Sea Power

[Mgellis]

Just for fun, I took one of the Sea Power missions (small British group centered on Invincible vs. small Soviet group centered on Kiev) posted in YouTube...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VxEWDJq3r8

...and roughed up a Command: Modern Operations version. I got very different results. I played twice (the second time, I gave the patrol helicopters on both sides more directed missions so they would spot each earlier) and neither time ended up with a gun battle. Yaks did get slaughtered by Harriers, but managed to take down a few of them.

When the helicopters were just moving around randomly, the Soviets spotted the British first and were able to sink Invincible with Sandbox missiles. With more directed missions, the British spotted the Soviets first and the Soviets were never able to get a good fix on the British ships (when they did fire Sandboxes, the ones that were not hit by Sea Darts overshot and missed the British ships) before the British finished off the Soviets with Harpoons.

It was an interesting experiment.

[thewood1]

There is a small Hormuz scenario that is easy to replicate in CMO. I ran through both a few times. There is just a lot more micromanagement to get any outcome. And the AI is very predictable. In both games, it comes down to who sees who first. Those run throughs are what convinced me to set SP aside until it matures a little (a lot). I go back and try it out now and then, but not much progress is being made on core stuff. They keep adding extra stuff like the Tacview thing, new units, and new weapons. But critical and core features like save, memory leaks, editor mission capabilities, and AI seem to be slow developing because they are hard.

I liken it to Combat Mission compared to Steel Beasts. CM is a fun game that is plausibly realistic, but can be micromanagement hell. SB is more like CMO in that you can set a plan in place and then adjust as the execution happens. You are given the tools to alleviate micromanagement without losing the control and decision-making.

[Fishbed]

Just for fun, I took one of the Sea Power missions (small British group centered on Invincible vs. small Soviet group centered on Kiev) posted in YouTube...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VxEWDJq3r8

...and roughed up a Command: Modern Operations version. I got very different results. I played twice (the second time, I gave the patrol helicopters on both sides more directed missions so they would spot each earlier) and neither time ended up with a gun battle. Yaks did get slaughtered by Harriers, but managed to take down a few of them.

When the helicopters were just moving around randomly, the Soviets spotted the British first and were able to sink Invincible with Sandbox missiles. With more directed missions, the British spotted the Soviets first and the Soviets were never able to get a good fix on the British ships (when they did fire Sandboxes, the ones that were not hit by Sea Darts overshot and missed the British ships) before the British finished off the Soviets with Harpoons.

It was an interesting experiment.

It's obvious though that there are many ways for this engagement not to end in a gun duel in Sea Power. The Grim Reapers guy is doing so to have the best video material for his feature. Run the same scenario in-game by yourself with a bit of concentration (with units that are all modded on the British side of course, as British units aren't included just yet in SP) and see for yourself. I believe you'll end up with comparable results in both games (and tbh for optimal performance, CMO units better be prepped carefully the same way the AI in SP has to be told beforehand what to do, but in both cases it comes with the territory ).

[thewood1]

The main difference in game terms right now between SP and CMO is that in SP you have to stay on top of your units for them to do anything reasonable, while in CMO you can set up their missions that'll take care of 90% of the actions. IOW, SP is, right now, all about detailed micromanagement and CMO is about planning and ROE. That continues to limit the scale of SP, even more than the PC power limitations for a 3D environment.

[Fishbed]

Well these are the codes of the Fleet Command genre, they knew who they were talking to. After all, legend has it that FC was by far the best-seller of the Sonalysts line under and outside of the Jane's label IIRC - there's a reason for that.

A good portion of people potentially attracted by naval warfare want clicky-clicky stuff with immediate response - unhampered agency, that is. And that's why they sold so many copies of it. Modding scene is healthy - to the point it's breaking the game - but they don't care, they're having a blast.

At the end of the day it's an excellent entry-level to the greater genre, and a good thing for CMO too, bringing in fresh meat to the glorious grinder eventually!

[sfbaytf]

would love to see this in CMO.

Unfortunately, TacView replay isn't something that's going to happen in CMO. The TacView files are not encrypted, which means someone could use them to extract data out of for analysis.

