Pathing Poll

[RebBugler]

Two differing opinions are offered below...taken from another pathing thread. On one side, eliminate the pathing until it's fixed, possibly with smaller pathing tiles. Another side, make the present pathing system even broader, larger pathing tiles, so units make even wider paths to avoid collisions or engagement interference. What do you think?

The pathing sets SOW apart from the other TC games. It's aim is to provide realism of troop behavior whereas moving in front of or through firing lines was totally unreal. Making the pathing tiles available in the Debug mode is how folks can check out and scrutinize the pathing system, and possibly provide suggestions to improve this feature.

At the risk of being brash ... in order to avoid a smaller problem of units passing through or residing in the same space as other units in order to trump up realism, the game instead fattens gawdy unrealistic actions while doing little to mitigate the first one. Units still can stack one upon the other, as Parker can certainly attest to. Just yesterday, I saw two regiments occupy the exact same space. Day before that, a player in MP was able to stack a fence line with practically three brigades of infantry stacked up on each other. This happens routinely. Meanwhile, players have to micro-manage their regiments to get them into position because they go on wild routes.

Doubt if the LOS fix will help with the pathing issues introduced in this thread. Patch is ready, Norb should get the installer up any day now.

Too bad we don't have any pathing fixes, I'd like more than anyone to get this resolved. Maybe one fix to consider would be for units that must detour their straight line path due to pathing constraints, automatically form into column formation, thus narrowing their pathing field. Thoughts?

My basic, and albeit somewhat knee-jerk, idea is to shut off the pathing until it can be better worked out. Or, if practical, designate specific objects that are considered impassible on the maps and have regiments wrap their routes around the dimensions of the object as tight to the object as possible if the path is blocked by such an object. A good example of this is how regiments go around buildings. Putting the regiments into column may not work, either, when facing an enemy regiment in line. If I want them to move forward in line, then putting them into column will make them more susceptible to casualties.

I like this idea of being able to override the pathing when necessary. Throw in a penalty whereas regiments involved could not fire, and would be helpless while the intermingling took place.

However, and a big however, and don't think it's possible to turn off pathing for any duration or for individual units.

RebBugler – I Respectfully Disagree, see we still view some things differently, I can only look at this game as a million lines of code, and what is-coded can also be un-coded.

I don’t think that the problem is that it can’t be done, but the bigger problem would be how much trouble it would be for Norb too do!

You have to remember that the Take Command is also programmed to over-ride the AI routines\ code.

.................................................................................................

EDIT Post:

I will also add that I am one-hundred-percent-opposed to any changing of the AI coding that pertains to the units walking around each other.

I still think that the AI units stay too close to each other during battle.

I would like to see a little bit more spacing between them.

This is why I think that the right approach would be for the player to suspend the AI temporarily for said unit , instead of tampering with the current system.

davinci

[SouthernSteel]

I know it's tough to encompass slight variations in a poll, but here's my basic take on this situation: I was ready to vote to abolish/suspend the current setup while a better replacement can be devised, but I realized I may have to qualify that point of view.

If making the pathing "broader" (which I assume means making fewer, larger tiles?) will prevent unit stacking then I am willing to accept that outright. However, that too must be qualified because it would make, in theory anyway, the current problem even more severe (ie forcing units to swing far wide of friendly units every time). Units need to swing wider than at present (because currently passing too close causes the pathing freakout which we all are familiar with), but that doesn't have to be 20+ yards.

I understand that changing such a basic facet of the coding for the game would be a monumental task, and as such may not honestly be feasible. However, I don't necessarily like needing/having the option to suspend the pathing for a given unit, as that would essentially double the amount of micromanagemet necessary. Instead of clicking TC to control a regiment, you would also need to click a button to turn off pathing, move said unit, and then likely turn TC off and pathing back on so the AI behavior will keep the regiment turned and firing at the enemy. I personally don't like the notion of having every single one of my units TC'ed at all times and under constant watch, and this seems (broadly) to make it basically a necessity.

[Garnier]

I think it's good as is. It's not hard to get a regiment to go exactly where you want using waypoints. It's better than TC2M.

[NY Cavalry]

I agree with Garnier.

[KG_Soldier]

I agree with NY Cav

[Davinci]

I can’t really vote here because my opinion is strictly related to the Open Play games, so I have absolutely no knowledge about the other two types of games, or their problems with pathing.

I think a better Poll would have been at what expense is these changes going to cost all of the players, in the form of if Norb spends this many hours changing this, what other projects will have to be put on hold.

Yes, once again I have Jumped Topic, my bad!

davinci

[Hancock the Superb]

The pathing is good. However, to keep it more in line with the Civil War, there ought to be a few improvements.

These would be, if your unit is within 300 yards of the enemy or something, it needs to be in line formation (regardless of TC)...this would reduce a lot of problems, which are largely due to column formation in my experience.

