While very much enjoying Sea Power, the AI seriously needs to be improved. I haven't lost a single mission yet. Okay, so I am a long-time CMO player and know how these kinds of sims work, but it should be harder than this. In this mission, the Archerfish can pretty much win the entire game. Just use it to hit the incoming missile boats with it's Harpoons at the outset then position the sub to wait for the oncoming invasion force and sit and wait, you can take them all out easily with the sub's torpedoes alone. Don't waste the aircraft on hitting the main fleet, they don't have the right weapons for it. Just use them to take out any sub hunting chopper pickets and other enemy aircraft. Plus, if you hit the warship escorts before the freighters, the freighters will just sit dead heap and you can take them out at your leisure. It's just too easy.
The devs are well aware. From their Discord: AI Improvements The Triassic Games team will be focusing on this point going into Dec., so that we can provide a more enjoyable combat experience and mission making potential. We've already started on this by working on aircraft to get those carriers operating, with more to follow improvements to follow in due time!
That is why the game is in early access, I am sure the devs are getting a lot of data from players playing with different units and they will adjust and enhance the AI before the game is released in version 1.0 (on Release day)
Not surprised with early access as it was the same thing with GHPC! Seems some should have waited a few evolutions if they expected a more polished offering.
18:39 That Udaloy stayed on screen for 20 seconds and popped 12 missiles in that duration, amazing fire rate !! Will test it for myself now. Nice content ! Keep Up !!
@@Zadlo14It's not the Mk 41 VLS that's important, but the fire control. Ticonderoga has a similar rate of fire, even with Mk 26s. VLS Spruances for example would be no better in terms of self-defence, but they would carry more ASROCs plus Tomahawks.
You completely f*cked up the attack with A-7s. AGM-62 is a gliding bomb which is unpowered (i.e. without rocket engine). In this case you have to launch these bombs from as high as it is possible to avoid anti-air bubble. If you flied these aircrafts at 30 - 36k feet you could have launched Walleyes from 16 nautical miles - way above the range of SA-N-4 and SA-N-9 missiles.
@@frankholub4673The internet exists, so he can find out the capabilities of these weapons systems that way (the Naval Ordnance Test Centre at China Lake has a documentary on Walleye uploaded to TH-cam for example), or alternatively he could watch other Sea Power playthroughs, there was one within the first week of release where a player was able to sink Nanuchkas well outside of SA-N-4 range with Walleyes from 30,000 feet.
In order to effectively guide the harpoons to their target you must have surface search radar on! Otherwise they just go for the biggest radar return they can see in this case the merchants.
One item to note when using surface to air missiles like the SM-1 and SM-2 against a surface target. Most Of this generation of SAMs (and even modern variants today) have a secondary anti-surface role. The issue is however they are semi-active radar homing. This means they require a fire control radar that can see the target for them to guide in on. Usual rule of thumb in real world is to be under 15 nautical miles from the target. 12 miles or less would be better. The curved Earth thing and radar horizon can suck sometimes. Hope this helps.
The SM-1 is a good missile and can be used for surface to surface, just like it's Russian counterparts the S-300/400, but like those, they're not very good at it as they're primarily an air-defence weapon.
my grandfather breifly worked in the facility that made the mark 48's but seeing as how he was an accountant idk what he did and he only worked there about a year. I also worked in the same building many many years later long after it had been converted into something else
I would not use the missile range as the indication for their lethality. SA-N-9 may have shorter range than SA-N-4 but they are much more maneuverable and they can shoot down Harpoon even when it is the last phase of the dive. For Soviet, it is rule of thumb that the bigger the number in the name, the better the missile.
The SA- names are assigned by NATO, and they do try to make the number higher for more modern systems but that doesn't tell you everything. e.g. SA-10 is the S-300 system which is a very long ranged and dangerous missile, while SA-18 is the Igla MANPADS which is obviously less of a threat simply because it can't shoot very far (though still very dangerous within its range). Another rule of thumb is that most Soviet SAMs have a land based version and a naval version. SA-N-9 is the naval model of the SA-15 (aka "Tor") which DCS players should be familiar with as a very lethal system. SA-N-4 is the naval version of the SA-8 Gecko, which is less dangerous than the SA-15 despite slightly longer range. Naval S-300 is SA-N-6.
