Topic: Silent Hunter IV (Read 4268 times)

IAF Lyrkiller · « **on:** March 21, 2007, 10:54:06 pm »

Has anyone here gotten this game yet?

Curious KAT wants to know.

Rat Boy · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2007, 11:27:31 pm »

This game should not have been released in the state it is in. The radar and sonar stations aren't modeled in any usable fashion. The crew voices are practically nonexistant. They couldn't even implement imperial measurements instead of metric. And as much as I maligned the Nazi perspective in the last game, at least it had a significant step forward in the genre by making your crew interactive. This game takes a dramatic step backwards by not making the officers and crew interactive. All in all, SH4 is a major dissapointment.

IAF Lyrkiller · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2007, 09:21:55 am »

A patch has been in the works, the radar and sonar stations do work.

go to subsim.com and you will see all that has been written.

CaptStumpy · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2007, 09:59:54 am »

Looks pretty buggy. What are the system specs?

I'm still pissed of at Ubi's choice in copy protection frying my DVD drive.

It's going to have to be pretty damn good to get me to buy SHIV.

Commander La'ra · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2007, 02:36:22 pm »

That's a big, extensive patch to be out so soon. What, did some intern forget to apply that to the master copy before it shipped?

AcePylut · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2007, 04:12:28 pm »

SH4. Been looking for a new wargame. Not sure if this is my cup of tea though.

I think of it like Das Boat (newly purchased digitally remastered DVD with 1 more hour of footage). Boring mostly, followed by a few moments of sheer terror. 3 hours to sink 2 ships

Awesomely great movie though. Definitely the standard for any sub-movie to meet.

I never played an online sub sim, so not sure how well I'd stack up against the sub vets out there. Only way to learn is to die, though. I tend to find the "official campaigns" for all games to be rather boring after a while.

What's the multiplayer like, for anyone that's playing it? Does it match up with a Destroyer Sim game? So that we can play cat & mouse like the big boys did?

IAF Lyrkiller · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2007, 05:58:10 pm »

Quote from: Commander La'ra on March 22, 2007, 02:36:22 pm

That's a big, extensive patch to be out so soon. What, did some intern forget to apply that to the master copy before it shipped?

Actually, it was in the works before the game was released.

Now my rant, I have yet to see the game here in Dallas. And it has been 3 days since the release. The distribution system sucks the big one.

I will right more later.

Just plain old Punisher · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2007, 06:12:36 pm »

I just picked it up last night, gonna install and play it tonight =)

IAF Lyrkiller · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2007, 06:20:59 pm »

I am so jealous, you suck.

@ Punisher

Do you think that you could buy another copy and send it to me? I will pay for it.

Commander La'ra · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2007, 04:20:53 pm »

Hey, Pun, how's the hunting so far?

CaptStumpy · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2007, 09:25:41 pm »

Patch 1.2 out.

Get it while it's hot.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6421019045/m/1801097155

Brush Wolf · « **Reply #11 on:** April 22, 2007, 08:09:33 pm »

I have had the game for a couple of weeks and spent the time up to now getting used to it. I would like to make one comment about the early war MK14 torpedoes, AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH. I think that covers it pretty well, I was getting a fairly historical 50% dud/pre-detonation rate on my first war patrol. I did manage 38000 tons on that patrol though.

IAF Lyrkiller · « **Reply #12 on:** April 23, 2007, 05:54:16 pm »

Now Ubi need to do a gameplay patch to make the game more bearable.

Grim · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2007, 06:22:09 pm »

Seems to be the case in recent times that games are rushed out before they are "ready".

There have been loads of examples recently of games being released far too early and having to have large patches to fix stuff they should have done before they released the game in the first place e.g. NWN2 (which has had several patches since release and there are likely to be more on the horizon.)

KBF MalaK · « **Reply #14 on:** April 23, 2007, 06:57:43 pm »

Yup I'll be watching this thread as I'm still looking (10 years or so) for a better sub sim that the original Silent Service or Gato, tho 688 is pretty good.

CaptStumpy · « **Reply #15 on:** April 23, 2007, 08:54:32 pm »

Quote from: Grim on April 23, 2007, 06:22:09 pm

Seems to be the case in recent times that games are rushed out before they are "ready".

There have been loads of examples recently of games being released far too early and having to have large patches to fix stuff they should have done before they released the game in the first place e.g. NWN2 (which has had several patches since release and there are likely to be more on the horizon.)

