Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Broken pathfinding

 
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 >> Broken pathfinding Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 12:07:21 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline 		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

< Message edited by BlackVoid -- 9/14/2006 12:10:03 PM >

_____________________________


For Liberty! website
Post #: 1
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 12:14:14 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline 		I have tried another route
http://www.48.hu/chase2.JPG





_____________________________


For Liberty! website

(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 2
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 12:32:44 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 3
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 12:36:58 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline 		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).

_____________________________


For Liberty! website

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 4
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 1:19:45 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

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

(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 5
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 1:33:03 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 6
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 2:21:33 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


For Liberty! website

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 7
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 3:28:09 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		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...


< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 9/14/2006 3:30:23 PM >

(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 8
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 4:06:29 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline 		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!

_____________________________


For Liberty! website

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 9
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 6:49:57 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		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).



_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 10
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 7:09:04 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 11
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 7:15:00 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Sonny)
Post #: 12
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 9:00:58 PM   
rokohn

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
. . .
Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 13
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 11:08:19 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to rokohn)
Post #: 14
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/14/2006 11:11:49 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 15
Battlecruisers - 9/14/2006 11:14:19 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

(in reply to rokohn)
Post #: 16
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 2:30:10 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		"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.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 17
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 3:20:48 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		My favorite "broken" pathfinding is when I send out an ASW TF and it mysteriously moves itself around unseen submarines.

_____________________________


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 18
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 4:44:17 AM   
tsimmonds


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

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 19
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/15/2006 3:45:01 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to rokohn)
Post #: 20
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 3:55:56 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
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'


_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 21
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 4:31:44 PM   
KDonovan


Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 22
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 4:37:59 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 23
RE: Broken pathfinding - 9/15/2006 5:10:06 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
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!!!

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to rokohn)
Post #: 24
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 5:28:34 PM   
tsimmonds


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

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 25
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 5:33:34 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
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




_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 26
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 6:15:39 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Pffft... Your reference is unsubstantiated, and not good enough...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 27
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 6:33:39 PM   
tsimmonds


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

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 9/15/2006 6:34:52 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 28
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 6:34:04 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		what does "unsubstantiated" mean in Danish?

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 29
RE: Battlecruisers - 9/15/2006 7:29:33 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Polish classification for them is translated as "heaviest cruisers" to distinguish them from heavy cruisers.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Broken pathfinding Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.641