retreat direction

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

retreat direction

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> retreat direction

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

retreat direction - 11/13/2010 6:25:42 PM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

I'm playing my first PBEM and something that happened a couple of times is frustrating me. My units are retreating in the opposite direction they should, placing themselves in a trap, like is shown on the picture.

As far as I know, units will retreat in the direction of HQs or the nearest supply point. My HQs were in the hexes just behind (for those divisions that had HQs - some didn't). I had only reorganizing units on the lower hex and I knew that the low proficiency and low supply units I had with them and near them wouldn't hold position, so I retreated all those that could receive order and reinforced the two adjacent hexes which were attacked in this picture, knowing they wouldn't hold also, but hoping to make my opponent lose some time. But, for my surprise, when they were attacked, most of the units (some of them good, fresh units) jumped back into the lower hex, placing themselves into a trap and evaporated after the next 180 degree flanking attack.

This was the most unnatural move, since HQs were to the back of the line, supply points also, and they entered a river hex, with higher move cost. It seemed really random and made me think that it is prohibitive to place good units near such an hex, but it shouldn't be. Those units were rounded by friendly, good order, units and should retreat in their direction in this case.

Is there a way to avoid that or do I have to pray and wait for the game to shuffle my units around setting my chances? Maybe I'm really missing something here. If so, please let me know.

Post #: 1

RE: retreat direction - 11/13/2010 6:27:17 PM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

Here is it. I forgot to place it in the original message.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 2

RE: retreat direction - 11/13/2010 7:12:18 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

Yeah, in one of the North African scenarios the Allies at Tobruk retreat TOWARDS the Axis units instead of towards the Med. It's really not much fun to play that one.

_____________________________

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 3

RE: retreat direction - 11/13/2010 7:58:15 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Manual - 13.11 retreats
If a defending unit attempts to break off, it will look for a safe location in the direction of the nearest friendly cooperative Headquarters or Supply Source. The unit will attempt to disengage and retreat into that safe (well, what's safe?!) location. If such a location is not available, the unit will instead have its Readiness reduced to 33% and it will refuse further orders until it Reorganizes. In practical terms,this reduces the unit to a milling mob of uncoordinated troops, which will offer little resistance if attacked again.

Isn't a retreat also affected by the terrain, proficiency (what's left...) of the unit, movement points left,stack value, combat loss setting, etc.? You moved the NKPA lads northwards. The left retreating unit was on a river hex... terrain I think might be also a factor (Ralph, where are you?!)In general, yes - those "stupid" retreats happen. I can't say (maybe I never gave a d*mm) that it happened alot to me. If the squaddies get routed, they panic, ... I am sure the last thing they try to figure out is where the supply point or HQ is. Found this, so I'll quote:

quote:

Though force preservation is a basic element of warfare and wargames, it is critically important. The one thing that will save you is defense in depth. When one unit is forced to retreat, it is likely retreating into a hex where another unit is already entrenched.

So, which hex was the one with the best entrenchment value in yur case?!

Again, just guessing, only RT himself might shed some light on it.

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 11/13/2010 8:05:21 PM >

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 4

RE: retreat direction - 11/13/2010 8:34:17 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bevilacqua

Here is it. I forgot to place it in the original message.

I can't tell from that shot but you might have blocked them in yourself via stacking limits. Once a hex has nine friendlies in it nothing more can retreat there.

Regardless, a retreat is an adverse combat result and therefore retreat paths may be thought of as blocked internally to the hex by the attackers - forcing the retreaters into undesirable directions. In other words, the attackers can be thought to penetrate the defenders, spread out behind them within the hex, and roll them up into a trapped location.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 5

RE: retreat direction - 11/13/2010 8:38:02 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

If someone can post a save where I can reproduce the problem I'll see if it's fixed.

Another possible cause is that it does try to retreat towards the point which has the closest distance to the nearest supply + the distiance to the nearest COMPATIBLE HQ. Note the word COMPATIBLE there.

