Question about "retreating" screenshot

[garyknowz]

Nice hijack, ironsight.

No…I really mean nice hijack. It opened up an excellent discussion; far better than my lame one focusing on mere aesthetics. And I think an ordered retreat/retire command would be a great addition.

My only concern would be: how would the AI use it? Such a massive retreat is a very complex decision—dare I say, a human one—not to mention a game changer. I’m a bit skeptical that an AI (even one as good yours, norb) would be able to handle this command correctly. Who’s to say that your supporting division on the right doesn’t up and abandon you at the sight of a regiment on its flank? That a cautious commander won’t flee at the sight of cavalry in his rear? These might sound a bit hyperbolic, but we veterans of MMG have regularly seen very strange behavior (suicide couriers, batteries riding within 100 yards of infantry and attempting to unlimber, etc…), and this from the best AI on the market!

It might be accurate for entire divisions to retreat; indeed, there are well-documented cases of entire divisions abandoning their compatriots at the worst times. But these are relatively rare. And AIs are notorious for strange behavior. I guess I’m just a bit hesitant to see what an AI would do with such a powerful command. If it can be done right, fantastic; but if not, it might be a load of headaches for everyone.

[tim]

Just to go back to the aesthetics (because thats my job!) making new routing sprites means more RAM. To make one routing sprite set for each uniform is roughly equal to making a new uniform set so its a trade off. Personally I'd rather have another uniform like some more Zoauves than routing sprites but I may be overruled. At the moment we aren't planning routing sprites.

As for the fallback command I'll leave the designers and programmers to that one.

[ironsight]

gary,
you raise a good point! If playing a Brigade Commander and your Division or for that matter an adjacent Division's AI arbitrarily decides to retreat without warning that could be a disaster which could result in a very very messy battle depending on events.
Of course this could also be viewed as a double-edged sword in that when i play Division Commander just about always i'll see my fellow Divisions get decimated sometimes down to nothing instead of the wiser decision to retreat. This probably can be attributed more or less to poor AI decisions especially when it comes to attacking. I dunno.

*The straightforward solution would be that the Brigade and possibly Division retreat command could be hardcoded as a manual option only out of the of the realm of the mighty AI.
*Another solution would be to limit retreats at the Brigade level only, see how it works and maybe add a Divisional retreat option for later versions.
*Yet another solution would be to make the AI smarter to avoid suicididal attacks or make it aware at least that a suicidal attack is underway. Maybe when and if the casualty rate reaches a predetermined level, the Division's AI would realize its time to pullback or retreat. Under this scenario, the retreating Commander via the Corps Commander would send a message to all other Division Commanders advising that he is indeed retreating and to where. I would lean towards this option. I think it would make the game more interesting emulating what would happen in real battles.

I mentioned an idea a while back regarding toolbars on another old thread. Having written software in the past for both production and labratory Automated Test Systems(ATE), it became apparent to me early on to make the software as user-flexible as humanly practical because different users had their own unique option requirements. Quite frankly i got tired of the perpetual maintenance of my SW which prevented me from devoting time to my other more interesting projects.
What does this have to do with tool bars and this 'retreat option' discussion? What would be great is to allow tool bars to be customizable similar to Windows Menu Bars. The user could customize his tool bar with only the option buttons he wanted to use eliminating the clutter caused by unused command options. This retreat option is just one of dozens or so of other new command options which could be incorporated if the user so desired.
Another important benefit would be that if the options were written modular enough, new ones could be added painlessly in the future as patch updates.
Summarizing some might want a;
Division retreat option and other not,
Brigade retreat option and other not,
fallback option and other not,
withdraw option and other not,
Brigade charge option and other not,
fabricate breatworks option and others not,
build a pontoon bridge option and other not,
marching music option and other not,
on and on we go!

What i would envision if i were designing a game right or wrong, would be a customizable tool bar along with an advanced setup option menu for advanced players with just about an endless number of options to choose from. This way most of the people would be satisfied most of the time.

Ephrum, i for one like it!

[Gfran64]

I like what I'm hearing. I would say that the importance of retreat/withdraw to the user really depends on the importance of your troops to you. Since they are not real to us, I think we tend to throw them into situations that their real commanders would have scoffed at. It all comes down to how much skin you have in the game. If I'm just playing for victory points then I don't care so much about my losses. If I'm playing scenarios where the casualties carry forward or they don't have VP's then I am very careful with the troops. This is a good argument for the options/customized tool bar.

