I feel like you cannot flank with inf. Just go and attack frontally cause falnking will be deadly when you retreat troops.
For example, Oka River. I was flanking with 2x Grens with LMGs and PzGrens with Schrecks from left side for bottom ammo (I knew middle was taken). In a moment I needed to retreat. Obvious way, for me, would be path I walked to that point. Free from enemies but no. My suads decided to run through uncovered middle stragith into maxims, schocks, shermans etc. Result? All dead.
Reatrat path algorithm makes units to run the shortest way but not the wisest.
I mean, If I would be a soldier and had to run away I would not do it stragiht into my enemy, right?
I think retreat path needs some improvements so that it would not the shortest but the safest.
Retreat path.
20 Oct 2014, 10:37 AM
#1
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
20 Oct 2014, 11:01 AM
#2
Posts: 332
I have to agree with this had similar situations myself, this also makes flanking a set up position less attractable and promotes a more frontal attack with spread out troops.
20 Oct 2014, 11:04 AM
#3
Posts: 1740
This makes Hürtgenwald so much fun to play.
If you're sticking on the right side as axis and the allies have taken the middle VP then all your retreating units will run into death.
If you're sticking on the right side as axis and the allies have taken the middle VP then all your retreating units will run into death.
It is though God by command has withdrawn every other throne.
And God is saying 'No. These people will deal with me alone.'
And God is saying 'No. These people will deal with me alone.'
20 Oct 2014, 11:12 AM
#4
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
That can't work unless you include a 'maphack' ability with retreat. You knew the center of the map had high troop concentrations, but if they are in the fog of war, the retreat system would need a map-hack to calculate the safest route.
If the retreat system got this map-hack, you could never cut-off the enemy retreat path with a flanking squad because the enemy will always avoid your flank even though he hasn't seen it.
Without the map-hack you would just get real silly retreat paths that are not safer than we have now and will only be less predictable for either player.
So with this in mind, I would like to keep the retreat system as it is now.
If the retreat system got this map-hack, you could never cut-off the enemy retreat path with a flanking squad because the enemy will always avoid your flank even though he hasn't seen it.
Without the map-hack you would just get real silly retreat paths that are not safer than we have now and will only be less predictable for either player.
So with this in mind, I would like to keep the retreat system as it is now.
20 Oct 2014, 11:16 AM
#5
Posts: 1740
But you could implement a function that creates a retreat route depending on where enemies have been seen in the last 15 seconds or so. Let's say every enemy unit has a radius that the retreat function tries to avoid. Then, when retreating, your units would choose the safest and quickest way.
It is though God by command has withdrawn every other throne.
And God is saying 'No. These people will deal with me alone.'
And God is saying 'No. These people will deal with me alone.'
20 Oct 2014, 11:43 AM
#6
Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1
I'm afraid you must deal with it and just try to predict retreating path. Better luck next time.
20 Oct 2014, 12:22 PM
#7
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
But you could implement a function that creates a retreat route depending on where enemies have been seen in the last 15 seconds or so. Let's say every enemy unit has a radius that the retreat function tries to avoid. Then, when retreating, your units would choose the safest and quickest way.
This. Right now it's like: I see massive blob of enemies ahead of us but let's just run into them.
It should be different. If retreating units spot enemy, they should look for free path.
20 Oct 2014, 12:26 PM
#8
Posts: 971
Retreat should priorize going through owned sectors instead of just choosing the shortest path.
20 Oct 2014, 12:57 PM
#9
Posts: 246
Huh, you did something wrong, why relic programmers should adapt game engine for you?
UA
soviets
20 Oct 2014, 13:18 PM
#10
Posts: 332
Gotta love people who can't see how this is a flaw an that it's the "players problem/fault" that the game fails to promote flanking which should be a viable and important startegy but isn't because it's more risky than just attacking head on.