I think I see the problem, there is a slight bias towards keeping NEXT TO the enemy units instead of away from if there is a owned supply point on the map, and AWAY FROM if there is no owned supply point on the map. That's probalby what is happening.

I can't think of why it would treat those two cases differently. I'll see if I can change that to AWAY FROM in all cases instead.

I'll try to get it into 3.4 if there is time.

Thanks,
Ralph

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 6

RE: retreat direction - 11/13/2010 8:44:00 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

If someone can post a save where I can reproduce the problem I'll see if it's fixed.

Another possible cause is that it does try to retreat towards the point which has the closest distance to the nearest supply + the distiance to the nearest COMPATIBLE HQ. Note the word COMPATIBLE there.

I think I see the problem, there is a slight bias towards keeping NEXT TO the enemy units instead of away from if there is a owned supply point on the map, and AWAY FROM if there is no owned supply point on the map. That's probalby what is happening.

I can't think of why it would treat those two cases differently. I'll see if I can change that to AWAY FROM in all cases instead.

I'll try to get it into 3.4 if there is time.

Let's discuss this before you make a snap reaction. If you change this it will become harder to achieve a breakthrough.

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 7

RE: retreat direction - 11/13/2010 8:59:57 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

OK. I'll hold off on changing this until 3.5 so we can discuss further.We may also want to look at how strong the effect of the supply source should be in determining the direction of retreat. One possibility we might look into as well would be whether the stance should effect the retreat direction, and make it so that limit losses are more likely to retreat in a safe direction while ignore losses is more likely to do retreat along the lfront line or something like that.

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 8

RE: retreat direction - 11/13/2010 9:53:41 PM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

Stacking limits were far from being reached on all hexes around. Even the units without HQ should retreat back in the direction of friendly good order units and supply points, I think.

Enemies blocking the way could be considered to happen sometimes. It should be more probable if the units are flanked, which wasn't the case. And it wasn't one or other units, but a whole lot of them from both sides, converging into the advanced hex and being completely eliminated later. Looking the configuration one notice that this kind of encirclement by the enemy, blocking retreat, happening simultaneously on both sides would be most unprobable. I could accept one or two units, from a group of ten, going into this hex, but not more than half of them. Additionally, terrain to the north of them required less movement points, which means it has an easier access... it would really be the natural path in this case.

This wasn't an isolated case. It happens frequently. Not always was it to my disadvantage (I'm not whinning here), but having it a predominantly random nature, players are helpless in a situation in which they should, at least, be able to estimate outcome in order to plan... if not, what's the point?

The fact is that placing units that way (not that I have much choice in such a situation) will make games with few units dicey if I have no idea of what is the most probable way of retreat. Place the units an pray. One bad dice roll and a carefully placed defense breaks.

Regarding the greater difficulty it would generate (the change Ralphtrick proposes) to attain a breakthrough, couldn't it be based on deployment, so that ignore losses deployment would keep the present behaviour, representing the unit intention to keep its elan? Limit losses would make them more prone to retreat in the direction of their HQs and supply points. So players would get a better control of it behaviour, if not absolute.

< Message edited by bevilacqua -- 11/13/2010 11:26:35 PM >

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 9

RE: retreat direction - 11/13/2010 10:23:44 PM

PRUSSIAN TOM

Posts: 156
Joined: 10/23/2008
From: Los Angeles, Califonia
Status: offline

My hat goes off to Ralph & Gen. LeMay. One reason this is my favorite game (by the company who I bought the momst games from) is that YOU HARD WORKING GRUNTS (sorry General, but I know they can not be paying you what you and Ralph are worth by the hour (and the other people who work on older games. Matrix supports their product!

Sometimes we get a little antsy when you take your time to get it right before releasing a patch, but questions on the formus seem to get answers by either GROGNARDS who know their stuff, or MATRIX EMPLOYEES (who are [paid tom know ther SH**, and DO) REPLYS ASAP. Myb grateful thanks.

. I get my problems solved faster than the company that made my (new) PC caN SOLVE warranty issues. Keep up the great work....it is appreciated by us dum-dums.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 10

RE: retreat direction - 11/14/2010 4:02:53 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bevilacqua

Stacking limits were far from being reached on all hexes around.

