Matrix Games Forums

First let me say that I am VERY impressed with this game. It has a few flaws, but - so far - I am able to overcome them (disabling my Intel graphics card, etc.). I will spend many hours learning the ropes, then play a Grand Campaign game.

Although many of you (all?) may already know this, for those having difficulty with TFs "wandering off" here's something I learned:

Set TF routing to "Direct" to keep the TF from "doing a 180" and move AWAY from its intended destination.
You may need to add waypoints to avoid enemy coastlines. Best (!!!!) to have a combat ship as escort. Even a single Minesweeper is better than no combat ship in the cargo fleet.

"Safer" or "Safest" TF Routing settings will cause the Cargo TF to run all over the map to avoid a single SS, for instance. Setting the routing to "Direct" and having a warship in the group will ensure timely supplies/fuel arrival where it's needed.

The setting I use almost exclusively for cargo/transport type TFs is Routing Control:Direct, with Coastal added in as appropriate. I add waypoints if necessary in an attempt to steer around threats.

Sure, you want cargo/transport TFs to avoid threats they encounter. But the current avoidance algorithms don't seem to consider that every hex added to a TF's route also adds to the cumulative threat the TF is exposed to over the duration of the trip (from subs, ships, and aircraft); there's a tradeoff between the immediate threat and the cumulative threat associated with increasing the TF's time at sea. For a TF going from Ceuta to Algeciras, I want the threat limited to just the four hexes between the ports.

For TFs that are fairly close to a friendly port, a better threat-avoidance approach may be for the TF to just abandon its original orders and disband in the nearby port. Otherwise, the number of hexes added to an adjusted TF path might be a consideration in how risky this path is.

If you really want it to go to the destination then use the "Absolute" routing setting.