Broken pathfinding (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


BlackVoid -> Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 12:07:21 PM)

This is with AB's map, but I have seen this happening in stock as well.

I just won a CV battle and now I am unable to give effective chase, because pathfinding is totally broken. This bug actually ruins my strategy for the 2nd time in PBEM. In a previous game I wanted to catch some allied transports near Lunga, but could not, because the idiotic pathfinding routine made a large detour [:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@]


Click on the link below for screenshot.
http://www.48.hu/chase.JPG




BlackVoid -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 12:14:14 PM)

I have tried another route
http://www.48.hu/chase2.JPG
[X(][X(][X(]






wdolson -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 12:32:44 PM)

I've noticed that the software routes heavy combat TFs (carriers and BB TFs) so that they stay in deep water if possible. Try plotting the TF into the middle of the Slot near the Russle Islands. It can be irritating, I've run into the same sort of problem.

Bill




BlackVoid -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 12:36:58 PM)

I just had a thought: Can this be avoided by following an ASW TF? Gotta work now, but I will try out. I normally follow a surface TF with CVs, but at this point in this campaign I do not have enough ships for that (South Pacific campaign).




AmiralLaurent -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 1:19:45 PM)

I don't think it is broken... If you ask Nagumo or Yamaguchi in 1942 to sail their CV at full speed in the uncharted shallow waters of Solomons, they will certainly not do that.

By the way, if something is broken, it is the ability of CV TF to effectively chase enemy TF after a CV battle. It wasn't done neither in Coral Sea, or off Midway, or off Guadalcanal, Marianas or Leyte. Never. After an heavy CV battle, even one-sided, CV hadn't much torpedoes left, and should come back to base to have replacement aircraft and so on.




el cid again -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 1:33:03 PM)

It is reported by Mike Wood that pathfinding is partially messed up by pwhex programming.
Andrew Brown then reported he had deliberately not defined coasts properly to try to defeat a
particular problem of players landing in places they should not - and it didn't work out well
because of this issue - so he plans to convert back. I use his pwhex as the foundation file -
and I have also begun programming coasts back to the intended system - but so far only
Philippines and Japan are done for the RHS file.




BlackVoid -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 2:21:33 PM)

Well, Japan had no problem sending down BBs and CAs through the "uncharted" waters of the Solomon's - during the night, at full speed! This is a bug, but this is not restricted to AB map, I had the same problem in a stock Guadalcanal campaign.




Sardaukar -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 3:28:09 PM)

Carrier TFs in game tend to avoid shallow waters because they are coastal waters, restricting carrier ops (at least I think that's the given reason). Bug or feature...take your pick...[:D][8D]




BlackVoid -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 4:06:29 PM)

They avoid shallow water - that is OK by me, but avoiding 2 shallow water hexes of which one is my own base and make a 10 hex detour is a bit too much!




bradfordkay -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 6:49:57 PM)

In WITP, carrier operations are only restricted in base hexes, not all coastal hexes (to the best of my knowledge). I am guessing that this was changed from UV because of the increase in hex size (60 miles from 30 miles).





Sonny -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 7:09:04 PM)

You can get through there by plotting a specific hex in the shallow water (and having Patrol set not retirement). However, you need to plot a new hex each day which would mean it would take several days to go through the slot with a CV tf.




bradfordkay -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 7:15:00 PM)

No sane carrier task force commander would have been willing to sail his TF up the slot. It was certainly too narrow for carrier operations. Maybe 2by3 should have hardcoded CVs to stay out of the slot.




rokohn -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 9:00:58 PM)

As I see it, the big problem with CV TF's in the slot is that the Carriers cannot sail into the wind to launch and recover. It takes a lot of ocean to conduct air operations.

My question for the designers is "Why designate battlecruisers as BC, when the US designation for the only battlecruisers the US authorized were CC-1 through CC-6.

As far as I know the only subtype for battleships were the Monitors, designated BM.

Actually I could guess at the reason, but it would have put a smile on my face to see CC's.




Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 11:08:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rokohn
My question for the designers is "Why designate battlecruisers as BC, when the US designation for the only battlecruisers the US authorized were CC-1 through CC-6.


Probably the reason is the same as why minesweepers are MS instead of AM and minelayers are ML instead of CM.




wdolson -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/14/2006 11:11:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

They avoid shallow water - that is OK by me, but avoiding 2 shallow water hexes of which one is my own base and make a 10 hex detour is a bit too much!


You could navigate through the Slot by plotting a course into the Slot, then the next day plot a course through on the other side. I ran into the same thing when trying to navigate a CV task force through Rabaul (when it and all bases around it were friendly). It wanted to plot the task force the long way around Rabaul. I first plotted my CVs to a point in the channel outside Rabaul with Patrol/Do Not Retire turned on. Then the next day, once they were committed to going through that channel, I plotted a course that took them through the other side. It took some micromanaging, but it worked.

Bill




wdolson -> Battlecruisers (9/14/2006 11:14:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rokohn
My question for the designers is "Why designate battlecruisers as BC, when the US designation for the only battlecruisers the US authorized were CC-1 through CC-6.

