Formations - Hopes and Discussion

[Ukraineboy 0]

One of the few things that have not been mentioned a lot are Formations. From the little info I have found out, we will be losing a couple formations and I believe making others more fluid?

What I really hope to see, is a sort of...non formation. This would be really cool to have with Militia/Guerilla units who don't really run in formations. It can be a randomized location placement of infantry, the key is it's randomized blob, but not necessarily all very close together. Another formation I hope to see is one that would work better in Urban, or better yet a Status that would work in Urban warfare. I.E. they walk slowly through the streets and alleys, checking around them.

Any other hopes, or discussions or concerns with previous OFP Formations as well as possible future ones?

[messiahua 0]

It would be better to make your custom formation in game with some kind of mini-menu and maybe ability to save them to "quick slots"

Just draw what you want.

[funnyguy1 0]

Quote[/b] ]We can have AI who use the terrain and world to their advantage just like a player does (...),AI that will seek the cover of trees or buildings when moving from one area to another, AI that if it gets out of a vehicle is aware enough to use that vehicle as cover until moving on to the next piece of cover. (...) We're working on a system of leapfrogging/bounding overwatch which is a specialised military technique for combining tactical movement with suppressive fire with the aim of moving progressively forward whilst reducing the potential threat of enemy fire.

from games.it interview

This could mean that formations would be much more affected by the terrain, so that the life of soldiers could filnally be more important than a perfect looking formation.

The basic ones will stay, so I don`t care much If there will be more of them or less as long as we can make custom ones. The only thing I do care about Is If AI can use those formations, In other words, If the AI can use the terrain at all.

Sure, the perfect combination would be a mix of what we have now with Full Spectrum Warrior`s cqb movements, and some commands and formations from R6.

You could disagree, but in my opinion General Barron`s handsignal commands addon has the most realistic squad formations/commands in ofp.

regards

[frederf 0]

The ability to adjust spacing, being able to move them into a formation and "save it" so they always keep that reletive position to you and the improvement to the AI to have them be able to "crest" a ridgeline just like a real human does (on command of course).

[Lou Montana 101]

"2, 3, 5, 6, go to 4-4-2"

anyway yes that could be nice to have some customizable things via the profile menu (more than just formation!

But how will it be stored during a MP? Alt+Tab, you were able to erase the custom face, so? on RAM only?

or starting the custom formation based on a basic one, then if the file is deleted the server will use the basic ?

There are so much problems over these cool customizable features... Like said custom faces, custom voices, custom pitch (Mickey Mouse Powa)...

One more suggestion, would be a shoulder patch where you could put your squad image on it. Would help instead of getting on vehicles

[stainer 0]

I think that an "all-round defence" formation would be a welcome addition to ArmA. It could be used to regroup while waiting for the stragglers to catch up, whilst providing 360 degrees of fire.

This is what I mean:

All Round Defence

[codarl 1]

I think that both the "no formation" and the "all round defence" would be much more handy then formations like an echelon L.

Do mind, that a "all around defence" can be made by making people walk in a "line" , and making some "advance" , or "stay back"

[ebns72 0]

I would prefer no formations at all.

In reality, I have never ever seen soldiers used or being trained to use formations in infantry combat. It is just impractical and doesn't make sense. The only time it would really make sense is if you are in a defensive position.

In reality, fireteams of 4 or so soldiers move up together from cover to cover. It is usually a good idea to spread out and avoid formations because clustering makes soldiers predictable. Its just unrealistic and I have no idea why its in OFP. I have always felt formations felt really out of place.

The use of formations in real infantry combat is not that of aircraft-style delta's or vees. It has more to due with simple certain many covering flanks or positions than the exact placement of a soldier to the relative position of his squad as in ofp.

[stainer 0]

So you reckon soldiers just mill around aimlessly with no real understanding of what arc of fire is there's whos covering there back etc?

Of course soldiers study formations, it's one of the fundementals of warfare, it allows commanders to control the men and means that everyone knows where they will be covering and whos watching elsewhere. A commander cannot have every man doing his own thing, going where he wants to becuase chaos would ensue.

Formations are designed to avoid clustering, not to cause it or you have some serious problems in the way you organise them.

