Absurd AI move prevention

[dr.hal]

I am changing the location of this post into the general thread to get a wider audience:

I would like to see the game incorporate a change that would allow a player to mark a hex as a "NO GO" hex unless units are specifically directed to do so. In my current game on two occasions I've had a TF (I'm the Japanese) wonder into Singapore (Dec '41) with all its mines and CD guns ready to go. The first was an AV TF with 2 DDs as escort that was waypointed around Singapore, but when a minefield was discovered during the day pulse, I believe the AI directed the TF away from that hex INTO Singapore (the hex in which the new allied minefield was planted was NOT one of the hexes that was waypointed), with a KNOWN minefield! Absurd! All ships were sunk. A few turns later a BB, 3CAs and 5DDs TF reacted INTO Singapore to an allied TF that had been clearly IDed as harbor launches a number of times in previous turns! Four DDs were sunk and all capitol ships were damaged. Why is the AI doing this, as it is clearly something that is STUPID! What I would like to see is a fix put into the gaming system that allows a player to designate a hex as a "NO GO" hex unless the play specifically identifies that hex as a destination or waypoint. A player should not have to reduce his or her reaction range simply because a hex that is closer has something in it that no ordinary commander would send ships or troops into without specific authorization. This would fix the problem that the AI has of sending a TF into an absurd KNOWN situation. This would also fix the problem that a minesweeping TF (not coastal) sweeps mines in one hex but due to the fact that such a TF sweeps all hexes adjacent to the designated hex, it would compel that TF to sail into a harbor like Singapore and get slaughtered. BB TFs don't chase harbor launch TFs into know minefields under the guns of known CD installations. In most cases this game is great, but this is something that shouldn't happen and to my brain is an easy fix (of course I don't know the coding that would have to happen due to my ignorance of computers so it may not be so easy!). Thanks, Hal

[Big B]

By the way - do you have that turn saved? One of the Guru's may wish to see it to analyze it...

just a suggestion.

[dr.hal]

I can do that yes. But I don't think the suggestion of a no go hex is based upon my one example, it is a far wider issue. I think it warrants consideration. Hal

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal
I can do that yes. But I don't think the suggestion of a no go hex is based upon my one example, it is a far wider issue. I think it warrants consideration. Hal

It does not warrant consideration. It will never happen.

There are so many move modes for TFs that anybody who runs a TF through a gnarly hex will get just what they deserve. That's why gnarly hexes EXIST, for gosh sakes.

AI is a skoosh different. The internal AI will avoid nastiness (and perhaps go on a long walk-about). Ok ...
The AI scripts are different from the internal AI, and if the script says "go here", the TF will do it.

It's all a function of forethought. If one is otnay, ootay, ightbray, one gets actedwhey in the antspay [8D]

[Bullwinkle58]

Singers is a notorious difficult transit in stock. I think DBB map might have made it a no-go without passing through the Singers hex?

In stock I often transit subs through there. React=0, waypoint to the western side, hold-and-clench.

It would be an interesting and VERY difficult coding job because it would have to work for every single water hex on the map for all possibilities of threat, enemy presence, air superiority, etc, etc. I looked at some reef-dense islands for example--tough to code in THEN statements for those.

In the OP's case at Singers, if Singers has a known minefield and the TF sees a minefield in the hex due west, the only way past, what does it do? Go back where it came from? At what speed? What happens to the unexecuted waypoints? What if that hex it just left has a huge surface TF loaded for bear? What if your CO's stats say go, but the no-go check-box says "run away"? Lots and lots and lots of coding, probably in many places in the EXE.

And as soon as you do it somebody will want the ability to mark TWO hexes no-go for every hex on the map.

[Alfred]

dr.hal,
 
Alas your self confessed lack of  coding knowledge is betrayed.[:)]
 
What you are asking for would be very difficult to code and not simultaneously mess up the other TF movement routines.  Not to mention extremely timeconsuming to do.  I'll try to point out just some of the issues.
 