I may have missed it but did you tell the Preble to cease fire before issuing new commands? I've found that helps sometimes if the AI is being funky with engaging.
Yeah I did. At one point I had all the weapon states ticked - HOLD/TIGHT/FREE and had no idea what the ship was actually doing. After a while I got her unstuck.
"This does leave us very vulnerable" Says this but refuses to tell the task force to cease fire to conserve its air defense missiles even though all the targets are burning and you have another asset that can engage them if they don't burn and sink over time...
I do hope that one day they add some ships from the 90's and early 2000's, like the Burke's, SSGN Ohio's, and others. doing Land attack missions with 150 Tomahawks would just be giggle-worthy
Well in reality on harpoon you can choose how big the searching “window” is and when it activates its radar to find the target. So they don’t lock to different ship.
@@Stealth17Gaming Judging by the cone width of the Harpoon active radar in-game, it's by default already set to the smallest search width already. It's really narrow. We lack the ability to configure it to "wide" seach, but honestly, that has very limited usefulness, not sure if it's worth the hassle to implement it in the game. Waypoints are a whole different thing tho. They should be there (aswell as in the TLAM and TASMs), and I'm guessing we eventually will have them. Harpoons are programmed to go for the biggest target they detect within their detection area, that's great when you're shooting at a formation with a big cruiser in the middle, but causes problems in scenarios like this. Lacking waypoints for the weapon, You have to hold fire until you have a firing angle that allows your missiles to go for the target you want. Otherwise you'll have trouble.
If the target is illuminated by surface search radar from either an aircraft or the launching vessel, you could pick out what specific target you want them to hit. I'm not seeing target designation like that in game so far.
I’m wondering if the harpoon targeting works like in cold waters where you had to aim well in front of your target in order for the seeker head to properly see your intended target?
Something that needs to be added is a means to set depth for the torpedoes whilst running. It's realistic for a deep-running torp to go under a surface target, but you should be able to program a torp to run shallow (as in Cold Waters).
@@cadetrenew how? After fired, you can't steer those torpedoes manually. You can aim them and fire them on a given bearing, but after launch, they're on their own.
I don't want to grow up, I'm an Archerfish kid. There's a million things on Archerfish that I can play with. From trim and drain to shipyard crane, there's so many things that I can do I don't want to grow up, 'cause maybe if I did, I wouldn't be an Archerfish kid. I heard of an instructor who used to be on the Archerfish who shared that ditty.
The Chinese sub looks like a Romeo. (Same vintage as the Foxtrots (late '50s/'60s). Romeo's were smaller coastal boats while the Foxtrots were larger oceangoing boats.) The Chinese imported/built a fairly large number (88?) of Romeo class submarines, most of which are the type 33 (an upgraded local version). If it is a Romeo that would explain why they didn't hear you, there sonar isn't as good as a more modern boat.
Did this scenario too, uploaded it today. It's not a Romeo, it's a Foxtrot. And yeah, those things aren't very good. Or rather, they are quite useless :).
@@ramjb Interesting. I wonder why whoever made this scenario went with a Foxtrot. As far as I know the PRC's Red Army Navy didn't have any Foxtrots. Is the Romeo class not in the game?
