In the example below (heavy redaction incl. TF symbols because of running dog allied enemy intel), a unit of bettys is set with a % to naval attack and a % to search.
Issue: I do not want them to attack the TFs in port at Chittagong because of enemy CAP. The problem is that even though these TFs (i.e., in Chittagong) are outside the search arcs, the bettys will still attack the TFs and get wiped out by the base's CAP.
Failed Solution #1: Reduce the range of the bettys to less then the distance to Chittagong. Why fail? Because then the unit's search arcs are also reduced and thus their main mission, to interdict TFs coming to and from Chittagong from the west/northwest cannot be done - i.e., the arcs do not extend far enough north.
Failed Solution #2: Wait for the detection level at Chittagong to be reduced that way the bettys cannot attack what is never detected. Why fail? Because to reduce the DL in Chittagong I cannot fly any other mission at that target, including recon, sweeps and airfield/port bombing.
Failed Solution #3: Reduce the Betty's range to equal the max range of fighter escorts w/drop tanks that can protect the unit. Why fail? Cripples the main advantage of Bettys and Nells - their ability to search for and strike TFs on the open sea at long ranges.
In sum, how can I set the bettys to cover the ocean area to the west of Chittagong and at the same time prevent them from flying against TFs in Chittagong that are covered by heavy CAP? Can't I call the unit's commander and order him not to attack TFs in Chittagong?
Note that this is a geographic example of a problem that exists in numerous areas for the Jap fan boyz (trying to keep Nells/Bettys away from heavy CAP coverage over bases while still being able to cover sea areas for TFs that are beyond the heavy CAP covered bases).
As always, thanks for your consideration/response (not sure if the other forum is best given the topic, but this is more of a game mechanic question than a strategy question)
< Message edited by Knyvet -- 2/12/2012 9:26:09 PM >