1.  Would the no go hex apply only to a single TF mission or be universal to all TF missions.  Do you want your Surface Combat TF or Bombardment TF to not go into a hex until the hex has been swept clear of mines by a Minesweeping TF?  But then what happens if the Minesweeping TF can never get into the hex because it gets obliterated by an enemy Surface Combat TF just waiting in ambush minesweepers.
 
2.  What if the no go hex is located at a chock point and you have a string of TFs ordered to follow a TF which is allowed to transit the no go hex but the trailing TFs are not so authorised by the human player.  How do you resolve the resulting car park which has become target practice for enemy aircraft or superior naval surface forces.
 
3.  How long does the no go hex order remain in effect?  For ever more even though the reason for its promulgation in the first place has long since ceased to be valid.
 
4.  How does the player remember what are the no go hexes.  Adding new graphics on a non dynamic map is not easy.  If it happens to be co located at a base would there be sufficient real estate to display the new graphic in addition to the existing.
 
5.  How does one reconcile the no go hex with the existing threat tolerance/coastal routing options.  Surely if you have set a TF to absolute threat tolerance plus direct route, that ought to override the no go hex?
 
6.  What if you have a very aggressive commander with a 6 hex reaction range?  How do you reconcile the game code which allows for leader traits to override player wishes?  Aggressive commanders are often selected by players on purpose to "march to the sound of the guns" yet would the no go hex make this trait useless as your leader stops at the edge because  8 months before a no go hex was promulgated and the player forgot to rescind it since.
 
 
Now consider these additional points.
 
(A)  I personally, and I rather suspect the devs too, find it very difficult to imagine what would possess a Japanese player to route his ships that close to Singapore in December 1941 that they could conceivably end up inside the Singapore hex.  Other than an attempt to sail the IJN through the Strait of Malacca into the Andaman Sea would risk the result you have seen but any other DEI destination has plenty of open sea and ensures no unexpected entry into the Singapore hex.  An immense amount of work is being called for to cover a very rare set of player orders.
 
(B)  The existence of a minefield is detected in advance by recon flights and are shown when the ML is greater than 1.  At ML of 0 or 1 they are not shown on the map.  MLs and DLs do reduce.  Plus multiple minefields can exist at the same location.  It is quite possible that in between your two TFs which stumbled into Singapore, a fresh minefield was sown and this minefield was not known to your on the spot admiral.
 
(C)  Coding already exists to prevent a TF from moving into a known minefield but often knowledge of the existence of a minefield only arises when a BB becomes an inadvertent minesweeper for a day.
 
(D)  Reacting admirals do not usually have perfect knowledge of the size and composition of the enemy fleet.  Again the MDL comes into play.  How certain could your reacting admiral be that he was only facing enemy HDML?  There could have been enemy BB/CA in the enemy TF but not revealed because the MDL was too low.  So, to add to the above coding issues on no go hexes, would the level of MDL for any reaction now have to be tweaked.  Correct, IRL the admiral would not have sent his BBs off to intercept the enemy HDMLs; he would have detached a destroyer to investigate.  But that option to auto detach an element within the turn resolution does not exist in the game. 
 
(E) It was not a minefield that caused your TF to move into Singapore.  A combination of your own TF orders plus enemy air and naval assets were responsible.
 
(F) I rather suspect that your PBEM opponent deliberately dangled a bait to get the outcome which ensued.  One simply cannot code for every eventuality, particularly when safeguards already exist.  Now if the safeguards are not working because of a bug, that is something else and one which I believe the devs would in fact investigate to resolve.  What has been posted does not establish the existence of a bug prima facie but precise information of what occurred might present a different picture.
 