But could they have been reached during the retreats? Just because they were clear at the end of your player turn doesn't mean they remained clear throughout the enemy combat phase. Units tend to sub-divide during combat, and that fills up the stacking limits in a hurry.

quote:

Even the units without HQ should retreat back in the direction of friendly good order units and supply points, I think.

If it were an entirely voluntary action I would agree with you. But it isn't. It's an adverse combat result forced upon the defenders by the victorious attackers - who may have penetrated the defenses sufficiently to critically compromise the defenders' retreat options.

Don't think of the defender's hex as a hex. Think of it as a giant tactical battlefield. Imagine the attackers driving through the defense and spreading out in their rear - blocking the most desireable paths out, and rolling the rest into a trap.

quote:

And it wasn't one or other units, but a whole lot of them from both sides, converging into the advanced hex and being completely eliminated later.

See my stacking comments above. If not that, it was bad luck. I'm pretty sure the direction is random if there is are choices.

quote:

This wasn't an isolated case. It happens frequently. Not always was it to my disadvantage (I'm not whinning here), but having it a predominantly random nature, players are helpless in a situation in which they should, at least, be able to estimate outcome in order to plan... if not, what's the point?

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." Again, these are adverse combat results. If you're planning, you have to include these sorts of results in those plans.

quote:

Regarding the greater difficulty it would generate (the change Ralphtrick proposes) to attain a breakthrough, couldn't it be based on deployment, so that ignore losses deployment would keep the present behaviour, representing the unit intention to keep its elan? Limit losses would make them more prone to retreat in the direction of their HQs and supply points. So players would get a better control of it behaviour, if not absolute.

Possibly there should be some impact of that. But, let's recognize that breakthroughs are especially hard in TOAW. This will make them harder.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 11

RE: retreat direction - 11/14/2010 4:07:27 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PRUSSIAN TOM

My hat goes off to Ralph & Gen. LeMay. One reason this is my favorite game (by the company who I bought the momst games from) is that YOU HARD WORKING GRUNTS (sorry General, but I know they can not be paying you what you and Ralph are worth by the hour (and the other people who work on older games. Matrix supports their product! Sometimes we get a little antsy when you take your time to get it right before releasing a patch, but questions on the formus seem to get answers by either GROGNARDS who know their stuff, or MATRIX EMPLOYEES (who are [paid tom know ther SH**, and DO) REPLYS ASAP. Myb grateful thanks.. I get my problems solved faster than the company that made my (new) PC caN SOLVE warranty issues. Keep up the great work....it is appreciated by us dum-dums.

Thanks. Just for the record, I'm not paid anything. I think Ralph gets less than minimum wage. It's a labor of love.

(in reply to PRUSSIAN TOM)

Post #: 12

RE: retreat direction - 11/14/2010 7:08:29 PM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: bevilacqua

Stacking limits were far from being reached on all hexes around.

But could they have been reached during the retreats? Just because they were clear at the end of your player turn doesn't mean they remained clear throughout the enemy combat phase. Units tend to sub-divide during combat, and that fills up the stacking limits in a hurry.

I can count, but thank you for the concern.

quote:

quote:

Even the units without HQ should retreat back in the direction of friendly good order units and supply points, I think.

If it were an entirely voluntary action I would agree with you. But it isn't. It's an adverse combat result forced upon the defenders by the victorious attackers - who may have penetrated the defenses sufficiently to critically compromise the defenders' retreat options.

Don't think of the defender's hex as a hex. Think of it as a giant tactical battlefield. Imagine the attackers driving through the defense and spreading out in their rear - blocking the most desireable paths out, and rolling the rest into a trap.

Oh, I thought that 15 km was the hex size. I always found it strange that they looked so tiny on my computer screen.

