"AWACS" lines of origin in WitP-AE as well?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

I just noticed that in this nice picture "The Elf" provided (thanks again for nice pictures and info! [&o]):



Are the "AWACS" lines of origin present in WitP-AE as well (i.e. the red lines EXACTLY show ehere the raid come from)?

IMHO this should not be the case if FoW ("Fog of War") is set to ON...

Thanks for info in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

[cantona2]

good point Apollo11

[wdolson]

They are still there.  There has been some talk of shortening them for FoW, so you know the direction, but not the distance.  I don't know if that was implemented or not.  I know the air code got several changes in the beta we just got yesterday.

Bill

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: wdolson

They are still there.  There has been some talk of shortening them for FoW, so you know the direction, but not the distance.  I don't know if that was implemented or not.  I know the air code got several changes in the beta we just got yesterday.

Bill

The shortening of red line if FoW is ON would be great!

We will all keep our collective fingers crossed - thanks guys for all hard work! [:)][&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

[cantona2]

beta [&o]

[pad152]

I just hope when I mouse over an enemy base I don't see everything (base size, troops, ships, etc.) without some recon mission first!!!

[erstad]

I don't care much if the lines are in or out, but if they're in I would want to see the same info in the combat report.

It irks me if there is key data available by sitting and staring at a screen that isn't in the reports. Either make it visible, or not. Don't force me to sit through the animations if I don't want to.

[Flying Tiger]

ORIGINAL: erstad

I don't care much if the lines are in or out, but if they're in I would want to see the same info in the combat report.

It irks me if there is key data available by sitting and staring at a screen that isn't in the reports. Either make it visible, or not. Don't force me to sit through the animations if I don't want to.

Can i second what he said!!

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: erstad

I don't care much if the lines are in or out, but if they're in I would want to see the same info in the combat report.

It irks me if there is key data available by sitting and staring at a screen that isn't in the reports. Either make it visible, or not. Don't force me to sit through the animations if I don't want to.

Agreed! I too have "missed" things by reading and report mongering but not using the mark one eyeball to view what happened.[:D]

[John 3rd]

I vote for shorter red lines to increase FOW.
 

[wild_Willie2]

Remove them completely, same goes for the Aircraft symbol at bases that have AC present...

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

Remove them completely, same goes for the Aircraft symbol at bases that have AC present...

Loaded airfields and anchor symbols for ships present will only be seen if there is adequate recon.
If not, bases appear empty.[;)]

[bradfordkay]

You shouldn't remove the lines completely, because defenders usually have an idea as to which direction the aircraft came from and left towards. And big bombing attacks were often seen by search aircraft. What they shouldn't show is the actual point of origin - but how to reasonably depict all that we want is a tough decision...

[KTNJR]

I like that!!!!!!![:D]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

Remove them completely, same goes for the Aircraft symbol at bases that have AC present...

Loaded airfields and anchor symbols for ships present will only be seen if there is adequate recon.
If not, bases appear empty.[;)]

[wild_Willie2]

ORIGINAL: KTNJR

I like that!!!!!!![:D]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

Remove them completely, same goes for the Aircraft symbol at bases that have AC present...

Loaded airfields and anchor symbols for ships present will only be seen if there is adequate recon.
If not, bases appear empty.[;)]

Yes VERY nice.... [:D][:D][:D][:D]

Maybe introduce a pie slice type of incdiator (instead of a line that can simply be traced back to it's origin base) with a 0-45 degrees of center random modifier included to indicate the general direction of an incoming attack ??

I know that air attacks often chose different attack run vectors on their targets then the vector they used to aproach the target from their home base, simply to get a better IP point, or a better target aspect...

[Grotius]

Shorter lines would be a big improvement. And I agree that in general we should have less info about enemy bases unless we've reconned them.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Loaded airfields and anchor symbols for ships present will only be seen if there is adequate recon.
If not, bases appear empty.[;)]

Thanks for info! [:)][&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Dili]

Loaded airfields and anchor symbols for ships present will only be seen if there is adequate recon.
If not, bases appear empty

What will be the persistence of that information and will there be a way to recall the last know information (and the date of it)?

[Cathartes]

The vector line issue has been debated with reasonable arguments on both sides.

Large raids can usually be traced back to a deduced point of origin (with exceptions), but the origin of recon missions are less clear and you may notice changes with that.  

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Loaded airfields and anchor symbols for ships present will only be seen if there is adequate recon.
If not, bases appear empty

What will be the persistence of that information and will there be a way to recall the last know information (and the date of it)?

A utility tracker for keeping track of gathered intel would be useful.
Bodhi may be working on one now as we speak.
As it stands, it's the same now for AE as in WITP.
A pad of paper and a pencil.[:D]

You may also get minor intel about bases within range of airfields with recon aircraft.
Even with no dedicated recon missions being flown.
Also, coastwatchers seem to dish out a little more info now, too.

For detailed info though, recon missions have to be performed.