fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses

[mmacguinness]

I have learned (the hard way, as usual) to change formation type to "Free" after setting up defensive positions and during final approach in Advance movement, and always when in Contact movement.

I have lost too many units due to units scrambling around while under fire to reform after one or two units killed.

It is especially bad with companies. I use companies as the manoeuvre unit when playing as Soviet

There is something funky about the way companies in particular try to re-form. It doesn't appear to be a simple tightening up, much more a total re-arrangement.

[Veitikka]

I think the main issue is that when there are losses the remaining units fill the 'holes' in the formation structure. That causes them to reshuffle the formation shape.

[mmacguinness]

Yes, "filling the holes" or tightening up as I described it i understand as simply closing the gap with the next adjacent survivor, a relatively small movement. However, sometimes I see units apparently going way over to the other side of the formation, three or four slots away. Two units in a company get hit, and it seems like every unit changes position, everybody driving around, exposing flanks and rear, almost ignoring enemy fire and taking more losses. I haven't noticed any significant difference in formations from the freeware version.

Only an issue with company formations because they are so much bigger, but I think the Soviets are more effective in company formations. "Free" formation mostly avoids the problem, but sometimes I get ambushed.

Anyway, I think re-forming while under fire and exposing flanks and rears to enemy fire shouldn't be a higher priority than either turning to face the enemy and firing back or finding cover ?

[zacklaws]

Set a company formation to, Wedge, V or line, get them to advance and make them reverse direction by 180 degrees and see how chaotic formation changes are when they all converge on the middle as the left flank moves to the opposite side of the formation and the right flank tries to move to the left side and that is without losses and under fire , a disaster. Realistically, vehicles would just turn around and not try and move to the opposite flank. For example, 1 platoon would start the advance on the left flank, but on the reversal, ie to withdraw fast without using the slow "reverse" mode etc they would then assume to be on the right flank. It also does not help when the numbering of vehicles in a formation are not related to a platoons numbering system, ie, vehicles 1-4 are 1st platoon, 5 - 8 are second platoon and 9 - 12 are third platoon. I would expect all vehicles of 1 platoon to be on one flank, vehicles from another platoon to be on the other flank and the 3rd platoon on the point. In a company formation though for example in AB in the worst case, line, vehicle 11 maybe on the extreme left flank and vehicle 12 is on the extreme right flank, and both vehicles which should be theoretically in the same platoon close together, could be 500 metres apart (off top off my head, may be more) depending on if they are in close or open formation. And when formations are operating like this in AB, if you want to detach a platoon, it then become a situation where its easier to select, vehicles 6, 8, 10, 12, or 5, 7 , 9, 11, or from the central part of a line, 1, 2, 3, 4.

Maybe there is an easy fix in the programming to prevent this chaotic "dance" and also to keep the vehicles in a more orderly position than in opposition to each other.

[Veitikka]

There are multiple issues mixed up here.

Let's say you have a company of 10 tanks in wedge formation, and all the units in the left flank are destroyed. How should the remaining units reform in the next waypoint and after that?

[Lowlaner2012]

Hi

The way I play I don't see these problems that much, I generally use the terrain to road march as close to an objective as possible without being observed, then get them into formation, use the rotate command to point them at the objective and then attack....

If I have to and get the chance to retreat, I use the retreat command so my tanks or afvs don't show there flanks or rear to the enemy, or if there is smoke available I use the fast command with with the SOP set to covered movement...

I also have seen little of the filling in of destroyed tanks at company levels...

Im not saying that there isn't an issue, I'm just saying that the way I play I see very little of it...

Thanks

[zacklaws]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

There are multiple issues mixed up here.

Let's say you have a company of 10 tanks in wedge formation, and all the units in the left flank are destroyed. How should the remaining units reform in the next waypoint and after that?

If you loose all the units on one flank, then in practice that would be all of one platoon you have lost. What would happen then is, each of the two remaining platoons would take up position on the left and right flank respectively if it was tactically possible. And if you loose another platoon, the remaining platoon would just take up wedge on its own. Formations do not split up its platoons so that its units are shared out on both flanks in order to protect themselves in the case of one flank being wiped out. If a company is advancing in wedge, it simplifies things when assaulting a position if one or two platoons becomes a fire base and the remaining one or two do a flanking manouvre. The way it is in AB, to do a flanking manouvre, platoon vehicles would have to come from the opposite side of the formation to join up with the platoon vehicles on the other flank to do the flanking manouvre.

An idea to keep platoons together as per the numbering system displayed, would it be possible to program unit vehicles differently to how the game engine utilises them based on its numbering. ie numbered differently in the programming. I have it in my mind what I am trying to say, but cannot get my thoughts right to explain it. Maybe to early in the morning.

[Veitikka]

With the system have, using the wedge formation example, one solution might be to make them reform like this after taking losses. I'm not sure if it's a good idea.

[kevinkins]

+1

[zacklaws]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

With the system have, using the wedge formation example, one solution might be to make them reform like this after taking losses. I'm not sure if it's a good idea.

That is down to the player in this example and to change formation himself. If you have taken heavy casualties on one flank, then more realisticly by the example shown, it would be better to move into Echelon Left as it has to be presumed that is where the threat is so you need to counter it by bringing into play more units or even just stay in wedge and change axis to face the enemy.

[22sec]

In real life platoons make up a company formation. It doesn’t matter what country, and company is going to be made up of multiple platoons that move and are coordinated by a platoon leader within the scheme of a company commander’s orders. In AB we lack that structure when choosing company formations, so how do we overcome that? I think what Veitikka suggested would work. Yes it is up to the player to be situational aware and change formations, but why about the AI?

[Veitikka]

To avoid misunderstandings, here's a quick comparison of the current system (left) and what I'm proposing (right).

[22sec]

The change makes sense, and I think would speed up the consolidation process that formations undergo when taking losses.

[noooooo]

This would be a very welcome change. Supported 100% as it makes so much more sense from a player controllability point of view.

[mmacguinness]

I prepared this example of how AB re-formed a company line formation after one tank (tank #3) was immobilized, with my view of how it should be done.

I think the picture says everything...