Omelette On My Face--Silent Hunter 3

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

OK, OK, I know what I said. Nazis bad, blah, blah, blah. Starforce
bad, ditto. Rare is it on Usenet that someone will admit that they
were horribly wrong, but I must in support of this game. It's not
perfect, but it's a chasm-leap over any previous WWII
sub sim, and the developers deserve support.

I won't do a laundry list of pros and cons; they are available at
several forum sites like subsim.com. The game has a few glitches that
should be patched, and a few early (and late) features that were
dropped. There are vague rumors of an add-on pack to add wolfpacks for
example, an AI problem that was punted to get the game out.

But what's there is stunning. Historical accuracy folk should be happy
(so far as my knowledge of U-boats go; I've already learned a bunch.)
Good tactics are rewarded as is good patrol discipline. The
crew-management element is a good start on what I've long envisioned.
It could be better, but it's a good start. ("Do I rest my best
look-out on the midwatch, or hope he can find me an easy night target
even though tired? Can my fuel situation stand me spending a day at 50
meters so the crew can get some sleep or do I risk driving them hard
and the reload taking too long during an attack due to fatigue?" Etc.)

But what sold me was the graphics engine. I know gamers disparage
graphics, but here they make the game. I've been to sea on a big,
heavy nuke, so everything isn't the same, but one thing that is the
same is the frightening power of the sea, and no developer has ever
gotten it so right. Hard to put into words, but when you clear the
harbor (the game requires piloting and seaman's eye, a great
inclusion) and the boat begins meeting the swells, the spray starts
flying, and that slam (every bubblehead knows) begins as the bow is
tossed about by mere water . . . it's just visceral. Add great sea and
wind sounds, atmospherics like moon phases, realistic dawns and dusks,
biologics like birds acting as birds do near a harbor, and the game
just pulls you in. I actually spent thirty minutes last night just
standing on the bridge in a rainstorm watching the world (and my
lookouts--a CO's job is never done.)

I've only done the naval academy and three short patrols in a Dugout
Type II to the Scottish coast, so the "good" weather and seas still
await once I can afford to fleet up to a type VII and go into the
Atlantic. I've sunk five ships in three trips (one neutral, oops), and
worked to find them. Gone is the interstate traffic of SH1. I've been
pounced by one DD, a corvette, and two armed trawlers, plus a dawn
aircraft patrol that nearly got me out of the rising sun. Bastids drop
markers on your scope!

Lots of realism levels. Interiors are very detailed. The sinking and
explosion graphics are so varied I've yet to see two ships sink the
same way, and they behave like sinking ships too. Some flood, some
snap, some explode (depending on cargo), tankers burn, some roll over,
some don't. I could go on, but as I said, graphics heaven.

I've played on both my laptop (128 meg video card) and my new desktop
gaming beast and neither shows any ill-effects from Starforce. I did a
lot of research on both sides of this obnox. technology and in the end
decided to chance it. So far nothing seems amiss. When I uninstall
I'll be sure it's really gone though.

It's been a long time since a game grabbed me like this. Lt. Bartmann
(two 'n's just like great-grandpop <g>) is doing pretty well in late
1939, but the good times won't last. If I see 1943 it'll be a miracle.

The game has acceleration to make the dead times go by, but the crew
management never stops, just like RL.

The devs want to make SH4 in the PTO, which was another reason I
decided to offer my revenue to Ubisoft. The idea of this engine
attached to the USN's campaign is just a little appealing. Sailing
past a burning Ford Island on 12/8/1941 bound for Empire waters and
revenge . . . one can only hope.

So, if sims appeal to hard-core wargamers I'd say don't bypass this
one due only to the Starforce issue. It really is a quality design and
coding job. And it (apparently) won't turn you into a Nazi. <g>

Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:42:22 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
> Whoops! Forgot two things. It's only $39.95 USD at BestBuy. A game of
> this size would normally debut at $49.95. Second, it's DVD only. Not
a
> big problem for most people anymore, but don't be surprised.

You should be in advertising - nearly sold me on it :)

Main problem for me is that it's almost guaranteed to not work on my
system (starforce ...)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:42:22 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

Whoops! Forgot two things. It's only $39.95 USD at BestBuy. A game of
this size would normally debut at $49.95. Second, it's DVD only. Not a
big problem for most people anymore, but don't be surprised.

Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 12:35:26 -0800, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Steve Bartman wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:42:22 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Whoops! Forgot two things. It's only $39.95 USD at BestBuy. A game of
>> this size would normally debut at $49.95. Second, it's DVD only. Not
>a
>> big problem for most people anymore, but don't be surprised.
>
>You should be in advertising - nearly sold me on it :)
>
>Main problem for me is that it's almost guaranteed to not work on my
>system (starforce ...)

Is it a SCSI issue?

Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Yep..this one is worth all the starforce in the world:)

Sailing at night through rough seas.....can you say DAS BOOT :)

Very immersive considering it's still on a 2D monitor.

Nice touch on those cargo ships hulls breaking up as they go down:)

51/2 stars.



"Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in message
news:fjql41ldcnq7c0gh77p0kvfav4q36s22mj@4ax.com...
> OK, OK, I know what I said. Nazis bad, blah, blah, blah. Starforce
> bad, ditto. Rare is it on Usenet that someone will admit that they
> were horribly wrong, but I must in support of this game. It's not
> perfect, but it's a chasm-leap over any previous WWII
> sub sim, and the developers deserve support.
>
> I won't do a laundry list of pros and cons; they are available at
> several forum sites like subsim.com. The game has a few glitches that
> should be patched, and a few early (and late) features that were
> dropped. There are vague rumors of an add-on pack to add wolfpacks for
> example, an AI problem that was punted to get the game out.
>
> But what's there is stunning. Historical accuracy folk should be happy
> (so far as my knowledge of U-boats go; I've already learned a bunch.)
> Good tactics are rewarded as is good patrol discipline. The
> crew-management element is a good start on what I've long envisioned.
> It could be better, but it's a good start. ("Do I rest my best
> look-out on the midwatch, or hope he can find me an easy night target
> even though tired? Can my fuel situation stand me spending a day at 50
> meters so the crew can get some sleep or do I risk driving them hard
> and the reload taking too long during an attack due to fatigue?" Etc.)
>
> But what sold me was the graphics engine. I know gamers disparage
> graphics, but here they make the game. I've been to sea on a big,
> heavy nuke, so everything isn't the same, but one thing that is the
> same is the frightening power of the sea, and no developer has ever
> gotten it so right. Hard to put into words, but when you clear the
> harbor (the game requires piloting and seaman's eye, a great
> inclusion) and the boat begins meeting the swells, the spray starts
> flying, and that slam (every bubblehead knows) begins as the bow is
> tossed about by mere water . . . it's just visceral. Add great sea and
> wind sounds, atmospherics like moon phases, realistic dawns and dusks,
> biologics like birds acting as birds do near a harbor, and the game
> just pulls you in. I actually spent thirty minutes last night just
> standing on the bridge in a rainstorm watching the world (and my
> lookouts--a CO's job is never done.)
>
> I've only done the naval academy and three short patrols in a Dugout
> Type II to the Scottish coast, so the "good" weather and seas still
> await once I can afford to fleet up to a type VII and go into the
> Atlantic. I've sunk five ships in three trips (one neutral, oops), and
> worked to find them. Gone is the interstate traffic of SH1. I've been
> pounced by one DD, a corvette, and two armed trawlers, plus a dawn
> aircraft patrol that nearly got me out of the rising sun. Bastids drop
> markers on your scope!
>
> Lots of realism levels. Interiors are very detailed. The sinking and
> explosion graphics are so varied I've yet to see two ships sink the
> same way, and they behave like sinking ships too. Some flood, some
> snap, some explode (depending on cargo), tankers burn, some roll over,
> some don't. I could go on, but as I said, graphics heaven.
>
> I've played on both my laptop (128 meg video card) and my new desktop
> gaming beast and neither shows any ill-effects from Starforce. I did a
> lot of research on both sides of this obnox. technology and in the end
> decided to chance it. So far nothing seems amiss. When I uninstall
> I'll be sure it's really gone though.
>
> It's been a long time since a game grabbed me like this. Lt. Bartmann
> (two 'n's just like great-grandpop <g>) is doing pretty well in late
> 1939, but the good times won't last. If I see 1943 it'll be a miracle.
>
> The game has acceleration to make the dead times go by, but the crew
> management never stops, just like RL.
>
> The devs want to make SH4 in the PTO, which was another reason I
> decided to offer my revenue to Ubisoft. The idea of this engine
> attached to the USN's campaign is just a little appealing. Sailing
> past a burning Ford Island on 12/8/1941 bound for Empire waters and
> revenge . . . one can only hope.
>
> So, if sims appeal to hard-core wargamers I'd say don't bypass this
> one due only to the Starforce issue. It really is a quality design and
> coding job. And it (apparently) won't turn you into a Nazi. <g>
>
> Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

HR wrote:
> Yep..this one is worth all the starforce in the world:)
>
> Sailing at night through rough seas.....can you say DAS BOOT :)
>
> Very immersive considering it's still on a 2D monitor.
>
> Nice touch on those cargo ships hulls breaking up as they go down:)
>
> 51/2 stars.

Is SH3 a WIN XP game only? (I'm still using ME)
 

Rocket

Distinguished
Jun 22, 2001
17
0
18,510
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

What a great post...but I don't understand the Starforce reference. Can you
enlighten?