Recent times? I remember a certain couple of games released about seven years ago in a broken state that took years to fix.

Some would say they still aren't fixed.

Commander La'ra · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:35:25 pm »

Quote

Recent times? I remember a certain couple of games released about seven years ago in a broken state that took years to fix.

That's recent to those of us who remember piloting an F-19 (not an F-117, mind) across the Persian Gulf so many times we can still identify parts of the Libyan or Iranian coastline without a second thought.

Or to those of us who cringe in horror at the idea of a Sierra-style 'windy, twisty, path'.

Etc etc. And there are those who did this for far longer than me.

AcePylut · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2007, 10:49:48 pm »

Is it possible to manually set the running depth on those Mark 14's?

How is this game? I'm trying to decide on getting SH4 or Pirates of the Burning Sea.

Brush Wolf · « **Reply #18 on:** April 24, 2007, 01:57:56 am »

Yes, you can set the depth, speed, and the trigger (contact or contact/magnetic). Personally I use contact exclusively as I trust the magnetic exploders about as far as I can throw them which is pretty historical as the real submariners learned to hate it early on.

Grim · « **Reply #19 on:** April 24, 2007, 06:45:46 am »

Quote from: CaptStumpy on April 23, 2007, 08:54:32 pm

Quote from: Grim on April 23, 2007, 06:22:09 pm
Seems to be the case in recent times that games are rushed out before they are "ready".

There have been loads of examples recently of games being released far too early and having to have large patches to fix stuff they should have done before they released the game in the first place e.g. NWN2 (which has had several patches since release and there are likely to be more on the horizon.)

Recent times? I remember a certain couple of games released about seven years ago in a broken state that took years to fix.

Some would say they still aren't fixed.

Thats my point, yes there have been a couple of notable games released over the past few years that have been released broken and still are. I think its more common now though, most major titles recently have had to release patches on the day of the games release. I've lost count the number of titles over the past year or 2 that have been released buggy and have had to have some major fixing done to them.

AcePylut · « **Reply #20 on:** April 24, 2007, 08:11:12 am »

Quote from: Brush Wolf on April 24, 2007, 01:57:56 am

Yes, you can set the depth, speed, and the trigger (contact or contact/magnetic). Personally I use contact exclusively as I trust the magnetic exploders about as far as I can throw them which is pretty historical as the real submariners learned to hate it early on.

Ok, here's why I asked... I can't remember if it was the Mark 14 or a later model, but what happened is that the torps were originally tested without the warheads on them... so that when the warheads were added, the extra weight caused the torps to run deeper than they were supposed to.... and that accounted for their problems.

The solution that was implemented was that the skippers were told to set the run depth of the torp some - number I can't remember - feet higher than the depth you wanted them to run at (i.e. if you want to run the torp at 15 feet below sea level, set the torp to run at like 2 feet below sea level). After this was discovered, the torps worked fine. I was wondering if that worked like that in game also

I would imagine not, because then you'd have 1941 sup skippers implementing a fix that didn't occur until 1943? or so.

Commander La'ra · « **Reply #21 on:** April 24, 2007, 09:54:21 am »

Quote from: AcePylut on April 24, 2007, 08:11:12 am

Ok, here's why I asked... I can't remember if it was the Mark 14 or a later model, but what happened is that the torps were originally tested without the warheads on them... so that when the warheads were added, the extra weight caused the torps to run deeper than they were supposed to.... and that accounted for their problems.

The solution that was implemented was that the skippers were told to set the run depth of the torp some - number I can't remember - feet higher than the depth you wanted them to run at (i.e. if you want to run the torp at 15 feet below sea level, set the torp to run at like 2 feet below sea level). After this was discovered, the torps worked fine. I was wondering if that worked like that in game also I would imagine not, because then you'd have 1941 sup skippers implementing a fix that didn't occur until 1943? or so.

That was one of the Mk 14's many, many problems, but it wasn't the only problem. The Magnetic exploder was unreliable and tended to go off prematurely if it went off at all. The contact exploder was faulty as well, and bizarrely, tended to be most reliable when the torpedo hit at an unfavorable angle. The torps ran too deep as well.