Interesting...I just checked in on the Steel Beasts forum as its been a while since I've played and they closed down downloads. I'm seeing something to the effect that due to current global situations there are some changes that will be made. Its rather confusing to me. I'm not completely in the know, but it sounded to me like some AAR features may be taken out?

IDK its all very strange to me.

[thewood1]

I play Steel Beasts extensively. Its all very disappointing. As I said there, playing a game from a dev that has a significant defense business puts you at the whim of how they manage the defense product. Especially if its the same core app. SB's main focus is defense and the consumer is the residual. The one good thing in CMO is that, right now, its the opposite. But its the risk we as players of SB have to accept.

PS...On the other hand, we get a lot of stuff devs would never invest in without a DoD/MoD subsidizing it first.

[thewood1]

Been following the mod community on Sea Power. On the surface, its a great potential. But in practice I think its a drag on the overall development. It seems that with every update, issues arise with mods not working properly. They don't crash the game, but create subtle issues with units and AI behavior. This creates a lot of wasted cycles for devs and players. Players continue to report bugs with the game that turn out to be issues with how mods are deployed. I think this is a very risky approach in an EA game that is in a constant state of change and development. I think the devs should lock out all mods until the app is more stable and complete. If not that, they should refuse to recognize bug reports unless the bug shows up without any mods implemented. And thats assuming the modders know what they are doing and maintaining the mod.

I think it provides some insight into CMO devs and their approach to mods that limit the negative side of mods in a fast changing environment.

[erichswafford]

My one observation is that it has taken CMO literally ~12 years to get to its present state of development. Then again, CMO has to contend with things like CEC with its complex interaction between firing platforms and off board sensors (and that’s just one small example). Things in the 80s were certainly simpler, but not that simple. I think it will take years for Triassic to iron out all the edge cases, which is how it went with CMO and Harpoon. Harpoon, of course, never actually *got* there.

Still, I admire how they’ve actually modeled all the tiny details of the various Soviet SSM’s etc. Fun to watch.

[thewood1]

While it took CMO 12 years to get where it is, it was completely functional as a game on day one. No EA, no public beta for paid players. It was a freeware game called Red Pill for several years. But it was free. And on launch as a paid game, was a complete game. Sea Power has been in private development six years and was launched as functional, but not very playable. Overall, its a great attempt. But anyone who thinks they can hop in and play the game as the devs intended is deluding us and themselves. Its got another 1-2 years to be truly functional. Its a disservice to the term EA and is why so many people have disdain for EA games.

[Fishbed]

but not very playable.

Opinions might vary on that one. In many cases it is a fairly functional product, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Overall, development is a messy business and apples are better not compared to oranges.

As for the rest... I suppose the overall ratings of the game on steam should be enough to show that your opinion is that of a big 10%. I would say that there's little need to get overly dramatic, especially when it comes to what it entails as far as EA goes (and if EA ain't made for that, I am not quite sure what it is made for). That this game wasn't what you were expecting is one thing - that it should be the target of a long-lasting crusade resulting from your disappointment is yet another, but that's just my 2 cents...

[thewood1]

EA is made for functional product. If you can say the game starts up and has an interface, it worked out of the box. But if your threshold is that it performs as the devs said it would, its not even EA. There are parts that function, but only with some severe micromanagement. Compare that to CMNAO or even CMO. Both fully functional on day and operating as stated by the devs on the box.

And even worse is that we are over six months in to EA and not a large amount of progress has been made. The AI has had almost no progress for player support or as an opponent. They keep fixing small details without getting to the real substance. Its also not very well optimized ATM. I'm not saying they can't get it all in order, but when you release a game with that much hype and then deliver something that really isn't any where near fully functional, take your licks.

Where are they on their roadmap? I haven't even gone back to look. Did they finally get save working? Last time I tried it over a month ago, I had contacts and sensors all messed up on reload. Are helicopters still flying at over 100k ft? Its basic stuff like that thats keeping the devs busy and not focused on the big roadmap stuff. No game is bug free, even after launch. But the progress they are making is very worrying.

[thewood1]

Here is the roadmap posted in Oct. 2024.

Screenshot 2025-06-01 143805.jpg (399.79 KiB) Viewed 161 times

They have made progress on the save/load issue. Its better, but still not completely done.

No public progress on the campaign. The devs stated that its not a short-term focus any more. The focus is basic functions and features.

