Dec 14, 2020 @ 7:16pm
Klaus Von Kraven Dec 14, 2020 @ 10:52pm 
I started this thread to discuss a ' What if ' campaign. And it has morphed into this political and moral discussion about what should be and should not be. We're talking about a game, not going back in time and changing history. Would we be dishonoring the memory of the Veterans that fought in WW2 by playing a, ' What if ' campaign? Are we not already dishonoring their memory by playing a Skipper that sinks ships and killing our own countrymen? Are we going to live our lives walking on egg shells for fear that we may offend somebody? That would be a poor life,...indeed.
I'm not a Nazi. As a matter of fact, I belong to only one political party. It's called, Me, Myself, and I. We're a grassroots movement. A person has just as much right to disagree with me, as I to disagree with them. Who's right? Who's wrong? In a world of varying perspectives, you'll find that's a very hard question to answer.
That aside,....what's the point of an alternative outcome? Answer: To give the Player something to achieve. Would you run a marathon if you thought you would lose? Would you walk into a Casino and gamble if you thought that there was no way to win? Would you ask a woman out on a date if you thought that there was no way she would agree?
There are many games that have alternative outcomes. Before I bought this game, I played Napoleon Total War. In that game, I conquered Russia and Europe as the French. Did the Total War Devs think,.' Well,...we cannot allow Napoleon to win,...that would upset the Russians!"
Rome: Total War. I played the Carthaginians on a campaign and conquered all of Italy. Both are historically inaccurate. Yet both possibilities exist in those games. Why? To give the Player something to achieve. Rather than marching like a lamb to a slaughter.
Die with dignity? You die with dignity! As for me, I'll die scratching, biting, and screaming.

" No Bas,♥♥♥♥ ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb
Bas,♥♥♥♥ die for his country."
Gen George Patton.

As far as feeding Neo-Nazism. I think you'll find that they already have plenty of fodder to feast upon. An alteration to a game would have little impact. So for those of you that would be upset over a, " What if", campaign, my answer to you is simple. Don't play it!

To the Devs, I say this. Don't be boxed between the rock of moral considerations and the hard place of political correctness. Because the ground is ever shifting. It is the place where the individual soul is crushed.
untugendbold Dec 14, 2020 @ 11:40pm 
@ Klaus Von Kraven
Bravo!
ToreDL87 Dec 15, 2020 @ 1:30am 
Originally posted by McDewgle:
Hearts of Iron doesn't work here because that's a strategy game based entirely around picking a side and trying to win the war. It's a completely different genre of game designed specifically around winning with your chosen army.

I disagree.
In HoI4 you can build and wage submarine warfare, it depicts WWII to the point you can ELECT (this is the important bit) to push a certain political agenda all the while conquering the world, regardless which country you start out as.
Yet, upon checking I don't see fanatics frothing all over in the HoI4 steam forums.... Actually this surprised me, I was holding a finger on you being dead-on about this "fanatic" issue in WWII games.
I found that apart from a few oddballs (there's always a few of those, and their threads got locked), they're having relatively docile discussions whether or not the game should depict "that" flag, and discussions of that nature.

My endgame with the whole HoI4 debacle?
Uboat doesn't depict the political agenda, it dons Uboats, German language, ahistorical red flag with a maltese cross in it, off the player goes to sink allied tonnage.
I just can't see why we have to sacrifice everything just for everyone else to "have their fun", so to speak, if that makes sense?

My endgame with SH4?
Well, apart from it being a subsim (doh):
1) U.S submarines committed 10000 cases of friendly fire, U.S planes deliberately attacked Uboats committed to rescuing survivors of a strucken ship.
Yet the U.S is given a big fat free pass and you can sink all the Japanese liners, fishing boats and anything else with a meatball on it.
On the polar opposite end we have 1x ground to the bone Uboat without so much as a liner/troopship present as target, already we're in dire straits as far as the ability to at least make the choice (that's an idea I like btw).
2) U.S subs ground the Japanese war machine (which depended on some 7,5 million GRT) to a halt, and that's depicted in SH4, yet, for all the tonnage we sink in Uboat, we're (by game design) unable to do so (making an impact on the outcome).

Originally posted by McDewgle:
But I don't want to give such fanatics any more gratification to satisfy themselves with.
Originally posted by McDewgle:
And bringing up American atrocities and Silent Hunter 4 where you get to play as an American? Yes Americans committed atrocities in WWII but are you really using that as justification as to why you should be able to win as Germany in this, or any game, regardless of genre? That's whataboutism.
Originally posted by McDewgle:
^This is a red herring.
Originally posted by McDewgle:
red herring's should not be taken seriously.
Originally posted by McDewgle:
using that as justification as to why you should be able to win as Germany in this, or any game, regardless of genre? That's whataboutism.
Originally posted by McDewgle:
But I don't want to give such fanatics any more gratification to satisfy themselves with.