11:35 Both Krivak and Udaloy have only point air defense, but the one from udaloy is pretty deadly (its the TOR System). I would never dare to fly with anything into range. It. If you have to use planes in such a way, try to time it together with Harpoons and against Krivak rather than which was sailing far in the back and thus of relatively little use when it comes to protection of fleet. And im not sure but i think you can outrange udaloys SS-14B with standard ER missiles from the Coontz. So, all in all i would say you overestimated the Udaloys importance in this scenario.
perhaps you should have positioned your surface ships more perpendicular to the enemy formation so there weren't as many other ships in the seeker cone of the harpoons. if you fired directly from the south, they may have only seen the krivak.
indeed. I faced a similar problem in this scenario (video is in my channel), I launched 4 harpoons to the Krivak II at the van of the formation, they steered towards a Merchant behind. Harpoons are radar guided and programmed to guide to the biggest target in their radar cone. Most of the times that's a good thing...in this scenario, it's not. I did flank the formation afterwards and fired my 4 remaining harpoons from a side, where there was no chance of them to guide to anything else. :).
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the MK 48 torpedo was *_not_* designed to explode on impact with a surface ship but underneath it. This is supposed to be more damaging to a ship then an explosion against the hull.
Also, not modeled in the game very well is the fact that one MK48 by herself is the death blow of any ship in this scenario, by literally breaking her in half. There's no ambiguity either, it is OVER if one of those goes off under your keel.
@@Jamesbrown-xi5ih You are correct. The only exception might be a if the torpedo did not explode at the correct depth. I think that the MK 48 needs to explode at a certain distance beneath a surface ship to maximize the damage. So, I think if it runs too shallow or too deep then its effectiveness would be lessened. However, I am not completely sure of this. For submarines, it should be a one hit kill unless the torpedo is faulty in some way.
Can the AI in mission editor be given specific objectives and stances? For example, move to this part of the map while defending this aircraft carrier but stop and go hunt enemies if they enter this part of the map ? In other words, is there scripting of the AI that is possible ?
No, you can't even have a trigger to have enemy aircraft take off from an airfield. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. I have a scenario that is an alternate history version of Operation Praying Mantis but I have to keep it on the back burner for now because you just can't get the enemy AI to do basic things, much less things that could make a scenario interesting.
Both the Harpoon in this video and AA missles in the last video seems to behave a little bit weird. The have problems with finding targets that the player has choose for them. I am curious wheather this is accurate or it's a glith.
You need to have surface search radar turned on in order for them to find a specific target, or they'll just home in on the largest radar return they find.
I listened to you talk about how good the Udaloy's missile defense is, then watch you ignore your own common sense and piss away your A-7s for nothing. 😂
I honestly don't like this game. I know that means absolutely nothing. I get it. Just not interested. Your view count tells a different story. Glad others enjoy it. I check back from time to time to see if you've played ANYTHING else. I'll check back in a week or two. 😘😘
america is best. all other ships/subs are bad. this game is exactly how to brainwash an entire generation through confirmation bias. Very boring game. Red storm rising 40 years ago where better sub/naval combat. This is just good graphics and enpty behind. return when u play more intresting/complex game
While very much enjoying Sea Power, the AI seriously needs to be improved. I haven't lost a single mission yet. Okay, so I am a long-time CMO player and know how these kinds of sims work, but it should be harder than this. In this mission, the Archerfish can pretty much win the entire game. Just use it to hit the incoming missile boats with it's Harpoons at the outset then position the sub to wait for the oncoming invasion force and sit and wait, you can take them all out easily with the sub's torpedoes alone. Don't waste the aircraft on hitting the main fleet, they don't have the right weapons for it. Just use them to take out any sub hunting chopper pickets and other enemy aircraft. Plus, if you hit the warship escorts before the freighters, the freighters will just sit dead heap and you can take them out at your leisure. It's just too easy.
The devs are well aware. From their Discord:
AI Improvements
The Triassic Games team will be focusing on this point going into Dec., so that we can provide a more enjoyable combat experience and mission making potential. We've already started on this by working on aircraft to get those carriers operating, with more to follow improvements to follow in due time!
That is why the game is in early access, I am sure the devs are getting a lot of data from players playing with different units and they will adjust and enhance the AI before the game is released in version 1.0 (on Release day)
Not surprised with early access as it was the same thing with GHPC!
Seems some should have waited a few evolutions if they expected a more polished offering.
