Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 12/31/2018 6:51:51 AM   
mmacguinness

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/3/2007
Status: offline
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.
Post #: 1
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/2/2019 1:28:42 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 991
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to mmacguinness)
Post #: 2
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/2/2019 6:23:20 PM   
mmacguinness

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/3/2007
Status: offline
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 ?

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 3
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/3/2019 11:08:50 AM   
zacklaws

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by zacklaws -- 1/3/2019 12:17:20 PM >

(in reply to mmacguinness)
Post #: 4
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/6/2019 7:32:22 AM   
Veitikka


Posts: 991
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to zacklaws)
Post #: 5
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/6/2019 10:57:54 AM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline
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



< Message edited by Lowlaner2012 -- 1/6/2019 2:32:40 PM >

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 6
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/8/2019 8:16:35 AM   
zacklaws

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by zacklaws -- 1/8/2019 12:18:44 PM >

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 7
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/18/2019 11:58:47 AM   
Veitikka


Posts: 991
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
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.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to zacklaws)
Post #: 8
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/18/2019 12:38:09 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 1725
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline
+1

_____________________________

“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
― Alfred Thayer Mahan


(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 9
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/18/2019 3:01:17 PM   
zacklaws

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

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.


(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 10
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/18/2019 3:16:51 PM   
22sec

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 12/11/2004
From: Jackson, MS
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________


(in reply to zacklaws)
Post #: 11
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/18/2019 4:22:25 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 991
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
To avoid misunderstandings, here's a quick comparison of the current system (left) and what I'm proposing (right).





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to 22sec)
Post #: 12
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/18/2019 4:49:22 PM   
22sec

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 12/11/2004
From: Jackson, MS
Status: offline
The change makes sense, and I think would speed up the consolidation process that formations undergo when taking losses.

_____________________________


(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 13
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 1/18/2019 7:18:04 PM   
noooooo

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 9/27/2018
Status: offline
This would be a very welcome change. Supported 100% as it makes so much more sense from a player controllability point of view.

(in reply to 22sec)
Post #: 14
RE: fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses - 2/3/2019 5:51:02 PM   
mmacguinness

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/3/2007
Status: offline
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...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to noooooo)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> fORMATIONS: Reforming under fire after taking losses Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117