Rocket

"Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in message
news:fjql41ldcnq7c0gh77p0kvfav4q36s22mj@4ax.com...
> OK, OK, I know what I said. Nazis bad, blah, blah, blah. Starforce
> bad, ditto. Rare is it on Usenet that someone will admit that they
> were horribly wrong, but I must in support of this game. It's not
> perfect, but it's a chasm-leap over any previous WWII
> sub sim, and the developers deserve support.
>
> I won't do a laundry list of pros and cons; they are available at
> several forum sites like subsim.com. The game has a few glitches that
> should be patched, and a few early (and late) features that were
> dropped. There are vague rumors of an add-on pack to add wolfpacks for
> example, an AI problem that was punted to get the game out.
>
> But what's there is stunning. Historical accuracy folk should be happy
> (so far as my knowledge of U-boats go; I've already learned a bunch.)
> Good tactics are rewarded as is good patrol discipline. The
> crew-management element is a good start on what I've long envisioned.
> It could be better, but it's a good start. ("Do I rest my best
> look-out on the midwatch, or hope he can find me an easy night target
> even though tired? Can my fuel situation stand me spending a day at 50
> meters so the crew can get some sleep or do I risk driving them hard
> and the reload taking too long during an attack due to fatigue?" Etc.)
>
> But what sold me was the graphics engine. I know gamers disparage
> graphics, but here they make the game. I've been to sea on a big,
> heavy nuke, so everything isn't the same, but one thing that is the
> same is the frightening power of the sea, and no developer has ever
> gotten it so right. Hard to put into words, but when you clear the
> harbor (the game requires piloting and seaman's eye, a great
> inclusion) and the boat begins meeting the swells, the spray starts
> flying, and that slam (every bubblehead knows) begins as the bow is
> tossed about by mere water . . . it's just visceral. Add great sea and
> wind sounds, atmospherics like moon phases, realistic dawns and dusks,
> biologics like birds acting as birds do near a harbor, and the game
> just pulls you in. I actually spent thirty minutes last night just
> standing on the bridge in a rainstorm watching the world (and my
> lookouts--a CO's job is never done.)
>
> I've only done the naval academy and three short patrols in a Dugout
> Type II to the Scottish coast, so the "good" weather and seas still
> await once I can afford to fleet up to a type VII and go into the
> Atlantic. I've sunk five ships in three trips (one neutral, oops), and
> worked to find them. Gone is the interstate traffic of SH1. I've been
> pounced by one DD, a corvette, and two armed trawlers, plus a dawn
> aircraft patrol that nearly got me out of the rising sun. Bastids drop
> markers on your scope!
>
> Lots of realism levels. Interiors are very detailed. The sinking and
> explosion graphics are so varied I've yet to see two ships sink the
> same way, and they behave like sinking ships too. Some flood, some
> snap, some explode (depending on cargo), tankers burn, some roll over,
> some don't. I could go on, but as I said, graphics heaven.
>
> I've played on both my laptop (128 meg video card) and my new desktop
> gaming beast and neither shows any ill-effects from Starforce. I did a
> lot of research on both sides of this obnox. technology and in the end
> decided to chance it. So far nothing seems amiss. When I uninstall
> I'll be sure it's really gone though.
>
> It's been a long time since a game grabbed me like this. Lt. Bartmann
> (two 'n's just like great-grandpop <g>) is doing pretty well in late
> 1939, but the good times won't last. If I see 1943 it'll be a miracle.
>
> The game has acceleration to make the dead times go by, but the crew
> management never stops, just like RL.
>
> The devs want to make SH4 in the PTO, which was another reason I
> decided to offer my revenue to Ubisoft. The idea of this engine
> attached to the USN's campaign is just a little appealing. Sailing
> past a burning Ford Island on 12/8/1941 bound for Empire waters and
> revenge . . . one can only hope.
>
> So, if sims appeal to hard-core wargamers I'd say don't bypass this
> one due only to the Starforce issue. It really is a quality design and
> coding job. And it (apparently) won't turn you into a Nazi. <g>
>
> Steve
 

Rocket

Distinguished
Jun 22, 2001
17
0
18,510
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Never mind. I found an article on Starforce and what I read is enough to
keep me away from SH3. And I was looking forward to it.

