Strange Breakoff Behavior

[davidfagnand]

In the Rally segment my opponent had one of his Cataphracted Sub Commanders breakoff and move about 15 hexes weaving through my lines directly past many of my units. Two questions:

Is this correct?

If not can it be addressed in some future update?


Before Breakoff



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

After Breakoff



Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/img][/code]

[IainMcNeil]

We shoudl set a limit of max move + 2-3 hexes and if you exceed this fail the breakoff move. The reason it went so far is this is teh first tile it was allowed to stop on.

[arsan]

My "absurdly long break off" record was 11 hexes... and i thought it was long...
Besides the transcontinental break off distances problem (which is bad) we have the direction of break offs problem (which is really terrible).
How the hell did the game chose that path instead one towards HIS SIDE OF THE MAP??
It's not like he didn't had a free route in that direction... and one that did not passed through half a dozen ENEMY ZOCS!
Break-offs through enemy zocs and/or behind enemy lines shouldn't happen. Ever.
Much better to simply fail the break off instead of making some absurd break off like the one in the screen shot...

[IainMcNeil]

Is this from v1.2.5 or 1.2.6

[petergarnett]

Is this from v1.2.5 or 1.2.6

Sorry Iain but what's the code logic which prevented him going to the NW as it were - looks like a more logical route?

[davidfagnand]

I am running 1.26 and started the DAG game. I am not 100% sure what my opponent is using, but he should be monitoring this thread.

[IainMcNeil]

He breaks off away from the direction of combat - the arrow pointing at the enemy. He picked the initally open route available to him but it ended up getting in to trouble later. If youc an find out the opponents version that woudl help. Keith is sure it must be 1.2.5 as he says this cant happen in 1.2.6

[batesmotel]

If one player is using 1.2.6, don't both have to be. I thought one of the advantages of the multi-player server is that it would prevent version skew.

Chris

[batesmotel]

I think the treatment of ZOCs (adjacency to enemy BGs) needs to be treated the same for break offs as it is for routs and evades. At the moment
it seems like evades are less restricted in this respect than the other moves are. It might also make sense to allow legal interpenetrations when breaking
off. They aren't allowed in FoG TT, but then voluntary interpenetrations are also allowed during charges in FoG TT so this is already an inconsistency between the
TT and PC rules.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

What i find unclear from the example, as Peter pointed out, why couldnt he have just broken off one hex to the Northwest?

[batesmotel]

What i find unclear from the example, as Peter pointed out, why couldnt he have just broken off one hex to the Northwest?

I think the problem is that the path finding logic seems to work a hex at a time. So the first hex directly away from the combat arrow direction is ok. From there, to keep going generally away he needs to head SW. It really doesn't seem to be a very good pathfinding algorithm although it does seem to do better now for evades and routes. Maybe it just needs some different constraints for break offs.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, appears the problem might be that they are programming a minimum # of hexes that a breaking off unit needs to travel..... I think one or two hexes should suffice, after all, the unit isnt running away in panic, it is merely pulling back to reform, rally or to charge in again


Also, the unit facing is differnt than the combat arrows , units face a vertix, arrows appear to be the hexside*****
Right there is a variance that could explain some wierd behaviour, from the players perspective

In the above axample, the combat arrow is facing East, the unit itself is facing south east
If it is programed that the unit must move absolutely opposite the combat arrow, then why couldnt it move one hex west?, seams like a perfectly good place to go..

[batesmotel]

Hmm, appears the problem might be that they are programming a minimum # of hexes that a breaking off unit needs to travel..... I think one or two hexes should suffice, after all, the unit isnt running away in panic, it is merely pulling back to reform, rally or to charge in again

In the TT rules, a breaking off unit will attempt to go it's full movement away but will stop sooner if blocked. It must pull back at least 1 MU or else it is not able to break off. So breaking off and stopping at 1 or 2 hexes if further break off is blocked would certainly be a consistent with the TT rules. Much better than teleporting 10 or 15 hexes.

Chris

[76mm]

Hmm, appears the problem might be that they are programming a minimum # of hexes that a breaking off unit needs to travel..... I think one or two hexes should suffice, after all, the unit isnt running away in panic, it is merely pulling back to reform, rally or to charge in again

Dont know about this, you think they'd at least pull back out of the range of any HF that they might have just broken off from (ie, at least 3 hexes).

[batesmotel]

Hmm, appears the problem might be that they are programming a minimum # of hexes that a breaking off unit needs to travel..... I think one or two hexes should suffice, after all, the unit isnt running away in panic, it is merely pulling back to reform, rally or to charge in again

Dont know about this, you think they'd at least pull back out of the range of any HF that they might have just broken off from (ie, at least 3 hexes).

