Land unit movement question...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Land unit movement question...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> Land unit movement question...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Land unit movement question... - 3/2/2005 2:56:04 PM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

In a game I am playing against the AI, I have several units moving on rough roads in SE Asia, and one in New Guinea. Following practice, when they hit about 60 or so fatigue, I put them on defense. At this time, they had progressed, according to the game, some 50-55 miles toward the next hex. When I came back to put them on march again, the unit symbol is in the same hex, but now they show 60 miles to go to the next hex and zero miles marched. Am I reading that wrong, or have they just teleported back to the center of the last hex they were in, roughly like those units who retreat 60 some odd miles overnight?

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Post #: 1

RE: Land unit movement question... - 3/2/2005 4:11:14 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

That's about the size of it. Once you start marching you either keep marching or else you will slide all the way back down to where you started from.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 2

RE: Land unit movement question... - 3/2/2005 5:39:27 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

That's about the size of it. Once you start marching you either keep marching or else you will slide all the way back down to where you started from.

I have had problem with at least one unit that retreated the wrong direction after being defeated. I had to march him 60 miles (at 1 mile/day) to get him back to where he should have been at day 0. After 60 days, the turn results said he moved, but when i checked, he was still in the same hex, still marching. I re-ran the turn - same thing. I have a save. He is still marching, some 70 days or so. I have periodically dropped supplies, so he has supplies still.

I posted this previously on this (support) forum without response.

It sounds like your (Rev. Rick) problem might be because you cliked on "Defensive stance". Hopefully it is not the same as mine, but if it is, it might require attention by the debuggers.

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 3

RE: Land unit movement question... - 3/2/2005 11:09:33 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

This got changed from the UV model. Clicking on defensive stance resets the movement to zero. I think I prefer it the old way. It was easier to coordinate overland troop movement.

_____________________________

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 4

RE: Land unit movement question... - 3/2/2005 11:55:12 PM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

The problem with the old movement model was that it only tracked the number of miles moved, not the direction. So if you were 59 miles NW, you could change direction of march and be 59 miles SE instead. So, they changed it so that if you change direction or defend, movement resets to zero.

One could argue that they could have kept a counter that says where in the hex you were - e.g., 58 miles NW. But that leads to a lot of complexities too - if you are 58 miles NW and go SE, do you now have to go 118 miles to cross a 60 mile hex? If you were going NW and switch to NE, exactly what formula is used to figure the remaining distance? If I've moved 58 miles NW and the enemy attacks the base in the hex, does that mean my units can't help defend? At what distance are they no longer "at the base"? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (Can't you just hear Yul?)

Seems like the current method is a reasonable abstraction, and once one understands it it's not likely to bite significantly.

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 5

RE: Land unit movement question... - 3/3/2005 2:09:43 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Right, I understand. Now if follow this unit thingy worked, it would be fine.

_____________________________

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 6

RE: Land unit movement question... - 3/3/2005 6:41:34 AM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

That's about the size of it. Once you start marching you either keep marching or else you will slide all the way back down to where you started from.

I hate to say it, but that is about the most asinine approach to any form of movement I have seen in 35 years of gaming. This is just flat plain STUPID!!!!! Now, if you have to march through the jungle, you wind up with a totally worn out unit incapable of resting because if you want to stop a couple of miles short of the next hex (wherein perchance your enemy awaits), you wind up back at zero. So what happens is that there is no possibility of anything even remotely resembling sensible land combat in even this abstracted system. I have followed Grigsby for a long time - but there is an old jarhead saying for this system - and it ain't polite. GET IT FIXED!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 7

RE: Land unit movement question... - 3/3/2005 12:48:17 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Seems like the current method is a reasonable abstraction, and once one understands it it's not likely to bite significantly

No, its an unmigtigated failure. It makes land combat a random chance joke on anything other than atolls.

This is one of the most serious problems in the game and needs a serious fix. Being able to upgrade Hurricanes to Spitfires versus Dakotas is chicken feed in comparison.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 8

RE: Land unit movement question... - 3/3/2005 2:11:26 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

Seems like the current method is a reasonable abstraction, and once one understands it it's not likely to bite significantly

No, its an unmigtigated failure. It makes land combat a random chance joke on anything other than atolls.

This is one of the most serious problems in the game and needs a serious fix. Being able to upgrade Hurricanes to Spitfires versus Dakotas is chicken feed in comparison.

Dave Baranyi

Completly agreed. Land movement and combat is completly broken. Problem is that the whole scoring model mades ground campains the easiest and quickest way to win the game for both sides (Japan first, then Allied).

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I hate to say it, but that is about the most asinine approach to any form of movement I have seen in 35 years of gaming. This is just flat plain STUPID!!!!! Now, if you have to march through the jungle, you wind up with a totally worn out unit incapable of resting because if you want to stop a couple of miles short of the next hex (wherein perchance your enemy awaits), you wind up back at zero. So what happens is that there is no possibility of anything even remotely resembling sensible land combat in even this abstracted system. I have followed Grigsby for a long time - but there is an old jarhead saying for this system - and it ain't polite. GET IT FIXED!

60 miles hexes are far too much big for land simulation. Most of the problems in WITP came from the fact that units of both sides may share hexes and that you need days or weeks or even months to move one hex. Retreats are almost impossible in good order but on the other hand fleeing units run 60 miles at once when they are defeated...

It would only be possible to use it if units were given a position in each hex, counted from the center of the hex (where the base is). Say 10 miles N for example. An unit may engage in ground combat an unit less than 3 miles away and bombard up to 10 miles away. Units thrown back will retreat from 5 miles towards the exit of the hex (from 10 miles N to 15 miles N). Units stopping moves will remain where they are.

Right now attacking along railways is Blitzkrieg with footmen. Attacking along roads is roughly OK. Attacking anywhere else is doomed to failure as units will arrive utterly exhausted and peacemeal and be thrown back by shock attacks.

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 9

RE: Land unit movement question... - 3/7/2005 5:05:31 AM

medicff

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

Seems like the current method is a reasonable abstraction, and once one understands it it's not likely to bite significantly

No, its an unmigtigated failure. It makes land combat a random chance joke on anything other than atolls.

This is one of the most serious problems in the game and needs a serious fix. Being able to upgrade Hurricanes to Spitfires versus Dakotas is chicken feed in comparison.

Dave Baranyi

Agreed! Why include the land campaigns unless they are workable. Right now more of a crapshoot than anything else.

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 10

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> Land unit movement question...

Page: [1]