Slitherine

Two related questions :

1) From a logical standpoint, why can't A go there :



while it can go there :



A can even turn 45° when on the nearest cross (on pic 2). Is it a matter of adding APs or of ZoC2. Shouldn't it be different ?


2) Why A systematically follows this path when clicking on square 1 :



... so that it ends up rotated 45° left, never this one :

Reaching these squares was possible in Pike and Shot as the absence of secondary ZoC allowed this path :



Wouldn't a change of the automatic path bypassing the secondary ZoC (or the addition of a second path option) allow the same mobility as in P&S ?

You have only one 45 degree free turn. And here you have two 45 degree turns so secend will cost you 8 points.

I thought that what matters was only the final position (manual, p. 63-64) :

Note that only the angle between the original facing and the line between the starting tile and the final position is taken into account, so that sometimes a unit can make multiple twists and turns along the way that are not costed. This is particularly true of AI units, which use a different route finding algorithm taking into account terrain preferences. The route they take may sometimes include multiple changes of direction, but as usual only the overall angle between the original facing and the line between the starting tile and the final position is taken into account.

I analyse it more as a conflict between the automatic path and the secondary ZoC exerted by the enemy than as a matter of number of APs. But I may be wrong (especially as I don't totally understand the meaning of the expression : 'the angle between the original facing and the line between the starting tile and the final position').

If it were a conflict between the automatic path and ZoC2, while the latter has certainly its advantages (such as simulating the unwillingness of a unit to risk an opportunity charge by the enemy unit it would brush past), it would also severely limit the mobility of the 16-AP cavalry, which is not good. If so, shouldn't the route finding algorithm for human players be changed ?

The change in the mobility of the cavalry between PéS and FoGII is huge (too huge imho) :

Situation 1 (this change is understandable with ZoC2)




Situation 2 (this change is huge)

Last question about the mobility of the cavalry : Couldn’t 16-AP cavalry be immune from enemy secondary ZoC ?
Aim : Enhance their mobility.
(Weak) Justification : their ‘speed’ would make the risk small, that an opportunity charge by the enemy unit they brush past occurred (1).

________
(1) Thus would it also apply to Light Horse ? iirc devs are against slippery lights.

The angle between the original facing and the line between the starting tile and the final position

I understand it as follows: draw two lines, both originating at the same spot, in the centre of the starting tile. The first line extends in the direction in which the unit is originally facing. The second extends to the centre of the final tile. The angle is then between these two lines.

Example 1: move straight ahead in the direction the unit is originally facing => 0 degree angle (the lines are identical).
Example 2: the unit is originally looking straight ahead (like in your picture) and is then moving diagonally to an adjacent tile => 45 degree angle.

Makes sense?

@Kronenblatt : Interesting. It makes sense. But wouldn't the angle also take into account the final rotation of the unit ?

If you're right, it means that, if I directly clicked on '1', both following paths (if allowed) ends with the same angle and would cost the same amount of AP, right ?

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:59 am @Kronenblatt : Interesting. It makes sense.

1. But wouldn't the angle also take into account the final rotation of the unit ?

2. If you're right, it means that, if I directly clicked on '1', both following paths (if allowed) ends with the same angle and would cost the same amount of AP, right ?

From what I understand:
1. No. Because it would be difficult (at least to me) to obtain an angle out of that (which point to end the second line in?).
2. Yes.

But I may be wrong.

kronenblatt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:25 am 1. No. Because it would be difficult (at least to me) to obtain an angle out of that (which point to end the second line in?).

Not understanding the sentence, I hesitated between these angles and others :

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:35 am

kronenblatt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:25 am 1. No. Because it would be difficult (at least to me) to obtain an angle out of that (which point to end the second line in?).

Not understanding the sentence, I was lost in angles, either theses ones or others :

The blue line needs to end at a point in order to extend it and thus be able to derive an angle versus the red line.

I see I'm talking to a scientist and have to be precise
Either the red line could be lengthened to the middle of the square (that's what I meant on the pic) or the blue line could start where the red line begins, I have no preference.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:56 am Either the red line could be lengthened to the middle of the square (that's what I meant on the pic) or the blue line could start where the red line begins, I have no preference.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:35 am

I don't really understand. So either the green or the blue angle in your picture above?

