Matrix Games Forums

It seems that if you have a unit comprised of amphib carriers and non-amphib passengers (meaning, not something that is towed) and the unit has sufficient carrying capacity, after considering casualties, for the vehicles to carry all passengers, then the unit should have amphib capability.

A Sct section composed of only 2 x M3 is amphib and it crosses rivers without making bridges.

A Sct section composed of 2 x M3 and 2 x JAFO is not amphib and makes a bridge.

Both of these should be amphib.

Nice find. I'll add that to the bug tracking list for tonight.

Fixed and shoe horned into the 2.04 package that is going up to matrix, complete tonight.

So where do you get all that awesome sauce???

Been playing around with bridging more, particularly across "wide" rivers (2 consecutive water hex sides).

When the AI does route calculation, it is aware of bridges on the near side. It doesn't seem to be aware of bridges on the far side. See screen cap below. A quick workaround fix might be to have the AI calc routes in each direction and pick the "best" route.

ORIGINAL: Iron Mike Golf

So where do you get all that awesome sauce???

Been playing around with bridging more, particularly across "wide" rivers (2 consecutive water hex sides).

When the AI does route calculation, it is aware of bridges on the near side. It doesn't seem to be aware of bridges on the far side. See screen cap below. A quick workaround fix might be to have the AI calc routes in each direction and pick the "best" route.

It already does that. Since there is no bridge across the river where that unit is sitting but there is one down river it takes that route. It's cheaper than going amphibious or building a completely new bridge.

If you just HAD to cross there you could force the issue by giving it waypoints in the two hexes side by side so the route is 2 hexes long and you determined it must go over the river.

Hopefully, with no playtesting of that fix before release we didn't fix one thing only to break two more.

Good Hunting.

MR

MR, the example above requires a bridge or amphib movement either way. The plotted route uses a bridge on the near side and then a bridge must be built for the far side.

Going the shortest route would need a bridge on the near side, then use the existing bridge on the far side.

Both routes have 2 consecutive river hex sides, with one of them already bridged. So, it seems to me, the "cheaper" in terms of movement cost should be the direct route.

You're right. I missed the open bridge to the SE. Been a long day. My apologies.

Time to stop for the night.



Good Hunting.

MR

Tested the amphibious issue myself. It was a simple, but long standing bug where infantry loaded on amphibious carriers was negating the units ability to swim. Simple fix once it was found. As for large rivers, we will need to do more with the bridging in 2.1 to make sure that is working as intended.

Thanks, Capn and MR