Steven

Hey Mark, Just from personal experience, when the USCG starts blowing commands through a bull horn or the ships PA system demanding that I pull my boat over for a safety inspection I feel a little harassed so I imagine that a Chinese vessel going through the South China Sea, a Philippine Coast Guard vessel could board it for a "safety inspection." I have also read that their have been several historical accounts of suspected spy ships being involved in situations as well as aircraft. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-38335/US-China-new-war-words-spy-plane.html http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-03-24/news/9903240122_1_spy-ships-japanese-waters-maritime-self-defense-forces As for boarding the suspect vessel in the EEZ waters, that's something for the lawyers to hash out and i don't recall that being possible in ANW. I do know though that you can set up ship patrols in the mission editor that can pursue vessels "X" miles from their patrol route. So if you have an ASuW patrol from Ref Point A to Ref Point B, the patrolling vessels will pursue any other vessel that is within "X" miles of that patrol route (assuming the vessel is detected I assume.) One thing I have noticed is that it does appear that a Blue vessel (played by the AI), when fired upon from a Red vessel that it will maneuver away from the Red. Again from personal experience from the US Navy, our ship, the USS England CG-22 boarded several vessels in the Gulf of Oman during Operation Desert Shield. I don't recall the circumstances yet I remember that they were boarded because their was a "suspicion" of those ships aiding Iraq. What those suspicions were, I haven't a clue but the Gulf of Oman is approximately 135 miles wide when measured from Muscat to a point due north to the Iranian coast and I'm sure that we were not anywhere near the territorial waters of Iran or Oman so one could assume that the suspected vessel was in the EEZ. I would also assume that if a US vessel that is actively engaged in a conflict with the country that I may or may not be aiding, 8 Harpoons within firing range would have a great affect on getting me to stop. Setting posture will have a great affect on how a side handles a contact. For example, a USA vs. China scenario could have USA1 and USA2 sides which could have only recon aircraft on the USA2 side and setting the posture to Neutral to China and China's posture to the USA2 side neutral as well may keep the recon A/C from getting shot down. Setting the China posture to hostile to the USA2 side I believe will cause the A/C to be shot down, but I haven't confirmed that. It's an interesting question, how a hostile posture handles a neutral contact when played by the AI. I'd be interested in the answer. Good questions Mark. Steve

Just brainstormed the morning and thought how some of you would think of the US being the aggressor, the Red side? I've been researching the US Navy's return to Subic Bay and the reaction of the Philippines and China yet I haven't heard any reaction from Russia or North Korea. Some groups in the PI are against the return of the 7th Fleet and China seems neutral for the most part. So first off, has anyone read how China and North Korea are reacting to the US returning to its Cold War roots in Subic and second, your thoughts of the US annexing the PI in a Harpoon 3 scenario? China would appear to be the forerunner against the US occupying the island nation and with North Korea still struggling against unification, a US held PI would cause most certainly some tense headlines. Third, who would be the major players? US, China, and North Korea most likely but how do the minor players handle this such as Vietnam, Japan and South Korea? Finally, Russia's posture possibly siding with China presumably? The link is a story to the involvement of China in North Korea, possibly a tie-in to the scenario perhaps? http://thediplomat.com/2013/01/27/would-china-block-korean-unification/ Thanks everyone involved for making this a fun and challenging game. Steve Raymond

Mark, Played Passage to Denmark (1991) with mixed results. 1) TF Romeo sucessfully made the transit to Copenhagen without a scratch yet I lost 8 aircraft, essentially losing the scenerio. The game is set up in a way that allows the player to have contacts auto-identified or not. This is my downfall as I have yet to sucessfully play a scenerio where I have to send my A/C to ID bogies and end up getting positive ID's on them at the cost of my own A/C being shot down. It's difficult to say how to engage a contact when one has to be nearly on top of the other. 2)The 2 sub contacts that I had seen could not be positively ID'd so I steered clear of them. They didn't appear to be very aggressive or did they not see the TF? I had them blazing through at flank speed and possibly just out ran them. 3)The AIM7's and AIM9's didn't fare well against the MIG's or even the TU-16's. I Had to eventually send the F16's in with cannon fire to down the Badger and the TF took care of the MIG's once they were in range of the SM-1's. 4)The surface vessels were difficult to attack with Harpoons from the TF but Kormorons up close with active jammers did the job. The scenerio took a bit to develop but once it got going it got nasty. Not a lot of enemy SSM attacks but the Russian aircraft made the transit difficult. Just as fun of a scenerio with less contacts and assets as mine with 200+ aircraft and two dozen ships. Steve

