New doctrine suggestion

[Tcao]

1, Please add a standoff doctrine for support aircraft and support mission. For example, an AEW detected an unidentified bogey at 50nm distance, that will trigger the standoff stance. AEW turn off the radar (or can keep radar on, depending on the doctrine setting), keep the distance with the unidentified bogey (or enemy aircraft)



2, Add a doctrine to allow the RTB A/C to use afterburner speed for short period of time.



3, Add a doctrine to allow Submarine to move or attack between 8kt-13kt, higher speed than creep but with Towed array deployed

[tylerblakebrandon]

1, Please add a standoff doctrine for support aircraft and support mission. For example, an AEW detected an unidentified bogey at 50nm distance, that will trigger the standoff stance. AEW turn off the radar (or can keep radar on, depending on the doctrine setting), keep the distance with the unidentified bogey (or enemy aircraft)

I'm curious how you see this integrated into missions. I assume most folks use support missions for AEW.

[Tcao]

1, Please add a standoff doctrine for support aircraft and support mission. For example, an AEW detected an unidentified bogey at 50nm distance, that will trigger the standoff stance. AEW turn off the radar (or can keep radar on, depending on the doctrine setting), keep the distance with the unidentified bogey (or enemy aircraft)

I'm curious how you see this integrated into missions. I assume most folks use support missions for AEW.

just add a standoff range into a support mission. if the bogey is getting inside the standoff range, the support aircraft will switch to in transit mode, leave the on station area, flying into the direction opposite of the incoming bogey.

[thewood1]

I have played with this before. I created an exclusion zone around the AWACs. If an enemy fighter enters the zone, the zone deactivates the current mission and enables a preconfigured mission to RTB with the transit set for full power and lower altitude. It gives a lot of flexibility when done right. It can be done through missions, lua, or the ops manager.

[Knightpawn]

I am much in favor of the stand-off doctrine

@thewood1: Genuinely curious how to you achieve what you describe though mission manager (or operations manager). I have used exclusion zones but just for flagging entrants as hostile

[blu3s]

My 2cent on this is a self defense ring behavior. It's not attached to a mission but to the AI of an unit. This will let you run away of a threat, or engage a threat if an enemy unit is NEAR x nmi of a given unit. Some units by default will run, some ones will actively engage the target.

Can be useful not only on support missions but also for units on transit be able to defend themselves if they are intercepted etc

But is a huge change and may affect lot of things

[thewood1]

I can imagine all the complaints about units doing X automatically when this is implemented. We'll have to have a change management program.

[caelunshun]

If it's properly configurable and old behavior is the default then I don't see how it would be a problem.

[blu3s]

Yeah, the default option should be that units do nothing, so you configure this on purpose.

[thewood1]

While thats true if no one ever uses it. When scenario designers start using it, it'll be a shock.

And the complexity I foresee for all the permutations of unit type, enemy type, altitude reaction, speed reaction, base direction, senso reaction, etc. will rival WRA.

[kahta]

I like the suggestion, but I'd rather see the devs focus on getting refueling logic right before doing something as ambitious as this.