That's not a requirement in the TT rules. I think the basic idea is that if they are shock mounted, then any foot charging them are likely to at a severe disadvantage versus the shock mounted. If the mounted are not shock mounted, then they probably can try to evade if they don't have a chance to move away before the foot can charge them. Either one is in theory preferable to the mounted than standing and continuing to fight with steady foot.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, appears the problem might be that they are programming a minimum # of hexes that a breaking off unit needs to travel..... I think one or two hexes should suffice, after all, the unit isnt running away in panic, it is merely pulling back to reform, rally or to charge in again

Dont know about this, you think they'd at least pull back out of the range of any HF that they might have just broken off from (ie, at least 3 hexes).

I wasnt really commenting on how many hexes a unit SHOULD break off (which is likly mostly a manner of personal preferance than anything else) , (oh just reread my post, I guess i did )) , just that if they coded a minimum with say 50% of movement, your more likly going to see some bizarre behavior to land in a "legal spot"

In the above example, I think breaking off only one hex is preferable to a 7 hour tour!

[76mm]

In the TT rules, a breaking off unit will attempt to go it's full movement away but will stop sooner if blocked.

[moving at least three hexes is] not a requirement in the TT rules.

So the TT rules allow a unit to move its full movement, but moving at least three hexes is not a requirement...but since all cav can move at least three hexes, are you saying that the generally move full movement, but no more, and therefore move less if they can't move their full movement? I'm not saying that they should always move three hexes, but they should move more than 1-2 if possible..logically, you would think that if a unit went to the trouble to break off, they would pull back out of charging range of HF...

[76mm]

I wasnt really commenting on how many hexes a unit SHOULD break off (which is likly mostly a manner of personal preferance than anything else)

if you're saying that if given a choice between breaking off 1-2 hexes, or say, 15 (!) I would certainly agree (but I don't think 1-2 should be the default...)

[batesmotel]

In the TT rules, a breaking off unit will attempt to go it's full movement away but will stop sooner if blocked.

[moving at least three hexes is] not a requirement in the TT rules.

So the TT rules allow a unit to move its full movement, but moving at least three hexes is not a requirement...but since all cav can move at least three hexes, I don't understand what you're saying.

Moreover, those of us that don't have the TT game don't care much what the TT rules say, although granted they seem pretty well thought out.

But logically, you would think that if a unit went to the trouble to break off, they would pull back out of charging range of HF...

In the TT rules, mounted breaking off will attempt to go as far away as they can up to their normal move distance. They are treated as unable to break off (and drop a cohesion level) if they can not break off far enough to get at least 1 MU away before their break off move is blocked. The PC version does not impose the cohesion drop for failing to break off since it is easier to block a break off on the PC. (Normal cavalry move for TT is 5 MU, LH move is 7 MU. 1 MU is the minimum break off move considered to be sufficient to have broken contact with the opposing enemy BG. By comparison, HF move for TT is 3 MU, MF is 4 MU.)

Hopefully this is a clearer description.

Chris

[Morbio]

OK, guess who was the opponent?

ME

I can confirm I am running v1.26.

Personally, I'd like to claim that the wonderful break-off is due to the outstanding leadership of the units. Clearly the major factor here is that over the last 5 months I have trained, trained and trained these troops to see the most advantageous break-off position as possible. 100s of troop commanders have died during this training, and this captain is my premier troop commander

OK, on a serious note, this does highlight the comments I've been making recently. I do hope a fix is implemented in a later release (add to the roadmap?)

My suggestions:
- Break off should be no more than normal movement - if it goes further it can't charge again, which is the point of break-offs, I believe. If no clear hex is available within normal MPs then no break-off should be allowed.
- In preference a break-off should be directly away from the enemy.
- A break off should not be allowed to bypass "zones of control" (I know, ZOC's don't exist in FoG). If the units can't pass through hexes in normal play, why should they be able to do this successfully in a break-off? Alternatively, perhaps only allow the bypass a ZOC if the ZOC is for a unit that is already engaged in melee - the argument may be that because the enemy is already occupied the cavalry can charge through before they can react. I prefer the 1st option because if the cavalry has to pass through ZOC then it can't charge in again, which defeats the object of the break-off.
- A break off should be allowed to go behind enemy lines if the way is clear. Why wouldn't a smart commander take his cavalry into a more favourable position.

My thanks to David for delaying the game and posting this. I was unable to do this because I couldn't replay my last go.

Now we can finish the game!