Suggestion: log SAM firing arc limitation

In short: We have missile (SAM?) arc limitation enforced from 2009.082, but unlike guns this happens silently for missiles. This often left me dumbfounded, why doesn't my Belknap engage that bogey??
And I actually read the release notes and celebrated the new GE arcs with Enrique , so I feel the new feature could turn frustrating for the average player unless it is made more visible.
The suggestion is to have the missile arc enforcements logged similarly as it happens for guns:

- Chg:0000 GE Message Log window will show when standard gunnery engagements are
abandoned due to: target submerging, target going out of range,
and target going out of valid arc.
(ported from 2010.003)

This would enhance the consumer value of this feature with a comparably easy fix, short term.


Longer:
If I'm allowed to branch off, dig deeper and think in longer terms then the enforcement of valid arcs is one example where the game uses different (and somewhat inconsistent) levels of abstraction for modelling closely related real world phenomenas. The point I'm getting at is that models for closely related physical events should (preferably) use consistent levels of abstraction or the GE need to put other controls in place to keep the simulation balanced (and some of these controls might not be related to real world limitations).

Here with the arcs:

• The firing arcs are now modeled almost true to life, down to the last minute detail.

but other heading/course/aspect related models are currently much more abstract

• Ship turning rates are not enforced, heading changes are instantaneous .
• RCS does not depend on target aspect
• ECCM is "assumed", yet this probably also depends on the arcs.
• Ship AI does not manage arcs, ship units will not maneuver for valid arcs, this only works through player intervention (micro management).
• missile hit probabilities account for some aspect related effects too (I think) so this is an interference
• Director arcs are not enforced, once a missile is airborne the ship can turn any direction.
• etc.

All I want to say is that until these other, related events can also be modeled on a similar level of physical accuracy as the firing arcs I would not shy away from using "inventive" game rules for arc limitations to have a balanced arc "effect".

For example:

• VLS mounts do not suffer arc limitation (same as now)
• mounts with arc limitation can still fire in any direction if the speed of the group containing the unit is creep or less.
• arc limitation is enforced even at creep speed if the unit is engaged from two or more directions simultaneously

Rule 2 is an abstraction saying that if the group is slowing down then the individual captains can maneuver their ships for optimal position, heading or aspect to take on the threat.
This rule also helps AI vs. player balance, as it is relatively easy to teach the AI to drop to creep speed in case of an arc limitation while to have the AI actually maneuver individual ships would be quite a challenge (I guess, hope Tony proves me wrong ), though a human player is capable of doing this through micro management.
Rather than encouraging micro management the SA would prompt the player too for permission to slow down to creep speed to allow maneuvering for valid arcs.
The same time Rule 2 would also present the player an option to slow down enemy surface groups for his submarines to intercept. He just need to engage them with ASMs from the right aspect (assuming there are arc limitations possible to exploit).

Rule 3 would keep players on their toes. Encourage them to plan ASuW attacks considering the arcs to reap the benefits.