Alfred

[dr.hal]

Apart from not understanding half of your post Symon, it's clear that you didn't read mine. I didn't "run a TF though a gnarly hex". As my post clearly points out, I waypointed my TFs around Singapore. Had I been so absentminded as to NOT do that, then I get what is coming to me, "for gosh sakes". It would appear that the TF reacted back INTO the hex on the next turn. So I stand by my request to consider the situation.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Singers is a notorious difficult transit in stock. I think DBB map might have made it a no-go without passing through the Singers hex?

In stock I often transit subs through there. React=0, waypoint to the western side, hold-and-clench.

It would be an interesting and VERY difficult coding job because it would have to work for every single water hex on the map for all possibilities of threat, enemy presence, air superiority, etc, etc. I looked at some reef-dense islands for example--tough to code in THEN statements for those.

In the OP's case at Singers, if Singers has a known minefield and the TF sees a minefield in the hex due west, the only way past, what does it do? Go back where it came from? At what speed? What happens to the unexecuted waypoints? What if that hex it just left has a huge surface TF loaded for bear? What if your CO's stats say go, but the no-go check-box says "run away"? Lots and lots and lots of coding, probably in many places in the EXE.

And as soon as you do it somebody will want the ability to mark TWO hexes no-go for every hex on the map.

Thanks Bullwinkle for the input. Singapore can be sidestepped with the extended map in DBB, no problem, this I did in my game. Clearly there would be a limit to the "No Go" designation, much like there is a limit to waypoints. I guess it could be a waypoint STRICTLY enforced. Not sure. My request for thoughts around this didn't mean I was trying to extrapolate it out beyond reality. There should be limits, but I thought it was something to consider given that the AI at times does some bizarre things. I'm not trying to duck my responsibilities here, if I made a bad move then so be it, my fault, but when the AI sends a BB TF into harms way in order to go after MOTOR Launches I have to ask myself can something be done about this? I don't think it is an unfair question.

[Don Bowen]

I understand the frustration but I'm afraid the use of "No Go" hexes would cause more problems than it would solve. Every new check must be integrated into every existing check, then have all (reasonably) possible conditions resolved. As other posters have stated, a No Go hex would really be a sometimes No Go hex, and the devils in those damned details.

The TF movement routines have literally thousands of conditions and checks. They do take care of most circumstances but it's a machine running code and doesn't have the intellect of a 2-year old.

Basically a TF will try and obey it's movement orders. If hexes it would like to use are dangerous it will avoid them if possible. If all possible routes are dangerous, it will pick the one it feels is least dangerous.

The AE map causes complexities at a few locations, notably at Singapore and Bataan/Manila. Believe me when I say there is a feces-pot full of code to try and handle these locations. But not all circumstances can be foreseen and handled. Even if they could be, turn resolution would be a matter of hours (or days), not minutes.

Incidentally, there is code to avoid KNOWN minefields IF POSSIBLE. Unknown minefield are, of course, unknown. The AI does not "guess" at where unknown minefields might be. As to BBs chasing HDMLs, the code does check to determine if a TF wants to fight another TF, based on the commander's stats and the known information about the other TF. There is nothing to prevent the "big bully" effect of BBs hunting down small craft.

I think the code does a rather good job of TF routing and movement.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Singers is a notorious difficult transit in stock. I think DBB map might have made it a no-go without passing through the Singers hex?

In stock I often transit subs through there. React=0, waypoint to the western side, hold-and-clench.

It would be an interesting and VERY difficult coding job because it would have to work for every single water hex on the map for all possibilities of threat, enemy presence, air superiority, etc, etc. I looked at some reef-dense islands for example--tough to code in THEN statements for those.

In the OP's case at Singers, if Singers has a known minefield and the TF sees a minefield in the hex due west, the only way past, what does it do? Go back where it came from? At what speed? What happens to the unexecuted waypoints? What if that hex it just left has a huge surface TF loaded for bear? What if your CO's stats say go, but the no-go check-box says "run away"? Lots and lots and lots of coding, probably in many places in the EXE.

And as soon as you do it somebody will want the ability to mark TWO hexes no-go for every hex on the map.

