Unexpected Ship Detour

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Unexpected Ship Detour

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Unexpected Ship Detour

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Unexpected Ship Detour - 10/5/2002 1:36:56 AM

dtx

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/13/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

Has anyone found the solution (or cause) to a sporadic problem of ships taking unplanned detours?

For example, as US, I have occupied Gasmata, which is 5-6 hexes West of Rabaul. When I send a task force, whose homebase is Gasmata, to bombard or surface attack Rabaul, UV often sends the taskforce way way south to a few hexes above Gili Gili (i.e., to a location that wasn't part of it's destination). Othertimes, a taskforce created with the same ships, same leader, will attack Rabaul and return to Gasmata during the night. (in all instances, the ships have adequate fuel). I've noticed when this happens, the TF goes to the same hex above Gili Gili. Is this just an AI quirk? Is there a workaround?

Post #: 1

- 10/5/2002 3:23:21 AM

Toro

Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline

Not sure, but it could be the "patrol" vs "retirement allowed" toggle. If you order a TF to patrol (remain on station), it will proceed to the destination. If you order it to bombard with "retirement allowed," it will bombard at night. Perhaps the GG area is the distance needed as a starting location to make an attack at night?

Just a thought.

(in reply to dtx)

Post #: 2

- 10/5/2002 4:34:31 AM

McDuck

Posts: 27
Joined: 4/1/2002
Status: offline

Hello DTX , I remember reading a post quite some time ago about the very same thing . It appears that if the starting point of a bombardment or surface combat task force is inside of 1/2 of their maximum movement allowance to a given target hex they will move to a spot where they are at that 1/2 way point and then run in the next turn . It struck me as odd that the routine was written that way but ... . Harder on the ships regarding systems damage , fuel consumption and exposure to air attack in the interm . The possible reason some of your TF's complete the mission without the detour is that they contain slower ships so that the starting point is more or less at 1/2 of their range . I'm sure many other posters have had more experience with this and could explain it better or other possible reasons as well . Quite frustrating when you are trying to send bombardment TF's from Dobdura to Lae and they end up staging between Gasmata and Rabaul . Or from Irau to Lunga and they end up moving back towards to Luganville first ! I imagine a work around would be to have several ships of varying degrees systems damage available to mix in with the TF to slow it down so it would complete it's mission that turn . adios ... HMcS

(in reply to dtx)

Post #: 3

- 10/5/2002 4:56:31 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

I believe it is a bug and needs to be fixed.

I had a TF do this on a run from Irau to Lunga. With CAP at Irau, it aggravated me to see the TF leave there to a space in the ocean 11-12 hexes from Lunga, and proceed to get pasted by LBA.

It is stupid, and really needs to be addressed. A TF should not move AWAY from it's target to line up for a "Tokyo Express" run or night bombardment.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to dtx)

Post #: 4

- 10/7/2002 1:20:23 AM

pcpilot2

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Ramona, Ca.
Status: offline

I think the fundamental problem here is trying to model human behavior in the games AI. It simply cannot be done with any real accuracy. The idea of an operational level game of this scale is fine, but the TF's and their aircraft should be controlled by the player and not some sporadic computer AI.
I had a TF made up of two CA's, 1 CL, and several DD's position thereselves near Gili-Gili to intercept any Jap attempt to attack P.M. in the Coral Sea scenario. The turn the command is given, they sail out to their position. The next turn, I cant see them anywhere till I look in PM and there they are, back safe in port. I had the TF set for patrol. I then sent them back out, just in the nick of time to intercept a Jap convoy which did indeed try to come round the point at Gili=Gili. After the fight, I lose them again. Sure enough, there they are again, safe in P.M.
I check the settings for the TF and it had changed BACK to retire, (or whatever the setting is, I dont have the game in front of me). I did not make that change. The game did it itself. This same game I have that TF covered by the main force of CV's just to their south, in range to attack with aircraft once the Japs show up. They did nothing once the Jap TF was attacked by my S.A.G. In the course of this fight, the main Jap force is spotted nearby and IN RANGE! Does my CV TF attack? NO! All aircraft are set to Naval attack or escort. I have a good TF CO, Adm. Sherman. But why didnt he attack? I am waiting to see what the Japs will do now. This is only one of a number of times I have seen this happen in this game.
The AI just isnt cutting the mustard. For the 1.5 patch? Return control of TF's and their A/C to the human player. My suggestion.

_____________________________

I Love this country...

