Request for wider naval focus

[zerO_crash]

In light of the recent release of the Kola map, I'd like to make a request for overall more focus on naval operations. I'm asking for the following:

 

- More naval units, both civilian and military. Everything from submarines, to tourist cruise ships. While on-land, the ambient life can be adjusted with "civilian traffic"-slider. On the sea, however, in order to make any believable ambience, one has to individually place out units. That's not really a problem to do, but more variety would be appreciated. That is, both in objects as well as liveries. Possibly make a standardized scheme for naval routes (between ports) which would be connected to the "civilian traffic"-setting. Model ambient activity on ocean, as you do on land. (To expand here, a separate such traffic template should be created for air activity as well.)

 

- More focus on combined arms. Currently, the ability to control ships (quick testing for future members) is somewhat limited, esp. in the domain of running warfare. We need more expansive menus and options for having full control over units being commanded. Preferably, simulate more complex environments such as ASW, +++. Have more complex weapons (available information) such as torpedo-released cruise missiles, etc... We already have a fair bit of naval aircraft/units, but the missions are mostly focused on land operations. I'd like to see more happening on the sea.

 

- Model ocean properly, with depth, such that one can look beneath the ocean - e.g. see a submarine submerged. That also goes for topography as a whole, chief amongst bedfloor. I know this is big, and not done in two, but it would add to the immersion and realism.

 

- Fixing long-standing bugs. Naval units don't respond to orders such as "attack", or generally behave in a unpredictable way. Pathfinding for naval units is also non-existent. One has to specifically make routes that avoid land-intersection, otherwise the units stop. AI-waypoints such as "LandingReFuAr" are not working on ships. I know that the issue is complicated, but with that, for all intents and purposes, AI-operations are limited to one sortie (I prefer native implementation to scripting). Submarines, even while submerged, create a wake on the surface. The footprint is equal to the submarines being afloat. Again, many more bugs exist. They are known, but not fixed due to lack/slow progress in this domain.

 

Thanks!

Edited August 11, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Northstar98]

On 5/6/2024 at 11:02 PM, zerO_crash said:

More naval units, both civilian and military. Everything from submarines, to tourist cruise ships.

I agree, though I think there should definitely be a priority here and personally, that priority should be:

1. Surface combatants - particularly those that fit our assets, maps and eras and particularly for where we have aircraft carriers but little/no escorts.
2. Capital ships - namely things like aircraft carriers, amphibious warfare ships and to less of an extent, battleships/cruisers.
3. Auxiliaries - namely UNREP vessels such as tankers and dry-cargo/ammunition ships.
4. Merchants - particularly cargo. Here it would be better if it was maybe a more generic type, instead of one-off ships like the Seawise Giant. Sizes should probably be somewhere in the middle and below (i.e. ≤Panamax).
5. Submarines
6. Pleasure craft

With how long ships take to make (and even then there's usually numerous errors) I can't really see it being all that practical, especially with the missing stuff for aerial and ground environments (which IMO, as someone very fond of naval, should take priority).

On 5/6/2024 at 11:02 PM, zerO_crash said:

While on-land, the ambient life can be adjusted with "civilian traffic"-slider. On the sea, however, in order to make any believable ambience, one has to individually place out units. That's not really a problem to do, but more variety would be appreciated. That is, both in objects as well as liveries. Possibly make a standardized scheme for naval routes (between ports) which would be connected to the "civilian traffic"-setting.

Definitely agree there, other flight simulators have certainly gone down that route.

Doesn't the channel map also have moving tugs?

On 5/6/2024 at 11:02 PM, zerO_crash said:

More focus on combined arms. Currently, the ability to control ships (quick testing for future members) is somewhat limited, esp. in the domain of running warfare. We need more expansive menus and options for having full control over units being commanded.

Well, the problem there is that DCS is just very limited with what ships can actually do, nearly always due to a lack of modelling. Though I would be on board with something like C:MO's manual attack option (which would be far more useful than what we have in the mission editor and in CA).