The problems could've been solved quite early, but the Navy Bureau of Ordnance continued to insist that there was nothing wrong with the weapon and that the submarine captains were employing it improperly. Eventually, the Sub Admirals did their own testing of the weapon (after a bizarre incident where a US Sub Skipper unloaded most of his torpedos into a Japanese ship he'd disabled) and found out the true extent of the problems. Until a fix was found, various work-arounds were employed, such as aiming for high-angle impacts, setting the torpedo to run much shallower than you wanted it too, and just not using the magnetic detonator at all.

The contact exploder actually became fairly reliable once the problem with it was discovered: The firing pin was too heavy and sometimes the impact didn't ram it far enough back. They found that aluminum was a good replacement and switched to that...early fears that the short supply of the metal would prevent it's use were quashed when it was pointed out that they could recycle it from broken aircraft propellers.

AcePylut · « **Reply #22 on:** April 24, 2007, 04:58:50 pm »

This is a good discussion. I had just read a book not more than 2 months ago about the US war under the pacific.

The book touched ont he contactor problem too, but I can't remember exactly what it was. I want to say that the force of a "dead on" impact was "too much" and broke the firing pin before it could detonate, but that shooting at an angle decreased the impact, allowed the firing pin to detonate, and tanker ships started going boom.

That case you referred to, again iirc, was where a US Sub skipper snuck into a harbor and unloaded 4 torpedos at a stationary cargo ship from extremely short range. All four missed the target, however, the sub skipper noted that they exploded when the hit the shore. After that, iirc, the Bureau of Ordanance fired these torps at a carge net, and noted that the holes in teh cargo net were a lot deeper than the run depth setting.

Commander La'ra · « **Reply #23 on:** April 24, 2007, 05:20:30 pm »

Quote from: AcePylut on April 24, 2007, 04:58:50 pm

That case you referred to, again iirc, was where a US Sub skipper snuck into a harbor and unloaded 4 torpedos at a stationary cargo ship from extremely short range. All four missed the target, however, the sub skipper noted that they exploded when the hit the shore. After that, iirc, the Bureau of Ordanance fired these torps at a carge net, and noted that the holes in teh cargo net were a lot deeper than the run depth setting.

Actually, that was a seperate incident, though I recall reading about it, too. The one I'm talking about was later, I think. One skipper disabled a Japanese freighter with his first torpedo (which did explode), and then, trying to sink the thing, emptied his magazine, one torp at a time, into it. Dud after dud after dud.

I'll see if I can find an online description.

Commander La'ra · « **Reply #24 on:** April 24, 2007, 05:29:26 pm »

Here we go. This is from Uboat.net

Quote

24 Jul, 1943
USS Tinosa (Lt.Cdr. L.R. Daspit) torpedoes and damages the Japanese oiler Tonan Maru No.3 (19210 GRT) west of Truk in position 06º56'N, 147º52'E.

Tinosa fired no fewer than 15 torpedos, of which 10 hit but only two exploded ! 8 were duds....the ship was heavily damaged but limped into Truk. It illustrated the unreliability of the American torpedoes, and efforts were redoubled to fix the faulty exploder mechanism after the Tinosa captain filed his report on the incident. He could see the Japanese crew running around the decks pointing at the torpeodes before they hit, but a loud thud was the only result time after time. (see map)

Here's the Wiki from the Tinosa

I can only halfway imagine how mad that guy must've been.

Electric Eye · « **Reply #25 on:** April 25, 2007, 03:01:42 pm »

The Ubisoft SH 4 forums was enough to make me NOT buy this game. Patches galore and no automatic targeting. Like I really have time for using a stupid stopwatch and crap to get the speed and stuff of an enemy vessel? What does the frigging crew do?

A lot of players are saying that SH 3 was the best, and I definately enjoyed the heck outta that one.

I gave my copy away to another forum member but I'm seriously thinking of purchasing another copy and playing it again.

Brush Wolf · « **Reply #26 on:** April 25, 2007, 11:36:50 pm »

Quote from: Electric Eye on April 25, 2007, 03:01:42 pm

The Ubisoft SH 4 forums was enough to make me NOT buy this game. Patches galore and no automatic targeting. Like I really have time for using a stupid stopwatch and crap to get the speed and stuff of an enemy vessel? What does the frigging crew do?

A lot of players are saying that SH 3 was the best, and I definately enjoyed the heck outta that one. I gave my copy away to another forum member but I'm seriously thinking of purchasing another copy and playing it again.

The targeting system is the same as SH3 on the low to mid realism levels.

News:

Topic: Silent Hunter IV (Read 4268 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Topic: Silent Hunter IV (Read 4268 times)