Routing directions

[Alastair]

WTH do all units always rout towards their side of the map? In real life, no one would do that if it wasn't the fastest way to get away from the battle. They should just run directly 180 degrees from the nearest danger. This would fix the possibility of slaughtering units just because you're in their designated rout path (that they're determined to go to, even though if they were still that determined about something they'd be determined to kill the enemy).

Edit: Thoughts?

[This message has been edited by Alastair (edited 08-16-2001).]

[Alastair]

Ahem. Anyone?

[HATAMOTOKILL]

Maybe a question for TARGET? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Maltz]

That's a good point. Perhaps it will become a feature in CTW (STW2?) http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

But I don't want this improvement to become the excuse of having reinforcement coming from our back, flying across the bridge! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

[Yoko Kono]

in the game Sid Meiers Gettysburg routing troops run away from danger, if they encounter enemy as they run they CHANGE DIRECTION in order to avoid them, if they still cannot dodge them they surrender. In STW a similar setup could be used with routing troops changing direction if they run into enemies in the same sudden way stampedeing buffalo would if a gun is fired in front of them. Perhaps even if surrounded they could commit seppoku

[Maltz]

Quote Originally posted by Yoko Kono:
Perhaps even if surrounded they could commit seppoku[/QUOTE]

Great Idea! That will be super cool (and realistic, too).

[Alastair]

Bump. Does no one else have thoughts on this?

[Khan7]

Settle down Alastair, it's bad taste to harangue people if no one responds to your thread within an hour or two.

As far as my thoughts go, I think something along the lines of what has been mentioned here already would be good, but it is not the most important game improvement.

Also good to see another Antietam man out there! What a great game..

------------------
Khan7

[Whitey]

I think there are a few Antietam people out here (hiding in the wings...)

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

it is ridiculous, always been...
we've had huge discussions about this a year ago- back then it was much worse because routing units would get a charge bonus, it was later fixed with a patch [feel free to play unpatched STW, and see the slaughter http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif]

+ it is not very important right now with all the other new and major problems

------------------
I'm a man... I can change... If I have to...
...I guess...

[This message has been edited by JayDee Daidoji (edited 08-18-2001).]

[BSM_Skkzarg]

It does need to be addressed - but IF they would resolve the reinforcement issue - it would automatically helt to fix this bug as well. A unit in rout mode heads for their "side" edge of the battlefield - meaning that when they appear on the wrong side of the battlefield and they rout - they must run THROUGH the entire enemy army. If they place reinforcements properly - then a routed unit will not ever have to flee thru an army unless it was placed into a tactical deathtrap.

BSM_Skkzarg

[Alastair]

Khan7, 1) I do not play Antietam and never have, because the graphics just look too ugly to pay attention to the game on my 19" monitor. 2) I did not wait an hour. I waited a day. Big difference, and it was on the second page when I bumped it. So it's not "bad taste," and I'm not "haranguing" people.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I agree that routing units should try to escape off the battlefield toward the nearest exit away from enemy units.I have never played Antietam,but do play Civil War Generals 2 by Sid Mier.If MI had units rout the same as these two other games would be an improvement for sure.Nothing worse than unnecessary casualties to your rout chasers,especially precious Cav,by being stampeded from behind by routing Ashi's.

------------------
Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell so that they look forward to making the trip.

[Algesan]

It is silly the way it is now. In bridge defense I get to break units and watch them die trying to rout back across the bridge. My personal favorite was the NI unit that came in through _my_ side of the map, took no casualties from the one volley fired by my Arqs but routed. The Arqs charged after them and slaughtered the entire unit without loss in melee all by itself. Most kills I've seen by an Arq in one battle. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[celtiberoijontychi]

In combination with the new reinforcement system and the new online modes (for example the one where you have to control a circle, and units are resurrected and come in as reinforcments) this issue is quite important again.

