Formation Usage

[jhdeerslayer]

I'm curious how some people approach the use of formations other then letting the AI choose. More specifically I guess the Echelon and Vee ones. I understand the pros and cons of them for fire, security, etc.. but wonder if the effort to change them is worth the risks of picking the wrong one for a particular situation or just let the AI choose?

[jhdeerslayer]

No comments at all? Maybe a stupid question...[;)]

[RedDevil]

It seems to me that the choice is between letting the AI make the mistake and you making the mistake [:)].
Personally, I tend to assign a defensive formation quite often (vee) and also force road column when need to move my guys quickly. I don't use often echelon for attacks, but in many situation I pick the double lines.

Cheers,

RedDevil

[MarkShot]

It was an excellent question. Sometimes, I restrain myself from responding to these things immediately, since I worry that I will stiffle the impulse of others to respond. I noticed this phenomena on SIMHQ's EAW Forum ... whenever a question of online aircombat tactics came up and I responded to further the discussion ... my response usually signaled the end of the discussion. (Having a reputation as one of the top players and 100 page EAW H2H guide published made folks hesistant to differ in opinion with me. Of course, I never shot anyone down in the forums only when flying online.)

Formations:

Well, IN-SITU and its many uses has already been well covered elsewhere.

Most often I use LINE with FACING, FRONTAGE, and DEPTH. This is a great aid for structuring defensive configurations around terrain features or constructing a multi-layered/multi-faceted defense. I gave a pretty good example in my HTTR Mini-Guides of a layered defense of Arnhem. These command parameters allow easily to set up a simple screen or picket line or your MLR (main line of resistance). I tend to not use other formations too much on defense. One problem I have always had with the exception of the LINE is getting a handle on where the AI is actually going to put deploy units. I know somewhere Dave has explained exactly how the task marker anchors the foot print, but I forget. For me, the biggest decision on defense is whether I will try craft a careful defense or simply form a large force and place the burden of preparations and response to the enemy upon a single subordinate.

I also use LINE with just FRONTAGE and DEPTH on the attack. This permits you to tailor the shape of the force to the terrain or corridor you must pass through. In close terrain, I usually go for a smaller footprint so that units can provide mutual support as they attack. In open terrain, I tend to favor greater frontage in order to gain some benefits of flanking fire and reduce some of the impact of enemy arty and airstrikes.

On rare occasions, I will use echelon attacks when I have very good intel on the location of the enemy or I have am coordinating my own multi-axis attack or a flank of the attack is secured by a natural terrain feature like a coast line or river.

Admittedly, this is one of the aspects of the game that I am probably underutilizing (and there are many). This is one of the advantages of competitive MP. In SP, you can sit back and know that your skill level is good enough. You can never have such confidence when playing MP (especially if you are willing to debrief anyone you beat with what you did - this is what drove me to become a top EAW player).

I hope that helped a little bit.

[MarkShot]

RedDevil,

Question (from your experience): The AI by default selects ROAD MARCH when implicitly going from point A to B. However, if it encounters resistance, then it will go off road and spread out (slowing down greatly and wait hours until if feels safe to resume ROAD MARCH). If one orders a MOVE and commands ROAD MARCH will this short circuit the AI from spreading out and going off road when under fire? My personal guess would be "no".

Thanks.

[RayWolfe]

I often use LINE, as a MOVE command, specifying frontage (large) and depth (small) when I need to sweep an area that I believe has a small or nil enemy presence. That way I can clear and confirm an area as clear and ensure that no enemy recon or stragglers are queering my supply lines or acting as spotters into my rear area. Sometimes, doing an attack or a small frontage move can miss odd enemy units, particularly routed or otherwise out of command enemy who later recover and become a nuisance.
Ray

[jhdeerslayer]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

It was an excellent question. Sometimes, I restrain myself from responding to these things immediately, since I worry that I will stiffle the impulse of others to respond. I noticed this phenomena on SIMHQ's EAW Forum ... whenever a question of online aircombat tactics came up and I responded to further the discussion ... my response usually signaled the end of the discussion. (Having a reputation as one of the top players and 100 page EAW H2H guide published made folks hesistant to differ in opinion with me. Of course, I never shot anyone down in the forums only when flying online.)