Thanks Bullwinkle for the input. Singapore can be sidestepped with the extended map in DBB, no problem, this I did in my game. Clearly there would be a limit to the "No Go" designation, much like there is a limit to waypoints. I guess it could be a waypoint STRICTLY enforced. Not sure. My request for thoughts around this didn't mean I was trying to extrapolate it out beyond reality. There should be limits, but I thought it was something to consider given that the AI at times does some bizarre things. I'm not trying to duck my responsibilities here, if I made a bad move then so be it, my fault, but when the AI sends a BB TF into harms way in order to go after MOTOR Launches I have to ask myself can something be done about this? I don't think it is an unfair question.

I checked the DBB extended map and compared to stock, and they're essentially the same. I didn't look at hex-side colors in extended as it was a screenshot. There is a hex due west of Singers, with pieces of three small islands or headlands, which offers a transit path. Setting Coastal offers a bit more insurance; you didn't say in the OP if you did that.

My comments were more directed at your first situation rather than the second. A minefield detected in the path of the waypoints, outside Singers in the Strait, would cause a no-go code to throw up in some of the cases I named and Alfred expanded. (I didn't consider the effects on follow orders for one.) It's a risk any time to go past Singers if you don't own it. Always has been. Was in RL.

In the second case you say the MLs were detected turns before. Maybe true; you didn't give DLs. We never know what the on-scene CO thinks he sees in a harbor. All you can do is set Coastal, set Direct, set the waypoints, and hope. Maybe also ground the BB search planes if they were up. That might have given the TF CO a "new" sighting of the MLs.

I gotta go with not running capital ships up the Strait until Singers falls though.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

dr.hal,

Alas your self confessed lack of  coding knowledge is betrayed.[:)]

Alfred

I was afraid of that, but nothing ventured nothing gained. Yes my ignorance of coding is overwhelming but to my credit, I DID think it wouldn't be easy!

As for your points, I agree there would have to be parameters established and in my original post I did address some of your points, but of course, not all. But because this seems to be beyond the affordability of the developers (in terms of time, money and outcome) I won't pursue it nor address your points one by one. However in my defense of the situation, I am in a VERY good position to bypass Singapore and have done so for a week or so (we are now at Christmas '41). But this was never about my actual game, it is about a principle of how the AI acts. Of course one can never account for every eventuality (oddly here the game very realistically reflects REAL life). But there are times when the game leaves one to scratch his or her head. When that happens, to me it is good to look at the underlying concerns that might have precipitated the situation. If I thought it was due to my own negligence, I certainly wouldn't raise it up here and thus put my own stupidity on display for all the world (or forum in this case) to see. The Game has the ability to allow for a "reaction range" but there is no way to limit that reaction in relation to certain things such as a strong point but yet keep that reaction range capability for other things. In short one must artificially shorten this "range" due to the fact that in one location that is closer to you, you don't want to engage in an action in that location (goes for aircraft as well). I guess that artificially the reaction is 360 degrees or nothing! I simply didn't expect that the AI would be capable of forcing such a move, it didn't dawn on me until after the event that something like this could happen. I don't think my worthy opponent would "bait" as I doubt he realized that the AI would act in such a manner, but I can't speak for him.

As I said Alred in my opening, I don't know coding so I didn't know I was calling for an "immense amount of work" for such a singular situation. If this were all about my one move then you are right it is a lot of work for very little and it is a foolish posting. However, as I can envision this concept happening all the time in many situations, I don't think it is so "singular"! I quite often find the AI sending my TFs through hexes that obviously should not be transited. I often see my planes attack a hex that should be left alone (but this usually happens because I made a mistake, but not all the time!). So I was not asking for something to prevent one item, but for something that would allow for more flexibility in the game design around orders and reaction. It was just a thought for discussion. I guess I can safely now withdraw the thought! Hal

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


I understand the frustration but I'm afraid the use of "No Go" hexes would cause more problems than it would solve.

