[FDB] rev683 bRC4 [Gameplay] Evade Path

[FedeM]

Hi,

The evade path of BG's I think is wrong. I checked with FOG RB and on the following example the LF ends caught and charged from the rear.

Console:

0]BG[8] Miltades (Plateans) was selected
[3] BG[8] must pass an anarchy charge CMT against BG[27]..
[4] BG[8] anarchy charge CMT -> quality re-rolls are disabled
[4] BG[8] CMT test score: 5+6 +1 +1 = 13 >= 7 => passed
[4] +1(dr,SK) BG[8]
[4] +1(in trp,fld leader BG's AOC) BG[8]
[3] BG[8] won't anarchy charge BG[27]
[2] BG[8] charges BG[27]
[5] BG[27] => does not have the advantage!
[4] BG[27] thinks it can not defeat BG[8]
[3] BG[27]'s farthest opposite hex is H[14,8]
[3] evading BG[27] went away from BG[8] to H[13,7]
[2] BG[8] Miltades (Plateans) starts pursuing evading BG[27] Kaspian archers..
[3] BG[8]: BG[27]'tMPath is valid!
[3] ..BG[8] Miltades (Plateans) continues pursuing evading BG[27] Kaspian archers..
[3] ..BG[8] stops pursuing BG[27] as it ran out of MPs (after 1 hex)
[1] BG[8] Miltades (Plateans) was deselected

Before Charging



After charging

[cothyso]

this is not a bug, but intended as so atm (is also WIP).

FoG(RB) evade behavior was only allowing evading/routing BGs flee away in the opposite direction of the charge direction, and if blocked (by other EBG, as in this case), there would have been no evade/rout movement. in the case of a rout, VMD (variable movement distance) would also play a role: depending on the die roll, a reasonable VMD (0,1 or 2) would actually allow the routing BG to pass-through blocking EBGs ZOC, ending its movement beyond it.

In this case, FoG(RB) behavior is even more wrong, as if a unit which wants to evade finds it's rear patch blocked by other enemy unit and therefore it can not move back at all, it would rather not change its facing only to present the charging enemy unit its rear.

In FoG(U) the direction of charge doesn't have a so big influence on the evading/routing direction. The evading BG is looking for the closest hex to the furthest hex it would reach if evading in charge's opposite direction, and then moves towards it as close as it can move (depending on its MP + VMD). As you can see from the log, the furthest hex it thinks it could reach is H[14,8], but due to limited MP+VMD (it probably got a negative VMD), it only reachs H[13,7] while moving on its way towards H[14,8].

This is arguably a more natural behavior, as in combat a if a unit has it's rear patch blocked, would rather try to evade in any other available direction, than not at all.

Atm, this is still WIP and waiting for a debate with Richard, Chris and Iain.

[ianiow]

This is arguably a more natural behavior, as in combat a if a unit has it's rear patch blocked, would rather try to evade in any other available direction, than not at all.

You could argue that the evading battlegroup would not have the time to pick and choose a new evade route if their natural evade path has been suddenly blocked my the enemy.

Natural behavour aside, it is hard enough to trap skirmishers in the current system. Letting them dodge away in weird directions will make it near impossible to catch the blighters!

Just my 5c. I will await your discussion with the 3 wise ones.

[cothyso]

suddenly, yes.. but suddenly in this case would mean that the evading BG started to flee backwards, and while fleeing backwards (as in already fled at least 1 hex), encounters an EBG's ZOC, and stops.

if they can not flee backwards from the beginning (due to the presence of an EBG's ZOC), they would look for alternative evading paths from the beginning. Also, "look for" is an euphemism in here, they would know from the beginning in which directions they can see enemy units, and in which they aren't..

as for the batman skirmishers, they are indeed a problem, but allowing them to be catch up from behind by HF is not a solution, I'm afraid. LH (and maybe some other MT too) should have a +1/+2 hexes (for example by limiting their VMD only to positive values) while pursuing fleeing LF. In this way, the LF might still get (narrowly) away for a turn in some of the cases, but in most of the cases would be catch up from behind by the pursuing cavalry.

[FedeM]

HI Dan,

Will it be possible to see the evading path rout?

Tks!

[cothyso]

What do you mean by "see the evade/rout path"?

If you are referring to the [BUG] (v1.8.10.683 bRC4) Animation Speed problem, then, as I've said before, the units are teleporting to the end hex of their movement path atm (ie they are not visually going through each hex of their movement path yet). I have a Movement Manager code which does this (and more, as, for example, moving all the evading/routing BG's at the same time), but the code needs more work (passing through code) in order to be enabled.

If you're talking about seeing evading/routing BG's options, there is some debug code which displays the whole evade/rout MArea, and puts the list of the computed evading hexes candidates in the console, but it is disabled (it the evade/rout MArea debug display code doesn't have any additional cleaning up code, as I only need it to show me what's happening with the currently debugged BG, then I would stop/restart the code anyway).

PS: why is the friendly LF BG's having different facings between the two screenshots? did you manually changed its facing, or range attacked some other EBG before taking the second screenshot?

[FedeM]

I was refering to see the whole movement of the BG.
I think it is important to see how the unit evaded and learn how they do it and that way learn to position them and also how to catch them.

Debug code you mean console settings? I found them quite difficult to undrrstand and didnt have time to play with them

I intended to rotate the LF to look to the south but I failed to do it properly and ended looking north.

I really prefer FOG RB regarding the rotation and movement of units (for the moment)
Editor i think is more friendly too. More buttons and less combination of keys.

At least for trackpad on a notebook.

Cheers

[ianiow]

suddenly, yes.. but suddenly in this case would mean that the evading BG started to flee backwards, and while fleeing backwards (as in already fled at least 1 hex), encounters an EBG's ZOC, and stops.

Evading at right angles to the charge just seems wrong to me. I still think current ruling that the first evade move should be directly away from the chargers, then they can make turns (of 60 degrees max) to find a path around enemy ZOC to be the most intuitive. Making right angle turns while being chased would slow them down relative to the chasers and would perhaps be too hard for the unit commander to organise in the confusion of the battle, even for a skirmish unit imo. Also, you are going to get some really weird evade paths!

[FedeM]

I must agree.

[cothyso]

Don't worry, as I've told you, the evade and rout hexes are Work In Progress, and they still need fine tuning. Of course the 90 degrees evades should only happen in very rare occasions, if at all.

[IainMcNeil]

I think the way it is supposed to work is that they can evade to their rear or away from the charge but not any other direction. The default is away from the charge if that is possible. If not to their initial rear. If not they just get caught.

[batesmotel]

I think the way it is supposed to work is that they can evade to their rear or away from the charge but not any other direction. The default is away from the charge if that is possible. If not to their initial rear. If not they just get caught.

In FoG TT the evade move must be either to the original rear of the BG or directly away from the charge. In FoG(U) it had always been roughly away from the charge with some variation allowed for the hex grid. Originally ZoCs didn't prevent evades but that was added in one of the updates. At this point it may well be a bit too easy to surround skirmishers with ZoCs to prevent them from running away so giving them a bit more freedom to escape might well be an improvement in the game. One possibility would be to only allow an enemy BG prevent evasion through hexes adjacent to its front hex sides rather than all around. BG ZOIs (the 2 MU in front of a BG) do not prevent evades and charges in FoG TT, only normal movement.

Chris