Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morbo513]

Formations are an essential part of naval warfare and combat in general. I don't see SS as an exception to this.
The idea is we'd be able to define ship formations in the Fleet menu, and set them in the in-battle command menu. When defining a formation, you'd get "nodes" that you get to place freely - each of them would represent a position in the formation. The first node would be the formation leader on which all other members would key off. With non-leader nodes, you'd be able to define whether they are to maintain a set heading in relation to the leader or if they're free to pivot within an arc you can set, or completely free rotation - furthermore, how far ships are allowed to range from the centre of their "node" or if they're to do their best to maintain that exact position. Additionally, you'd be able to set whether the formation is "dynamic" - where if a member of a formation is knocked out or told to retreat, the next "number" in the formation would fill its place, or "static" where they will maintain their relative positions.
 Then, when you've defined a formation, you can fill them with your ships via the fleet menu.

When it comes to formations and a player-controlled ship, you'd always assume the role of the formation's leader. Additionally, you'd be able to hotkey a number of formations so you can change them as the situation dictates. Additional hotkeys (Numpad) would allow you to have individual members temporarily break until pressed again, for example if you want to have them strike out at a target.

 For formations other than the one you're leading, you'd be able to change them in the command interface at the cost of a command point. Speaking of which, something else that'd make the leadership tree more valuable is a skill that defines how many ships you can have in a given formation.

Point of this is with the escort command, mixed groups of ships with loadouts and fields of fire that complement one another are rarely in optimal positions to take advantage of it. When leading strike groups of frigates for example, you'll also get ships managing to get cut off from you, or being too aggressive and getting themselves overloaded or killed.

[borgrel]

since ships can shoot 'through' one another and lacking 3 dimensional implementations the only logical formations are lines (straight or curved) because any ship 'behind' another ship is useless

rather than formations it makes more sense to allow a player to define a battle line and then decide if the line bends based on enemies or stays absolute. (or which points on the line are absolute)

as for the value of formations in true combat, the value of a formation is not the formation itself (the static part) but the cycling (the dynamic part) where formations alter ..... a pincer is only worthwhile AFTER the horns close, a phalanx is only useful when the shield bearers are constantly replaced as they fall and the spears are constantly rotated as they break.

as far as i know, no game has ever included formations in a dynamic fashion, aka in a useful fashion. If you have any suggests as to how to implement formations dynamically, please tell.

[Cik]

realistically you'd need an enormous system built into the ai to handle it. theoretically it would be useful to be able to build frigate wedges bulwarks of gunships supported by spheres of carriers and missile cruisers, etc.


my wager is it'd take a year finagling to get it to work properly, though

[Morbo513]

since ships can shoot 'through' one another and lacking 3 dimensional implementations the only logical formations are lines (straight or curved) because any ship 'behind' another ship is useless

Of course a ship in another one's line of fire is going to prevent it from firing - that's a drawback of formations, but that applies equally to having them roam freely. Lines are useful if you want to maximise forwards fire-power, but they're extremely vulnerable on their flanks. There'd be no point in having a formation system if the only one you can use is a line - how are you supposed to react if you start to become encircled?

as for the value of formations in true combat, the value of a formation is not the formation itself (the static part) but the cycling (the dynamic part) where formations alter ..... a pincer is only worthwhile AFTER the horns close, a phalanx is only useful when the shield bearers are constantly replaced as they fall and the spears are constantly rotated as they break.

A pincer is a maneuver and more often a strategic one at that, not a formation.
Anyway, formations are put to use in pretty much all aspects of modern warfare* - odd as it sounds, tanks are probably the closest to combat in SS - They're also subject, probably more than any other vehicle (or infantry), to friendlies in the possible line of fire, and no ability to change elevation beyond what their immediate surroundings allow to mitigate it. And that's the entire point of being able to switch to a different formation on the fly.
 The wedge is fairly ubiquitous, as are the line and file. Each of them vary in balance between forwards firepower and flank security.
What you're saying about phalanxes doesn't really apply - Those are formations comprised of the numerical equivalent of an infantry company, fighting with a specific type of melee weapon. Modern small-unit formations generally don't account for "cycling" members, because they're designed for every member to be in a position to respond to threats.

*
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/17-15/chp1_003.gif
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~copyrght/image/books/Spatial%20Synthesis2/Spatial%20Analysis%20of%20Military%20Vehicle%20Maneuver%20in%20Tactical%20Situation%20on%20ArcView_files/p7073.gif
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/3-04.gif
http://cdn-frm-xbox.wargaming.net/wotx/xbox/uploads/monthly_04_2016/post-129750-0-49145500-1459821527.png

as far as i know, no game has ever included formations in a dynamic fashion, aka in a useful fashion. If you have any suggests as to how to implement formations dynamically, please tell.

ArmA series, Ground Control, World in Conflict, IIRC Wargame, I'm 99% certain the Total War series had them.

Regardless of all this, half the point of the formations system is that your AI-controlled ships that you set to escort would maintain one with you - what the possible formations we could use isn't as important as making sure they stay close to you, are able to engage when you are and fall back as soon as you do.

realistically you'd need an enormous system built into the ai to handle it. theoretically it would be useful to be able to build frigate wedges bulwarks of gunships supported by spheres of carriers and missile cruisers, etc.


my wager is it'd take a year finagling to get it to work properly, though

I've little doubt about that, but suggestions cost nothing to make; Ultimately it's up to the dev as to whether it's worth implementing. I'd be happy with having the two most ubiquitous formations, the wedge and line, be available.