18:39 That Udaloy stayed on screen for 20 seconds and popped 12 missiles in that duration, amazing fire rate !! Will test it for myself now. Nice content ! Keep Up !!
That's why there'll be no US ships with Mark 41 at this moment.
@@Zadlo14It's not the Mk 41 VLS that's important, but the fire control. Ticonderoga has a similar rate of fire, even with Mk 26s.
VLS Spruances for example would be no better in terms of self-defence, but they would carry more ASROCs plus Tomahawks.
@@forcea1454 Just Tomahawks, actually. VL-ASROC wouldn't enter service until the early 90s (1993 I think).
It's been repeated often by submariners: "There are two types of vessel, Submarines and Targets"
"Some vessels are designed to sink, others require assistance..."
You completely f*cked up the attack with A-7s. AGM-62 is a gliding bomb which is unpowered (i.e. without rocket engine). In this case you have to launch these bombs from as high as it is possible to avoid anti-air bubble.
If you flied these aircrafts at 30 - 36k feet you could have launched Walleyes from 16 nautical miles - way above the range of SA-N-4 and SA-N-9 missiles.
It wasn't clear to me that it's a glide bomb. Thanks for letting me know
Oh no Mr. TH-camr didn’t play perfectly or have an encyclopedic knowledge of munitions from the 1960s through 1990s your day is ruined.
@@frankholub4673The internet exists, so he can find out the capabilities of these weapons systems that way (the Naval Ordnance Test Centre at China Lake has a documentary on Walleye uploaded to TH-cam for example), or alternatively he could watch other Sea Power playthroughs, there was one within the first week of release where a player was able to sink Nanuchkas well outside of SA-N-4 range with Walleyes from 30,000 feet.
@@Stealth17Gamingit says Glide Bomb in the description you read in the game DB for the walleye.
@@firefox3187 Yes it did and I missed that. I only looked at the engagement range
In order to effectively guide the harpoons to their target you must have surface search radar on! Otherwise they just go for the biggest radar return they can see in this case the merchants.
Uranus has taken a pounding, snigger, snigger.
Archerfish doing her namesake boat proud.
IJN Taiho: "Why do I hear boss music?"
@@zachboyd4749 Actually, the ship that the Archerfish sunk was the Shinano, a covered Yamato-class battleship.
One item to note when using surface to air missiles like the SM-1 and SM-2 against a surface target. Most Of this generation of SAMs (and even modern variants today) have a secondary anti-surface role. The issue is however they are semi-active radar homing. This means they require a fire control radar that can see the target for them to guide in on. Usual rule of thumb in real world is to be under 15 nautical miles from the target. 12 miles or less would be better. The curved Earth thing and radar horizon can suck sometimes. Hope this helps.
The SM-1 is a good missile and can be used for surface to surface, just like it's Russian counterparts the S-300/400, but like those, they're not very good at it as they're primarily an air-defence weapon.
Lmao @ 8:09 seeing it say " Uranus Lines "
Walleye is a guided glide bomb, not a missle, it has no propulsion, you must launch it at high altitude.
Good Lord those enemy ships must all have battleship armor or something.
my grandfather breifly worked in the facility that made the mark 48's but seeing as how he was an accountant idk what he did and he only worked there about a year. I also worked in the same building many many years later long after it had been converted into something else
I would not use the missile range as the indication for their lethality. SA-N-9 may have shorter range than SA-N-4 but they are much more maneuverable and they can shoot down Harpoon even when it is the last phase of the dive. For Soviet, it is rule of thumb that the bigger the number in the name, the better the missile.
The SA- names are assigned by NATO, and they do try to make the number higher for more modern systems but that doesn't tell you everything. e.g. SA-10 is the S-300 system which is a very long ranged and dangerous missile, while SA-18 is the Igla MANPADS which is obviously less of a threat simply because it can't shoot very far (though still very dangerous within its range).