I think the code does a rather good job of TF routing and movement.

On boy, I seem to have opened up a can of AI worms. Don, in no way did I intend to slight the game and its complexity. Yes the AI does a great job most of the time. In my ignorance I thought it could do a better job under certain identifiable circumstances that do not necessarily tie into my move, that's all. My move was an illustrative input to help identify a concern. If it is not something worth considering, so be it. I will just have to learn to artificially limit my artificial limitations! If that makes any sense at all!

[Don Bowen]

No problem at all Sir. You asked a very reasonable question and it deserved an answer.

[geofflambert]

It's happened to me too, it's not unusual. Always check the pathway.

[PaxMondo]

Having been bit there more than once, I have always just looked at like this:

Its a narrow straight, very narrow.
The navigable path changes, particularly with storms/typhoons.
Even though my captains know that Singers is mined, currents might pull them within range of the CD's...
Weather might obscure their visibility and allow them to wander off course a few miles and put them within range of the CD's...
Those cursed allies might shift their minefield a bit ...
My particular skipper might be a bit weak in geometry (Darwin's Law factors in here ... )


These are all "story lines" to explain why my sub captains will drift into Singers ... I accept the risk of sending my ships through. I know from experience that I will likely lose one or two subs if I do this, but I also know that I will likely get several ships trying to flee Singers ... its a trade off...

[szmike]

The easiest* fix imho would be to add "no go" marker at TF routing screen, and it would be bluntly coded that TF route has to avoid this hex no matter what other settings are, apart from 'follow' command.

*it doesn't mean it would be easy to code per se, just that it probably wouldn't touch other routines much. Unless I don't see something of course.

Aggressive commander and reaction could be problematic though, I guess it's quite different piece of code than TF routing.

[JeffroK]

Great idea, make Singapore a no-go hex.

Bugger, now I own I want to send supplies, what do i do!!!

I would have a HR that you couldnt transit the Straits of Malacca until you own Singapore.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Having been bit there more than once, I have always just looked at like this:

Its a narrow straight, very narrow.
The navigable path changes, particularly with storms/typhoons.
Even though my captains know that Singers is mined, currents might pull them within range of the CD's...
Weather might obscure their visibility and allow them to wander off course a few miles and put them within range of the CD's...

Pax I appreciate your input but in truth I don't think it is totally accurate. I was an OOD on three warships that have transited the Malacca Straits (in both directions) and they don't change paths as a result of a storm and it is virtually impossible to wonder into Singapore as it is not actually in the waters in question, but off to the eastern side at the wide mouth of the Straits. Currents run through the straits not across them. The narrow point of the passage, about a mile of navigable water, is well northwest of Singapore. However you are certainly right, weather can be a big problem there, as it is in many areas.

But in truth that's besides the point, as this is not a question only related to that hex. It is a wider issue.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I was afraid of that, but nothing ventured nothing gained. Yes my ignorance of coding is overwhelming but to my credit, I DID think it wouldn't be easy!

As for your points, I agree there would have to be parameters established and in my original post I did address some of your points, but of course, not all. But because this seems to be beyond the affordability of the developers (in terms of time, money and outcome) I won't pursue it nor address your points one by one. However in my defense of the situation, I am in a VERY good position to bypass Singapore and have done so for a week or so (we are now at Christmas '41). But this was never about my actual game, it is about a principle of how the AI acts. Of course one can never account for every eventuality (oddly here the game very realistically reflects REAL life). But there are times when the game leaves one to scratch his or her head. When that happens, to me it is good to look at the underlying concerns that might have precipitated the situation. If I thought it was due to my own negligence, I certainly wouldn't raise it up here and thus put my own stupidity on display for all the world (or forum in this case) to see. The Game has the ability to allow for a "reaction range" but there is no way to limit that reaction in relation to certain things such as a strong point but yet keep that reaction range capability for other things. In short one must artificially shorten this "range" due to the fact that in one location that is closer to you, you don't want to engage in an action in that location (goes for aircraft as well). I guess that artificially the reaction is 360 degrees or nothing! I simply didn't expect that the AI would be capable of forcing such a move, it didn't dawn on me until after the event that something like this could happen. I don't think my worthy opponent would "bait" as I doubt he realized that the AI would act in such a manner, but I can't speak for him.