20 Oct 2014, 13:51 PM
#11
Posts: 1355
Retreat is OK as it is. If you want a safe retreat then soft retreat. If you want to run home as fast as you can then it will be the shortest way. You cant have it all people. Next thing you ask is when you retreat that your units be clocked 
The only thing they could add would be retreating over fences... maybe!
The only thing they could add would be retreating over fences... maybe!
20 Oct 2014, 14:10 PM
#12
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Retreat is OK as it is. If you want a safe retreat then soft retreat. If you want to run home as fast as you can then it will be the shortest way.
Exactly.
Learn 2 retreat
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
20 Oct 2014, 14:14 PM
#13
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Retreat isn't free out of jail card, stop brainstorming something that isn't broken, you need to plan ahead your retreats or don't overextend if you can't afford a loss.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
20 Oct 2014, 20:47 PM
#14
Posts: 432
Retreat is working as intended. Predictable, consistent retreat paths - the shortest path back to base - is critical because it punishes overextension, and allows the opposite player to punish you for it also. When attacking or flanking from the rear, you should always be making a conscious decision that if the attack goes sour, you will have to run through the gauntlet. Similarly, as the opponent, you should always attempt to cut off weak units that are running back to base. In the case of classic CoH1, MP44 PGs were used around the back to mow down retreating blobs.
Retreat is almost a get-out-of-jail free card, where you trade imminent danger for lost field presence. If you know your retreat path is dangerous, then you will need to soft retreat first by issuing a move-order so that the default path is no longer as dangerous, and then retreat. If you can't do either a safe soft or hard retreat, the unit shouldn't be there in the first place.
The only true issue with the retreat system is 1) it does not factor climbable-fences in the equation (see Faymonville) 2) units sometimes get suppressed on retreat. Everything else is working as intended.
Retreat is almost a get-out-of-jail free card, where you trade imminent danger for lost field presence. If you know your retreat path is dangerous, then you will need to soft retreat first by issuing a move-order so that the default path is no longer as dangerous, and then retreat. If you can't do either a safe soft or hard retreat, the unit shouldn't be there in the first place.
The only true issue with the retreat system is 1) it does not factor climbable-fences in the equation (see Faymonville) 2) units sometimes get suppressed on retreat. Everything else is working as intended.
20 Oct 2014, 21:12 PM
#15
20 Oct 2014, 22:16 PM
#16
Posts: 175
That can't work unless you include a 'maphack' ability with retreat. You knew the center of the map had high troop concentrations, but if they are in the fog of war, the retreat system would need a map-hack to calculate the safest route.
If the retreat system got this map-hack, you could never cut-off the enemy retreat path with a flanking squad because the enemy will always avoid your flank even though he hasn't seen it.
Without the map-hack you would just get real silly retreat paths that are not safer than we have now and will only be less predictable for either player.
So with this in mind, I would like to keep the retreat system as it is now.
+1, working as intended.
21 Oct 2014, 00:21 AM
#17
Posts: 210
The better system can be implemented by creating retreat point!
Like I can set in which route my specific troops can retreat! Its like the rally point...
Like I can set in which route my specific troops can retreat! Its like the rally point...
21 Oct 2014, 03:00 AM
#18
21 Oct 2014, 03:05 AM
#19
Posts: 2053
If it hasnt been fixed already, then it has become an intended feature.
21 Oct 2014, 09:21 AM
#20
Posts: 589
Sometimes hitting the retreat button is the worst thing you can do. If you're going deep and finding yourself in trouble, it's sometimes better to manually move your troops out of harms way before retreating.
You might lose a squad, or even 2, but it's better than losing your entire infantry. High risk, high reward tictacs should be just that. High risk.
You might lose a squad, or even 2, but it's better than losing your entire infantry. High risk, high reward tictacs should be just that. High risk.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.640231.735-1
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.921406.694-1
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1237
Board Info
345 users are online:
1 member and 344 guests
QRTOTOvvip
QRTOTOvvip
0 post in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
4 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49213
Welcome our newest member, keyhoopscom
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, keyhoopscom
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM