Make fighters stay out of SAM envelopes?

[ExNusquam]

Also, consider setting up prosecution zones for your aircraft if they are on AAW patrols, so you can control where they will prosecute targets. That way they won't chase targets across the map and blunder into SAM zones.

[orca]

Could this issue be helped if no navigation zones could be made specific for missions instead of just for a side.

[thewood1]

This is a pretty immature comment that I see as someone saying if you don't fix something, I won't play it anymore...see how I can hurt you!

"I really don't want to micromanage and this issue makes me want to mothball the game and wait for a fix "

[thewood1]

btw, that is almost the definition of bullying.

You pick a two year old thread and instead of comeing in and asking and giving sometime to get a response, you just..."well you can't do this minor thing so I won't play any more". I'm sure you can get a refund. Just state that you don't know how to do something and don't want to be arsed with learning.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: orca

Could this issue be helped if no navigation zones could be made specific for missions instead of just for a side.

Not at all. It would have been a further thing to learn.

Although I get you want it[:)]

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This is a pretty immature comment that I see as someone saying if you don't fix something, I won't play it anymore...see how I can hurt you!

"I really don't want to micromanage and this issue makes me want to mothball the game and wait for a fix "

Learning software can be frustrating and sometimes it comes out in bad ways. Our due diligence is to try and be understanding and help them out. Sometimes that doesn't come out well either.

Mike

[cf_dallas]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: orca

Could this issue be helped if no navigation zones could be made specific for missions instead of just for a side.

Not at all. It would have been a further thing to learn.

Although I get you want it[:)]

I love the idea, consider this another vote to add it to The List.

[Petrolhahn]

You take things too literally, just chill out
Writing "xx makes me want to xxx" does not mean I'll do it, it's a general impression.
I picked this thread because it was asking the exact same thing I wanted to ask, why duplicate?

Anyway if I'm the only individual asking such a feature it must mean I won't need it to enjoy the game.
Otherwise it will be added eventually (as devs seem to care about feedback).
Either way this will move to the right direction.

To myself: welcome to the forum!

[thewood1]

So you are going to play the game without the feature? I am confused. Why would you say that and not mean it. IS it your way of getting attention of trying to bully the devs?

[thewood1]

So, I just want to make sure I am clear...

I have no issue with resurrecting an old thread to ask a question.

But think about your first post and the impression it leaves on anyone reading it. Again, I'll quote your post...

"I really don't want to micromanage and this issue makes me want to mothball the game and wait for a fix "

That post is the only thing we have to judge you by and it leaves the impression of a spoiled child that doesn't agree with something and doesn't know how to maturely communicate it. Or it comes across as someone just trying to stir up some trouble. Again, your first post in the forum. Think about that a little.

[Petrolhahn]

Dear thewood1

Please also think about it too, the first answer I got from you on this forum (I'll quote you too):
"For goodness sakes...", "come in like a child", "threaten", "pretty poor appreciation".

Why didn't you ask for clarification before shooting at first sight?
English is not my first language, and when I say "xx makes me want to xxx", it's only giving an impression.
Just like when I say "those guys littering everywhere makes ne want to punch them and drag them in their filth". Will I punch them? Well, no.

So, your first post to me leaves the impression of someone who doesn't tolerate any mistake or any opinion you don't approve and in the future I'll be extra careful when I will consider replying to something you post.

My first impression on you was very negative and I tried my best to stay on topic, keeping it diplomatic and clearing any ambiguity when I could (because I never stay locked on first impressions), but you kept pressing on that single point without considering anything else.

I don't want to pollute this thread more, so my next answers will py PM if you need more clarification (of course you'll be welcome to post my replies here if you see it fit).
Again, I don't want to stir troubles, I can communicate maturely, I'm not spoiled, I'm not a child either.
Are we done yet or do you want this to continue?

Regards,
P

[Petrolhahn]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

Also, consider setting up prosecution zones for your aircraft if they are on AAW patrols, so you can control where they will prosecute targets. That way they won't chase targets across the map and blunder into SAM zones.

What if the patrol zone is bigger than prosecution zone?
Would the correct walkaround be to set the patrol zone AND the prosecution zone at stand-off range of any known threat, from the attaking vector?
I didn't find how to set up a no-go zone, that'd be helpful to force the fighters to go around.
Thanks

[thewood1]

The negative goes both ways...I repeat...go back and read your first post. Is that the posting style we can expect from you. Every time you don't agree with how something works, you threaten to now play the game. If you don't mean what you write can you from now on specify what we should believe. It will help a pot with determining if you are serious or not.

btw, page 103 in the manual. Took me all of 15 seconds to find it.

[Petrolhahn]

Ah thanks, I didn't find it on first read. So those zones are called "No Navigation Zones".
Edit: I was more looking for per-mission no-go zones, those will required to be removed before I can send in the strikers.

[thewood1]

Another minute of searching using the convenient search button brought this one up...

tm.asp?m=3456643&mpage=1&key=navigation ... s&#3456806

And there were others.

Make sure to check out the video tutorials that have been recently updated.

A word of advice; before coming in and threatening to stop playing the game because "x" feature doesn't work, do a search on the manual, search the forum, play around with the game a little, read the stickied threads, watch the tutorials, and ask how to do something.

This game is a pretty significant investment in time to learn. Some of that time is used to look through the forums and see what questions have been answered.

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: Petrolhahn
What if the patrol zone is bigger than prosecution zone?
Would the correct walkaround be to set the patrol zone AND the prosecution zone at stand-off range of any known threat, from the attaking vector?

I'm not sure why you'd ever want a patrol zone bigger than the prosecution zone. I'll usually use a pair of ref points for the patrol zone, with a larger area for the prosecution zone; usually overlapping significantly with the neighboring CAPS.

Also; I just thought of this, at least as it pertains to ASW helos - WRA can be set up so that CAP won't go after helos automatically.

Mega-FAQ on Prosecution zones: http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=2920#327

[Petrolhahn]

You're right I got the terms wrong, there's a lot to learn, thanks.
I'll look for specific tutorials about this,

[Tomcat84]

Welcome to the forums Petrolhahn!

I've built you an example scenario to demonstrate some of the concepts you can use. Even though I am personally a notorious micromanager (no computer can be smarter than me! haha) I have put together something to show you what is possible if you really do want to be hands off while the computer units start running.

What you'll see in this scenario is the following:
- you have a single US aircraft carrier with some patrols airborne.
- There is some targets to the east on land with some SAMs protecting them. Fortunately, there is an exploitable gap in the SAM belt (how convenient [:D] ) and I have set up two no-nav zones around the SAMs.
- There is an enemy surface ship to the west and 2 ships (1 carrier) to the south.

Once you hit play you'll see that the Strike mission (using the auto planner) plots its way around the SAMs through the no navigation zones.
Also, the patrol to the west has a prosecution area to stay clear of the SAMs of the western ship. Once something enters its prosecution area it will engage it.
The patrol to the south has a prosecution area that actually extends into the ships SAM range, because the carrier is a bigger threat so we do want to engage its aircraft sooner. But we dont care about helicopters so the WRA for that patrol is set to not engage helos.

When that starts playing you'll see the ship in the west launch two helos. One goes for a stroll in SAM range, the other comes out of it. Watch what happens
The ships to the south launch a helicopter but even though it is gonna go well into prosecution zone the south patrol does not care about it.
After about fifteen minutes the carrier launches a flight of Flankers though in which the south patrol will certainly be interested

Hope you can use this to see how some of the stuff works and get a better understanding! If it raises any questions feel free to ask.

[mercho]

Hi Tomcat84,

now that is really helpful and is the way of helping new players of this complex game. Other persons in this threat here should take a look and ask themselves what is more helpful.Taking their time and setting up maybe a small scenario like this, or over and over again have nothing better to do as welcoming new members by pointing to the forum search function... well everyone like he want's ))

[thewood1]

Note that the search function gets pointed out with links to those searches...teaching a fish.

btw, I have no issue with people asking for help...just don't be a d**k about it.