Rocket

"Rocket" <rocket1@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:cbmdneIvDOQdxdbfRVn-pw@adelphia.com...
> What a great post...but I don't understand the Starforce reference. Can
> you enlighten?
>
> Rocket
>
> "Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:fjql41ldcnq7c0gh77p0kvfav4q36s22mj@4ax.com...
>> OK, OK, I know what I said. Nazis bad, blah, blah, blah. Starforce
>> bad, ditto. Rare is it on Usenet that someone will admit that they
>> were horribly wrong, but I must in support of this game. It's not
>> perfect, but it's a chasm-leap over any previous WWII
>> sub sim, and the developers deserve support.
>>
>> I won't do a laundry list of pros and cons; they are available at
>> several forum sites like subsim.com. The game has a few glitches that
>> should be patched, and a few early (and late) features that were
>> dropped. There are vague rumors of an add-on pack to add wolfpacks for
>> example, an AI problem that was punted to get the game out.
>>
>> But what's there is stunning. Historical accuracy folk should be happy
>> (so far as my knowledge of U-boats go; I've already learned a bunch.)
>> Good tactics are rewarded as is good patrol discipline. The
>> crew-management element is a good start on what I've long envisioned.
>> It could be better, but it's a good start. ("Do I rest my best
>> look-out on the midwatch, or hope he can find me an easy night target
>> even though tired? Can my fuel situation stand me spending a day at 50
>> meters so the crew can get some sleep or do I risk driving them hard
>> and the reload taking too long during an attack due to fatigue?" Etc.)
>>
>> But what sold me was the graphics engine. I know gamers disparage
>> graphics, but here they make the game. I've been to sea on a big,
>> heavy nuke, so everything isn't the same, but one thing that is the
>> same is the frightening power of the sea, and no developer has ever
>> gotten it so right. Hard to put into words, but when you clear the
>> harbor (the game requires piloting and seaman's eye, a great
>> inclusion) and the boat begins meeting the swells, the spray starts
>> flying, and that slam (every bubblehead knows) begins as the bow is
>> tossed about by mere water . . . it's just visceral. Add great sea and
>> wind sounds, atmospherics like moon phases, realistic dawns and dusks,
>> biologics like birds acting as birds do near a harbor, and the game
>> just pulls you in. I actually spent thirty minutes last night just
>> standing on the bridge in a rainstorm watching the world (and my
>> lookouts--a CO's job is never done.)
>>
>> I've only done the naval academy and three short patrols in a Dugout
>> Type II to the Scottish coast, so the "good" weather and seas still
>> await once I can afford to fleet up to a type VII and go into the
>> Atlantic. I've sunk five ships in three trips (one neutral, oops), and
>> worked to find them. Gone is the interstate traffic of SH1. I've been
>> pounced by one DD, a corvette, and two armed trawlers, plus a dawn
>> aircraft patrol that nearly got me out of the rising sun. Bastids drop
>> markers on your scope!
>>
>> Lots of realism levels. Interiors are very detailed. The sinking and
>> explosion graphics are so varied I've yet to see two ships sink the
>> same way, and they behave like sinking ships too. Some flood, some
>> snap, some explode (depending on cargo), tankers burn, some roll over,
>> some don't. I could go on, but as I said, graphics heaven.
>>
>> I've played on both my laptop (128 meg video card) and my new desktop
>> gaming beast and neither shows any ill-effects from Starforce. I did a
>> lot of research on both sides of this obnox. technology and in the end
>> decided to chance it. So far nothing seems amiss. When I uninstall
>> I'll be sure it's really gone though.
>>
>> It's been a long time since a game grabbed me like this. Lt. Bartmann
>> (two 'n's just like great-grandpop <g>) is doing pretty well in late
>> 1939, but the good times won't last. If I see 1943 it'll be a miracle.
>>
>> The game has acceleration to make the dead times go by, but the crew
>> management never stops, just like RL.
>>
>> The devs want to make SH4 in the PTO, which was another reason I
>> decided to offer my revenue to Ubisoft. The idea of this engine
>> attached to the USN's campaign is just a little appealing. Sailing
>> past a burning Ford Island on 12/8/1941 bound for Empire waters and
>> revenge . . . one can only hope.
>>
>> So, if sims appeal to hard-core wargamers I'd say don't bypass this
>> one due only to the Starforce issue. It really is a quality design and
>> coding job. And it (apparently) won't turn you into a Nazi. <g>
>>
>> Steve
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Rocket" <rocket1@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:z8-dnUGw4KeRx9bfRVn-rg@adelphia.com...
> Never mind. I found an article on Starforce and what I read is enough to
> keep me away from SH3. And I was looking forward to it.
>
> Rocket
>
> "Rocket" <rocket1@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:cbmdneIvDOQdxdbfRVn-pw@adelphia.com...
>> What a great post...but I don't understand the Starforce reference. Can
>> you enlighten?
>>
>> Rocket
>>
>> "Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in message
>> news:fjql41ldcnq7c0gh77p0kvfav4q36s22mj@4ax.com...
>>> OK, OK, I know what I said. Nazis bad, blah, blah, blah. Starforce
>>> bad, ditto. Rare is it on Usenet that someone will admit that they
>>> were horribly wrong, but I must in support of this game. It's not
>>> perfect, but it's a chasm-leap over any previous WWII
>>> sub sim, and the developers deserve support.
>>>
>>> I won't do a laundry list of pros and cons; they are available at
>>> several forum sites like subsim.com. The game has a few glitches that
>>> should be patched, and a few early (and late) features that were
>>> dropped. There are vague rumors of an add-on pack to add wolfpacks for
>>> example, an AI problem that was punted to get the game out.
>>>
>>> But what's there is stunning. Historical accuracy folk should be happy
>>> (so far as my knowledge of U-boats go; I've already learned a bunch.)
>>> Good tactics are rewarded as is good patrol discipline. The
>>> crew-management element is a good start on what I've long envisioned.
>>> It could be better, but it's a good start. ("Do I rest my best
>>> look-out on the midwatch, or hope he can find me an easy night target
>>> even though tired? Can my fuel situation stand me spending a day at 50
>>> meters so the crew can get some sleep or do I risk driving them hard
>>> and the reload taking too long during an attack due to fatigue?" Etc.)
>>>
>>> But what sold me was the graphics engine. I know gamers disparage
>>> graphics, but here they make the game. I've been to sea on a big,
>>> heavy nuke, so everything isn't the same, but one thing that is the
>>> same is the frightening power of the sea, and no developer has ever
>>> gotten it so right. Hard to put into words, but when you clear the
>>> harbor (the game requires piloting and seaman's eye, a great
>>> inclusion) and the boat begins meeting the swells, the spray starts
>>> flying, and that slam (every bubblehead knows) begins as the bow is
>>> tossed about by mere water . . . it's just visceral. Add great sea and
>>> wind sounds, atmospherics like moon phases, realistic dawns and dusks,
>>> biologics like birds acting as birds do near a harbor, and the game
>>> just pulls you in. I actually spent thirty minutes last night just
>>> standing on the bridge in a rainstorm watching the world (and my
>>> lookouts--a CO's job is never done.)
>>>
>>> I've only done the naval academy and three short patrols in a Dugout
>>> Type II to the Scottish coast, so the "good" weather and seas still
>>> await once I can afford to fleet up to a type VII and go into the
>>> Atlantic. I've sunk five ships in three trips (one neutral, oops), and
>>> worked to find them. Gone is the interstate traffic of SH1. I've been
>>> pounced by one DD, a corvette, and two armed trawlers, plus a dawn
>>> aircraft patrol that nearly got me out of the rising sun. Bastids drop
>>> markers on your scope!
>>>
>>> Lots of realism levels. Interiors are very detailed. The sinking and
>>> explosion graphics are so varied I've yet to see two ships sink the
>>> same way, and they behave like sinking ships too. Some flood, some
>>> snap, some explode (depending on cargo), tankers burn, some roll over,
>>> some don't. I could go on, but as I said, graphics heaven.
>>>
>>> I've played on both my laptop (128 meg video card) and my new desktop
>>> gaming beast and neither shows any ill-effects from Starforce. I did a
>>> lot of research on both sides of this obnox. technology and in the end
>>> decided to chance it. So far nothing seems amiss. When I uninstall
>>> I'll be sure it's really gone though.
>>>
>>> It's been a long time since a game grabbed me like this. Lt. Bartmann
>>> (two 'n's just like great-grandpop <g>) is doing pretty well in late
>>> 1939, but the good times won't last. If I see 1943 it'll be a miracle.
>>>
>>> The game has acceleration to make the dead times go by, but the crew
>>> management never stops, just like RL.
>>>
>>> The devs want to make SH4 in the PTO, which was another reason I
>>> decided to offer my revenue to Ubisoft. The idea of this engine
>>> attached to the USN's campaign is just a little appealing. Sailing
>>> past a burning Ford Island on 12/8/1941 bound for Empire waters and
>>> revenge . . . one can only hope.
>>>
>>> So, if sims appeal to hard-core wargamers I'd say don't bypass this
>>> one due only to the Starforce issue. It really is a quality design and
>>> coding job. And it (apparently) won't turn you into a Nazi. <g>
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>>
>
>