But just to name a few things:

• Cruise missiles that should be able to be programmed with multiple waypoints can't be - they just fly direct. This takes much of the planning aspect for attacking targets with these weapons and throws it out of the window - you have very little in the way of control.
• Naval units are absent from the embarking and logistics system, this largely takes away things like amphibious operations (which is pretty eyebrow raising IMO, considering that we have more amphibious types than we do aircraft carriers or BLUFOR surface combatants), especially from a CA perspective.
• ASW is as good as absent - relegated to using more conventional ASuW sensors and weapons against largely unreactive, surfaced submarines.

I can go on and on and on.

On 5/6/2024 at 11:02 PM, zerO_crash said:

Have more complex weapons (available information) such as torpedo-released cruise missiles, etc...

Well, I mean, first it would be great to get currently existing weapons made higher fidelity and more accurate, before adding completely new ones for a domain of warfare that is as good as not simulated in DCS World.

• Missiles are currently far more basic than they perhaps should be:
  • The RGM-109C and RGM-84D (at least) should be able to be programmed with multiple waypoints and attack profiles. Right now they can only fly direct, with only a single profile available.
  • The P-500 and -700 should have their own internal DECM systems and their own countermeasures. They should also have different profiles (at least altitude) and when fired as a salvo, should be able to coordinate with each other (with one missile flying high, searching for targets and then data linking what it sees to the rest of the missiles in the group).
• The SM-2MR currently behaves like an SM-1MR (SARH, illuminating at launch), this is fine for the Oliver Hazard Perry (which should be firing the SM-1MR in the first place, not the SM-2MR) but is problematic for the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga, where it should be INS+DL with SARH and illumination only in the terminal stage, with the ability to fly a more optimised trajectory. The SM-2MR (alongside a few other SAM systems) currently lacks its secondary ASuW mode, which is especially important for the Arleigh Burke, as aside from guns, that's its only option for ASuW.

There's also weapons that are missing, despite being weapons DCS should already support:

• The Type 148 Tiger (La Combattante IIa) should fire the MM38 Exocet Block 1. Currently (as it has done so for very nearly 3 years now) fires the RGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C. The Condell-class should fire the MM40 Exocet Block 1 (similar to the 38 Block 1, but has folding fins for smaller launch cannisters and is slightly longer-ranged)
• The Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga are missing:
  • RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIB (in addition to the M-2), which has a secondary IR homing capability.
  • RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV (Ticonderoga)
  • RIM-162A ESSM Block I (Arleigh Burke)
  • RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Block I (Arleigh Burke)
  • RGM-109D Tomahawk Block III TLAM-D
  • RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV TACTOM - this one has been in the files for years now (possibly since 2017)

It doesn't just go for missiles either, gun rounds are similar:

• Pretty much every naval gun >57 mm calibre in game should support multiple ammunition types - at least a point-detonating and either a proximity or time-fused HE round (with proximity being more common among the ships we have).
• The Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS still fires the wrong rounds (currently fires some 20 mm HE round, it should fire APDS rounds which at least in the case of the Block 1B should be untraced).
• RAZBAM's Leander-class frigates still fire the wrong calibre (130 mm as opposed to 114 mm).

Again, I could go on. I haven't even brought up the abysmal sensor modelling yet, like how several radars, even those directly applicable to aircraft, aren't even defined (such the AN/SPS-48C and E, the AN/SPS-49(V)5 and (V)9); how often radars will be copied and pasted from each other, even if they're completely different radars (like how the Mk 92 CAS and the AN/SPY-1B/B(V)/D(V) are both copied and pasted from the AN/MPQ-53 RS from Patriot).

On 5/6/2024 at 11:02 PM, zerO_crash said:

Model ocean properly, with depth, such thay one can look beneath the ocean - e.g. see a submarine submerged. That also goes for topography as a whole, chief amongst bedfloor. I know this is big, and not done in two, but it would add to the immersion and realism.

You can make a slight tweak to Server.lua inside your main DCS installation directory, under Config\View. If you change "CameraTerrainRestriction" to false from true you'll be able to take the camera underwater (though it will also clip through terrain). There is an 'underwater' graphically modelled (albeit quite basic) but before there wasn't anything at all.