[VISTREL 0]

I want new orders emplemented like "run away for your life", "ambush", etc. Soldiers hiding behind tanks, and other armored vehicles.

[wheres my rabbit ? 10]

I think that an "all-round defence" formation would be a welcome addition to ArmA. It could be used to regroup while waiting for the stragglers to catch up, whilst providing 360 degrees of fire.

This is what I mean:

All Round Defence

i cant believe something like this wasn't there in the first place

[Second 0]

In reality, fireteams of 4 or so soldiers move up together from cover to cover. It is usually a good idea to spread out and avoid formations because clustering makes soldiers predictable. Its just unrealistic and I have no idea why its in OFP. I have always felt formations felt really out of place.

Nay. Some militarys teach their soldiers to move as whole squad, One way is to assign every squad member to two men pairs, they move as pair one moves other fires/covers. In this keeping formation has very important part. Pairs has to adjust their movement to rest of squad. This keeps squad fast moving (as artillery is grunts worst nightmare, and only option to that is to move fast) and firepower very good as half and probaply more of squad members is shooting and if they keep their level in formation they might even see the enemy what they shoot.

That clustering is what is galled mob. squadmembers have long enough distances that one handgrenade generaly kills or injuries only one.

In OFP squad which members are spread around back and forth right and left, can't fight effectively instantly if enemy is spotted and it means that most of them killed and enemy wins the day.

That is all about fighting terrain. Those fireteams might shoot each of other if they spread around in low visibilty areas. You can't tell to other teams where are you as no landmarks can be given, if you shout "WE ARE HERE!" you might get lead from lurking enemy. There you have to keep formation even with rest teams or you might get shot from friendly fire.

[figjam 0]

Having the squad set up a defensive perimeter would be great. Not having to move each soldier seperately and assign them fire vectors would take away the babysitting you have to do now in OFP.

Another thing, which isn't really a pure formation thing I'd like to see, but if squads could perform drills depending on their behaviour mode.

Example, is the AI squad is set to "agressive", once contact is made, the squad automatically starts to perform a fix and flank drill, without the human leader having to tell them what to do.

If the squad is set to "passive" (or something similar), once contact is made, they perform a fighting withdrawal.

[FatNinjaKid 0]

You probably know this, but in OFP you could drastically improve the realism of formations by selecting "combat", "engage at will" and "slow". The AI then moved extremely cautious using some sort of bound-over-watch system. When stopping the AI positioned itself quite smartly hiding behind objects while covering large surrounding areas.

Unfortunately most mission makers never realized that. So that is why you had all those stupid V-formations.

[Mogley 0]

Well some of the formations currently in OFP are better used with vehicles, like the echelon formations.

I do agree with a 360 defensive formation.

I also think that the AI soldiers #1 priority should not be maintaining a perfect formation. Sometime they get killed just because they are trying to maintain a PERFECT formation.

I think you should have different sets of formations for vehicles and infantry with bigger distance intervals for air vehicles. I cant stand how when I have more than two choppers and the AI are crashing into each other.

I once made a map with 12 man squads of single seat V-80 choppers, so thats 12 choppers and have watched all 12 crash into each other. It was sorta funny, but made me mad at the same time.

You cannot make large helicopter formations or the will just crash into each other because the formation is too tight.

[frederf 0]

A command that made the AI disperse in a circle proportional to the number of members, splitting up the compass into equal size fire sectors, going prone and watching their directions would be nice on occation ^.^

[funnyguy1 0]

One thing...while moving in a formation, there should be some randomness in AI movements, not only when the AI spots a target and then stops...What I`m trying to say...AI often use the same anims at the same time, and It looks damn stupid, on some test vids from arma we could see a squad of soldiers after the helo insertion, using IR sights all the time and marching like chickens in a formation. WIP I hope...

Well, there should be a randomness in every kind of anims to provide more human like behaviours, not those above mentioned chicken-like movements.

Another thing, while in formation, the default "stand ready" anim should be a kneel, with a random time of "kneeling", It looks better and certainly is more tactical than standing in the open field...

[Second 0]

You probably know this, but in OFP you could drastically improve the realism of formations by selecting "combat", "engage at will" and "slow". The AI then moved extremely cautious using some sort of bound-over-watch system. When stopping the AI positioned itself quite smartly hiding behind objects while covering large surrounding areas.