Another rule of thumb is that most Soviet SAMs have a land based version and a naval version. SA-N-9 is the naval model of the SA-15 (aka "Tor") which DCS players should be familiar with as a very lethal system. SA-N-4 is the naval version of the SA-8 Gecko, which is less dangerous than the SA-15 despite slightly longer range. Naval S-300 is SA-N-6.
I may have missed it but did you tell the Preble to cease fire before issuing new commands? I've found that helps sometimes if the AI is being funky with engaging.
Yeah I did. At one point I had all the weapon states ticked - HOLD/TIGHT/FREE and had no idea what the ship was actually doing. After a while I got her unstuck.
if you drop the walleye from 20,000ft you can out range the udulay's and krevak's sams. Though the walleyes are not hard to shoot down.
"This does leave us very vulnerable"
Says this but refuses to tell the task force to cease fire to conserve its air defense missiles even though all the targets are burning and you have another asset that can engage them if they don't burn and sink over time...
I do hope that one day they add some ships from the 90's and early 2000's, like the Burke's, SSGN Ohio's, and others.
doing Land attack missions with 150 Tomahawks would just be giggle-worthy
Well in reality on harpoon you can choose how big the searching “window” is and when it activates its radar to find the target. So they don’t lock to different ship.
Would be great to have in this game
@ can’t agree more, and would be good to be able to program waypoints for the harpoon
@@Stealth17Gaming Judging by the cone width of the Harpoon active radar in-game, it's by default already set to the smallest search width already. It's really narrow. We lack the ability to configure it to "wide" seach, but honestly, that has very limited usefulness, not sure if it's worth the hassle to implement it in the game. Waypoints are a whole different thing tho. They should be there (aswell as in the TLAM and TASMs), and I'm guessing we eventually will have them.
Harpoons are programmed to go for the biggest target they detect within their detection area, that's great when you're shooting at a formation with a big cruiser in the middle, but causes problems in scenarios like this. Lacking waypoints for the weapon, You have to hold fire until you have a firing angle that allows your missiles to go for the target you want. Otherwise you'll have trouble.
If the target is illuminated by surface search radar from either an aircraft or the launching vessel, you could pick out what specific target you want them to hit.
I'm not seeing target designation like that in game so far.
I’m wondering if the harpoon targeting works like in cold waters where you had to aim well in front of your target in order for the seeker head to properly see your intended target?
Something that needs to be added is a means to set depth for the torpedoes whilst running. It's realistic for a deep-running torp to go under a surface target, but you should be able to program a torp to run shallow (as in Cold Waters).
Agreed
also some degree of manually steering wire-guided torpedoes would be welcome.
@@ramjb you can?
@@cadetrenew how? After fired, you can't steer those torpedoes manually. You can aim them and fire them on a given bearing, but after launch, they're on their own.
Been really enjoying SP myself. Its fun,but has its share of shortcomings. Such is life when playing games in EA.
Is the Akula and Sierra 1&2 featured in this game?
I don't want to grow up, I'm an Archerfish kid.
There's a million things on Archerfish that I can play with.
From trim and drain to shipyard crane, there's so many things that I can do
I don't want to grow up, 'cause maybe if I did,
I wouldn't be an Archerfish kid.
I heard of an instructor who used to be on the Archerfish who shared that ditty.
Udaloy rulez 🙌💪
The Chinese sub looks like a Romeo. (Same vintage as the Foxtrots (late '50s/'60s). Romeo's were smaller coastal boats while the Foxtrots were larger oceangoing boats.) The Chinese imported/built a fairly large number (88?) of Romeo class submarines, most of which are the type 33 (an upgraded local version). If it is a Romeo that would explain why they didn't hear you, there sonar isn't as good as a more modern boat.
Did this scenario too, uploaded it today. It's not a Romeo, it's a Foxtrot. And yeah, those things aren't very good. Or rather, they are quite useless :).
@@ramjb Interesting. I wonder why whoever made this scenario went with a Foxtrot. As far as I know the PRC's Red Army Navy didn't have any Foxtrots. Is the Romeo class not in the game?