As for bathymetry, yes, I agree. It doesn't have to be a high resolution mesh, just so long as it's roughly accurate (i.e. the depths match the charts, which are often included in DCS). There aren't many maps that do it particularly well but some are definitely better than others (Caucasus is fairly bad for it, I've heard that the many fjords and naval bases of the Kola map aren't deep enough to be usable either).

On 5/6/2024 at 11:02 PM, zerO_crash said:

Fixing long-standing bugs. Naval units don't respond to orders such as "attack", or generally behave in a unpredictable way. Pathfinding for naval units is also non-existent. One has to specifically make routes that avoid land-intersection, otherwise the units stop. AI-waypoints such as "LandingReFuAr" are not working on ships. I know that the issue is complicated, but with that, for all intents and purposes, AI-operations are limited to one sortie (I prefer native implementation to scripting). Submarines, even while submerged, create a wake on the surface. The footprint is equal to the submarines being afloat. Again, many more bugs exist. They are known, but not fixed due to lack/slow progress in this domain.

Again, couldn't agree more.

 

With all that said however, I'm sorry, but I can't see any of this changing within the next decade. I've yet to see much evidence (outside maybe a few minor bugs) that the naval environment really has any priority whatsoever. Not that that's all that surprising, considering there's plenty of stuff that's lacking as far as aerial and land warfare is concerned, before going anywhere near naval (and as I said previously, aerial > land > naval is where the priority should lie and even when we get to naval, the priority should probably be AAW > ASuW > ASW).

But I mean, in some cases, I think there's enough evidence to suggest that even basic, fundamental research just isn't being done. What else explains how we have a Type VIIC U-boat U-flak which clearly isn't a U-flak? How the Samuel Chase has the hull number of the Arthur Middleton? (And these 2 are assets you have to pay for!) How the Castle-class has completely the wrong gun and the Type 148 and the Condell have completely the wrong missiles? How the Tarawa has the wrong radars and is missing guns? How the Oliver Hazard Perry is a frankenstein of 2 different variants, which IRL were mutually exclusive? How the Arleigh Burke is quite the mess, having the 2 CIWS from one variant, the funnel design of another, liveries for another 2 and the missile availability from another still? Even HB's Forrestal (which otherwise looks amazing) still doesn't have a graphical damage model to speak of at all, the same is true for all of RAZBAM's assets minus the Tarawa (obviously excluding the smoke). It also still has issues with its lights (particularly the FLOLS), as well as more minor issues with its artwork (things like the Phalanx, the radars, the unanimated directors and propellers) and missing sounds.

I also want to bring up that DCS is expanding into WW2 PTO (and looking towards a Battle of the Philippine Sea, the WW2 Marianas map would certainly get quite close if it was expanded westwards, both announced aircraft fit, as do the aircraft carriers). However, as it stands, Cold War BLUFOR is hardly fleshed out at all and now they're adding a WW2 theatre which IRL had a heavy naval focus. As far as allied assets go, so far we've seen 2 USN aircraft carriers (though ED's Enterprise is completely devoid of all its armament - bit worrying), 2 USN aircraft - that's a pretty good, but then, where's everything else? We've yet to see a single applicable escort for them (Fletcher-class DD easily makes the most sense for the Philippine Sea). In the promotional material of them, the battlegroup was a carrier and then everything else was either the LST(2) or the Samuel Chase (amphibious warfare ships, which DCS doesn't natively support, outside of fudging it with late activation). The only IJN ship we've been teased is the post-refit Mogami and while an AI zero has been teased, so far there's no aircraft carrier for it. To make it worse, in the months and months since this was all teased, we haven't even seen a plan of what to expect, let alone progress on their implementation - it's all a big unknown.

All this together isn't exactly inspiring me with confidence and the track record is plenty bad enough. It leads me to believe that we'll see yet another barely fleshed out theatre with not a lot to do. It's certainly making the game even wider, but it's not doing much to address its very shallow depth. I guess at least the announced assets, modules and maps for PTO are all coherent with each other, which is rather unprecedented in DCS, so that's definitely a welcome change in direction.

