Pathing Poll

[con20or]

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.

I like that idea, in fact sometimes I wonder about the strength of musket rifle fire. There is never an occasion when a unit doesnt reach the line its attacking, even if there are two or three units firing at them. The old guard didnt make it into a melee at waterloo, they were thrown back mostly by musket fire so whats the difference? You always hear bernard cornwell harping on about when you have good troops firing 4 volleys a minute, 'line beats column'.

but this isn't a pathing issue - so ill bring it up another time!

[SouthernSteel]

Yes, as I said, I only support broader pathing if it affects stacking, which does not appear to be the case. Currently my new rig can easily handle this, but exponentially increasing the demands of the game on a system is likely a very, very bad idea as we constantly have major slow-downs in MP due to issues with this (not to mention the time involved for Norb).

As regards stacking, I have seen absolutely 0 improvement, I am sad to say. Overall, I can definitely see the difference in what commanders and individual units can see, but it has affected neither infantry-infantry stacking, nor infantry-artillery stacking (artillery placed just behind infantry and being able to fire at will). As all of the saves are available (or the log files, at least), maybe I and anyone else concerned can come to consensus on a save or particular game where we see this abused most blatantly to submit.

The cannon behind infantry issue doesn't bother me overly much because it is usually limited where cannister is concerned for Garnier's mod. In that way, the problem has largely been fixed for some time (almost to a frustrating degree in numerous cases, as several of us have had trouble getting cannister to fire at all - this needs to be better documented on our end though. However, it seems like generally artillery firing solid shot remains uninhibited for the most part. That is mainly an issue of realism as it has been raised by soldier.

The infantry-infantry stacking (say, packing an entire brigade where you should really only be able to fit 2-3 regiments) I find to be a much more serious problem, especially in a game where bringing the most firepower to bear can lend a tremendous advantage. The only definitive way to fix this would be to turn regiments into blocks with markers on all edges so as to prevent one block from overlapping another. This would no doubt up the processing requirements, but perhaps would not be as big a hit as if we were to have smaller tiles across the board (purely a guess there).

Forcing columns to lines probably isn't the best solution there, either. If we were able to change the number of casualties certain formations take, that would be ideal. That way the assault column formation (which is a fantastic addition to the game, I think, even though I am largely too conservative a player to utilize it often) could still be used to good effect. It would take, say, 1.5X the number of casualties as a line, where column might take 2X. Just out of curiousity, does column by divisions (the same formation, just at rest, basically) take increased casualties from artillery firing solid shot? It seems like a bunched formation ought to be at increased risk, but where I've observed it, it seems to have been largely immune, lacking the linear setup of both line and column formations.

[Garnier]

AFAIK, solid shot doesn't know what formation is being hit, it just looks at where the men are. This is how it can hit multiple units if they are stacked. I don't know this, just a guess. If this is true, it's good.

Column by divisions doesn't get used because they still need to form line before shooting, so you may as well stay in maneuver column. With musket casualty modifiers for formations, it could be viable as a faster-than-line, slower-than-column, safer-than-column formation.

[RebBugler]

Man, you guys and your column phobias. Anyway, I understand, arty is still too easy to capture.

How about this?

I propose that each gun gets their double canister shot off, 75 yards, and auto retreats, plus, make the retreat much further, the officer will rally them at a minimum of 500 yards from any enemy. This way, probably only one gun gets captured, and the column charging inf unit gets chewed up badly for their effort...a points/casualty negative for sure. Then, this column maneuver can still be applied for the primary purpose of displacing arty, not capturing them, knowing well that points will be sacrificed for said tactic.

A bit off pathing, but it's my thread, ...and it is an important gameplay concern.

[Little Powell]

ArtilleryCaptureOff=1





















j/k

[RebBugler]

ArtilleryCaptureOff=1
j/k

Nope, too harsh, gotta at least get one gun for the sacrifice. Besides, Sarge is going to be all over you're as..prin bottle for suggesting such an atrocity. :woohoo:

[Baldwin]

So what would happen if we got rid of pathing (except for roads and maneuvering around buildings) - what problems would arise? It seems like most of the pathing marks besides those mentioned in parenthesis usually send the regiments/brigades the longest way to their destination when not being carefully monitored/TC'd.

[RebBugler]

So what would happen if we got rid of pathing (except for roads and maneuvering around buildings) - what problems would arise? It seems like most of the pathing marks besides those mentioned in parenthesis usually send the regiments/brigades the longest way to their destination when not being carefully monitored/TC'd.

Units would go straight from point A to point B, regardless of other units or engagements...just like the other TC games.

[Little Powell]

ArtilleryCaptureOff=1
j/k

Nope, too harsh, gotta at least get one gun for the sacrifice. Besides, Sarge is going to be all over you're as..prin bottle for suggesting such an atrocity. :woohoo:

It was a joke.. But I still deserve a sharp lashing from Sarge for it...

So what would happen if we got rid of pathing

Picture one giant blue and/or grey blob of troops moving around the field.

I'll see if I can dig up some old screenshots of regiments in combat before Norb put in the pathing (tile system)... :laugh:

[Davinci]

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 would say that anything that would affect the performance would probably not be very welcomed, considering that this is one of the biggest complaints.

I hope that the current system pertaining to the current pathing is left unchanged.

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.

This is what I have noticed about the AI when it comes to the LOS.

If the AI is allowed to set up before becoming engaged they will spread out and attack with a great deal of logic, simulating the way that units did during this time-period.

If, the AI is surprised, meaning that both armies just happened to run into each other, a lot of stacking occurs. The AI doesn’t seem to have the ability to disengage and move backwards, before reforming their battle-line.

Now, I have seen a great improvement by increasing the AI Thinking Cycles – but everyone might not agree on this method. I think that maybe I’m losing 1 or 2 fps, but that lose is quite acceptable considering that the battles are a lot better.

This is the first time that I have seen the AI perform demonstrations, before attacking, while still trying to move units to your flanks. Quite Impressive!

The two issues that I would like to see improved in the Open Play Games are:

1) The AI moves a support \ reserve brigade – behind a brigade that is running low \ out of ammunition. Not my units but the enemy units.

2) The AI Brigade Commander – maintains his position to help keep his regiments in line. I tried increasing the radius but the AI Brigade Commander still abandons most of his regiments too chase after one regiment that is out of position, and advances on his own.

davinci