[borgrel]

how are you supposed to react if you start to become encircled?

a circle is a line tooo

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/17-15/chp1_003.gif
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~copyrght/image/books/Spatial%20Synthesis2/Spatial%20Analysis%20of%20Military%20Vehicle%20Maneuver%20in%20Tactical%20Situation%20on%20ArcView_files/p7073.gif
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/3-04.gif
http://cdn-frm-xbox.wargaming.net/wotx/xbox/uploads/monthly_04_2016/post-129750-0-49145500-1459821527.png

every example of formations you've given can be described with lines, not a single one of them has 'depth' exactly because the tanks need shooting space to be effective.

A pincer is a maneuver and more often a strategic one at that, not a formation.

in that case i would like to rephrase and state i would love to see a game where u can implement maneuvers.

[Morbo513]

how are you supposed to react if you start to become encircled?

a circle is a line tooo

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/17-15/chp1_003.gif
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~copyrght/image/books/Spatial%20Synthesis2/Spatial%20Analysis%20of%20Military%20Vehicle%20Maneuver%20in%20Tactical%20Situation%20on%20ArcView_files/p7073.gif
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/3-04.gif
http://cdn-frm-xbox.wargaming.net/wotx/xbox/uploads/monthly_04_2016/post-129750-0-49145500-1459821527.png

every example of formations you've given can be described with lines, not a single one of them has 'depth' exactly because the tanks need shooting space to be effective.

A pincer is a maneuver and more often a strategic one at that, not a formation.

in that case i would like to rephrase and state i would love to see a game where u can implement maneuvers.

I'm torn as to whether I should bother dignifying this with a response. Since I've already started typing I might as well.
You see a """"line""" that dynamically bend based on criteria as an ideal solution*. If each of those formations can be described as a line, there's your implementation. So essentially you're supporting the same thing. Could do with a rephrasing of that second paragraph cause it doesn't make a right lot of sense to me.
As for maneuvers, yes. The games I mentioned allow you to perform maneuvers by giving your units orders. The elements that maneuver are in formations.


Now that I think about it, don't drones and fighter wings already stay in formations?

[Linnis]

This is totally programmable. Just the game play would change so much into getting everything with max range. I don't imagine how it could not totally destroy the gameplay and change it into something different

[SafariJohn]

While I really like the idea of formations, there are a number of reasons why they will probably never make it in. One big reason is that individual ships are constantly trying to close or back off based on whether they have the advantage or not.

One idea that might work is very rigid, close formations. Each formation would act like a meta-ship and only move as fast as the slowest ship.


... an hour of thinking, typing, and distractions later ...


Not so formation-y, but changing the escort command might go a long way. Split it into guard, escort, and follow: guard tries to stay between the target and enemies; escort tries to fight alongside the target; follow tries to keep the target between itself and enemies.

[King Alfonzo]

...I'm 99% certain the Total War series had them.

Total War games don't use them effectively, they just deploy in those formations. It's one of the biggest gripes the TW community has about the game.

One idea that might work is very rigid, close formations. Each formation would act like a meta-ship and only move as fast as the slowest ship.

...and suddenly Imperium becomes a very frightening foe to face if this ever became reality.

I believe this has been done before - one of the 'boss' ships in Battleships Forever behaved in a similar fashion, with a ship either side of a lead ship trying to stay on the flanks and pointing in the same direction of the lead ship. It works well.

Not so formation-y, but changing the escort command might go a long way. Split it into guard, escort, and follow: guard tries to stay between the target and enemies; escort tries to fight alongside the target; follow tries to keep the target between itself and enemies.

This one has actually popped up several times with civilian and carrier ships that behave strangely when told to escot. From what I understand it's on Alex's To Do List.

[Morbo513]

1) While I really like the idea of formations, there are a number of reasons why they will probably never make it in. One big reason is that individual ships are constantly trying to close or back off based on whether they have the advantage or not.

2) One idea that might work is very rigid, close formations. Each formation would act like a meta-ship and only move as fast as the slowest ship.


... an hour of thinking, typing, and distractions later ...


3) Not so formation-y, but changing the escort command might go a long way. Split it into guard, escort, and follow: guard tries to stay between the target and enemies; escort tries to fight alongside the target; follow tries to keep the target between itself and enemies.

Numbered cause cba splitting quotes

1) Is there any reason this couldn't extend to formations as well as individual ships, ie that behaviour is disabled for member ships and is deferred to the leader

2) Not a fan of this, mainly cause it doesn't account for the maneuverability and speed of the ships in a formation. The formation leader is the pivot point for its members, so it'd be wonky if I led a formation containing cruisers in say a Kite - unless, of course, the formation's rotation speed is changed based on the speed, maneuverability and distance of the "pivoting" ships, but this would cause problems if ships in the formation, especially the leader, have fixed-forward weapons.
This, however, could be the basis of a formation system. Those rigid points would be the movement targets of ships in the formation.

3) I'd welcome this irrespective of formations, at least as a stopgap measure.