As I said Alred in my opening, I don't know coding so I didn't know I was calling for an "immense amount of work" for such a singular situation. If this were all about my one move then you are right it is a lot of work for very little and it is a foolish posting. However, as I can envision this concept happening all the time in many situations, I don't think it is so "singular"! I quite often find the AI sending my TFs through hexes that obviously should not be transited. I often see my planes attack a hex that should be left alone (but this usually happens because I made a mistake, but not all the time!). So I was not asking for something to prevent one item, but for something that would allow for more flexibility in the game design around orders and reaction. It was just a thought for discussion. I guess I can safely now withdraw the thought! Hal

I appreciate your opening of this discussion. If for nothing, it serves to remind that there would be aspects in the game that would justify a new title in its line of heritage in the future. I suppose it could attract a lot more "occasional" single players that just cannot commit to the several year task of being a reliable PBEM opponent without driving a buddy nuts due to unsuspected breaks.

I think the concept of no-go hexes would be good in its core, and doable, though likely not at this point anymore -- based on my experience with AI coding, yet not knowing the AE source and the intricate interplay between AE scripted "campaign AI" and its "local routines" for turn by turn small-scale re-/actions, it sounds easily like a one person 6-12 month full time project. AI development with ambition is sadly very costly and not an easily recognizable selling bonus. If the target audience is PBEM anyway, then...

Needless to say, all would be depending on the desired intricacy (see all the ideas Alfred pointed out, including mission specific behavior etc), and whether the breaking or bending of other routines (e.g. would the no-go state automatically disappear after a fixed number of turns, and would the messing up of the campaign scripted actions during that time frame, e.g. lots of AI's typically small and endangered amphib TFs parking outside range in the mid of the ocean during those 20 days before going on) would be acceptable compared to the gain. It could be a very (comparably) simple concept to start with, though, that gives the impression of AI remembering past turns -- like the suggestion of a binary yes/no based on simple tests like mine count.

Actually I believe there is at least one other matrix title, G&G WiTE, which uses the idea of assigning temporary changing values for hexes that are taken into consideration for AI moves (you can track them in a mouse over on AI hexes). On a given map certain "tactically important" regions seem to have a higher predisposition (e.g. the flanks to important locs like Leningrad, so AI keeps them covered as well), and these values keep changing in the course of the game and influences AI activity. Of course it is land units only in first order, so a much simpler issue, but in the end such a rather simple concept appears to be effective for WiTE as its AI is really quite good. I have never seen it banging away at the same trap all the time with separate tiny TFs or single CV-TFs, so to speak, so it appears to take failures into account in the next turn. It can be gamed by human in other ways, sure, but it at least gives the impression to remember a little and to adjust to the bigger picture. It is possible to play the whole 4 year campaign, indeed, without having to switch sides or restrict yourself by too many artificial rules. and only giving it merely 10-20% bonuses on CV and supply etc.

AI development is no miracle, but time consuming and best done with a lot field-testing and systematic refining. A modding community can probably realize it better and than anyone making a living out of it -- provided the engine comes with proper means. I'd be really happy if there one day came an AE2, that -- among addressing the wishes of the PBEM crowd -- would also provide a big leap for the AI players... I know, it is not likely, but AE is such a gem, that even the smallest progress would really be worth it.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

dr.hal,

Alas your self confessed lack of  coding knowledge is betrayed.[:)]

What you are asking for would be very difficult to code and not simultaneously mess up the other TF movement routines.  Not to mention extremely timeconsuming to do.  I'll try to point out just some of the issues.

