Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Moose, even though in your mind it was a stern chase, to the code it was not. You gave the unit orders to move to Carnavon, and the routing algorithm worked to that order. The IJ unit was in the way, so the routing algorithm routed around it.

There is no 'chase' order in the game, save the short-range one of 'pursue' that is available for some LCU during combat. And AFAIK, that only works into the retreat hex of a defeated defender.

Having a 'chase' order would be a good addition, but I don't know if it is in the cards. A question for Michael, obviously.

This would be fine except sometimes it did enter the hex and co-locate with the IJA unit, and twice it fell off the road and refused. Why? And why did it go NW once, and east the other when the opposite side was available both times?

Edit: And does the strength matter? Can 10 squads of cooks make a 200,000 man telephone pole drive into the desert?

When enemy units are in the way, the pathing does not seem to work in a way that one would like. Even still, the program doesn't know about 'chase', and instead was trying to get to the destination. It ain't perfect, but understanding what it tries to do - and that in some circumstances it does it badly - will help you to work with its limitations. [:)]

Just tried to get units going again in my situation, and even when I assigned them to go one hex ahead they tried to veer off-rail to make a two hex journey. [8|]

Nothing is in the way in my case. To you Moose I've seen units go around a unit ahead on a road that hasn't even been discovered through recon yet, so that is not too unusual.

obvert - If you set them to follow the AA unit will they keep together?

Bullwinkle - didn't understand from your description whether the pursuing unit was of type Armor or type Infantry.

If of type Armor (the composition is irrelevant it is only the type of the unit that matters) then the movement rates through Desert and along a secondary road are identical. Only the Sand Desert hex SE from Carnarvon is slower. The best way of catching the unit would not be to do a stern chase but instead head through the desert to the East and come back to the road just before the Sand Desert. An Armour unit should be able to make it there, and claim the hex, just before an infantry unit moving along the road.

ORIGINAL: obvert

Just tried to get units going again in my situation, and even when I assigned them to go one hex ahead they tried to veer off-rail to make a two hex journey. [8|]

Nothing is in the way in my case. To you Moose I've seen units go around a unit ahead on a road that hasn't even been discovered through recon yet, so that is not too unusual.

I had never had a situation like this in any former game. In this case needing to get to Carnevon was a strategic necessity and I couldn't do it in time to close the door on a multi-month struggle. Several whole IJA IDs got away at great cost in time and Allied momentum. I have always understood that certain things in the game are under the hood and proprietary, but nothing is more basic to a wargame than unit movement. Things like this should be disclosed. The path the code already knows it will pursue should be displayed to the player. It's not like that couldn't be done already in a 1985 game.

I regret using the word "chase." That's how I thought of it. Call it "moving to engage" if that helps. An overwhelming force moving to destroy enemy units weakened by air attack and previous combat and having the units disobey orders, leave a perfectly good road, because the enemy was "in the way." Lunacy.

I love this game, but this part of it is crap.

ORIGINAL: Spidery

Bullwinkle - didn't understand from your description whether the pursuing unit was of type Armor or type Infantry.

If of type Armor (the composition is irrelevant it is only the type of the unit that matters) then the movement rates through Desert and along a secondary road are identical. Only the Sand Desert hex SE from Carnarvon is slower. The best way of catching the unit would not be to do a stern chase but instead head through the desert to the East and come back to the road just before the Sand Desert. An Armour unit should be able to make it there, and claim the hex, just before an infantry unit moving along the road.

In the testbed the IJA was the 42 Infantry Regiment and the Aussies were 2/7th Armored Regiment, not upgraded. The AFVs are all either Hvy or Lt. AFV devices. In the PBEM game the pursuers were tank units. Don't recall all the models.

You make a good point and one I had not thought of.

ORIGINAL: Spidery

obvert - If you set them to follow the AA unit will they keep together?

Bullwinkle - didn't understand from your description whether the pursuing unit was of type Armor or type Infantry.

