"Paths": Why do we need these things? Who wants them in the first place?

[Tristanjohn]

Is anyone besides me just tired all over from having the AI decide which hexes your naval assets will use in transit? Does this pathing imperative add anything whatsoever of a beneficial nature to the "game" much less the "simulation"?

For my part I've never understood the rationale for paths. I can't think of a single positive this design approach represents except insofar as it's pretty much necessary to have this "logic" installed for when the AI's at work. But why impose an artificial and arbitrary scheme on human players? Eventually, inevitably this convention leads to gamey play and in spirit cuts against the grain of the project's thrust: to present PW in its originally-intended much-more-detailed form.

To my mind "detailed" in the sense we use it here implies "more player control," while naval pathing routines surely take us in the opposite direction of that. (An example of game design concepts in conflict.)

While a case for naval (and land) paths might have been made for Pacific War at its actually released scale (I didn't buy the rationale at that time with re to naval movement, but whatever) I can't see it for sour apples for UV and WitP. (I assume it's the same deal with the latter as I've read nothing to the contrary--anyone know different?)

So, sound off if you have interest. Who likes paths? Who couldn't live without them? Who couldn't care less?

[mogami]

Hi, I am very sorry. I've read this and reread this post and I can not understand it.
You are against paths for naval units?
Do you mean you'd rather pick hex by hex the routes TF's used?

SInce you can not do this you have to have paths. You see that don't you? In WITP each player can have around 200 TF's at sea on any turn.
Do you want to drive 200 TF's everyturn?

I think paths are ok. They show where a TF is going to go. If I don't like or agree with a path I pick a target hex. So I do drive some of my TF's (aircombat) Any hex within a days movement is usally a safe path.

[BillBrown]

I have to agree Mogami. For a TF to go from point A to point B it has to traverse a 'path' of hexs. If you do not like the path the computer uses, change it. I don't want to drive every TF I own every turn. Most of the time I am happy with the default one.

[gus]

If you do not like the path the computer uses, change it. I don't want to drive every TF I own every turn. Most of the time I am happy with the default one.

Hey Bill,

Tristan's point is just that, you can't really change it, you can only coerce the TF to take a circuitous path around areas taht you want to avoid but this is generally achieved by hacking your way through the existing system. To make it short I believe he is asking for waypoints, and I have to agree with him on this issue.

-g

[Tristanjohn]

Hey Bill,

Tristan's point is just that, you can't really change it, you can only coerce the TF to take a circuitous path around areas taht you want to avoid but this is generally achieved by hacking your way through the existing system. To make it short I believe he is asking for waypoints, and I have to agree with him on this issue.

-g

Waypoints is the way to go, Gus. Preferably these could be ordered for any TF move for any number of hexes up that TF 's maximum movement allowance (i.e., for each and every individual hex transited). I imagine a mouse click would do the trick.

The TF movement system as it stands now is open to severe and gamey abuse. For instance, in my recent game with Bill I was able to stop an IJN bombardment TF of his out of Lunga headed for Irau easily through the expedient of sowing mines in a known transit hex along the game's predetermined route for all TF's out of Lunga headed for Irau. His IJN BB then hits a mine, it goes boom, IJN TF mission is kaput.

Now how lame is that? And how lazy and/or stubborn must Gary be not to have corrected this ten years later? And let me tell you some of the playtest crew then screamed bloody murder at this nonsense, as it certainly was even for PW and only more so yet with UV. About time for a change.

There is no "programming" reason for this kind of stuff, it's merely idiosyncratic--and weak.

[mogami]

Hi, Fist let me say this post is not about disputing the value of waypoints. They would be very handy for human controled TF's.

I think the reason for the present system is AI controled TF's require a path.

IN UN/WITP the AI when ploting it's path will avoid known mine hexes.
(friendly mines included)

The best way to hurt the Japanese TF in the example TJ gave would be to simply mine Irau. Friendly TF's do not hit mines in hexes with friendly bases. You hit hit your own mines in all sea/non base hexes. But your TF will not plot a path unless there is no other way.

