Broken pathfinding

[BlackVoid]

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]

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

[wdolson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

[tsimmonds]

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]

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.