I think it has something to do, perhaps, with the variable Ralphtrickey refered to. If it isn't to be voluntary, there shouldn't be a variable attracting units in the direction of an enemy one. The move you describe is possible, of course, but wouldn't be predominant.

quote:

quote:

And it wasn't one or other units, but a whole lot of them from both sides, converging into the advanced hex and being completely eliminated later.

See my stacking comments above. If not that, it was bad luck. I'm pretty sure the direction is random if there is are choices.

This happens with some frequency.

quote:

quote:

This wasn't an isolated case. It happens frequently. Not always was it to my disadvantage (I'm not whinning here), but having it a predominantly random nature, players are helpless in a situation in which they should, at least, be able to estimate outcome in order to plan... if not, what's the point?

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." Again, these are adverse combat results. If you're planning, you have to include these sorts of results in those plans.

When planning, one must be able to estimate results. Using this authority based quote as an absolute truth is an extreme simplification. Let's just throw dices in the beginning of each turn and let a complete random event decide the outcome of a scenario.

quote:

quote:

Regarding the greater difficulty it would generate (the change Ralphtrick proposes) to attain a breakthrough, couldn't it be based on deployment, so that ignore losses deployment would keep the present behaviour, representing the unit intention to keep its elan? Limit losses would make them more prone to retreat in the direction of their HQs and supply points. So players would get a better control of it behaviour, if not absolute.

Possibly there should be some impact of that. But, let's recognize that breakthroughs are especially hard in TOAW. This will make them harder.

Here I agree with you. Breakthroughs are hard, but using an artificial engine functionality to prevent this isn't the best idea. IMHO, I think that one cause for this is the absurd cost of movement near all kind of units (large ones or small ones), so that Toaw becomes more of a game based on counters than one based on real forces. It's possible to place some very small units just to delay enemy by making movement costs very high. In fact, terrain effect on movement is insignificant compared to the effect a COUNTER can have, no matter the size of the unit contained. But that's just my opinion and I don't want to begin a flame war.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 13

RE: retreat direction - 11/14/2010 7:34:28 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

See attached... It can happen and like some of us pointed out, depends on various factors...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 11/14/2010 7:36:38 PM >

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 14

RE: retreat direction - 11/14/2010 8:44:27 PM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

If you read what I said you'll see that in no moment I deny it can happen, I just said it wasn't predominant.

If you read what Ralphtrickey said, you'll see that there is a variable that favors it to happen, when there is no reason to. Why the hell would a unit be more prone to retreat towards the enemy, in panic or not.

If someone would have the time and will (I don't, for sure) to raise the numbers and see how many times units retreated in the direction of their own forces and how many times they retreated in the direction of the enemy, when not flanked and when near to good order friendly units, I can bet that the numbers would clearly show that the first option is the one that predominates. Ok, in most cases it wouldn't be a zero or one result, but I can bet that in most cases, most of the troops were able to go in the direction of their own forces. The manual itself states this tendency, by pointing that troops will usually retreat in the direction of friendly HQ or supply points, but, it seems, there is a variable preventing them from doing it and no reason for this. That's all. But I'm just expressing my opinion here, not speaking against the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

See attached... It can happen and like some of us pointed out, depends on various factors...

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 15

RE: retreat direction - 11/14/2010 9:03:25 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bevilacqua

If you read what I said you'll see that in no moment I deny it can happen, I just said it wasn't predominant.

If you read what Ralphtrickey said, you'll see that there is a variable that favors it to happen, when there is no reason to. Why the hell would a unit be more prone to retreat towards the enemy, in panic or not.

If someone would have the time and will (I don't, for sure) to raise the numbers and see how many times units retreated in the direction of their own forces and how many times they retreated in the direction of the enemy, when not flanked and when near to good order friendly units, I can bet that the numbers would clearly show that the first option is the one that predominates. Ok, in most cases it wouldn't be a zero or one result, but I can bet that in most cases, most of the troops were able to go in the direction of their own forces. The manual itself states this tendency, by pointing that troops will usually retreat in the direction of friendly HQ or supply points, but, it seems, there is a variable preventing them from doing it and no reason for this. That's all. But I'm just expressing my opinion here, not speaking against the game.