[TakeshidaSo]

I was looking for another thread, and ran across this one. I only just thought of this myself, after Ritchie's statement about how router's should behave. Here I was thinking I had raised a good point, and now have to admit that I let a good point slip past me before. I want to raise this thread to support a very important idea, even if I wasnt the first person to bring it up. The new approach to reinforcements allows units to determine their distance from enemy units. CA has already worked directly in this area. Why shouldnt routers move away from enemy units, and THEN towards their own mapedge? They clearly wanted to get home in the quickest SAFE way. This would create more scattering of routed units, but only until they cleared the proximity of the enemy. It would reduce the number of UNEARNED kills. The fact that they want to scatter reinforcements because its logical troop behavior, and adds to the complexity, are also good reasons that they should refine routing units behavior.

[Khan7]

I can't in the least agree with Takeshida on the reinforcements issue (he seems to support the daft new system (daft imo)), but he has put forth a very good idea on the routing directions issue. Couldn't agree more with that one.

------------------
Khan7

[TakeshidaSo]

Khan,
You need to get more sleep. I prefer the old reinforcement approach over the new one, but want a more reasoned approach than either one. Re-read my post under that other thread again, as well as the latest one. I'm not clear about your opinions on most things either, but at least we agree that routers are acting ridiculously moronic at the present time. That makes me wonder how the early discussions about it, that have been referred to, didnt put in place a plan to correct it. Worry, and wonder.

[Vanya]

Reinforcements should be a cross between Forest Gump and the Waterboy: dumb, fleet of foot, and hard-hitting.

Would YOU take on the Waterboy if he was charging at you from a bridge?!? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Remarks at the high quality of the H20 in the stream under the bridge...]

[TakeshidaSo]

What?

I agree that the old system for reinforcements appears to be better than the new one, with the current routing unit behavior. In WRG miniature rules, you could assign detached units to attempt to come on the map at the Left, Right, or the Rear edge. They came in within a range of turns, with the rear edge units taking longer, and with cavalry arriving sooner than lightly armored infantry, and those troops sooner than heavily armored infantry. This "Indirect Approach" was rarely employed, but was a good option in certain terrain, or weather. You could even have detached troops selected to arrive at your own edge, and even this was a good option under certain circumstances. Implementing these rules would have all detached, or reinforcing, units operating under the same set of options, decided before the battle. This places all units under realistic employment guidelines, instead the current reinforcements approach. Again, the problem with having this wonderful system for strategically employing units into the tactical battlefield, is the fact that, routing units dont behave in a way that really attempts to preserve themselves. The AI makes tactical decisions, reinforcements decide if its safe to arrive, and units are constantly determining range from friends and enemies for a number of factors. Routers already have a set of directional instructions. It's only necessary for routers to; FIRST move away from nearby enemy units, THEN towards their mapedge. This would certainly be a major improvement to the game engine, if both these ideas were implemented.

[This message has been edited by TakeshidaSo (edited 08-23-2001).]

[Lord Aeon]

I think that routing troops should head for the nearest exit, so to speak. I think they'd be too busy running away to all change direction as a group... unit cohesion is sort of out the window at that point...

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

[A Nerd]

Routing troops should run away from the enemy not toward their end of the map. Seeing that the reinforcement model has been altered, the routing troops should as well. For one, i've had AI troops rout immediately after entering the battle as reinforcements. They run toward my troops who are usually at the center of the map and get slaughtered. These troops should either run in the opposite direction or not enter the battle at all. Also the should run to the nearest edge of the map, if of course there are no enemy troops blocking their path. We all know how frustrating it is whan all the enemy troops have routed but the battle won't end because there is one enemy soldier somewhere (probably at the bottom of the map...which we cannot see) running toward the top to exit the field. If we press escape to end the battle, we lose. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif This needs some slight adjustment.

[TakeshidaSo]

That makes sense too. The thing is, routers are already instructed by programming to retreat toward a certain rout area at their own rear edge. A patch idea thats simple enough to be implemented is the goal. Like I said, so many decisions about distance from an enemy are already being made, that it seems the easiest for CA to; FIRST have routers attempt to move away from the enemy, THEN do what they are already told to do.