Ok ok, I've googled red herring, figured out the connection with the meme, and I think I've put the puzzle together now! :)
Firstly, I do agree we should police ourselves so as not to attract the wrong crowd (and attention), so big +1 on that!

But, as I understand, you're saying the game shouldn't show what would have happened if our veterans hadn't put life and limb at great risk to combat the Uboats, because that would be disrespectful and politically incorrect (in all manner of ways) and ahistorical.
The many implications of so and so (I hesitate to say it) are obvious here.
Or am I taking it out of context? (Please tell me I am, and how).

Either way (and not to be "that" guy here) you're still close to coming across (as in, I'm not draping you in any colors yet) as using our veterans as a shield to cloud the issue in your favor so far as the argument whether or not this game should allow players to win.
On a lighter note as far as that goes, I'll be disregarding your advice and take those red herrings very very seriously from now on :)

I do agree though, it was the worst conflict this globe has ever witnessed in modern times, not just by the scale of it, but also in the manner in which it was conducted.
It's why I'm so on about U.S warcrimes this'n that (I don't need to speak about what "they" did, we all know, I spit on what "they" did)
Win or lose (I don't know what the dev's are planning in that regard), we should of course still be careful about how it's depicted in the game, and in that regard, the moral/honor system you proposed is starting to look more and more promising to me.


Originally posted by McDewgle:
So treat Uboat like a rogue-like? Maybe a crewmen gets sick just when you receive word of a fat un-escorted convoy and you have to choose to go after it or return to port.
(Sorry for piecing together your sentences out of paragraphs, possibly out of context, feel free to correct me, wherever you feel like)
While ethically that's a good idea, it's a typical "game thing" to do, it would be unfair without putting that perspective into consideration.
I'd be willing to wager no U.S sub or Uboat returned to port for ONE crewmembers sake.
They had to weigh the lives of one man, against the lives of the many they could save, nobody could fault a captain for taking the decision (in war-time) to go for the convoy, not even in prosperity.
And now the choice is up to a gamer who might go "sod it, no time for that" or putting the poor thing on the spot "omg omg omg what do I do now?!?!".

Furthermore, gamers of the submarine niche are Blue Water Studios's source of income.
Stopping to think back a bit, ok, 70 years back, what about what "they" did to the developers country?
Knowing this, and the devs still chose this subject to make a game the devs could sell, to put food on the table.
99% of gamers don't want to lose a game (that they pay for), they want to win.
A game where gamers don't get to win, is a game that stands less of a chance of selling well enough to get past EA.
Gamer nature plays a major part: When gamers get good at something in a game, they want to use that skill to win in the game.
Especially if it's the only way the gamer can fight effectively and expect to survive in that game.

Sorry for taking "what I want" and spinning it into "what the majority wants", but it's the only way I can think of to try and distance my feelings away from the subject, and present an objective argument.

To borrow a bit from what Klaus said (and spinning in a bit from what I think), morals aside, giving the player a sense of achievement = Sells game.
Successful game = Sequel.

What about this instead: A game with a blue country (Country A) and a purple country (Country B), what will it have in common with WWII?
The year, the ships, the world map as we know it, the Uboats.
Sort of like HMS Marulken a.k.a Wolfpack was supposed to be.
I'd get behind that :)

I support any new content to the game (so long as it doesn't make the game unplayable or boring), honor system combined with new game+ content? Excellent suggestion! Bring it on! :D
But, sorry, I still want to win.

Edit:
I do apologize if I'm coming across as not supporting ANY of your suggestions, any failure on my part to at least recognize and properly engage with every aspect of your argument would be on me, and my failure to communicate.
I kind of started this argument with you, and I did so, on more than a sour note, furthermore, the way I've lead my argument reflects poorly upon me, and, not only on how I actually conduct myself face to face, but also how I envision discussions in this forum will continue in the future, for that, I am sorry.
I further edited my post in hopes to alleviate any outstanding issues to the point that I hope we can start to shrug off at least some ruffled feathers.

At least we care so much about the game and community that we're attempting to discuss these things with at least some amount of civility, and IMHO, that passion for the game is why I believe we will prevail now too ^^
Last edited by ToreDL87; Dec 15, 2020 @ 2:58am
ToreDL87 Dec 15, 2020 @ 2:58am 
Originally posted by Klaus Von Kraven:
I started this thread to discuss a ' What if ' campaign. And it has morphed into this political and moral discussion about what should be and should not be.
That's mostly my bad.
... Sorry? :)
< >
Showing 31-45 of 81 comments
Per page: 15 30 50

UBOAT > General Discussions > Topic Details
Date Posted: Dec 2, 2020 @ 10:56am
Posts: 81