My opposition to Starforce has been public and vehement. However, I've had
to tolerate it for reviews. My system has not suffered. SH3 is SO good I'd
re-consider my position if I were you.Rocket.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in
news:kh5m41lsegonbil9u7gcitb4gef5amv9a9@4ax.com:

>>
>>Main problem for me is that it's almost guaranteed to not work on my
>>system (starforce ...)
>
> Is it a SCSI issue?

DVD Re-Writer that is on the "black list" - and Alcohol 120%

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Windows XP

Upgrade. XP is far better than ME.


"Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:114mf6achhl9e36@corp.supernews.com...
> HR wrote:
>> Yep..this one is worth all the starforce in the world:)
>>
>> Sailing at night through rough seas.....can you say DAS BOOT :)
>>
>> Very immersive considering it's still on a 2D monitor.
>>
>> Nice touch on those cargo ships hulls breaking up as they go down:)
>>
>> 51/2 stars.
>
> Is SH3 a WIN XP game only? (I'm still using ME)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

You guys have almost sold me on buying a DVD player for my PC. Haven't
played a sub game since DOS.

Bob W

"Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in message
news:fjql41ldcnq7c0gh77p0kvfav4q36s22mj@4ax.com...
> OK, OK, I know what I said. Nazis bad, blah, blah, blah. Starforce
> bad, ditto. Rare is it on Usenet that someone will admit that they
> were horribly wrong, but I must in support of this game. It's not
> perfect, but it's a chasm-leap over any previous WWII
> sub sim, and the developers deserve support.
>
> I won't do a laundry list of pros and cons; they are available at
> several forum sites like subsim.com. The game has a few glitches that
> should be patched, and a few early (and late) features that were
> dropped. There are vague rumors of an add-on pack to add wolfpacks for
> example, an AI problem that was punted to get the game out.
>
> But what's there is stunning. Historical accuracy folk should be happy
> (so far as my knowledge of U-boats go; I've already learned a bunch.)
> Good tactics are rewarded as is good patrol discipline. The
> crew-management element is a good start on what I've long envisioned.
> It could be better, but it's a good start. ("Do I rest my best
> look-out on the midwatch, or hope he can find me an easy night target
> even though tired? Can my fuel situation stand me spending a day at 50
> meters so the crew can get some sleep or do I risk driving them hard
> and the reload taking too long during an attack due to fatigue?" Etc.)
>
> But what sold me was the graphics engine. I know gamers disparage
> graphics, but here they make the game. I've been to sea on a big,
> heavy nuke, so everything isn't the same, but one thing that is the
> same is the frightening power of the sea, and no developer has ever
> gotten it so right. Hard to put into words, but when you clear the
> harbor (the game requires piloting and seaman's eye, a great
> inclusion) and the boat begins meeting the swells, the spray starts
> flying, and that slam (every bubblehead knows) begins as the bow is
> tossed about by mere water . . . it's just visceral. Add great sea and
> wind sounds, atmospherics like moon phases, realistic dawns and dusks,
> biologics like birds acting as birds do near a harbor, and the game
> just pulls you in. I actually spent thirty minutes last night just
> standing on the bridge in a rainstorm watching the world (and my
> lookouts--a CO's job is never done.)
>
> I've only done the naval academy and three short patrols in a Dugout
> Type II to the Scottish coast, so the "good" weather and seas still
> await once I can afford to fleet up to a type VII and go into the
> Atlantic. I've sunk five ships in three trips (one neutral, oops), and
> worked to find them. Gone is the interstate traffic of SH1. I've been
> pounced by one DD, a corvette, and two armed trawlers, plus a dawn
> aircraft patrol that nearly got me out of the rising sun. Bastids drop
> markers on your scope!
>
> Lots of realism levels. Interiors are very detailed. The sinking and
> explosion graphics are so varied I've yet to see two ships sink the
> same way, and they behave like sinking ships too. Some flood, some
> snap, some explode (depending on cargo), tankers burn, some roll over,
> some don't. I could go on, but as I said, graphics heaven.
>
> I've played on both my laptop (128 meg video card) and my new desktop
> gaming beast and neither shows any ill-effects from Starforce. I did a
> lot of research on both sides of this obnox. technology and in the end
> decided to chance it. So far nothing seems amiss. When I uninstall
> I'll be sure it's really gone though.
>
> It's been a long time since a game grabbed me like this. Lt. Bartmann
> (two 'n's just like great-grandpop <g>) is doing pretty well in late
> 1939, but the good times won't last. If I see 1943 it'll be a miracle.
>
> The game has acceleration to make the dead times go by, but the crew
> management never stops, just like RL.
>
> The devs want to make SH4 in the PTO, which was another reason I
> decided to offer my revenue to Ubisoft. The idea of this engine
> attached to the USN's campaign is just a little appealing. Sailing
> past a burning Ford Island on 12/8/1941 bound for Empire waters and
> revenge . . . one can only hope.
>
> So, if sims appeal to hard-core wargamers I'd say don't bypass this
> one due only to the Starforce issue. It really is a quality design and
> coding job. And it (apparently) won't turn you into a Nazi. <g>
>
> Steve
 

Rocket

Distinguished
Jun 22, 2001
17
0
18,510
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Thanks for the advice, Jim. I'll think about this. I was a huge SH fan
once, and would love to experience this new one, but would hate to
compromise an expensive system. Will have to mull this over.