That's not to say there's been no improvements (we did get submarines that can actually submerge, torpedoes (albeit basic and broken EDIT: actually this has been fixed), how the A/RGM-84D aims was made higher fidelity (instead of just aiming for the centre of the unit), the straight-running torpedoes appear to have been fixed. However, there's still a gargantuan distance to go (and that's without expanding into ASW, heck, even purely concerning AAW there's a heck of a long way to go) - the AI, the damage, weapon and sensor modelling, physics, controllable functionality (such as lights) etc, etc, etc.

Edited July 30, 2024 by Northstar98
slight addendum - RAZBAM ships and Forrestal don't have a graphical damage model

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

• Missiles are currently far more basic than they perhaps should be:
  • The RGM-109C and RGM-84D (at least) should be able to be programmed with multiple waypoints and attack profiles. Right now they can only fly direct, with only a single profile available.
  • The P-500 and -700 should have their own internal DECM systems and their own countermeasures. They should also have different profiles (at least altitude) and when fired as a salvo, should be able to coordinate with each other (with one missile flying high, searching for targets and then data linking what it sees to the rest of the missiles in the group).
• The SM-2MR currently behaves like an SM-1MR (SARH, illuminating at launch), this is fine for the Oliver Hazard Perry (which should be firing the SM-1MR in the first place, not the SM-2MR) but is problematic for the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga, where it should be INS+DL with SARH and illumination only in the terminal stage. The SM-2MR (alongside a few other SAM systems) currently lacks its secondary ASuW mode, which especially important for the Arleigh Burke, as aside from guns, that's its only option for ASuW.

There's also weapons that are missing, despite being weapons DCS should already support:

• The Type 148 Tiger (La Combattante IIa) should fire the MM38 Exocet Block 1. Currently (as it has done so for very nearly 3 years now) fires the RGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C.
• The Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga are missing:
  • RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIB (in addition to the M-2), which has a secondary IR homing capability.
  • RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV (Ticonderoga)
  • RIM-162A ESSM Block I (Arleigh Burke)
  • RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Block I (Arleigh Burke)
  • RGM-109D Tomahawk Block III TLAM-D
  • RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV TACTOM - this one has been in the files for years now (possibly since 2017)

 

 

I put a very extensive data about the missing weapons / Systems / etc, on DCS AI Ships here:

 

[Exorcet]

On 5/6/2024 at 6:02 PM, zerO_crash said:

- More naval units, both civilian and military. Everything from submarines, to tourist cruise ships. While on-land, the ambient life can be adjusted with "civilian traffic"-slider. On the sea, however, in order to make any believable ambience, one has to individually place out units. That's not really a problem to do, but more variety would be appreciated. That is, both in objects as well as liveries. Possibly make a standardized scheme for naval routes (between ports) which would be connected to the "civilian traffic"-setting. Model ambient activity on ocean, as you do on land. (To expand here, a separate such traffic template should be created for air activity as well.)

Not to drag this off topic but the slider isn't very good, even on land. Common issues are that the traffic is everywhere and does not respond to the environment around it. A city block can be demolished and drivers will happily continue their commutes. If tweaks or additions are going to be made to traffic it might be worth looking into an overhaul of the system. At the very least some way to control traffic behavior on different parts of the map.

If I'm understanding the idea correctly the standard routes between ports sounds like a nice addition. Instead of just a slider there could be routes between destinations that traffic can follow, and these can be enable or disabled.

As far as the rest of the wish, yes ships need more depth. I've recently had to spawn a bunch of unarmed boats around a cruiser in a mission to make it run out of missiles so it wouldn't attack other ships miles away that it wasn't supposed to.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

Not to drag this off topic but the slider isn't very good, even on land. Common issues are that the traffic is everywhere and does not respond to the environment around it. A city block can be demolished and drivers will happily continue their commutes. If tweaks or additions are going to be made to traffic it might be worth looking into an overhaul of the system. At the very least some way to control traffic behavior on different parts of the map.

