Option to ignore No-Navigation zones

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Option to ignore No-Navigation zones

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Option to ignore No-Navigation zones

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Option to ignore No-Navigation zones - 3/1/2020 1:56:59 PM

neno

Posts: 46
Joined: 7/30/2014
Status: offline

Hi!

Is there an option to allow some units to ignore no-navigation zone?

For example, to allow strike planes to enter enemy territory, but prevent CAP to fly over it by using the no-navigations zone, in order to avoid defences.

Post #: 1

RE: Option to ignore No-Navigation zones - 3/1/2020 8:30:09 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I think you are missing the point of the no-nav zones. The scenario designer most likely didn't want you to do what you are trying. If they wanted you to be able to override it, they most likely would have used an exclusion zone and penalized you for violating entry if you tried to get around it. My best guess.

(in reply to neno)

Post #: 2

RE: Option to ignore No-Navigation zones - 3/2/2020 4:16:16 PM

neno

Posts: 46
Joined: 7/30/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think you are missing the point of the no-nav zones. The scenario designer most likely didn't want you to do what you are trying. If they wanted you to be able to override it, they most likely would have used an exclusion zone and penalized you for violating entry if you tried to get around it. My best guess.

Well, I created the scenario, so I know exactly what the designer wanted me to do

. And that is to forbid my Combat Air Patrol aircraft to fly over enemy defences, while allowing my strike planes to freely venture into enemy territory and do their job.

Normaly I would do this simply by limiting the mission prosecution area, but since it is fixed to a moving unit (i.e. a carrier), it isn't practical.

Thanks anyway.

< Message edited by neno -- 3/2/2020 4:17:53 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 3

RE: Option to ignore No-Navigation zones - 3/2/2020 8:02:18 PM

Kushan04

Posts: 683
Joined: 6/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: neno

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think you are missing the point of the no-nav zones. The scenario designer most likely didn't want you to do what you are trying. If they wanted you to be able to override it, they most likely would have used an exclusion zone and penalized you for violating entry if you tried to get around it. My best guess.

Well, I created the scenario, so I know exactly what the designer wanted me to do . And that is to forbid my Combat Air Patrol aircraft to fly over enemy defences, while allowing my strike planes to freely venture into enemy territory and do their job.

Normaly I would do this simply by limiting the mission prosecution area, but since it is fixed to a moving unit (i.e. a carrier), it isn't practical.

Thanks anyway.

Better to just make your CAP and prosecution zone RPs relative to the carrier so they'll move along with it.

_____________________________

Twitch
Discord
Community Scenario Pack
Community Scenario Pack (Steam)

(in reply to neno)

Post #: 4

RE: Option to ignore No-Navigation zones - 3/2/2020 9:24:54 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I really don't understand using no nav zones for this. If you wanted CAP , but not strikes to be included, no nav zones are the last thing I would have thought of... mission settings, exclusion zones, zone timings, lua, etc.

(in reply to Kushan04)

Post #: 5

RE: Option to ignore No-Navigation zones - 3/3/2020 2:45:18 PM

neno

Posts: 46
Joined: 7/30/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kushan04

Better to just make your CAP and prosecution zone RPs relative to the carrier so they'll move along with it.

That's what I did, and that's what's causing me the problem.

As the carrier moves toward the enemy territory, CAP mission zone moves over it, and that's what I want to avoid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I really don't understand using no nav zones for this. If you wanted CAP , but not strikes to be included, no nav zones are the last thing I would have thought of... mission settings, exclusion zones, zone timings, lua, etc.

Could you please elaborate?

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 6

RE: Option to ignore No-Navigation zones - 3/3/2020 5:10:47 PM

Eggstor

Posts: 349
Joined: 1/24/2016
Status: offline

You can use a mix of relative and absolute reference points in creating patrol/prosecution zones. Make the ones closest to the threat you want the CAP to avoid at all costs absolute.

That method, though simple, isn't without drawbacks. At the start, the patrol/prosecution zone may be too large. Also, the zone may become invalidated if the carrier has to make a radical course change.

(in reply to neno)

Post #: 7

RE: Option to ignore No-Navigation zones - 3/3/2020 6:22:10 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Related to that, if its the AI side that I am trying to build out for, I build a few reference point shapes and missions around where I expect the carrier to be. I then activate and de-activate CAP missions. Since it became easier to drop in ref points with lua, I started using that instead. Again, activating and de-activating missions. I have only done it twice; once using each method and they seemed to work with no issues.

One thing I have never tried is activating and deactivating no-nav zones through lua. That might actually be easier.

(in reply to Eggstor)

Post #: 8

RE: Option to ignore No-Navigation zones - 3/4/2020 3:33:22 PM

neno

Posts: 46
Joined: 7/30/2014
Status: offline

Thanks for the help guys! So far the mix of fixed and relative points seems like the best workaround.

IMO no-nav zones should be made more flexible, allowing some units to enter. Hopefuly devs are reading this...

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 9