Formations:

Well, IN-SITU and its many uses has already been well covered elsewhere.

Most often I use LINE with FACING, FRONTAGE, and DEPTH. This is a great aid for structuring defensive configurations around terrain features or constructing a multi-layered/multi-faceted defense. I gave a pretty good example in my HTTR Mini-Guides of a layered defense of Arnhem. These command parameters allow easily to set up a simple screen or picket line or your MLR (main line of resistance). I tend to not use other formations too much on defense. One problem I have always had with the exception of the LINE is getting a handle on where the AI is actually going to put deploy units. I know somewhere Dave has explained exactly how the task marker anchors the foot print, but I forget. For me, the biggest decision on defense is whether I will try craft a careful defense or simply form a large force and place the burden of preparations and response to the enemy upon a single subordinate.

I also use LINE with just FRONTAGE and DEPTH on the attack. This permits you to tailor the shape of the force to the terrain or corridor you must pass through. In close terrain, I usually go for a smaller footprint so that units can provide mutual support as they attack. In open terrain, I tend to favor greater frontage in order to gain some benefits of flanking fire and reduce some of the impact of enemy arty and airstrikes.

On rare occasions, I will use echelon attacks when I have very good intel on the location of the enemy or I have am coordinating my own multi-axis attack or a flank of the attack is secured by a natural terrain feature like a coast line or river.

Admittedly, this is one of the aspects of the game that I am probably underutilizing (and there are many). This is one of the advantages of competitive MP. In SP, you can sit back and know that your skill level is good enough. You can never have such confidence when playing MP (especially if you are willing to debrief anyone you beat with what you did - this is what drove me to become a top EAW player).

I hope that helped a little bit.

I understand about jumping in too soon!

The Line command (Successive Lines also) and associated Depth and Frontage are favorites of mine also. In fact, the more I use them, the more useful I see they are. So it seems I am not alone in regards to underutilizing the more specialized Vee and Echelon. Their uses seem limited and maybe more tailored to specific terrain and unique situations where maybe the AI wouldn't choose the best. Going to have to play around with them though I think just for the fun of it...

Thanks for the sanity check all.

[JaguarUSF]

I think a lot of people unfamiliar with military science (including myself to an extent) would question when to use some of the formations, something that the game/manuals mention how to do but not when to do (unless it's in there and I just didn't find it). When would you use:
arrowhead?
the echelons?
vee?

[Fred98]

In an advance, the formation you choose is dependant upon the terrain.  You want to place fire on the most likely location of a hidden enemy.
 
In an assault, a narrow front allows you you place a lot of firepower in one spot with a view to breaking through at that spot. Whereas a wider front allows you to place fire on a larger number of enemy which is intended to stop them counter attacking your main assault force.
 
 
 

[canuck64]

I'll wade in from the sidelines with a footnote...
I too have been playing about with formations, trying to use 'echelon' when relevant (albeit that's not often)...

WHAT I have noticed with respect to arrowhead formations, though-might be relevant, is that the AI naturally puts the core armor out in front, at the apex of the arrowhead, as it should.

Meaning, in other words, that your PZ III's and IV's are apex and immediate rear, that the PZ II's (and the occasional AC group) are on the flanks and back. Ideal armor formation if you ask me and yet more kudos to the tac AI design for it!

[JeF]

Deerslayer,

Here is how I use formations in the game.
First I'm lazy, so I tend to leave half of my orders with default values.
Second, I don't know much about real military doctrine, so I tend to leave fancy stuff like echelon away.

On the attack, I favour lines (for sweeping an area), arrowhead (to break the ennemy's line), vee (to capture as many units I can get). Frontage depend on the amount of firepower I want to concentrate.

Defending : I use either a single line or a double line depending on frontage and unit density. Usually, the depth of my formations is small.

Sometimes I specify a move in column if I want my units to stay on road at the end of the move. I noticed it has a tendency to deploy at the end without it.

I don't know if my formation use is OK.
Frontage is more important to me as it determines your firepower density.

Cheers,

JeF.