11:35 Both Krivak and Udaloy have only point air defense, but the one from udaloy is pretty deadly (its the TOR System). I would never dare to fly with anything into range. It. If you have to use planes in such a way, try to time it together with Harpoons and against Krivak rather than which was sailing far in the back and thus of relatively little use when it comes to protection of fleet. And im not sure but i think you can outrange udaloys SS-14B with standard ER missiles from the Coontz. So, all in all i would say you overestimated the Udaloys importance in this scenario.
perhaps you should have positioned your surface ships more perpendicular to the enemy formation so there weren't as many other ships in the seeker cone of the harpoons. if you fired directly from the south, they may have only seen the krivak.
indeed. I faced a similar problem in this scenario (video is in my channel), I launched 4 harpoons to the Krivak II at the van of the formation, they steered towards a Merchant behind. Harpoons are radar guided and programmed to guide to the biggest target in their radar cone. Most of the times that's a good thing...in this scenario, it's not. I did flank the formation afterwards and fired my 4 remaining harpoons from a side, where there was no chance of them to guide to anything else. :).
@ fancy running into you here 😂
@@tjh8402 Nice to see you around too :D
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the MK 48 torpedo was *_not_* designed to explode on impact with a surface ship but underneath it. This is supposed to be more damaging to a ship then an explosion against the hull.
Correct. It's not modeled well in game.
Also, not modeled in the game very well is the fact that one MK48 by herself is the death blow of any ship in this scenario, by literally breaking her in half.
There's no ambiguity either, it is OVER if one of those goes off under your keel.
@@Jamesbrown-xi5ih You are correct. The only exception might be a if the torpedo did not explode at the correct depth. I think that the MK 48 needs to explode at a certain distance beneath a surface ship to maximize the damage. So, I think if it runs too shallow or too deep then its effectiveness would be lessened. However, I am not completely sure of this.
For submarines, it should be a one hit kill unless the torpedo is faulty in some way.
Can the AI in mission editor be given specific objectives and stances? For example, move to this part of the map while defending this aircraft carrier but stop and go hunt enemies if they enter this part of the map ?
In other words, is there scripting of the AI that is possible ?
Not a whole lot at the moment. Devs are working on it.
No, you can't even have a trigger to have enemy aircraft take off from an airfield. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. I have a scenario that is an alternate history version of Operation Praying Mantis but I have to keep it on the back burner for now because you just can't get the enemy AI to do basic things, much less things that could make a scenario interesting.
There are only two types of ships. Submarines and targets.
Both the Harpoon in this video and AA missles in the last video seems to behave a little bit weird. The have problems with finding targets that the player has choose for them. I am curious wheather this is accurate or it's a glith.
You need to have surface search radar turned on in order for them to find a specific target, or they'll just home in on the largest radar return they find.
When a torpedo is guided by wire, is it meant by radio coms or a real wire ? Can’t imagine a wire that long haha
reels of wire
Fiberoptics afaik. There is no radio underwater..
The wire on a MK48 generally has enough wire to equal the combat range of the torp so it can be terminally guided into the target
I listened to you talk about how good the Udaloy's missile defense is, then watch you ignore your own common sense and piss away your A-7s for nothing. 😂
I'm not sure if there is one but they should make a WW2 version with of this game.
That's pretty much covered by War on the Sea and Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts
@ War on the Sea looks like something I will play
Battlestations midway and Battlestations Pacific are similar (albeit older) WW2 games. They are a ton of fun.
I honestly don't like this game. I know that means absolutely nothing. I get it. Just not interested. Your view count tells a different story. Glad others enjoy it. I check back from time to time to see if you've played ANYTHING else. I'll check back in a week or two. 😘😘
To each their own. I'm not that likely to play anything else at the moment exactly because of the views and because I enjoy the game.
america is best. all other ships/subs are bad. this game is exactly how to brainwash an entire generation through confirmation bias. Very boring game. Red storm rising 40 years ago where better sub/naval combat. This is just good graphics and enpty behind. return when u play more intresting/complex game