Prosecution zone ??

[1nutworld]

So what we have here is FAILURE to communicate.

Flight Scar28 (F-15's) is patrolling in a defined patrol area, with a prosecution zone to the north.

As you can see in the screen capture, Flight Scar 28 is On plotted course in BARCAP patrol area, yet there is an identified hostile A/C with another unidentified bogey both in the prosecution zone. Yet the active Patrol/Prosecution area is being ignored by said patrolling flight.

attached are zip of save at this moment as well as screen capture jpeg.

[1nutworld]

Not sure why screen capture posted twice and attachment saved it two times.

[thewood1]

I think what you have is a FAILURE to set "investigate unknown contacts outside patrol area" in the in the Saudi BARCAP mission.

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think what you have is a FAILURE to set "investigate unknown contacts outside patrol area" in the in the Saudi BARCAP mission.

Ding, Ding! I knew there was a simple answer!

Thanks!

[1nutworld]

I assumed that once opposition A/C entered the prosecution zone area that would alert friendly a/c on patrol to investigate

[BeirutDude]

Also remember the two options in the mission.

"Investigate Unknown contacts outside the Patrol Area"
"Investigate unknown contacts within weapons range"

Checking both (as I was apt to do) can yield a unit flying out of it's prosecution zone because the unknown contact is within the AAM Range (Phoenix for example). So for ASW not a big deal, but Air-to-Air could cause problems. I discovered this the hard way. Perhaps this was obvious to everyone, but thought I'd mention it.

[Battelman2]

Yeah I've always found the Investigate options to be unintuitive when paired with a prosecution area. I feel like the investigation options don't make much sense when you've explicitly defined an area to prosecute.

[thewood1]

Its pretty intuitive if you read the manual. It mentioned in a couple places specifically. Twice on page 192. The whole point of a prosecution area is to have a patrol area and then an area to investigate contacts. Never create a prosecution area without at least considering that feature. The manual specifically states for them to work, that feature has to be checked.

"If desired, create a prosecution area. Create/select a second
set of reference points, press the “prosecution area” tab, and
add/remove them as one would for a normal patrol area. In
order for the prosecution area to work, “Investigate Contacts
Outside Patrol Area” must be checked."

and

" Set “Investigate Contacts Outside Patrol Area” If checked,
the units assigned to the mission will leave the patrol area to
investigate/identify nearby contacts. If unchecked they will
restrict their activities only to their defined area. If checked
with the mission containing a prosecution area, the units will
only investigate contacts inside said prosecution area."

[BeirutDude]

Checking the “Investigate Contacts Outside Patrol Area” IS intuitive BUT what isn't Intuitive is the "Investigate unknown contacts within weapons range” which could cause aircraft to exit the Prosecution Zone if they have long range AAMs if you check both boxes. I struggled with that for a long time as to why my AAW missions were leaving the prosecution zones. So it's probably OK to check both boxes if your aircraft have short range weapons, but if you want something with a long range weapon to stay in the prosecution zone you need to leave the “Investigate unknown contacts within weapons range” box unchecked.

One of those little Gottchas!

[thewood1]

I never check the AAW range box. It leads to many wanderings for any medium to long range weapons. The feature was implemented because players were complaining about CAP going right to the edge of the prosecution zone and not attacking an enemy unit a few miles away. It was basically put in as an option for those few complaining about that behavior.

Luckily, it was put in as an option.

[BeirutDude]

Luckily, it was put in as an option.

Roger that!

[Battelman2]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Its pretty intuitive if you read the manual.

That is exactly why it is not intuitive. If you have to read the manual to clearly understand it then it is very much unintuitive. Now, I understand where you are coming from and as a software engineer myself I'm not going to make a fuss about such a small nitpick- but I do genuinely believe that this option is confusing when paired with a prosecution zone. In my mind, creating a prosecution zone is telling the participating units that I want them to engage bogeys in that region. I don't think I should have to check an additional box to get them to do that unless I only have a patrol region with no explicit prosecution zone.

Just my two cents.

[guanotwozero]

Replacing "Outside Patrol Area" with "In Prosecution Area" would make it more intuitive. Without RTFM it's not obvious that the prosecution area isn't just an outer part of the patrol area. Agreed it's a minor point.

[thewood1]

Its right there in the manual. If you just check the manual, it becomes very clear. If you change it to prosecution area, now you have to change the function itself or add one more option. It might make it more intuitive for a few people, but it would be wrong everyone.

What if you want it to check things outside the patrol area and don't have a prosecution area? You have now completely changed the function.

[guanotwozero]

Agreed, it is in the manual. But as @Battelman2 points out 'intuitive' is something other than reading the manual, and aiming at being intuitive is still a good design goal even where manuals exist. It aims at using conceptual understanding rather than jargon memory.

Perhaps "Core Patrol Area" would be useful wording, as the Prosecution Area is still conceptually part of a patrol area the way it's configured in the mission editor.

[thewood1]

I'm still not sure why patrol area is the wrong wording here. Patrol area is a defined term and concept. The manual states pretty clearly the relationship between patrol and prosecution zones. And I still disagree with intuitive vs non-intuitive. If you read the manual on the concept of the prosecution area, its very intuitive why you have to have the function checked off. If you never looked at the manual for this game...nothing is going to be intuitive.

The problem is no one goes through any effort at even the most basic consideration of why things operate the way they do. Just like your comment on changing the name of the function. No thought given as why it is named the way it is. If someone just took a very cursory look at the manual, it starts to become clear. Is it intuitive what a prosecution zone is without at least looking at the manual? Probably not. But if you looked at the manual to understand patrol and prosecution zones, then that particular function is intuitive.

I am not saying RTFM in some derogatory way. I am just saying take on a little self help here. Before asking for help, take a quick look. How did the OP even know to use prosecution zones? He didn't come in asking about that. So at some point he found out what those were. Since he knew about prosecution zones, he could have just done a quick search to see why they weren't working the way he would have expected.

[guanotwozero]

Most people 'get' concepts, but many people struggle to remember specific jargon details. If plain English wording can help, then it would make sense to use it.

[thewood1]

Seems like patrol is a lot more common than prosecution. I think the wording you are suggesting is more confusing and lot less direct. Prosecution area is never going to be an intuitive concept. Ask the average gamer if he understands patrol or prosecution better. Again, this is why its defined several times in the manual.

[guanotwozero]

The ideal manual only needs to be read once. If plain English can help us to implement its concepts, then it should. I don't have a problem with the concept of "prosecution zone" once introduced to it, but I may forget the specific meaning of "outside the patrol zone" if there's more than one conceptual meaning. That's where use of wording could help.

[thewood1]

Reading the manual is definitely not true. I have several tech writers reporting to me. We wrote our manuals as a reference as well as a learning tool. We might right a short, "Getting Started" booklet, but there is always a manual that is to be used to look up the answers to basic questions. CMO is no different. There are so many options and people using the game of different skill levels, if you aren't looking in the manual before posting a question, you are wasting your time and the people's time who try to answer questions.