S_Trauth wrote:
Don't go by the graphics alone, also look at the terrain by right clocking on the Terrainh/v.bmp to confirm its path. This is particularly true of some titles. No need for a map editor to do that, but admittedly the acronym that would come to mind is PITA.
The question at that point might become, why might a graphic differ from the path of the ford on a map; that's a question I wouldn't have an answer for (I was on the asking side of the project involved as opposed to being on a the answering side).
There are trails leading into the ford from both sides. The unit has no problem using column movement to cross the ford so that part is defined correctly. Without a map editor there is no way to verify whether the ford that works and the one that doesn't are defined the same. I wrote a program that could read and modify the map file a long time back but somewhere in my last two house moves I lost the documentation. I think there are a few people out there with a working copy but I don't remember if I included decoding the ford flags or not.
However, it may not be the ford definition that is causing the problem. I would put my bet on the combination of it being a ford crossing a river rather than a creek and the tracing of the path off the NW hexside rather than a south facing hexside. It would require finding some other situations that trigger the error to look for a pattern. But hopefully someone at JT with an editor can take a look at the two crossing and see why one works for supply and the other doesn't. If it is the ford definition error it is an easy problem for them to fix. If its a supply tracing problem, it will probably have to wait for a major upgrade to fix.
If someone just needs that one scenario fixed for whatever they are using it for it is easy to do in the scenario editor. Just find the hex on the Union side and drop a supply source on it. Then every ford will become a supply source for isolation rules.