Formations - Progress

[Arjuna]

Hi all,

I have been beavering away overhauling the formation code. I have been concentrating on getting the Arrowhead formation working right. I think it is now working for the three prime catoegories, namely where we have a HQ hub with sub HQs, a HQ hub with line guards and a line hub with line guards. Here are a few screen shots illustrating the deployments.

[Arjuna]

Here's a Bn HQ with line guards.

[Arjuna]

And here is a line hub with line guards.

[Arjuna]

Note that getting this right should fix a lot of those reported issues where only part of a foprce seemed to be attacking. This was because the case where we have a line hub wasn't working correctly.

[Remmes]

Thanks for the update. Do you mean that this is would fix the socalled 'casualty issue' ? Where one unit is able to stop a very superior attacking force and takes almost no casualties? Would be most welcome.

[Renato]

Excellent!

[vandorenp]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Here's a Bn HQ with line guards.

This looks correct. Location of tank company suggests this is an echelon left or there is a threat to the left? Did the AI use such reasoning to put the tank company there?

[vandorenp]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Hi all,
I have been concentrating on getting the Arrowhead formation working right. I think it is now working for the three prime categories, namely where we have a HQ hub with sub HQs,

Regarding the Advance Guard - what is driving the tank and AG companies to the left? If the situation is vague the two companies would be centrally located or bounding from and to good over-watch positions within the battalion zone.

Regarding the Flank guards- The Recon companies would all be to the respective exteriors and the tank and/or AG companies to the interior. You might envision the three recon companies/troops as in echelon or the side of a diamond - a point, a left guard and a trail guard. Again, the tank and/or AG companies might be bounding in the battalion zone from and to good over-watch positions.

More important is knowing the AI doctrine for managing the formation as threats are encountered or anticipated (old intel reports).

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Ramses

Thanks for the update. Do you mean that this is would fix the socalled 'casualty issue' ? Where one unit is able to stop a very superior attacking force and takes almost no casualties? Would be most welcome.

No thats a separate issue I believe..

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: Ramses

Thanks for the update. Do you mean that this is would fix the socalled 'casualty issue' ? Where one unit is able to stop a very superior attacking force and takes almost no casualties? Would be most welcome.

No thats a separate issue I believe..

Yeah I don't know how you could confuse a post about formation logic for one about combat lethality.

But this issue is one I'd like to hear about progress on (if there is any). Formations are something that expands the game. Watching a static flak group of 2 88's and 20 riflemen hold up an entire assaulting battalion for an entire evening (ie. Joe's bridge if you don't get your fire support missions just right) is the kind of behaviour that can essentially make it impossible to play a game that's based on being able to achieve offensive momentum.

[Phoenix100]

Since I never used the formation buttons much, I never noticed what they were or were not doing before. Was this a feature that didn't work at all before?

[Phoenix100]

+1 re the comment above. The casualty thing seems urgent and important to me.

I have also noticed a few times that units log as 'bypassing' even though I have not ticked that box, and have seen (and sent Dave saves about) whole formations deciding to re-route despite me not wanting that, and not having ticked either bypass or avoidance. That worries me more too. Sounds good, in a way - the unit meets an obstruction so rather than 'halting' forever it bypasses. But it's no good it doing this if you don't want it to (if you want it to deal with the obstruction) and you haven't ticked the options to allow it.

All that said, I have to say that I think it is all working bettter now. So far attacks go in ok, haven't noticed much crazy routing behaviour (others have, I know), but there's certainly welcome progress. For which, thanks, Dave!!

Have saves been sent covering the ineffective close combat situation? By those that have noticed it most?

[wodin]

Mr P there was a big discussion between Dave and Rockin harry and Myself about the casualty issue..Dave then tested and also saw the issue..so I think it's in hand.

[Remmes]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: Ramses

Thanks for the update. Do you mean that this is would fix the socalled 'casualty issue' ? Where one unit is able to stop a very superior attacking force and takes almost no casualties? Would be most welcome.

No thats a separate issue I believe..

Yeah I don't know how you could confuse a post about formation logic for one about combat lethality.

If you order a formation to attack, but only a couple of units actually do so, it reduces the volume of fire on the defenders; result is less casualties. This is exactly what Arjuna said: 'only a part of the force attacking'. Anyway: i'm glad it is being investigated.

