The column shuffle......WTF?

[dpabrams]

I have been diving deeper and deeper into scenario design. I get the water hazards, formations, speed........all that. However it’s frustrating to set up and meticulously space armored columns, time and time again, only to have the platoons shuffle positions when they are already perfectly placed on a road, same formations, spacing and speeds.

When a platoon (3 or 4 vehicles) is placed on a road, the default formation is wedge. Change this to column, set waypoints down a road or trail; move the platoon slightly in the editor and the platoon will snap inline on the road. Set spacing at normal or close. Line up the rest of the armor platoons in the same fashion. Give adequate spacing between platoons. When the scenario starts, the platoons will inevitably crash, start and stop, as the vehicle reshuffle their order.

Result:

Platoon spacing is disrupted and timing is affected.

Question:

Am I doing something wrong? Will vehicles never line up in column 1, 2, 3 and 4? I assume that the order of vehicles gets shuffled in the platoon during placement in the editor and all the shuffling about is to correctly reorder the vehicles 1-4.

If this is the case, do I expect this shuffle and assume that I cannot run tightly packed and timed armor columns down the autobahn.

[Kingtiger]

I have the same issue to. so if you are doing something wrong them Im doing the same thing wrong

It bugs the shit out of my as I try to route a Mech Coy with 2 tk plt plus HQ units along same route...

[Gibsonm]

Will vehicles never line up in column 1, 2, 3 and 4?

If this is the case, do I expect this shuffle and assume that I cannot run tightly packed and timed armor columns down the autobahn.

IIRC (will confirm when I get home tonight) the default “column“ formation isn’t 1, 2, 3, 4 but something else (been a while so I maybe wrong).

Also from experience in both RL and SB tightly spaced (say < 75m between vehicles) AFVs on highways is not a good idea.

[Alicatt]

I thought the order for column march was 1,4,2,3

[Gibsonm]

Yes that rings a bell, hence the comment above.

But haven’t confirmed yet.

Update: Yea 1,4,2,3

Edited January 9, 2012 by Gibsonm

[DrDevice]

A key point to multi-platoon formations that I use is:

• Ensure march orders, normal spacing for the route.
  
• Use a start point and then another "checkpoint" a few hundred meters down the path.
  
• Do not allow follow-on units to begin their move until the unit before it has reached the checkpoint
  

This uses conditioned routes in the mission editor. By using "Embark if unit 1 has reached waypoint 2" you can ensure that the "shuffle" is minimized, and that the overall column maintains spacing. (Once on the route, the March tactic helps the unit keep pace with others in front.)

The one challenge with the above is that you may not know when Unit X is on the route. Especially later in the battle. (Unit X may be destroyed, and then you have a completely broken logic chain!)

My typical solution to the above is to simply add a simple "Embark if mission time > 1:00" but with an "after true, delay by 0:10/30/50" modifier to the group of units, so they are using the clock, instead of the existence of units to coordinate moves. The art here is choosing the clock point you want, and the delay between unit embarkation delays. Play testing and watching the "show vehicle icons" checked is very helpful for dialing this in.

There is almost always a game-start shuffling, as the units shake out position. Since that's the case, it's pretty east to accommodate, simply by not immediately expecting the column to move out.

Another handy trick is to remember that all orders (even Stay) at a waypoint will change over the formation, away from column. Units may need to "shake out" again, especially around obstacles.

[SeanPatrick]

This is what I usually do, and Ssnake suggested it one time. It's slightly different than what you're doing:

1. Give the plt "stay" tactics
2. Orient the BP to the road
3. Set the formation to column
4. Set spacing to normal/wide
5. Give the plt a route
6. Remove the "stay" tactic from the plt

That should put them in the right formation, order and spacing to begin with.

[Tacbat]

As Dr D mentioned, use march tactics because this will ensure that vehicles travel at the same speed. With something else, like assault, they will travel at a percentage of thier top speed, which will be different depending on the vehicle type.

[Splash]

You might have already checked this, but since it hasn't been specifically mentioned here:

Make sure the spacing property of your initial route matches that of your pre-placed unit.

The route defaults to normal, so if you don't take care to change it and you've set your unit waiting to embark at close, the units will back up to get normal spacing before moving forward -- resulting in exactly the kind of shuffling and collisions you describe.

I usually try to avoid "close" spacing at any point in a multiple-unit column, because eventually you're going to come across a route with "normal" spacing, and Tailend Charlie is going to throw it into reverse -- regardless of what's behind him.

[DrDevice]

That should put them in the right formation, order and spacing to begin with.

Ah, SP brings up a key point: you can change formation prior to start. I had assumed that the OP was already doing this. Good catch. There is usually a little shuffle even if they are in column, but not nearly the "formation change" one.

I think the main thing designers miss (and you can see it in AARs) is the timing allowance for multi-units in confined routes. The traffic jam syndrome is best dealt with via route timing and conditions of various flavors.

[Splash]

dpabrams, take a quick look at the attached scenario. It's just a simple display of what happens to a pre-placed column at launch in a) close and b) normal spacing.

Is that the behavior you're talking about?

Separately, in my post above, I said the initial "route" defaults to normal ... that's wrong. I meant the initial waypoint. The initial route that extends from your unit will retain the spacing of the unit. But even so, I think there's a problem there vis. "close" spacing.

march.zip

[dpabrams]

dpabrams, take a quick look at the attached scenario. It's just a simple display of what happens to a pre-placed column at launch in a) close and b) normal spacing.

Is that the behavior you're talking about?

That is a pretty nice set up. On veiwing I see only an adjustment in spacing between a plt already in column on the road. What I see is shuffle of places within the plt. For instance #3 swapping places with #4.