Molon Labe
03-26-07, 03:52 PM
A quick question for SCS, modders, and players who have made relevant observations:
Do any of you know what determines the behavior of neutral warships with respect to self-defense and the prosecution and engagement of contacts? Under what condidtions are they supposed to defend themselves and/or counterattack? Is it doctrine or engine controlled?
The reason that I ask is that, until recently, I had only observed neutral warships firing at incoming vampries, and possibly also shooting back at whatever shot the vampires. However, in a recent game, a neutral warship shot at least once at an aircraft that had NOT fired upon the warship, which is disturbing to say the least. I do note that a number of torpedoes had been fired by the aircraft's side which had been fired in the general direction of the warship and did get somewhat close...but not close enough for the ship to engage in evasive action. I don't know the exact distance--I'd guess about 10nm--but it certainly was not close enough for retaliatory action to have been 'justified.' Was this a fluke, or is it working as it "should"?
Do any of you know what determines the behavior of neutral warships with respect to self-defense and the prosecution and engagement of contacts? Under what condidtions are they supposed to defend themselves and/or counterattack? Is it doctrine or engine controlled?
The reason that I ask is that, until recently, I had only observed neutral warships firing at incoming vampries, and possibly also shooting back at whatever shot the vampires. However, in a recent game, a neutral warship shot at least once at an aircraft that had NOT fired upon the warship, which is disturbing to say the least. I do note that a number of torpedoes had been fired by the aircraft's side which had been fired in the general direction of the warship and did get somewhat close...but not close enough for the ship to engage in evasive action. I don't know the exact distance--I'd guess about 10nm--but it certainly was not close enough for retaliatory action to have been 'justified.' Was this a fluke, or is it working as it "should"?