Matrix Games Forums

I have observed several situations in various scenarios where a unit will enter an essentially infinite withdraw loop due to ping-ponging between two enemy units on opposite sides (withdraw from enemy A to achieve standoff -> gets within standoff of unit B -> withdraws from B towards A -> repeat). This results in the withdrawing unit taking higher losses since the unit spottable range and vulnerability increases with movement.

It seems to me that one way to avoid this would be to track the source of a withdraw order (i.e., which enemy unit triggered the withdraw) and disallow subsequent withdraws triggered by that unit for a certain period of time. But this is just a suggestion and there are definitely other ways to achieve the same effect. Any thoughts on this?

I spotted and reported the same thing several times during the beta. Seems like the bug still exists.

Eventually, the unit gets out of the infinite loop generally when the opposing units move, or the looping unit is killed!

I recently confirmed this in a testing scenario I created. I've also created a feature request (bug report?) on the Discord which is logged under FPSS-6766. Just being able to have an SOP option to have the unit stop executing the orders given when a withdraw is initiated would be a godsend for recon. A big help as well if you just want your forces to advance to contact then take up screening positions.

At this time the only workarounds I can think of are putting you units in "stance only" relocation so they don't try to withdraw then carry out the remaining orders (which still lemmings them into ATGM traps), or be extremely cautious in when your units are moving and where. Not really an option for WP or even scenarios where both sides have long command cycles.

My specific case is that withdraws are occurring due to the stance/standoff distance setting. But it still leads to a situation where the unit cycles between withdraw orders from the same two/three enemy units and never settles down - that in turn means that it attracts more fire (due to being more visible) and takes more losses (due to the increased vulnerability when moving).

I definitely agree with Zumwalt. This is a classic case of an infinite software loop.