Rocket

"James Cobb" <bismarck71@charter.net> wrote in message
news:HsJ2e.408$eo.335@fe04.lga...
>
> "Rocket" <rocket1@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:z8-dnUGw4KeRx9bfRVn-rg@adelphia.com...
>> Never mind. I found an article on Starforce and what I read is enough to
>> keep me away from SH3. And I was looking forward to it.
>>
>> Rocket
>>
>> "Rocket" <rocket1@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>> news:cbmdneIvDOQdxdbfRVn-pw@adelphia.com...
>>> What a great post...but I don't understand the Starforce reference. Can
>>> you enlighten?
>>>
>>> Rocket
>>>
>>> "Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fjql41ldcnq7c0gh77p0kvfav4q36s22mj@4ax.com...
>>>> OK, OK, I know what I said. Nazis bad, blah, blah, blah. Starforce
>>>> bad, ditto. Rare is it on Usenet that someone will admit that they
>>>> were horribly wrong, but I must in support of this game. It's not
>>>> perfect, but it's a chasm-leap over any previous WWII
>>>> sub sim, and the developers deserve support.
>>>>
>>>> I won't do a laundry list of pros and cons; they are available at
>>>> several forum sites like subsim.com. The game has a few glitches that
>>>> should be patched, and a few early (and late) features that were
>>>> dropped. There are vague rumors of an add-on pack to add wolfpacks for
>>>> example, an AI problem that was punted to get the game out.
>>>>
>>>> But what's there is stunning. Historical accuracy folk should be happy
>>>> (so far as my knowledge of U-boats go; I've already learned a bunch.)
>>>> Good tactics are rewarded as is good patrol discipline. The
>>>> crew-management element is a good start on what I've long envisioned.
>>>> It could be better, but it's a good start. ("Do I rest my best
>>>> look-out on the midwatch, or hope he can find me an easy night target
>>>> even though tired? Can my fuel situation stand me spending a day at 50
>>>> meters so the crew can get some sleep or do I risk driving them hard
>>>> and the reload taking too long during an attack due to fatigue?" Etc.)
>>>>
>>>> But what sold me was the graphics engine. I know gamers disparage
>>>> graphics, but here they make the game. I've been to sea on a big,
>>>> heavy nuke, so everything isn't the same, but one thing that is the
>>>> same is the frightening power of the sea, and no developer has ever
>>>> gotten it so right. Hard to put into words, but when you clear the
>>>> harbor (the game requires piloting and seaman's eye, a great
>>>> inclusion) and the boat begins meeting the swells, the spray starts
>>>> flying, and that slam (every bubblehead knows) begins as the bow is
>>>> tossed about by mere water . . . it's just visceral. Add great sea and
>>>> wind sounds, atmospherics like moon phases, realistic dawns and dusks,
>>>> biologics like birds acting as birds do near a harbor, and the game
>>>> just pulls you in. I actually spent thirty minutes last night just
>>>> standing on the bridge in a rainstorm watching the world (and my
>>>> lookouts--a CO's job is never done.)
>>>>
>>>> I've only done the naval academy and three short patrols in a Dugout
>>>> Type II to the Scottish coast, so the "good" weather and seas still
>>>> await once I can afford to fleet up to a type VII and go into the
>>>> Atlantic. I've sunk five ships in three trips (one neutral, oops), and
>>>> worked to find them. Gone is the interstate traffic of SH1. I've been
>>>> pounced by one DD, a corvette, and two armed trawlers, plus a dawn
>>>> aircraft patrol that nearly got me out of the rising sun. Bastids drop
>>>> markers on your scope!
>>>>
>>>> Lots of realism levels. Interiors are very detailed. The sinking and
>>>> explosion graphics are so varied I've yet to see two ships sink the
>>>> same way, and they behave like sinking ships too. Some flood, some
>>>> snap, some explode (depending on cargo), tankers burn, some roll over,
>>>> some don't. I could go on, but as I said, graphics heaven.
>>>>
>>>> I've played on both my laptop (128 meg video card) and my new desktop
>>>> gaming beast and neither shows any ill-effects from Starforce. I did a
>>>> lot of research on both sides of this obnox. technology and in the end
>>>> decided to chance it. So far nothing seems amiss. When I uninstall
>>>> I'll be sure it's really gone though.
>>>>
>>>> It's been a long time since a game grabbed me like this. Lt. Bartmann
>>>> (two 'n's just like great-grandpop <g>) is doing pretty well in late
>>>> 1939, but the good times won't last. If I see 1943 it'll be a miracle.
>>>>
>>>> The game has acceleration to make the dead times go by, but the crew
>>>> management never stops, just like RL.
>>>>
>>>> The devs want to make SH4 in the PTO, which was another reason I
>>>> decided to offer my revenue to Ubisoft. The idea of this engine
>>>> attached to the USN's campaign is just a little appealing. Sailing
>>>> past a burning Ford Island on 12/8/1941 bound for Empire waters and
>>>> revenge . . . one can only hope.
>>>>
>>>> So, if sims appeal to hard-core wargamers I'd say don't bypass this
>>>> one due only to the Starforce issue. It really is a quality design and
>>>> coding job. And it (apparently) won't turn you into a Nazi. <g>
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> My opposition to Starforce has been public and vehement. However, I've
> had to tolerate it for reviews. My system has not suffered. SH3 is SO
> good I'd re-consider my position if I were you.Rocket.
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 21:31:24 GMT, Eddy Sterckx <eddysterckx@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in
>news:kh5m41lsegonbil9u7gcitb4gef5amv9a9@4ax.com:
>
>>>
>>>Main problem for me is that it's almost guaranteed to not work on my
>>>system (starforce ...)
>>
>> Is it a SCSI issue?
>
>DVD Re-Writer that is on the "black list" - and Alcohol 120%