I know that you're not speaking against the game. And yes, I read what the other lads said/posted. BTW, have you got the sitrep log or the TOAW.log for the scenario you are playing? That might shed some light on it, too.

Thanks mate!

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 16

RE: retreat direction - 11/14/2010 10:54:26 PM

PRUSSIAN TOM

Posts: 156
Joined: 10/23/2008
From: Los Angeles, Califonia
Status: offline

Gen. Curtis LeMay & Ralph:

I understand you are in it for the sake of doing it right, but that's why it's my favorite game (And the big N. Afrika Scenario is my favorite scenario). You spent the time to do a great job

Not all software simulations are created equal, and because of your (all of you, collectively) commitmitment, I buy and enjoy a LOT of Matrix games. (Sorry they don't give you a kickback, but a good job usually isn't about the money anyway, like you said, it's a labor of love.
THANKS AGAIN.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 17

RE: retreat direction - 11/16/2010 12:44:34 AM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

Here is what I meant when I said toaw is a game based on counters rather than one based on forces and that's what makes breaking through a line so difficult.

I have setup a very quick test and you can see by the picture that the distance which took one unit 2 turns to cross through a massive mountain chain, took 7 turns for another unit to cross through a corridor of open ground sided by enemy units. Ok, it had to deal with the enemy, which makes movement slow and careful, isn't it? Well, all those counters contained only a single truck each, which means that if the enemy places single trucks alond the way while retreating, what would be a nice walk through open contry, makes unit stuck by their own paranoia.

Conclusion: better than having a whole mountain chain between you and your enemy is having a couple of old trucks placed kilometers away one from the other.

It's obvious that movement penalties from enemy proximity should be proportional to units size. The way it is, what counts, when trying to delay an enemy is the number of counters and not what they contain. I'm not talking about combat, but about using small units to make the enemy stuck in the middle of counters and slowing it MUCH MORE than the worst kind of terrain.

(in reply to PRUSSIAN TOM)

Post #: 18

RE: retreat direction - 11/16/2010 12:46:18 AM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

Once more I forgot the picture. Sorry

Attachment (1)

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 19

RE: retreat direction - 11/17/2010 3:31:13 AM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

I've been doing some rigorous tests on retreats (using test scenarios), and I've been unable to cause any retreat direction other than towards the nearest supply point. HQs seem to be ignored. This has surprised me because I can clearly recall lots of game cases of units scattering in multiple directions. But I've tried the test scenarios all the way back to TOAW I (not ACOW - TOAW I).

One issue - the supply point chosen is the nearest one, even if it is in the enemy rear. This causes units to retreat towards the enemy. Even surrounding the combat with friendly supply points still has the units retreating in one direction.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 20

RE: retreat direction - 11/17/2010 3:35:27 AM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bevilacqua

Conclusion: better than having a whole mountain chain between you and your enemy is having a couple of old trucks placed kilometers away one from the other.

Actually, such units facilitate breakthroughs. That's because you don't pay ZOC costs when overrunning. Try it again going right through the enemy units, instead of between them.

It's the stuff you can't overrun that's the problem. And if they're always going to retreat in good order they'll be an unhistorical problem.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 21

RE: retreat direction - 11/17/2010 5:32:42 PM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

Thanks for taking your time and doing some tests. But, yet I find it strange since my supply points were to the rear. What do the units use: they retreat in the direction of the supply point, no matter the terrain between them or they try to find the shortest path, in which case they would avoid the hills behind and go for the road on the right side? The stack on this road is the only one, in addition to the one just above the broken units, which may have attained the stacking limit. I think that using the direction or stablishing a safest path would be the best solution, but I really don't know what the game uses.

I know that using overruns make it easier, but that would force units to ignore the nice path in front of them and go after the enemy. Suppose I placed the trucks on swamp hexes along improved road ones, just to deny this nice advancing path to my enemy. Or, what's worse, place them on dunes (not trucks). The fact is that, if you have units all around and want to use a straight path ignoring them, you'll have to pay the move cost, even if they are tiny (relatively). Obviously, I went to an extreme case. In most cases units won't be so tiny and won't even be dislodged. In those cases I think they should pose some restriction to movement, but proportional to their size and even lower if they are tiny and the enemy is able to spot their size.