If of type Armor (the composition is irrelevant it is only the type of the unit that matters) then the movement rates through Desert and along a secondary road are identical. Only the Sand Desert hex SE from Carnarvon is slower. The best way of catching the unit would not be to do a stern chase but instead head through the desert to the East and come back to the road just before the Sand Desert. An Armour unit should be able to make it there, and claim the hex, just before an infantry unit moving along the road.

I never use the follow command because of the other difficulties inherent in that. It might work here, but I have a feeling it would reduce speed or if the AA unit deviated then the entire stack would have to be reset again.

ORIGINAL: obvert

Just tried to get units going again in my situation, and even when I assigned them to go one hex ahead they tried to veer off-rail to make a two hex journey. [8|]

Nothing is in the way in my case. To you Moose I've seen units go around a unit ahead on a road that hasn't even been discovered through recon yet, so that is not too unusual.

Curious - did you set each unit to move into the adjacent hex, or set one unit and then click on 'set all to march' (or however it's worded)? And did they all veer off, or all except the originally-ordered one?

I don't know why, but I've noticed that when I use the 'set all to march' button the original unit has a "(direct)" notation next to its move destination, while the other units do not.

I never use this command. i set each unit individually. I don't like setting something and finding out several days down the road that it's not working, which happened a lt when I was using that 'follow' command.

So this happened with each unit set to move to the next hex forward. All of the units except two armor moved ahead. The two armor began moving to the side again, offline and into a path that would be two hexes long and in this terrain about twice as long as the straight path.

I use follow all the time. I do have issues on occasion. But I found that if I use the slowest unit or the one that takes the longest time to unpack or pack, as the unit for the rest to follow, I don't have any issues. But if the armored unit can move faster off the track and travel 2 hexes in the time an infantry unit travels one hex, that could be the reason. I have observed this behavior as well. Try a test and see what happens when the other unit goes the "long way". I think they may both arrive in the same hex at close to or the same time. If the arrival hex has enemy units in it, Set the destination for all as a hex next to the enemy. Then have everyone follow your slowest unit into the hex with the enemy unit....GP

Do you have the save when they were together before diverging?

With the wide open spaces in Australia, it is sometimes hard for the movement algorithm to work out best as it uses 'bases' to determine best jumps.
Different types of units means different speeds, etc, also causes some 'weirdness'.

ORIGINAL: General Patton

I use follow all the time. I do have issues on occasion. But I found that if I use the slowest unit or the one that takes the longest time to unpack or pack, as the unit for the rest to follow, I don't have any issues. But if the armored unit can move faster off the track and travel 2 hexes in the time an infantry unit travels one hex, that could be the reason. I have observed this behavior as well. Try a test and see what happens when the other unit goes the "long way". I think they may both arrive in the same hex at close to or the same time. If the arrival hex has enemy units in it, Set the destination for all as a hex next to the enemy. Then have everyone follow your slowest unit into the hex with the enemy unit....GP

The latest example is test enough. As mentioned the armor tried to go for a two hex journey instead of covering the same ground as the other troops moving just one hex. The armor is faster than the infantry on either track, but not when I've put it into combat mode to move at the same pace as the other units. So it tries to go two hexes in a slower mode and ends up behind the other forces.

Too bad waypoints are not possible for land units. That would surely fix the issue.

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Do you have the save when they were together before diverging?

I'll post soon. I should have one from before the first split and when they tried to go two hexes when set for one.

Sorry for the delay. Here is the save right before they split.

Three units (Otago Rifles, 2/9 and 2/10 Armored Rgts) are already set to move NW in this save. The last armored unit has a direct move setting to W (64,150). Not sure why the armored units were set to go NW. If you have a save of when they were given the initial move orders to move to the hex they are currently in??

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Three units (Otago Rifles, 2/9 and 2/10 Armored Rgts) are already set to move NW in this save. The last armored unit has a direct move setting to W (64,150). Not sure why the armored units were set to go NW. If you have a save of when they were given the initial move orders to move to the hex they are currently in??

I'll try to find it. This is the issue that I've been wondering about. They were only ever issued orders to go to the hex along the rail and they instead went an extra hex to the NW before trying to head back.