If I'm understanding the idea correctly the standard routes between ports sounds like a nice addition. Instead of just a slider there could be routes between destinations that traffic can follow, and these can be enable or disabled.

As far as the rest of the wish, yes ships need more depth. I've recently had to spawn a bunch of unarmed boats around a cruiser in a mission to make it run out of missiles so it wouldn't attack other ships miles away that it wasn't supposed to.

Has requested

 

[Northstar98]

On 5/12/2024 at 9:10 PM, Exorcet said:

Not to drag this off topic but the slider isn't very good, even on land. Common issues are that the traffic is everywhere and does not respond to the environment around it. A city block can be demolished and drivers will happily continue their commutes. If tweaks or additions are going to be made to traffic it might be worth looking into an overhaul of the system. At the very least some way to control traffic behavior on different parts of the map.

Yeah, at least as far as this particular item is concerned, it would be nice if exclusion zones could be set up. When it comes to ground traffic, the more granular, the better.

On 5/12/2024 at 9:10 PM, Exorcet said:

If I'm understanding the idea correctly the standard routes between ports sounds like a nice addition. Instead of just a slider there could be routes between destinations that traffic can follow, and these can be enable or disabled.

Presumably that would be the idea. We'd probably need to have a few AI ship routes and then the slider would adjust how many of these routes are populated and/or how frequently they're run.

On 5/12/2024 at 9:10 PM, Exorcet said:

As far as the rest of the wish, yes ships need more depth. I've recently had to spawn a bunch of unarmed boats around a cruiser in a mission to make it run out of missiles so it wouldn't attack other ships miles away that it wasn't supposed to.

Yeah, there's a few similar issues around the same ballpark:

• As far as targets of opportunity and self-defence are concerned, we have no way of telling the AI what type and how many weapons it should use against what targets (think the weapons release authorisation setting in C:MO if you're familiar with that one). I don't really want the Moskva to be slinging multiple P-500s at small fast-attack craft, like the La Combattante IIa that could be dealt with the S-300F (at least if its secondary ASuW mode was implemented).
• Even when targets are designated and player control is given via the attack unit/group task, the AI doesn't obey quantities or whether they should fire as a group - they always seem to fire a salvo of 4 missiles, one unit at a time. This can sometimes cripple a group of ships' ability to saturate a target.

Edited May 14, 2024 by Northstar98

[killjoy73au]

Concur with OP.

[HighMaintenanceB]

Why this topic isn't getting more attention is frankly beyond me. I get it, DCS is centered around combat aircraft but here's a fun fact - Aircraft have been used pretty extensively in anti-submarine warfare pretty much since the start of WW1, but even if ED tells us they're focusing on jet fighters and helicopter gunships, there is nothing wrong at all with branching out.  

The way things stand, Currenthill and Admiral189 (shoutout to them) are the best we have and the best we will ever get when it comes to AI assets like ships and whatnot - they're forced to work within the limits of what ED is willing to let people do.  Everything also breaks whenever ED drops an update, and fixing these 3rd party AI mods will be an uphill battle going forward as everything they can use as reference points is encrypted over 9000 times and seven ways to Sunday.  

I'm not an expert here but if ED lifted the limits on modifying their stuff and declassified their missile flight parameters to allow for more complex weapons systems (submarine-launched anti-ship missiles, actual ballistic missiles, anti-submarine warfare beyond just strafing a submarine after waiting for it to surface, naval guns with guided ammunition, etc), I'd guarantee you that within a few weeks, we'd have everything OP and @Northstar98 have talked about and then some because the community stepped in.   ED doesn't even have to make any 3D models or implement anything new, but it does look like they won't do either (declassify their missile flight parameters or implement new game features) seeing as they're intent on protecting their IP or something, thus locking away a whole world of new possibilities.  

Edited July 30, 2024 by HighMaintenanceB
Accidentally hit enter

[Slippa]

This whole thread needs locking. 