The present system allows for the player to plot movement exactly like waypoints. Using the above example. I form a Bombarment TF at Lunga.
rather then test the straits between Lunga and Irau I first plot movement to a hex South-West of Lunga with TF set to "do not retire"
The next turn I select Irau as target and change to "retire" (so my TF will avoid being in range of Irau during day and run in and out at night.)
Now however my TF might retire through the straits. (so players would need to set a waypoint after combat. It might be best for damaged ships to go directly toward Lunga-it might not)
Of course the best way is to scout routes prior to sending valuable ships. In UV the enemy will lay mines on all paths into or out of Lunga. 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.

If the game was only designed for human versus human play then I think waypoints would be easier to program in. Many things are directly tied to the AI running one side or the other.

When would the AI know to use a waypoint over a direct route? It already plots around mines and enemy airzones.

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.

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.

[BillBrown]

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.

[Tristanjohn]

The best way to hurt the Japanese TF in the example TJ gave would be to simply mine Irau.

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.)

[Tristanjohn]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[mogami]

Hi, I don't like to mine every hex because one day I will send TF's through these hexes. I try to only mine hexes the enemy uses. If I mine a friendly base hex it will not hurt me. If I mine every hex between Irau and Lunga my own TF's will be unable to move or will risk hitting my own mines. If a Jap BB is coming to Irau I'd prefer he came as far from the safety of his size three port before being damaged. I'd also like him to still be in range of my SBD/TBF the next day. (I just don't want him to actually bombard me.
So I mine Irau. Place 6-8 PT boats there. And have a fast reaction TF at Neva. Hopefully The IJN BB will enter Iraus hex and trigger my reaction TF. Strike a few mines and then engage my PT's. After that my surface (reaction) TF goes round and round with the Japanese who then limp 1-2 hexes out to sea heading back to Lunga. During the first airphase Irau clobbers them. (making up for anything I lost in the surface actions)



(How do DD's clear mines? They shoot them with MG's)
(I cleared mines for USS America Battlegroup during GW1 using same method, I think all ships should be allowed to clear mines, they just have to see the mine before they hit it)(You notice MS "clear path" while DD "destroy 1 or 2 mines"

[denisonh]

I dislike any friendly ship hitting a friendly mine.

I prefer my own ships have the room to manuever and be the decisive force.

That was the philosophy of both the IJN and USN at the time. Making mine warfare too easy makes the game a morass of mines and minesweeping.

The game should be more than that, so limiting mines is a good technique IMHO. It should be a contest primarily of manuever and strategy, not minelaying and minesweeping.

[mogami]

Hi, I am afraid there will still be vast minefields in WITP. There are many more minelayers (all those subs and aircraft deployed mines for allies later in war)
There are also many more minesweepers. (I think Japan begins with 65 minesweeper. Plus the PC/PG that can clear mines)
However the Allied player might learn not to mine his own waters so much and to be carefull about blocking his subs from transit into or out of good hunting grounds.
The Japanese are going to mine the Yellow/South China Sea enterances and patrol them much more then actually was the case.

So I think mines will be placed more where only the enemy moves (making it easier to clear them. Players just need to insure they patrol areas with minesweepers before sending TF's through)

[Tristanjohn]

(How do DD's clear mines? They shoot them with MG's) (I cleared mines for USS America Battlegroup during GW1 using same method, I think all ships should be allowed to clear mines, they just have to see the mine before they hit it)(You notice MS "clear path" while DD "destroy 1 or 2 mines"

It isn't done in transit during a bombardment run at night. That was the point.

[caine]

I agree with the idea of waypoints.The paths are great if you want to make big distances without worrying about threats, but if you want to avoid dangerous zones could be very ineffective.If we could select a series of consecutive waypoints you could (if you want to) specify exactly the route you want to follow and avoid a lot of undesired and unnecessary attacks.
In fact, the paths would also be used between two waypoints, so the change should only be to allow specifying consecutive destination points.The final destination hex could be shown on the screen as it is now, but when selecting the destination on the map, you could pick consecutive waypoints until you finish your path.If something like that were possible it would increase the control of our ships without hampering playability, because you can use that or not.