(in reply to dtx)

Post #: 5

- 10/8/2002 1:20:31 AM

dtx

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/13/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

I'm hesitant to suggest that more player control is the answer because generally I think the game is excellent at modelling the unpredictability of war. However, in the specific situation I outlined, and as Denisonh noted, the problem appears to be a bug, not an attempt at modeling Murphy's law.

Gasmata is only a short distance from Rabaul, so a night attack & return is easily accomplished with most ships. Sometimes a TF will conduct a night bombardment and return to Gasmata. However, sometimes a TF (with the same ships, same homebase (gasmata), with the same level of SYS damage, same leader, and same directions (retirement allowed)), will take a long detour to north of Gili Gili (going a much longer distance if they had gone directly to Rabaul). I sense (just a guess) that the AI is sensing strong LBA at Kavieng and this as well as other undetermined factors causes the detour.

Putting the task force to "don't retire" means that it will often get hit by LBA because it will stay at Rabaul, I've found this isn't an effective workaround.

While the human eye sees a short path to Rabaul, making the AI "see" the path is likely a difficult task. A few parameters happening together may push the AI to do quirky things. I had a hand-held chess game that was quite strong, except that for one specific board layout, which would cause it to make an easy error and lose, even if it was given hours to consider its move. My guess is that something similar is happening here - a specific board position triggers the AI to act strangely. If anyone figures out a solution, let me know.

(in reply to dtx)

Post #: 6

- 10/8/2002 1:47:47 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

I think the reason for the detour, as has been described, is because the AI is trying to insure that the TF will arrive at it's target at night.

Regarding the "disappearing" TF: I have found that if a TF is set to retire (regardless of mission, except maybe sub-patrol), it will automatically begin the transit to return to port after it reaches it's destination hex.

I have seen this with TF that I wanted to patol an area, and "react" to enemy ships (like your own mission). But what happens is, the TF goes to the destination, finds no-one there (or in it's immediate reaction radius), and then says, "Oh well. Might as well go home."

Same thing happened with a cargo TF I had created. I created a TF in Rabul, set to load supplies, but did NOT specify a destination hex (I didn't want the TF to proceed immediately to destination, I wanted it to proceed behind the carrier TFs that were coming from Truk). What happened was, the supplies were loaded, but because no destination hex was specied, they then began to unload everything. Grrrr.

So the solution is to set your TFs to "Patrol/Do not Retire", select manaully any waypoints to your destination, and then only set to "Retire" when you actually want them to. (And in the case of the supply convoy, set the destination hex to 1 hex out of the port, "Patrol/Do not Retire", then load the supplies, then reset destination hex to whatever when you're ready).

-F-

(in reply to dtx)

Post #: 7

- 10/8/2002 10:26:48 AM

pcpilot2

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Ramona, Ca.
Status: offline

You guys keep talking about how great a job the computer does of modeling the unpredictability of war and it is true to a certain extent. There are things in war like mechanical malfunction, weather, etc. that are out of the combatants control and rightfully should be modeled as best as it can be. I do like how the weather can wreak your attack plans. But the greatest unpredictability of war came from the humans themselves in command fighting that war. This is what the computer will likely never completely portray.
Someone told me awhile back that the attack that destroyed the 1st 2 Jap CVs at midway was comprised of only nine bombers, as an explanation of why there were so many peicemeal attacks in this game. That is indeed true of the group that 1st found the Jap CV's. But those planes were part of a massed attack ordered and sent out by the TF CO's that got split up by bad command decisions and timing of the individual squadron commanders. The another Jap CV got pasted by the other groups from that formation that eventually found the CV's also. (If my history serves me, I beleive the 4th CV was taken out by a later attack.) Maybe the game could model the lessor squadron commanders and leave the Fleet and TF command to me. There would certainly be fewer peicemeal attacks.
I understand that in single player mode you will have to rely on the computer to be a decent opponent and model the human aspect as much as possible. But as the human fighting that computer AI or as the opponent of another human in a multiplayer game, I would like to play against the realistic mistakes that humans will make. If I am dumb enough to send out peicemeal attacks then that is my loss. If the computer does it for me when I know good and well thats not the way it should be, then GRRRRRRR!
Im sorry. I dont mean to grind an axe. I do like this game and play it a lot. I agree that what we are facing in TF's not moving where we want them despite our ingame settings is likely a bug.

_____________________________

I Love this country...

(in reply to dtx)

Post #: 8