The second is, you should not be able to march units through other units. This rarely ever happened but is a hit or miss in this game, sometimes it goes all the way around, other times, it just goes through. In fact, if a unit is firing, other units should not be able to get in front of it at all. That would simplify matters. The same should apply to brigade commanders moving their brigades...although this would be trickier to do a no move box around a brigade in line.

Another thing is that when you order a brigade forward, and there is something in the way, all the regiments converge on the brigade commander instead of finding their own path. Sometimes, I'll send a brigade off and find them at the enemy line all bunched up together.

Finally, oftentimes the pathing gets screwy if two regiments are one in front of the other and both moving in one direction. The rear one wants to take some crazy path a half a mile long because the other is in the way. I think that this likely causes a lot of pathing problems.

If someone wants to get a good look at the pathing, they ought to play the Devil's Den - Ward Scenario. Usually, the confederates manage to bunch up all four brigades of Hood's division in a tiny little area along Devil's Den. Although it could be attributed to the scenario designer, I believe it isn't...it is simply a matter of the units' pathing. When the brigades in this scenario behave more like brigades and don't pile up on each other (extending the line on the flanks would be what actually happened), I would consider the pathing to be fixed.

For now, fix the pathing if you really think it is needed to be fixed. Otherwise, I'll survive because I'm getting used to it.

[Garnier]

If your unit is within 300 yards of the enemy or something, it needs to be in line formation (regardless of TC)

It's not that simple. What about all the other formations? Formations can be added with mods too. Having a mod-able way to disallow certain formations within certain range would be good and has been suggested before. Of course we would just use it to say "no columns within X yards of enemy".

It's still not simple because now I can gallop my guns past your columns marching by and throw them all into line. It would be really hard to get this right. It's been suggested before. Probably a better solution would be to have an incoming rifle fire modifier for formations, so we can just make column take twice as many casualties from rifle fire.

[Hancock the Superb]

Garnier and all:

I was more trying to say that column pathing versus line pathing seems to make a lot of problems for me. Of course, your point is very important, Garnier, there are other formations to be created as well. I think that the solutions is a combination of your casualty modifier (something that also should be in the drills.csv file, along with that can't move function that doesn't work properly for me) as well as excellent pathing.

The problem as I see it, is that a brigade in the civil war would generally be in one of two formations. One was by column (four wide, company wide, or division wide). The second is a battle line, two men deep. To deploy from column to line resulted in the a complex movement where company after company would swing from column into line, taking a large amount of time. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to replicate on any game engine which is trying to make mathematical sense of a complex function, very non-mathematical. In result all we can do is give half answers, such as the brigade of columns formation that really wasn't used do to its difficulty in deploying into line.

But after all that, I think that the major pathing problem is due to the pathing of columns versus lines. If I have a battle line and a regiment behind it deployed in line, the regiment will go the long way around unless it finds a hole big enough for it to fit through when I send it to the front. However, the same scenario except with the regiment in the rear in column formation results in a lot of odd tendancies for the pathing that seem to be causing the distraught, whether through or around (and under!).

[RebBugler]

I know it's tough to encompass slight variations in a poll, but here's my basic take on this situation: I was ready to vote to abolish/suspend the current setup while a better replacement can be devised, but I realized I may have to qualify that point of view.

If making the pathing "broader" (which I assume means making fewer, larger tiles?) will prevent unit stacking then I am willing to accept that outright. However, that too must be qualified because it would make, in theory anyway, the current problem even more severe (ie forcing units to swing far wide of friendly units every time). Units need to swing wider than at present (because currently passing too close causes the pathing freakout which we all are familiar with), but that doesn't have to be 20+ yards.

I understand that changing such a basic facet of the coding for the game would be a monumental task, and as such may not honestly be feasible. However, I don't necessarily like needing/having the option to suspend the pathing for a given unit, as that would essentially double the amount of micromanagemet necessary. Instead of clicking TC to control a regiment, you would also need to click a button to turn off pathing, move said unit, and then likely turn TC off and pathing back on so the AI behavior will keep the regiment turned and firing at the enemy. I personally don't like the notion of having every single one of my units TC'ed at all times and under constant watch, and this seems (broadly) to make it basically a necessity.

Yeah, this is a poll where my choice is also not optional. It's a player's poll, basically to find out whether the quoted pathing concerns are global. What I would like eventually is a smaller tiling system, whereas the troops would avoid collisions and engaged units while maneuvering a tighter course, made possible by the smaller tiled footprint. However, this is a huge undertaking code wise, as well as an exponential hit on performance, and probably won't be ever even considered unless the current pathing system is increasingly unpopular. I'm presently very surprised at the folks that would like the pathing broadened. That would really make the paths long, and more unrealistic. However, larger tiles would help performance, but still, a large coding makeover.

Regarding the stacking, this should be fixed with LOS patch fix. If not, get us a save if it's happening on even terrain. If the distance between unit firing lines is not enough for the elevation, lodge a complaint...we'll definitely look into it. Stacking should be realistic and relative to the elevations involved.