The only thing with the AI is that they now have stated they are building a whole new AI framework from scratch and its in progress. No details and no timing.

They have added new units. But that does not seem to be a bottleneck. Actual coding is the big bottleneck, by their own admission.

I'll also note they have made no progress on mission/task building. Its still very basic and the AI can't be trusted with it. It also is what forces a lot of micromanagement on the player as well. It makes mission editing very hollow. All you can really do is small groups of ships with some limited air activity.

Overall, we are half way through 2025 and there really has been no big progress on features and functions. A lot of updates have been released, but I have yet to see any big pieces of the roadmap even being worked on in a public way.

[Fishbed]

I understand where that comes from, but still - it doesn't detract from the fact I mentioned earlier, that you did not comment on: nearly 90% of the opinions are positive, out of 3000+, in a system where unhappy buyers are more bound to post an evaluation than satisfied done. That's a lot of people (and a lot of sales once you use the common multiplier) with a big ratio in favor of people who are ok with the game as it is and how it is being developed.

At any rate, as far as being ready for EA or not, the end-user explanation of Early Access of Steam absolutely applies to this product.
https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/v ... -FBDB-1612

And the dev-side notice is also pretty much on point.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

They are posting regular updates to show what's being made and where it's going. Mission/task building was literally touched on last week from what I could read.

I happen to be a GHPC player too and came across your exchange with the dev over there (I think it was you, apologies if it wasn't). It seems to me that you are very vocal with devs regarding what you are entitled to as a customer. It is a very healthy state of mind, but clearly your understanding of their lives & project development and their own don't align. Yet I just don't fathom what purpose this militant approach serves when Sea Power on one hand is doing it "by the book" in EA with actual, proven critical acclaim, and you somewhat criticize GHPC for maintaining friendly relations with the SB team on the other hand. Might sound as promoting good business practices to you, but things kinda show they are doing pretty well in their own way, and the audience is currently very much supporting their standing - why insist on going against the stream with such passion?

[thewood1]

I have run dev organizations and small companies my whole life. Its what I do. And I hold game devs to the same standard I'm held to. Deliver what you commit to. There are way too many devs that have great ideas and over extend themselves to the detriment of the customer. Sea Power is a perfect example of that. The devs stated that directly. They overcommitted and and are struggling to stabilize the game. They generated way too much hype and delivered a lot less. They admitted that also. The biggest issue I see isn't just the state of the game, but that they charged full price for an EA game. That hints at a money grab by the publisher.

The devs stated if they had to do it over again, they would have backed off the marketing and done a better job of setting expectations. I support devs that do that. There are too many players of Sea Power that are willing to let the devs get away with this type of stuff. And all for the price of a fully releasable game. EA is not a license to drop anything on the public. Its especially egregious to push the marketing message with a bunch of fanbois on youtube setting very far out expectations. The devs seemed to have learned their lesson and are are starting to adjust the expectations, but they need to have a solid and clear message what the new roadmap looks like. They have failed to do that.

[Fishbed]

Again, I appreciate the straightforward side of the approach, but you are still dismissing the parameter that these "too many players" who are letting the devs get away with it, are also the equivalent of 9 players out of 10. So maybe, just maybe, they are a bit entitled to their positive opinion too, and kinda don't expect you to speak for them, don't you think?

The fact is, you paid for something you knew you would have reservations about, cf. earlier, so as to be more entitled to be frustrated about it. I understand we live in a world where people might pay in good conscience to suffer pain willingly, but it seems that there are nicer things in life tbh.

You are using platforms to criticize this game so as to make your voice heard louder while others are busy enjoying the game. I don't know exactly what role you think you're playing here and there warning people, but you sort of morphing into one of these reasons why we can't have nice things... Accusing people of a hype they had no control on is somewhat egregious - at some point the consumer has to take control of its own choices and assume responsibility, especially when it is released in early access. We are not drones, are we.

At any rate, you won't convince me, and I won't convince you. Here's to hoping though that our paths won't cross with you as a customer in any sort of fashion - I'd happily refund in advance to escape the heat... ^^

Cheers

[thewood1]

We'll just see if they can hold it together. Despite reviews, you can see the issues percolating in the forum. I hope they are successful. It has the underpinnings of a good game. I just think over extending themselves is the root of failure.