evaamo, I am not the resident Game Engine or Database guru here yet as I understand it, v3.11 would have improved boarding capabilities. You might wish to hit this question into a new topic rather than as a reply to this topic. CV32 and TonyE will for sure be able to get you a more thorough answer.

File Name: Chinese Aggression File Submitter: Steven File Submitted: 22 Nov 2012 File Category: Scenarios A Japanese oil research vessel has been attacked and sunk off the coast of China and survivors have been taken hostage by pirates. The PLAN has claimed that the vessel was a military ECM vessel that had been hampering Chinese military communications and was well within Chinese territorial waters. The PLAN has threatened to sink any vessel and shoot down any aircraft that dare to approach the location of the sunken vessel or any attempt to rescue hostages. Click here to download this file

Exactly right. Why play the game to cheat so I've accepted the fact that their are going to be limitations to the game. Atleast the VC will accept a sub-type A/C and a fighter circling overhead for a CAP mission won't satisfy the VC. Good to bash brains with you towards a solution.

By setting the A/C type in the VC, any aircraft will satisfy the VC so now to find a way to get the CH-53E as the rescue helo. Also the VC can be setup for sub-type of A/C so you can specify TRANS (helo) or ATK (fighter). This would prevent a F-15 loitering in the poly zone and rescuing the hostages. Again those A/C have to be in the air during the scenerio design. And it seems that if you specify the sub-type of A/C, any one of them regardless if its launched or not will meet the VC. Also a specific base or carrier may be selected that the rescue A/C must be launch from. So my only problem is getting a specific A/C to be the rescue A/C that is not already in the air.

Just confirmed that the helo must be already in air when the scenerio starts. I confirmed this by renaming the helo in the designer as "Rescue Helo 1" and setting that helo as the helo to meet the VC. The rescue helo satisfied the VC while any other helos launched would not complete the VC since the other helos were not named Rescue Helo 1. Not an ideal way to play the game but the option is their.

OK so here's what I did. US and Neutral, the postures I think are irrelevant for my example. Since I can't seem to get a CH-53E to posses and board a ground unit I had the helo hover overt the CIV target. The CV was for "On Station" at 2130hrs for 5 minutes and the time had to be set for "Relative" vs. "Absolute". The scenerio had to have a CH-53E already airborne and that unit had to be the one to hover over the CIV target. So in other words the player cannot launch their own helo and use that one to accomplish the CV. The hover helo had to be already marked as the helo in the VC before the game even starts. It was the only way I can get an "On Station" VC to work. It doesn't sound right to me but I'm working on it still.

Nice job Mgellis. I'm going to attempt to set up my "Battle of Damascus" scenerio with that as a VC.

I tried that too but if their are hostiles to the CIV and they are within range, the hostiles will take them out.Possibly changing the VC to protect might be easier?

That doesn't sound like a very convienient solution and I'm thinking that pilots who are trusting their lives to this multi-million dollar machine are not going to want to shut the A/C down to clear a problem and then restart it as their adversary is releasing their payloads.

I've tried getting the victory conditions on the SEAL's Rally Point and I wasn't able to do it either. I'm thinking to possibly change the VC and making the rally point a red side which would allow the helo to board and takeover the rally point. I know I've done it once, stinks that it can't be done again. Thanks for your input. Such a fantastic game that allows scenerio design and then get feedback from players in return.