I know it would break some scenarios, but that could be offered as an advanced rule. I mean, some scenarios would even benefit from it and the notion of breaking scenarios is also arguable if we consider that a lot of scenarios are not even balanced. I think that the better way to balance a scenario is playing it once and stablishing your victory conditions from this first time. Most of the time, the victory conditions stablished by the designers are unbalanced, because of bad design or even, perhaps, because of changes in the game along those years, which isn't all that bad (I think that most players don't want to go back to the earlier versions) and one can always stablish personal victory conditions.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 22

RE: retreat direction - 11/17/2010 7:17:01 PM

PRUSSIAN TOM

Posts: 156
Joined: 10/23/2008
From: Los Angeles, Califonia
Status: offline

I gotta go w/ Curtis

on this issue, he has had a HELL of a lot of (unpaid) experience w/my favorite game, and is right 99% of the times in questions I've asked, or been interested in or tracked. In an in an old (but classic and well respect (board game), to name just one source Avalon Hill designer team on :Advanced Squad Leader" said, "...damn near anything can happen in a war, although some cases are very rare," to justify infrequent occurances of units "breaking and doing irrational things

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 23

RE: retreat direction - 11/20/2010 4:58:54 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I've been doing some rigorous tests on retreats (using test scenarios), and I've been unable to cause any retreat direction other than towards the nearest supply point. HQs seem to be ignored. This has surprised me because I can clearly recall lots of game cases of units scattering in multiple directions. But I've tried the test scenarios all the way back to TOAW I (not ACOW - TOAW I).

One issue - the supply point chosen is the nearest one, even if it is in the enemy rear. This causes units to retreat towards the enemy. Even surrounding the combat with friendly supply points still has the units retreating in one direction.

It finally dawned on me that it's Retreat-Before-Combats (RBCs) that go in random directions. Retreat-From-Combats (RFCs) evidently go towards the nearest supply point (as best I can figure so far).

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 24

RE: retreat direction - 11/20/2010 5:02:49 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bevilacqua

Thanks for taking your time and doing some tests. But, yet I find it strange since my supply points were to the rear. What do the units use: they retreat in the direction of the supply point, no matter the terrain between them or they try to find the shortest path, in which case they would avoid the hills behind and go for the road on the right side? The stack on this road is the only one, in addition to the one just above the broken units, which may have attained the stacking limit. I think that using the direction or stablishing a safest path would be the best solution, but I really don't know what the game uses.

What scenario were you playing, and where on it was the combat?

quote:

I know that using overruns make it easier, but that would force units to ignore the nice path in front of them and go after the enemy. Suppose I placed the trucks on swamp hexes along improved road ones, just to deny this nice advancing path to my enemy. Or, what's worse, place them on dunes (not trucks). The fact is that, if you have units all around and want to use a straight path ignoring them, you'll have to pay the move cost, even if they are tiny (relatively). Obviously, I went to an extreme case. In most cases units won't be so tiny and won't even be dislodged. In those cases I think they should pose some restriction to movement, but proportional to their size and even lower if they are tiny and the enemy is able to spot their size.

Clearly it can be an irritant in many cases. But, baring the bizarre examples you conjured up, it, in general, is not the reason breakthroughs are so hard.

quote:

I know it would break some scenarios, but that could be offered as an advanced rule. I mean, some scenarios would even benefit from it and the notion of breaking scenarios is also arguable if we consider that a lot of scenarios are not even balanced. I think that the better way to balance a scenario is playing it once and stablishing your victory conditions from this first time. Most of the time, the victory conditions stablished by the designers are unbalanced, because of bad design or even, perhaps, because of changes in the game along those years, which isn't all that bad (I think that most players don't want to go back to the earlier versions) and one can always stablish personal victory conditions.

It's in the Wishlist already: item 7.7.