As far as I know the only subtype for battleships were the Monitors, designated BM.

Actually I could guess at the reason, but it would have put a smile on my face to see CC's.


The Repulse is classified as a Battlecruiser in the game and has a BC designation. I forget the designations of the Alaska and Guam. I think they might be CCs.

Bill




dtravel -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 2:30:10 AM)

"The Slot" is not the only place where you can see this broken path creation routine in action.  Moving thru the islands around Amboina you will see the same thing or between Timor and Java.  Probably the Aleutians too but no one in their right mind sends carriers there so its not confirmed.




Halsey -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 3:20:48 AM)

My favorite "broken" pathfinding is when I send out an ASW TF and it mysteriously moves itself around unseen submarines.[:D]




tsimmonds -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 4:44:17 AM)

An SCTF should have no problem moving through the hex you describe. Send an SCTF thru and set anyone else you want to follow. If the SCTF won't go (but it should), use an ASWTF as someone else suggested above, and have the other TF follow that one.




JeffroK -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/15/2006 3:45:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rokohn

As I see it, the big problem with CV TF's in the slot is that the Carriers cannot sail into the wind to launch and recover. It takes a lot of ocean to conduct air operations.

My question for the designers is "Why designate battlecruisers as BC, when the US designation for the only battlecruisers the US authorized were CC-1 through CC-6.

As far as I know the only subtype for battleships were the Monitors, designated BM.

Actually I could guess at the reason, but it would have put a smile on my face to see CC's.


Because the rest of the world uses BC to signify Battlecruisers, maybe the designers thought that they might have some sales outside of California.




Nikademus -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 3:55:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: rokohn
My question for the designers is "Why designate battlecruisers as BC, when the US designation for the only battlecruisers the US authorized were CC-1 through CC-6.

As far as I know the only subtype for battleships were the Monitors, designated BM.

Actually I could guess at the reason, but it would have put a smile on my face to see CC's.


The Repulse is classified as a Battlecruiser in the game and has a BC designation. I forget the designations of the Alaska and Guam. I think they might be CCs.

Bill


"Sometimes a Cigar......is just a Cigar"

The US designated the Alaska's as "Large Cruisers" but I call em what they were.....'battlecruisers'




KDonovan -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 4:31:44 PM)

quote:

My favorite "broken" pathfinding is when I send out an ASW TF and it mysteriously moves itself around unseen submarines


you get that too! This bug also happens to my transport TF's sometimes. For instance i'll give them a distination from Noumea to Brisbane, and the computer plots a course around Norfolk Island, instead of just straight across.




Ursa MAior -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 4:37:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Repulse is classified as a Battlecruiser in the game and has a BC designation. I forget the designations of the Alaska and Guam. I think they might be CCs.

Bill


They were coded CB to differntiate from smaller CAs. Why th USN despised the normal BC code remains a mystery.




Terminus -> RE: Broken pathfinding (9/15/2006 5:10:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rokohn

My question for the designers is "Why designate battlecruisers as BC, when the US designation for the only battlecruisers the US authorized were CC-1 through CC-6.



Because there were other ships fighting the war, OTHER THAN AMERICANS!!!




tsimmonds -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 5:28:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: rokohn
My question for the designers is "Why designate battlecruisers as BC, when the US designation for the only battlecruisers the US authorized were CC-1 through CC-6.

As far as I know the only subtype for battleships were the Monitors, designated BM.

Actually I could guess at the reason, but it would have put a smile on my face to see CC's.


The Repulse is classified as a Battlecruiser in the game and has a BC designation. I forget the designations of the Alaska and Guam. I think they might be CCs.

Bill


"Sometimes a Cigar......is just a Cigar"

The US designated the Alaska's as "Large Cruisers" but I call em what they were.....'battlecruisers'


Don't make me smack you down again or yet again. [;)]




Nikademus -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 5:33:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Don't make me smack you down again or yet again. [;)]


Bring it on....."battlecruiser" (and agreed with by author William H., Jr. Garzke)

http://www.amazon.com/Battleships-United-States-1935-1992/dp/1557501742/sr=1-2/qid=1158330692/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7237095-9019239?ie=UTF8&s=books


[;)]




Terminus -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 6:15:39 PM)

Pffft... Your reference is unsubstantiated, and not good enough...




tsimmonds -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 6:33:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Don't make me smack you down again or yet again. [;)]


Bring it on....."battlecruiser" (and agreed with by author William H., Jr. Garzke)

http://www.amazon.com/Battleships-United-States-1935-1992/dp/1557501742/sr=1-2/qid=1158330692/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7237095-9019239?ie=UTF8&s=books


[;)]

Mere mass-market tripe[:'(][;)]




Nikademus -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 6:34:04 PM)

what does "unsubstantiated" mean in Danish?




Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Battlecruisers (9/15/2006 7:29:33 PM)

Polish classification for them is translated as "heaviest cruisers" to distinguish them from heavy cruisers.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.890625