[DarthGuru]

This may seem like a fundamental idea, but I wonder would it take a lot of programming to accomplish? Because if so, don't count on them doing it. It seems like it would make it easy to program to have them route to just a certain point in the map, rather than away from the enemy, due to calculating where and how many of the enemy is coming from (because what if they are surrounded?) Anyways this seems like a hard request but I agree in that the route should be away from the enemy...

[TakeshidaSo]

Right now routers have directional instructions. They use those instructions now, whether or not its ridiculous. They deal with being surrounded now. Units already decide range, from friends and enemy, for a number of reasons continuosly. The AI makes decisions to try to move to your flank, or take terrain, based on distance, etc. I dont think it's too unreasonable for a routing unit to try and move outside a certain distance from enemy units(the FIRST), before it follows its current instructions(the THEN). Whatever problems it might encounter in attempting to do that are better than the problems it now encounters. How does the AI choose between 2 equally attractive decisions that it makes now? With the planning thats being done for reinforcements, and the current random reinforcements approach, routing troops are going to be ridiculously slaughtered in far greater numbers than they always have been. It just takes a FIRST this, THEN that, and it already knows how to do the THEN. If the routing unit can't do the FIRST, it should proceed to the THEN. In my opinion this fix is as simple as combining servers, or allowing for Mongol vs. Mongol, or finishing the planning for "cycling reinforcements", or a multi-player campaign. It's not as easy as adjusting morale back to STW's system, or readjusting YS and SA back to their STW stats, but lets try it, test it, and see if there are any bugs. The fact that routing units dont try to survive is a bug, in my opinion. Imagine the benefits. For one thing; "look at my kills", might actually make me look again, because they would all be earned. Routing units behave very silly now, it needs to be corrected.

[Lord Aeon]

In situations where the enemy is taking awhile to rout off the map and you don't feel like waiting (your "escape finger" gets itchy), just slide the speed slider to 100%.

I understand that this can present a problem if you're the attacker and time is running down, but if you're far enough away that you can't eyeball that little guy and you can't see him on the radar, chances are he'll make it out before the end of the time limit anyway.

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

[TakeshidaSo]

I like what someone said about adding instructions for the routing unit to; FIRST attempt to move a set distance away from nearby enemy, and THEN follow its already programmed instructions. IF it cant move away from nearby enemy, without getting within that distance from another enemy, THEN it follows its already programmed instructions.

[Lord Aeon]

I don't know... i think that way you'll run into situations where the time will run out by virtue of guys running away from all your units, doing laps in the middle of the map.

It's fine the way it is. If you've lost the battle, you lose lots of your troops. If you're on the winning end, all the better. If you're on the losing end, just press escape and end the battle.

If you've got enough reinforcements to potentially win, then you probably will, regardless of where your reinforcements show up... they'll all be fresh, while your enemies will be exhausted. Just a thought.

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

[TakeshidaSo]

I cant believe that routers can be herded away from their rout area, so as to prolong the game endlessly, or that it makes any sense to worry very much about that. The arguments seems to be that routing unit behavior, and reinforcements approach, isnt too important one way or the other and so doesnt really matter anyway.

I found rallying, and recovering to win, a not too infrequent event. I found pursuits to be difficult against good opponents. I want these events to be even more realistic now. So I prefer to have sensible routing unit behavior, to improve this area of the game, and to correct unrealistic unit behavior.

I think "cycling reinforcements" already indicates that CA had the plan to use reinforcements in a logical, and strategically controlled way. I support that effort, and I hope they will complete the task, and so do they by the sound of it. I suggested adding the possibility of detaching forces from the main body to the reinforcement plans, and allowing for these "secondary" forces to enter the map within certain areas that were predetermined by the player. Using secondary forces in a planned way allows for a strategic envelopment. This integrates the strategic and tactical parts of the game. The current random approach is just a stopgap measure anyway. If its easier to program secondary units to enter from a map area that is determined before the battle, so much the better. If all units in the army are chosen as main, or secondary, forces before the battle, then control over which units deploy at the start is also allowed. This feature has been requested by many people, but is just a part of this planned reinforcements approach.

