Avoiding enemy SAMs (etc)

[YaSchi]

It seems that aircraft easily fly into the enemy weapons range, when it's known (see other post),
even if they are not attacking that target (i.e. on AAW patrol, aircraft can enter a ship's AA weapons' range).

I have tried to set up No-Nav zones,
but it seems it's not possible to have them move with the contact (see other post).
(anyway, drawing square RP boxes around range circles is sub-optimal)

The "Maintain standoff" doctrine does not seem to apply (I suppose that in AAW its about AA weapons ?).

Am I all wrong ?
If not, some "keep out of harm's way if possible" doctrine would be appreciated.
Of course, when attacking a target, you often need to take risks.

[ExMachina]

My experience is that you need to micromanage this.

It can be a bit of a chore and it would be nice if the AI could steer auto-plotted A/C around AAW range of enemy units (when their classification is known)

[Dimitris]

ExMachina < We've already discussed this. Simply making aircraft do this, is the "easy" part. Making them do this in such a way that we don't have 972 posts per day to the tune of "why aren't my aircraft attacking target-X - oops now I saw that X is inside the enemy missile zone - never mind", is the hard part.

It's easy to just wish for something. It's not as easy to implement it without breaking 10 existing things already there.

[ExMachina]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ExMachina < We've already discussed this. Simply making aircraft do this, is the "easy" part.

Sure it's been discussed but that doesn't mean the discussion over, does it? [:D]

Making them do this in such a way that we don't have 972 posts per day to the tune of "why aren't my aircraft attacking target-X - oops now I saw that X is inside the enemy missile zone - never mind", is the hard part.

That's certainly not what most of us have been talking about. For me, I am talking about how loitering A/C or A/C on patrol missions will freely auto navigate themselves straight through known enemy AAW zones. That behavior seems correctable without impinging on attack missions or situations where the player knowing navigates the A/C through AAW. I'm talking specifically about how the AI plots courses in the absence of having a specified target.

[Dimitris]

That's certainly more doable.

[YaSchi]

Sunburn, I understand what you mean.
I was just expressing a need/feeling, in order to start some brainstorming.

And well, ExMachina, you have translated what I meant in a more specific way, thank you.
What you express would nicely improve things.

One additionnal idea would be to allow waypoints for strike missions for example (correct me if it's already possible).

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: YaSchi


One additionnal idea would be to allow waypoints for strike missions for example (correct me if it's already possible).

This would be an excellent addition as this could make many of the 'dumb' AI decisions rendered redundant and therefore there would be no need to 'fix' the AI (and possibly break it elsewhere as Sunburn points out)

[ExMachina]

ORIGINAL: bsq

ORIGINAL: YaSchi


One additionnal idea would be to allow waypoints for strike missions for example (correct me if it's already possible).

This would be an excellent addition as this could make many of the 'dumb' AI decisions rendered redundant and therefore there would be no need to 'fix' the AI (and possibly break it elsewhere as Sunburn points out)

Or maybe even just add and "assign to mission" option in the waypoint options? Then you could navigate your strike mission assets in and then assign the units to the misson once in position

[bsq]

Not sure what you mean by the multi-quote.

What I am talking about is plotting a strike route as in: A - B, B - C , C - IP, IP - TGT, TGT - EP, EP - D, D - E, RTB

Where the leg B C doglegs you around a known MEZ/WEZ.

IRL missions are planned like this rather than just a list of targets and an order to SMACK said targets.

[ExMachina]

yeah. sorry about the formatting [:o] (fixed now)

we're on the same page

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not sure what you mean by the multi-quote.

What I am talking about is plotting a strike route as in: A - B, B - C , C - IP, IP - TGT, TGT - EP, EP - D, D - E, RTB

Where the leg B C doglegs you around a known MEZ/WEZ.

IRL missions are planned like this rather than just a list of targets and an order to SMACK said targets.

[bsq]

[8D]

[YaSchi]

Thanks, bsq and ExMachina for building on this subject.

Being able to add RPs (in a given order) to ingress route and egress route would be fine, for example.
Similar to how you edit patrol zones for example.

The idea of assigning to the mission in the waypoint options has a drawback : you must first launch your A/C manually.

[ExMachina]

The idea of assigning to the mission in the waypoint options has a drawback : you must first launch your A/C manually.

That's true. Additionally, very specific routing of multiple, independent assets could cause ToT complications. Just thinking out loud here (maybe more "out loud" than "thinking" too [:D])

[mikmykWS]

Stay tuned. We'd like to do a more detailed strike editor in the future. This could be awhile but when Rag or D bring it up please do provide your excellent input.

Thanks!

Mike

[bsq]

Be delighted to add input to this when you guys get time [:)]