From the OP to every other post makes complete sense, is logical and should be obvious to anyone that’s even aware of DCS. Never mind ED not realising which way they should or could be going for themselves.

Last night I skimmed the water and lost the skids off my Huey. There was a big splash and I smelt the fish but I made it ok and carried on flying. While being a lot of fun, It was just another tease as to what could be. We need all theatres covered much better.

When I bought the Kola map I immediately went to Bodo. My Grandad flew on Sunderlands and was attacked there while trying to take off from the water in 1940. They had to leave two wrecks and come home by ship. Naturally then, I’d like a Sunderland, with the ability to take off and land on the water. I’ve no chance of that happening in DCS as history seems to begin somewhere around ‘44 for ED and apart from the odd fix if we’re lucky we don’t get the attention given to other more shiny new ideas. As well as the fact that, well, the air, land and sea have very strange relationships to one another making my flying boat idea a sinker (like my Grandads ). I don’t really want that type of ‘immersion’.

We have a Normandy map. Only we don’t have the largest fleet ever to be assembled to plot on to it and they wouldn’t work properly if we did. I’m not asking for every vessel (though I would) but couldn’t we flesh it out a bit and have what is modelled in working order? In front of the Imperial War Museum in town there are two 15” Naval guns. On the River, also as part of the IWM we have HMS Belfast. Reported to have fired the first shell on D-Day, in fact, she fired about three minutes after the first shot from HMS Warspite. If we modelled these things and tried them in DCS Warspite and Belfast would probably be firing a Howitzer and a couple of muskets and that just wouldn’t do now would it? Never mind starting to get excited about the PTO and all those promises to deliver. I want em but it’ll be just another group of threads opened asking for more substance and fixes and it’ll be beyond capabilities. I’d love to be proved wrong o course.

I agree with HighMaintenance on the Modders front too. Given the chance they’d run riot stocking models, modules and missiles for us all. EDs stance seems too much to me. It’s like Father Christmas closing the doors to the Elves workshops. Unthinkable!  I really think they’re missing a trick there. It’s meant to be DCS World. Land, Sea and Air. Would be good to have the three interact better with more substantial content. For all times, WWII, Cold War, whatever.

 

 

[upyr1]

On 5/12/2024 at 5:22 AM, Northstar98 said:

agree, though I think there should definitely be a priority here and personally, that priority should be:

1. Surface combatants - particularly those that fit our assets, maps and eras and particularly for where we have aircraft carriers but little/no escorts.
2. Capital ships - namely things like aircraft carriers, amphibious warfare ships and to less of an extent, battleships/cruisers.

Based on the planned and current modules, The DCS developers need to focus on the 1980s (maybe 1970s) and World War II. As for what to add they need to base things on a mixture of the idealized task group as well as what fought in the historic theaters and the service life of each ship class and the complexity of each refit.  Any class that fought in both the Marianas and Normandy theaters would need to be given priority followed by classes that would have served in later theaters such as Korea without drastic overhauls. 

Now with the 1980s we'd have another place to start building. The main focus would be any class that served in the current theaters. The difference of course would be the service life would stretch both forward and backward.  

Regarding capital ships, right now ED needs to focus on battleships. We have two Normandy/channel maps and the only ships from the Normandy invasion fleet are the Samuel Chase and LSTs.  I don't believe there were any battleship classes that participated in both the Marianas and Overlord operations, so I am not too picky about which battleships we see first.  

fast battleships- As I keep saying the Iowas are a must, especially in their later configurations we should have a 1980s fitting in DCS core. 

Cruisers- were used as escort ships so they should be given the same priority as destroyers. 

Here are some improvements we need for the surface ships.

First would be the introduction of dual-purpose guns. 5 and 6-inch guns were used in both the anti-surface and air-defense roles.

Next, there needs to be an overhaul to the artillery system, - we need ground-based and air-based forward observers to call out targets for the ships.  As well as different shell types- AP, High capacity, starburst, VT.

 

Obviously better damage, and EW. 

I'd also love to see ED work on amphibious assaults 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2024 by upyr1