[Lord Aeon]

I was arguing by exaggerating the case. Nonetheless, i am sure that there WILL be instances when the timer is running down, and an enemy is routing to the end of the field, where you are (your army is more likely to be fragmented at thiis point), gets to your troops at the edge of the map (that have arrived at the very edge from routing other enemies), then makes a complete about face, AS A GROUP, and runs clear to the opposite end of the map!?!?

Say this happens - once again, the timer is running down - and you're the attacker, issuing approximately 90% of the kills, but the timer runs out and you lose.

My goodness! The way some of you are (over-)reacting to this morale situation... lol, if something like THIS were to happen to you, there would probably be resulting hospital stays from slit wrists and arrests for bomb threats to CA. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Just teasin', folks. I know some of you play without the timer (including myself), but others don't.

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

[TakeshidaSo]

If you think someone has overreacted to the morale issue then provide them with a reason to stop overreacting. Perhaps they just havent considered things in as logical a manner as you might have. An overreaction implies that there is some irrational flaw in their analysis. You would be doing them a great favor by showing them the error of their ways. For instance, I would like to know why the overall morale system needed to be raised by at least 8 morale points, if there is any difference between SP and MP morale, and if any morale modifiers were deleted from MI (for example: the enemy to your flank modifier).

[Lord Aeon]

A good reason? I've got a few! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

1. It will most likely be fixed very soon, since the devs have said that they will address any issues with MI.

2. Actually, it is probably being worked on right now.

3. There are some band-aid solutions to use until then, like an H0 troop truce in MP.

4. The SP campaign doesn't seem to show such a marked increase in morale, which suggests that the morale has been increased in MI for reasons of preserving balance.

5. From tests that i have performed, the morale modifiers for flanking seem to be very well in place.

6. Some folks seemed to show a similar overreaction to the strength of MHC, and it has since been proven rather conclusively that they are quite beatable.

In other words, none of us have had such extensive experience with the x-pack that they could have said definitively that MHC were unbeatable... i said this then, and i'm saying it now again that none of us have had such extensive experience with the x-pack that they could say definitively that the new morale system "ruins the game".

Rather, we should all keep our wits and our poise about us as we examine these issues, and perhaps avoid running into a solution that may cause more problems than it solves.

I could probably think of some more, but i'm getting writer's block. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

[TakeshidaSo]

You couldnt provide any reason for MI morale to actually be raised by a large degree when, AGAIN, STW always allowed for increased unit strength thru; higher KOKU, MORALE, and FATIGUE settings. Except to point out what we already knew; that the problem is occuring because they tried to play balance the SP Mongol campaigns.

You dont exactly define what overreacting is, but your reasons for not overreacting are; because it MAY get fixed. Thats pretty obvious to the people who have tried to raise morale as an issue, so that it MAY get fixed. Therefore, it goes without saying, that raising morale as an issue for patch discussions is not an overreaction. Characterizing the debate has always been a useless venture, it seems to me. It just detracts from the central issue by trying to substitute personality based subject matter instead.

[Lord Aeon]

No, it WILL get fixed. And no, raising morale as an issue is not overreacting.

Nevertheless, there are some poeple who have overreacted. I've read those "i'm not playing this game anymore until they fix this" posts, and the "this ruins the game!" posts, which IMO are overreactions. The fact that you're here arguing with ME because *I* didn't give you a good enough explanation also qualifies as overreacting because:

1) I didn't write the code; i've just tried to suggest that there's no reason to fly off the handle about it when the game's only been out in the US for a couple weeks,

2) The devs have already said that they will patch anything that we want patched as soon as they collect all the necessary opinions on it, and

3) There's a fundamental difference between logging your opinion on it (see Hach's thread), and constantly ranting about it.

There's always the issue of the PRESENTATION of your ideas, and frankly, it's annoying to keep seeing new threads about the same thing written by the same people over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

I happen to think that i've provided some really good reasons for people to avoid being terribly discouraged this early in the life of the X-pack. You're allowed to not think so... that's fine. No problem.

Overreaction: constantly ranting on the board about the same MI feature less than two weeks after the release.

LOL, don't be mad; that's not me, that's Webster's New World talkin'. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."