Unfortunately most mission makers never realized that. So that is why you had all those stupid V-formations.

Unfortunately engage-at-will is not safe and reliable. the whole squad may hide some object that is not even a treath to them. Best i've still met was that paltoon sized force was hiding from medical tent, and they did it the rest of mission

shame as AI has given me some vary nasty surprises with enegage-at-will. "seems like enemy is gone." i think and start to scavenge enemy equipment from field. Suddenly bang and i'm under fire, several enemies still was lurking behind bushes, trees etc...

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well, it has already been said in an interview that BIS was experimenting with that 'bounding overwatch' stuff, and there was only 1 formation available in the demo, so i think that BIS listened to our complaints

[znashin 0]

I'd like to see an "align on me" command to instantly re-align a squad's formation on my facing.

Also would like to see the AI stop moving in perfect formation all the time. From a distance the wedge formation of a full squad looks like a gaggle of disciplined, migratory geese. A little disparity between individual troop's timing and speed would be easy to code and would suspend alot of disbelief.

If the bounding overwatch and reaction to terrain/cover is well done I thnk it will sort out most of the problems mentioned on this topic.

Oh, I'd also like to see scan horizon command make a return but with AI using their heads to scan rather than acting like turrets and spinning on the spot.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

I don't really think they still use formations in modern combat, maybe out in the open field where there isn't any cover anyway. But during a combat operation i would really object to having to cross an open area just to stay in formation.

What would be nice if every squad came with a default fire team split up, so you can quickly order the teams around and maybe even the AI commander could use the fire teams too.

[GBee 0]

Formations are used when patrolling etc So I wouldn't want to see them removed completely.

[Second 0]

I don't really think they still use formations in modern combat, maybe out in the open field where there isn't any cover anyway. But during a combat operation i would really object to having to cross an open area just to stay in formation.

Formation is still used by modern combat. It's one of basic functions of warfare and has been and will be... If you think that formation is somekind stiff moving mass of men, you have caught it totaly wrong. Modern combat isn't too much diffrent from WW2, fire power and equipment has changed, assaults aren't that important (more like slaugther) as they used to be, as whole platoons might be wiped out. Formations are the ones which keeps whole contenst of battle organized, leader knows where their men are and men know where leaders are. leader sees what men see and men sees that leader leads.

This applies to squadlevel as well as platoonlevel. Why in the hell These things are still in traininglist of armys, if they are useless, for fun... Gees. In OFP thei believe in y apply aswell. Make script that orders two squads to follow one squad in 'platoonline'. They are superior to independent squads. As there will be much more INSTANT FIREPOWER and CASUALITY TRESHOLD, as all squads react to enemy presense. This way one squad won't wander away behind hill or to woods and become useless if rest of platoon is facing enemy.

Open areas as well as forest. How it would be possible to command whole company or even platoon if there would be no formations. In forest you don't see a thing and it makes hard to lead men if you don't know where they are and what they see. No radio can replace leaders eyes for whole picture.

Men generaly behave braver when there are other men around, if leader advances in enemy fire, some men will follow him, and rest are likely to follow these. Teams of 4 men can't take a shit of beating, one/two men down and thats about that team, it is likely to be dismoralized. Which mens that instead of one/two men there will be 4 men out of battle. Squads acting as whole can take much more beating, before dismoralizing(Depends of overall morale in both cases, but that is fact of WW2 and i believe in it in nowdays).

Teams are more usable in urbancombat, where squads are too big. But else Teams have to move as whole squad or they lack of coordination and leading as one fighting unit. And that means formations.

[Ukraineboy 0]

Yes, a new Urban formation of some sort needs to be made. Or an Urban Non-Formation if the case may be.

[Second 0]

Jep. Well In fact as i read my (stolen) urbancombatguide, the formations aren't only things needed to be changed, behaviour of units too, as urbancombat is whole other case than non-urban.

Units should look over all the time, moving should be like one man at time, others watching and covering. Formations should be used very strickly as you need to be sure that all men are where they should.

Housefighting would the most needed to improve. Tactics in doors etc. Grenades should be bounching, throwstyles diffrent... Will not be most likely in ArmA, And i think doesn't need to. There are plenty of urbancombat "simulations", noone matching with OFPs open areas.