[vandorenp]

ORIGINAL: phoenix
I have also noticed a few times that units log as 'bypassing' even though I have not ticked that box, and have seen (and sent Dave saves about) whole formations deciding to re-route despite me not wanting that, and not having ticked either bypass or avoidance. That worries me more too. Sounds good, in a way - the unit meets an obstruction so rather than 'halting' forever it bypasses. But it's no good it doing this if you don't want it to (if you want it to deal with the obstruction) and you haven't ticked the options to allow it.

I have had this happen in a way that I can't explain away or rather excuse the AI for. (odd things that happen in BftB are a nice, if unintended, replication of friction in real war - ie Pz Lehr commander routes the whole division down a farm track on the word of a farmer and without a recon report)

To avoid just this problem having given an Exit order I set way points for a Panzer regiment along the desired route. (Commanders intent is to deny the route to the enemy.) As the advance guard passes a waypoint the waypoint is removed from the regiments order. Consequently after the last waypoint is removed by the advance guards passing the regiment sees only the end objective location and reroutes all the sub-elements to a "better route". Even to the point of backtracking many units already progressed along the original route. Bypass was not selected.

[Phoenix100]

That's exactly it Vandorenp. I've sent saves to Dave concerning this. The vanishing waypoints followed by unsanctioned re-route along 'better' route. Exactly.

And thanks Wodin - re the casualty thing - glad that's in hand.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Ramses
If you order a formation to attack, but only a couple of units actually do so, it reduces the volume of fire on the defenders; result is less casualties. This is exactly what Arjuna said: 'only a part of the force attacking'. Anyway: i'm glad it is being investigated.

No this is a different thing. Attacks getting bogged down in certain circumstances is fine, that's what the game's about.

What you can quite regularly see are properly allocated full battalion attacks spending 8 hours trying to kill a 20 man flak unit. Even in the dark and assuming a high tendency of Allied troops to go to ground, it just strains credibility. When 20 men find themselves getting swarmed by 800 enemy soldiers and tanks then unless they're seriously fanatical and have the firepower to back it up they should be either surrendering or shot down in the first minutes of combat.

[Arjuna]

The casualty issue I will deal with after I finish the current work on formations. Please be patient. Imagine this is a car and I have just taken off the head to replace the gasket. It is going to be impossible for me to test the electrics while in this state. So too I don't dare start chaninging code that is not related to what I am working on. Please remember that there is just me working on these AI issues.

Re the so called bypass issue. First off, this is not a bypass issue. Rather it is a case of the force replanning its route. This can happen for a number of reasons but often happens after a reassessment or routing. The engine doesn't allow for you to set a route for the force to follow. Rather it allows you to set a series of waypoints. We kill off waypoints as they are passed. If we don't do this then when it comes time to replan you would all complain when the force goes back ten kms to the first waypoint even though it was now on the eight waypoint. We had all those complaionts when BFTB was first released...remember. So, when the AI replans it uses whatever waypoints remain. So if if you are on the eight of ten then it will replan with just the remaining three waypoints and this may well mean that it uses an avoidance route to get to the first remaining waypoint and that this route differs from what you had originally marked out. That is a feature of the engine and I don't envisage changing this for the forseeable future as there are far more significant issues to attend to.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: vandorenp
Regarding the Advance Guard - what is driving the tank and AG companies to the left? If the situation is vague the two companies would be centrally located or bounding from and to good over-watch positions within the battalion zone.

Regarding the Flank guards- The Recon companies would all be to the respective exteriors and the tank and/or AG companies to the interior. You might envision the three recon companies/troops as in echelon or the side of a diamond - a point, a left guard and a trail guard. Again, the tank and/or AG companies might be bounding in the battalion zone from and to good over-watch positions.

More important is knowing the AI doctrine for managing the formation as threats are encountered or anticipated (old intel reports).

In this case the advance Guard consited of a Recon company and an attached armoured unit. So there are just two units. It is therefore impossible to fill three guard poistions which normally flesh out an arrowhead - ie advance, left and right guards. So the AI will place the line hub in the advance guard and randomly choose either the left or right guard to place the attached armoured unit. It's that simple.

BTW this is for Arrowhead formation. We currently do not model a diamond formation.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

The casualty issue I will deal with after I finish the current work on formations. Please be patient. Imagine this is a car and I have just taken off the head to replace the gasket. It is going to be impossible for me to test the electrics while in this state. So too I don't dare start chaninging code that is not related to what I am working on. Please remember that there is just me working on these AI issues.

Didn't mean to come off as impatient, just providing feedback on what my priorities as a consumer are.