[Tristanjohn]

I agree with the idea of waypoints.The paths are great if you want to make big distances without worrying about threats, but if you want to avoid dangerous zones could be very ineffective.If we could select a series of consecutive waypoints you could (if you want to) specify exactly the route you want to follow and avoid a lot of undesired and unnecessary attacks.
In fact, the paths would also be used between two waypoints, so the change should only be to allow specifying consecutive destination points.The final destination hex could be shown on the screen as it is now, but when selecting the destination on the map, you could pick consecutive waypoints until you finish your path.If something like that were possible it would increase the control of our ships without hampering playability, because you can use that or not.

Extremely well stated.

I might add a nicety: a mouse click to designate a rendezvous hex accessible by all friendly TFs.

There needs to be no limit on how many hexes of a given route may be selected as waypoints: if an intended course requires a transit of 57 hexes or 116 hexes the player should be allowed to specify each and every one of those hexes for his TF.

[Snigbert]

I agree, waypoints would be nice. Sometimes a path will go around an island the opposite way I would like it to, for example. But the distance is short enough that it will get there in a turn so I can't do much about it.

Hopefully control of TF speed in WitP will help with this problem.

[Bushmaster]

I agree we definitely need waypoints.

[rich91a]

One way to do Waypoints would be to use a similar method to how graphics programs allow you to stretch lines in to curves.

ie:

1) Set Destination which displays default path of differently coloured hexes - as is currently the case.

2) Allow the path to be 'grabbable' by the mouse.

3) Grab the path and move it up/down or side to side. As you move it the differently coloured hexes show you the new path.

4) Release the mouse grab when you are happy with the new path displayed.

5) The computer continues to take care of routing around non-passable hexes such as land / known mines.

6) A refinement would be to be able to mark certain hexes as no go areas. Then auto-pathing routine would treat these the same way as impassable.

[tiredoftryingnames]

Extremely well stated.

I might add a nicety: a mouse click to designate a rendezvous hex accessible by all friendly TFs.

There needs to be no limit on how many hexes of a given route may be selected as waypoints: if an intended course requires a transit of 57 hexes or 116 hexes the player should be allowed to specify each and every one of those hexes for his TF.

First I'm all for waypoints. But, every hex really wouldn't need to be a waypoint. A few waypoints is all you would need to plot a course with the automatic path system filling in the rest between those points. The number of hexes isn't important as the number of waypoints. I've suggested waypoints several times for UV and WITP and from what I've tested you wouldn't need anymore than 5 on the WITP map. That would be plenty to plot a course from the West Coast to any destination within range of most ships. A southern route from San Francisco to Brisbane avoiding all Japanese bases and normal sub patrols needs just 2 waypoints along it's route not counting the final destination point. That's alot of hexes, but clicking 50 to 100 waypoints would just be wasting your time when you would be clicking the same empty ocean hexes between the waypoints as the AI would pick.

[Peter Weir]

First I'm all for waypoints. But, every hex really wouldn't need to be a waypoint. A few waypoints is all you would need to plot a course with the automatic path system filling in the rest between those points. The number of hexes isn't important as the number of waypoints. I've suggested waypoints several times for UV and WITP and from what I've tested you wouldn't need anymore than 5 on the WITP map. That would be plenty to plot a course from the West Coast to any destination within range of most ships. A southern route from San Francisco to Brisbane avoiding all Japanese bases and normal sub patrols needs just 2 waypoints along it's route not counting the final destination point. That's alot of hexes, but clicking 50 to 100 waypoints would just be wasting your time when you would be clicking the same empty ocean hexes between the waypoints as the AI would pick.

Yeah but how do you know the computer will pick the right hexes? It makes lots of mistakes now. When you want it to go one wy it goes somewhere else. The more player control the better I think.

It's my first post and have only played the other game uv for awhile so don't get angry with me jumping in so soon. From what I can tell really critical people get jumped hard here, even for obvious faults of the game. Why?