So that takes us back to how the MP variables are going to be weighted and scored/ranked. Are there going to be significant penalties for trashing your whole Division to get a VP that you'll never hold more than 1/2 hour; or is it going to be all about turning that star the right color? Will our casualties carry forward in MP? If so, then the withdraw/retreat/regroup commands become as important as the advance/charge commands. I'm also with Ephrum.

Greg

[norb]

You guys have some great stuff here. I'm listening, I promise that. But I can't promise that things will be added in the first release, more time after the initial release. Right now we're playing catch up.

[Ephrum]

Greg and ironsite, Thank you.
Both your ideas, and the others, were far more thought out than mine. It was all these posts that even got me thinking about it. It also shows we're all thinking along the same lines. And we can reach an agreement in a friendly, intelligent way.B)


Norb and NSD team,
We know you guys are doing great work. We all thank you for that, and for listening! Whatever gets in the first release, gets in. Whatever doesn't, doesn't.

I'm sure we'll be fine!

[Hancock the Superb]

Or will we...

:cheer:

[ironsight]

Norb, thanks for chiming in on this discussion and more important, listening.

Yep some great ideas have been put forth by people really interested in not only the realism and playability but also the future success of the game. I think we just about all agree that a retreat and/or withdraw command needs to be added at least at the Brigade level.

I sorta snuck in another futuristic command in my previous post i'd like to see, the Brigade Charge command which i geuss is opposite of the retreat command. I simulate this all the time to capture batteries by TCing the Commander to DQ his Brigade towards the battery. Problem is the Commander is TC'd and his troops aren't and if not careful the Commander could get himself killed. Some regiments will stop right before the action and do nothing unless i force em one by one or unTC their Commander to get em to move. By then the sounds of cannister determine the outcome!!
The way i see this working is the Brigade Charge button would be hit and the Commander's chosen destination would be a little beyond the battery. Each regiment would be ordered to DQ to that destination until they see a red halo and then charge said halo. Of course they'd still be subject to cannister fire/routs, gaurding enemy infantry/cavalry melees, etc. The command would have to be chosen wisely.

Greg, others,
The VP concept! Short story, i hate it! But thats just me, some people like Chevys and some like Fords while yet others swear by Toyotas. This is why i'm a big believer in user options, options and more options.
For me personally, VPs lend themselves more to a game atmosphere than the realism of an 'elite-level' battle simulator. If it were'nt for the couple of non-VP battle options in OP, i doubt i would play the game as much as i do.
I'm more concerned with routing, casualty ratios, points scored, occupying the enemies initial ground and basically clearing them off the map than i am worrying about the constraignts of securing some artificial VP.
Having said that, admittedly i can see the importance of the VP concept in multi-play although other metrics could concievably be used to determine winners such as casualty counts, points scored, etc.

I forgot to mention another benefit of a customizable tool bar....also custom placement of command buttons. Can't count the times i accidently hit the regimental retreat button and usually at the worst possible time. Of course all these staggering amounts of options would have 'factory defaults' including the tool bar.

[garyknowz]

Thanks, Tim. Upon second read, I think might have sounded a bit unappreciative of all the work that you and other do to bring an atmospheric element to game. Let me be clear, the realistic skins you and others bring to the game always been one of my main attractions to the game. I was simply denigrating my focus on aesthetics for men who have been largely marginalized. Given a choice between a nice Zoauve or Bucktail sprite and multiple routing sprites, I would choose the former every time.

However, I still think there should be different spites for retreating men and routing men (one sprite a piece should suffice). The spites in the screenshot look great for a retreating regiment. A routing regiment, however, should look just a little more disorderly, IMO—just enough to differentiate them from those engaging in an ordered retreat.

[garyknowz]

Very true, ironsight. The AI tends to follow orders to its own peril (suicide batteries, brigades advancing on Corps, piecemeal attacks), AIs just do not have the ability to think rationally about such decisions. If we retreat, the divisions we are supporting might not adjust to the circumstances and are thus subsequently decimated. Like I said, such massive withdrawals require a human judgment quality that no computer can truly make (at least none that I have seen).

I concur with the three potential solutions you raised. Of the three options you listed, of course a smarter AI would be optimal. Dumb AIs are merely opportunities for weak gamers to exploit (this will be the beauty of true H2H). Now, of course, norb’s AI is best in the business, and if anyone can do it, it’s Norb's team of grog coders. But it might be too tall an order even for these gentlemen. But then, I’ve been proven wrong before.

Exhibit A: CWBR;

Exhibit B: TC2M; B)


I'm excited to see what they can come up with.