Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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 >>

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 9/15/2003 6:46:07 AM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

I did something like Mogami describes for the next Bombardment attack. I sent the TF north of Irau with 'do not retire' orders. The next turn I set it to 'retire' home port of Truk and sent in in. Worked fine. I would agree that waypoints would be useful, but they were not mentioned in the orginal post. Just why have paths.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 1

Re: Waypoints - 9/15/2003 7:24:23 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE=Mogami]The best way to hurt the Japanese TF in the example TJ gave would be to simply mine Irau.[/quote] The best way is to mine each and every hex the enemy TF will transit. Trouble with that approach is minefield erosion in deep water, so I settled for both coast hexes around Irau, to include the port itself. (Earlier I'd also mined the coast hex on Guadacanal the TF must transit, but Bill was able to clear this easily with sweepers out of Tulagi or Lunga.) Point is, more mined hexes in transit is better, both coming and going. And as far away as possible from the enemy's target port as well. By the way, DDs clearing mines and widening fields and all that while they're en route with a bombardment TF stretches credulity. If DDs are to clear minefields they need to be assigned this task specifically. Nobody did it on the fly. That work took time. (I can think of instances when it was done on the fly, or at least this was intended by the USN, but this work had been assigned to dedicated mine sweepers sent ahead of the bombardment TF for that expressed purpose.)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 2

Re: Waypoints - 9/15/2003 7:36:40 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE=Mogami]Mines in WITP will be much harder to use since they will only be loaded at size 9 ports and they are rare. (most of the UV ports are smaller in WITP) But I expect choke points to attract mines. I don't know what a 9-level port means in WitP terms but mines need to be made available where the action is. An arbitray limit of "9" re port size means little enough. Purvis Bay wasn't all that hot, but it was sufficient for quite a few needs, this to include mines.

quote:

None of this stuff is mutually exclusive by nanture. The AI for pathing logic is already installed, so leave it there for the lazy players and when the AI is required to do some sort of pathing chore (automatic retreat from combat springs to mind). In addition to this crutch manual way points can also be implemented.
quote:

I think waypoints (which have been asked for many times) might be one of the items the programmer is attempting to do. But they might be impossible for the AI and this is what is keeping them out.
That isn't why he's leaving them out (if in fact he's intending to). The AI needn't ever interface with manual waypoints. These things reside in different universes.
quote:

Personally I'd prefer the AI be dropped but then there are far more players that want AI to play against and want a AI to help them run their side. So the AI will not go away and will continue to affect what can and can not be included.[/QUOTE] Like I said above, at times an AI is necessary. The key is to limit its intrusion on play as much as possible, at least for those who don't like the problems it so often brings.

(in reply to mogami)