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 25

RE: retreat direction - 11/26/2010 10:45:16 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

In case we�d like to make retreat directions more sophisticated, here are my thoughts about how:

Loss setting affects probability of retreat being in direction favorable to defender:

Ignore Losses: 25%
Limit Losses: 50%
Minimize Losses: 75%
Routed units deduct 25% from above.
Otherwise, retreat is in direction most favorable to attacker.

A. If favorable to defender, priority sequence is as follows, in order:

1. Towards the nearest cooperative HQ.
2. Towards the nearest friendly supply point.
3. To a hex that is not in an enemy ZOC.
4. To the lowest MP cost hex.
5. To the lowest stack-count hex.
6. Random chance.

B. If favorable to the attacker, priority sequence is as follows, in order:

1. To a hex that is in an enemy ZOC.
2. Away from the nearest cooperative HQ.
3. Away from the nearest friendly supply point.
4. To the highest MP cost hex.
5. To the highest stack-count hex.
6. Random chance.

All the above would be determined and applied to each retreating unit individually, rather than to the combat as a whole. This routine would apply to both RBCs and RFCs.

To recap, the current RFC direction is towards the nearest supply point (which often is in a counter-intuitive direction), and the current RBC direction is random.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 26

RE: retreat direction - 11/26/2010 11:49:47 PM

bevilacqua

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/5/2010
Status: offline

I really like the idea of making it dependent on losses settings and the direction of the HQ being priority in case it succeeds to retreat in a favourable direction.

First of all, setting losses tolerance would be more meaningful than the simple fact of holding ground, it would signify how long should a unit go before retreating orderly to a pre-established location, not disrupting the front. It would even, perhaps, favour a breakthrough, since players wouldn't abuse setting all units to ignore losses when defending... limit losses could then be used to achieve orderly retreats, since the retreat would be more predictable. The great advantage would be less randomness.

HQs being the priority would make placement of HQs even more meaningful, even when not adjacent, and one would be able to direct the orderly retreat.

The only thing I don't like about the idea are the numbers. I think that limit losses should have a greater chance to retreat in the good direction, since routing would make this probability raise to 75%, which would be saying that a routed unit in the intermediate setting has a much greater chance of going into enemy direction. I think that a routed unit with limit losses should get a 50% chance. Ignore losses should be the setting with the highest jump in value, not necessarily proportional to the interval between minimize and limit losses. This is because it is in this setting that players are pushing all forces foward without much care to the back areas and in keeping communication lines.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 27

RE: retreat direction - 8/30/2015 10:43:39 PM

Meyer1

Posts: 899
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

So... found this thread, after having some weird retreats. Perhaps that behaviour is more prominent in scenarios with no HQ units, as the one I'm playing right now. Looking at the "what's new" file, it doesn't seem that the retreat direction suffered any changes in the 3.4 patch. Questions:

1) is that true? (that wasn't changed)

2) is this still considered to be a problem, or the consensus was the there wasn't one?

3) is going to be changed for TOAW IV?

(in reply to bevilacqua)

Post #: 28

RE: retreat direction - 8/30/2015 11:59:18 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I've been doing some rigorous tests on retreats (using test scenarios), and I've been unable to cause any retreat direction other than towards the nearest supply point. HQs seem to be ignored. This has surprised me because I can clearly recall lots of game cases of units scattering in multiple directions. But I've tried the test scenarios all the way back to TOAW I (not ACOW - TOAW I).

One issue - the supply point chosen is the nearest one, even if it is in the enemy rear. This causes units to retreat towards the enemy. Even surrounding the combat with friendly supply points still has the units retreating in one direction.

It finally dawned on me that it's Retreat-Before-Combats (RBCs) that go in random directions. Retreat-From-Combats (RFCs) evidently go towards the nearest supply point (as best I can figure so far).

It adds the distance to the nearest friendly held supply point and the distance to the nearest HQ which has free cooperation together. It also gives +1 to hexes with adjacent units. It then finds the smallest number in the surrounding empty hexes and goes there.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 29