Ah. I see now.

Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:04:28 GMT, "Bob W."
<bleew@columbus.dropthis.rr.com> wrote:

>You guys have almost sold me on buying a DVD player for my PC. Haven't
>played a sub game since DOS.

They've gotten better. <g>

I started on Microprose's AppleIIe version of Silent Service (I think;
it was 1984 or so.) Pretty much wire-frame graphics. Also Gato on the
original IBM PC before I got my trusty 286.

Get the DVD player. "The Incredibles" looks nice up close.

Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:08:24 -0500, "Rocket" <rocket1@adelphia.net>
wrote:

>Thanks for the advice, Jim. I'll think about this. I was a huge SH fan
>once, and would love to experience this new one, but would hate to
>compromise an expensive system. Will have to mull this over.
>
>Rocket

Let me echo Jim. It's worth it if you think it's a risk, and so far
there's no effect on either of my systems. My new desktop is four days
old (as I said, it's a gaming beast) and SH3 was the first thing I
installed after virus protection.

On theoretical grounds I'm with G.; I hate these new protection
schemes. I pay for my games. Steam/HL2 was too over the top. I will
not play a game that requires real-time Net nannyism to play solo.
Starforce is a different approach, but, yeah, I really dislike it. For
any game I wasn't 150% into topic-wise I'd say nope.

But this once I buckled.

Last night I restarted a career in a different flotilla, in a Type
VII. Patrols west of Ireland, and man, the Atlantic is just like I
remember. Waves pooping the bridge cockpit, driving rain for days on
end, swells exposing the screw. On one attack I had to time torpedo
launch because the tubes were in mid-air on the rise! Without radar
(yet) night lookouts are key, but you have no hope outside maybe 4000
meters of seeing even the biggest ship. Night looks like night in this
game.

Coming home to Kiel through the English Channel I went topside in
heavy rain after noticing my lookouts were fatiguing very rapidly.
They looked like wet rats. I went to crew-management, relieved the
watch, and the new guys came up in Gorton FishGuy oilskins. The
fatigue rate seemed to slow down. Maybe my imagination, but it's those
sorts of touches that keep me exploring this game's edges.

Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

HR wrote:
>
> "Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
> news:114mf6achhl9e36@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>Is SH3 a WIN XP game only? (I'm still using ME)
>
>
>Windows XP
>
>Upgrade. XP is far better than ME.

WIN ME has always been a stable operating system for me, so I've never
paid any attention to the "XP is better" argument. However, it
appears that I must now upgrade after all, since several games on my
'must buy' list are XP only - damn it! :-(




*** top posting corrected ***
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

BTW this game is full of surprises. Just sail into New York's harbor, and
you will find that the devs really built the '40s New York in the sim,
Statue of Liberty, piers and mid-XX Century skyline included (like in a
Flight Sim title). I'm now wondering if other famous places are implemented
with the same care for detail.

Being chased by a destroyer is truly scary, BTW. "Silent Hill"-level scary.
The ship's propellers stop moving, everything is quiet, and then, suddenly,
the boat is rocked by explosions, screams and spraying valves. During one
mission the lights went totally out, and I had to endure one hour of depth
charges while standing still on the bottom of the North Sea in total
darkness. To add to realism, you can move inside your boat in real time,
like in a FPS, and every U-Boat class has her personalized interiors.

This game is truly a classic, IMHO. It can be improved, and I hope that the
devs will patch the outstanding issues, but the gameplay and the realism are
all there. And the dynamic campaign really makes the difference. SHIII
bought me back to the times when I played from-dusk-till-dawn at "Red Storm
Rising", "Pirates", "Gunship" and (more recently) "Longbow 2".

And, yes, I'm already ready to shell money for a Pacific-Theatre sequel :eek:)
The very best option would be a sequel that can be installed over the
original, so you could play in one, immense world, choosing your alliance
and sailing around (with the opportunity to fight with American subs in the
Atlantic, too). The map in the scen editor, BTW, already covers the whole
world, and a look at the dynamic campaign file shows naval activity even in
the Indian Ocean, and near Australia and Indonesia, even if you have to sail
down there by yourself.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:36:31 +0200, "Vincenzo Beretta"
<reckall@hotmail.com> wrote:

>BTW this game is full of surprises. Just sail into New York's harbor, and
>you will find that the devs really built the '40s New York in the sim,
>Statue of Liberty, piers and mid-XX Century skyline included (like in a
>Flight Sim title). I'm now wondering if other famous places are implemented
>with the same care for detail.