1.  Would the no go hex apply only to a single TF mission or be universal to all TF missions.  Do you want your Surface Combat TF or Bombardment TF to not go into a hex until the hex has been swept clear of mines by a Minesweeping TF?  But then what happens if the Minesweeping TF can never get into the hex because it gets obliterated by an enemy Surface Combat TF just waiting in ambush minesweepers.

2.  What if the no go hex is located at a chock point and you have a string of TFs ordered to follow a TF which is allowed to transit the no go hex but the trailing TFs are not so authorised by the human player.  How do you resolve the resulting car park which has become target practice for enemy aircraft or superior naval surface forces.

3.  How long does the no go hex order remain in effect?  For ever more even though the reason for its promulgation in the first place has long since ceased to be valid.

4.  How does the player remember what are the no go hexes.  Adding new graphics on a non dynamic map is not easy.  If it happens to be co located at a base would there be sufficient real estate to display the new graphic in addition to the existing.

5.  How does one reconcile the no go hex with the existing threat tolerance/coastal routing options.  Surely if you have set a TF to absolute threat tolerance plus direct route, that ought to override the no go hex?

6.  What if you have a very aggressive commander with a 6 hex reaction range?  How do you reconcile the game code which allows for leader traits to override player wishes?  Aggressive commanders are often selected by players on purpose to "march to the sound of the guns" yet would the no go hex make this trait useless as your leader stops at the edge because  8 months before a no go hex was promulgated and the player forgot to rescind it since.

Well there seems to be enough interest that I will try to address Alfred's six points (all of which are all very valid questions) with my view of what I see as the answers:

1. The hex designation would apply to ALL TF, troops, and air units for as long as the designation is in place. This is an all or nothing designation in order to allow for the easiest coding solution. This is a designation that is designed to keep all units away and it can only be overridden by a specific order to violate this "no go" designation (either through a waypoint specifically directed at the target hex or by setting that hex as the unit's designation). However in my vision, this intrusion would NOT void that hex's designation as a "no go" hex, that would take a separate key stroke or other action by the owning player.

2. There are many scenarios where it would cause a player problems such as described in this section of Alfred's input. Again, if the player doesn't lift the "no go" designation, no unit goes there. If a land unit, then the AI will route it around like any other no go obstacle and the same for a TF (such as a reef). Again this could only be bypassed by specifically directing a unit into this hex.

3. I would envision it to be valid until nullified. However, like a minefield, it can at some point "disappear" but that would add a countdown in the coding which I don't believe is necessary. To get rid of it, an active key stroke by the owning player would be required.

4. I certainly understand that adding a new graphic is not easy but that would be one way. The other is to highlight the hex in some way (much like a waypoint is highlighted in blue as it is designated). This highlight would stay for the remainder of the designation. Or there could be a red "X" place at some point in the hex. There are many ways to skin this cat, I'm just suggesting some and they don't have to be "glaring". Nor do they have to go on the hex itself, it might go into or appear in the "path" that a player might "choose". Again, not sure.

5. This is easy, the "no go" designation overrides ALL concepts of movement into the hex generated by the AI except when that hex is designated as a final destination for a unit and additionally in a TF as a waypoint. But that, in my mind, would only be a temporary override. The hex remains a "no go" for all other units that were not so designated or until the player eliminates the designation.

6. This is a sidebar issue of #5. Again, the commander can not move into the hex, no matter what his aggression level. It would be as if the hex were not there, or not an option. Much like the Parrots Peak was a non option during Vietnam (until Nixon came along!).

I hope this adds a bit of "intent" around my suggestion. Alfred second section largely deals with my actual move in and around Singapore, which is again, not the underlying focus of this "suggestion" so I will leave that for further discussion between Alfred and myself.

Again thanks all for your comments. Most have been very constructive and I really enjoy the engagement, almost as much as the game. You all are an amazing group of folks. Hal