The blue angle, the purple one, the green one or another one... Not totally understanding the sentence 'the angle between the original facing and the line between the starting tile and the final position', I tried to imagine lots of angles. I think the whole list of my misconceptions about this angle is of little help here.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 2:39 pm The blue angle, the purple one, the green one or another one... Not totally understanding the sentence 'the angle between the original facing and the line between the starting tile and the final position', I tried to imagine lots of angles. I think the whole list of my misconceptions about this angle is of little help here.

The unit is facing straight ahead (not diagonally) in your picture: imagine a line extending in the direction that your unit is facing (the vertical blue line); from the centre of the starting tile and straight ahead. That's the line of the original facing. Now compare that to a line that also starts in the centre of the starting tile (necessary in order to compare direction of the two lines and thus the angle between) and ends in the centre of the tile in which the unit ends its move. If the unit ends its move just one tile straight ahead these two lines will be overlapping each other and thus the angle between them is zero. But if instead the unit ends its move in tile 1, then the two lines will diverge from their starting points (the centre of the starting tile) and the angle will be more than 0 degrees (a full circle is 360 degrees, a half circle is 180 degrees, a quarter 90 degrees, and thus a simple diagonal move has an angle of 45 degrees (half of the 90 degrees)). It's that angle that the alpha symbol is attempting to express.
Don't know if that made it any clearer?

Thanks.

Now back to the topic : the mobility of cavalry. My impatient horses paw the ground

So, if this blue path was allowed, it would cost 6+4+6 = 16 AP, right ? (angle = 0°, no turn, no cost)

1) From a logical standpoint, why can't A go there :

2) Why A systematically follows this path when clicking on square 1 :

The engine routefinding algorithm only finds one path, and that is used by the scripts to determine whether the unit can go to a particularly square. The effects of ZOCs are dealt with by script. The engine knows nothing about ZOCs, so it can't look for an alternative route avoiding them. If we wanted to look for alternative routes (which we don't) we would have to do the routefinding by script, which would significantly impact game performance.

The same routefinding algorithm is used in Pike and Shot, but because P&S does not have secondary ZOCs, the unit can pass through the square that would be secondarily ZOCd in FOG2.

Sometimes you can move a unit in stages, and reach a square that is not reachable in one go in the original highlighting. However, if you do, the cost of any turns is applied for each stage, rather than possibly being ironed out for the overall move (if it was permitted). So it would not be possible in this case because of the two separate turns involved.

The engine picks the most "natural" route. If you want your troops to follow a different route, such a manoeuvre would be more difficult in real life, and the way the game currently works reflects that.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:20 pm Thanks.

Now back to the topic : the mobility of cavalry. My impatient horses paw the ground

So, if this blue path was allowed, it would cost 6+4+6 = 16 AP, right ? (angle = 0°, no turn, no cost)

Which is a very good example of why it wouldn't be a good idea to allow the scripts to search for devious alternative routes!

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:20 pm Thanks.

Now back to the topic : the mobility of cavalry. My impatient horses paw the ground

So, if this blue path was allowed, it would cost 6+4+6 = 16 AP, right ? (angle = 0°, no turn, no cost)

One trick in this situation is to occupy the secondary ZoC square with another unit - then your cavalry would be able to follow the blue arrow.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:05 am Which is a very good example of why it wouldn't be a good idea to allow the scripts to search for devious alternative routes!

Why ?

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:48 am One trick in this situation is to occupy the secondary ZoC square with another unit - then your cavalry would be able to follow the blue arrow.

Thank you very much for sharing.

I for one don't like tricks when playing these games as it hurts my immersion.

The problem is the borderline cases where it is not obvious (from the manual as written) if a move is possible or not without trying it out, which makes it impossible in more than a very few cases to plan more than one move ahead.

Or, put shortly, the movement rules are not in all cases perfectly clear. Another example is light units not always getting a free 45° turn in addition to the full turn, as the manual suggests. {Edit: Manual doesn´t suggest it; that would be P&S. It´s the other way round in FoG2: You sometimes do get an additional free 45° turn seemingly arbitrarily, even though the manual suggests nothing of the sort.] It´s as if the rules of chess were not stating unambiguously if capturing a pawn en passant is allowed or not.

In other words, I don´t like surprises. Not in the sense of clever play of my opponent, but in the sense of something being possible (or impossible) that I didn´t know in advance (from the manual) to be possible (or not possible). I like to know precisely what can or cannot happen, without grey zones, or what´s the point of strategy and tactics.