I'm waiting for a chance at a Type IX's range so I can look into
Norfolk VA for just that reason. My old stomping grounds.

>Being chased by a destroyer is truly scary, BTW. "Silent Hill"-level scary.
>The ship's propellers stop moving, everything is quiet, and then, suddenly,
>the boat is rocked by explosions, screams and spraying valves. During one
>mission the lights went totally out, and I had to endure one hour of depth
>charges while standing still on the bottom of the North Sea in total
>darkness. To add to realism, you can move inside your boat in real time,
>like in a FPS, and every U-Boat class has her personalized interiors.

I would have liked the chance to go aft to engineering, but there's no
good gameplay reason. Just nice candy.

>And, yes, I'm already ready to shell money for a Pacific-Theatre sequel :eek:)
>The very best option would be a sequel that can be installed over the
>original, so you could play in one, immense world, choosing your alliance
>and sailing around (with the opportunity to fight with American subs in the
>Atlantic, too). The map in the scen editor, BTW, already covers the whole
>world, and a look at the dynamic campaign file shows naval activity even in
>the Indian Ocean, and near Australia and Indonesia, even if you have to sail
>down there by yourself.

I saw the ship recognition book library included Oz, Brazil, etc. and
wondered why. Haven't touched the editor yet.

Steve
 

Werewolf

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2004
58
0
18,630
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> So, if sims appeal to hard-core wargamers I'd say don't bypass this
> one due only to the Starforce issue. It really is a quality design and
> coding job. And it (apparently) won't turn you into a Nazi. <g>
>
> Steve

Well! Ya Sold Me! I want it...

Too bad it's DVD only. All I've got is a 3.2Ghz HT P-4 with a gig of
memory and a CD-ROM drive.

Bummer

--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:42:22 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

>OK, OK, I know what I said. Nazis bad, blah, blah, blah. Starforce
>bad, ditto. Rare is it on Usenet that someone will admit that they
>were horribly wrong, but I must in support of this game. It's not
>perfect, but it's a chasm-leap over any previous WWII
>sub sim, and the developers deserve support.

<snip>

Yep,it's better than AotD in nearly every way,which makes it the best
sub sim made to this point.It gives you a tremendous sense of
intercepting and stalking a lone ship or convoy,and you can make it
just about as hardcore or lightweight as you like.The only real
criticism I have of it is that the crew management is kind of
annoying.

There are minor bugs,to be sure,but I had no trouble with copy
protection,or anything else.Before they move on to SH4,I hope they go
ahead with a rumored expansion,adding wolfpacks,Milch Cows,etc.

This is game of the year material.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:20:31 GMT, Michael A. Oberly <kitch@SPAMOFF
columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>Yep,it's better than AotD in nearly every way,

DVD vs. floppies. <g>

which makes it the best
>sub sim made to this point.It gives you a tremendous sense of
>intercepting and stalking a lone ship or convoy,and you can make it
>just about as hardcore or lightweight as you like.The only real
>criticism I have of it is that the crew management is kind of
>annoying.

I find that the best part after the graphics. Having dealt in RL with
sailors and their many quirks I like role-playing trade-offs a bit.
Especially with the bridge crew staying on top of fatigue makes a big
tactical difference.

Fuel is the limiting endurance factor, not food (the hanging meats and
cheeses in control seem to not be consumed), but I've noticed fatigue
rates accelerate as you get into the third week at sea, or so. I may
test this. Just go to some quiet spot, go to All Stop to zero fuel
rate, and accelerate time to max for a couple of months. See if
there's a limit built in.

If this in the manual tell me to RTFM. I still haven't done so.

Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:31:01 -0600, Werewolf <nunya@no-way.net> wrote:

>
>> So, if sims appeal to hard-core wargamers I'd say don't bypass this
>> one due only to the Starforce issue. It really is a quality design and
>> coding job. And it (apparently) won't turn you into a Nazi. <g>
>>
>> Steve
>
>Well! Ya Sold Me! I want it...
>
>Too bad it's DVD only. All I've got is a 3.2Ghz HT P-4 with a gig of
>memory and a CD-ROM drive.

I believe there's a download-only version that doesn't need a DVD
drive, but it has a 5 install restriction.

Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in
news:7sgo41tffrgn9l2ncoeok947034p8t3qo0@4ax.com:

> I started on Microprose's AppleIIe version of Silent Service (I think;
> it was 1984 or so.) Pretty much wire-frame graphics.

Not at all - beautifull 4 color cga graphics (cyan, magenta, white, black)
- destroyers were 3 pixels and you could see them turn towards you,
torpedoes were 2 pixels - great times :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 19:07:19 GMT, Eddy Sterckx <eddysterckx@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in
>news:7sgo41tffrgn9l2ncoeok947034p8t3qo0@4ax.com:
>
>> I started on Microprose's AppleIIe version of Silent Service (I think;
>> it was 1984 or so.) Pretty much wire-frame graphics.
>
>Not at all - beautifull 4 color cga graphics (cyan, magenta, white, black)
>- destroyers were 3 pixels and you could see them turn towards you,
>torpedoes were 2 pixels - great times :)

I was playing on a green Apple mono screen. <g>

You're right about the graphics. I was thinking about MP's original
F-15 Strike Fighter. Played it in the same era. "Landing" involved
flying over the base below 2000 feet or something. I still thought it
was magic. Then they brought out Stealth Fighter for my new (amber
mono) IBM 286 and nearly destroyed my marriage.

Steve
 

TRENDING THREADS