Ad hoc Battlegroups bundling an ad hoc organization of armor and infantry under a brigade level command were SOP toward the end of the war on the allied side. It was driven in part by assembling more effective combined arms formations and more likely by reassigning surviving units out of organic forces to a new command after others in its organic structure suffered heavy attrition. The Widening the Corridor scenario starts with a number of armor battlegroup formations on the allied side.Yeah, sorry, Dave. But it's great you're still working at it. Thanks. I wish I had the money to slip a couple of hundred thousand euros your way, to hire a coding team and do all the things we would all like done in a faster time frame. But sadly, we'll have to wait!
Actually, one of my personal frustrations over the last couple of years, as a tester, is that all development in terms of coding has had to be concentrated on the new update. Which has meant that as I play and come across queries I just have to ignore them, when in the past I would have taken shots, saves and recordings and posted up a full report in the dev forum sure that one day it would probably be looked at. So, testing the pretty challenging Gremercy scenario (from BaB) again yesterday I again started looking at how the opponent AI makes ad hoc battle groups and was wondering what rationale was being applied to permit the AI opponent to depart from organic structure. I've noticed that it's very happy and quick to do this, as circs demand, much happier and quicker than I am, as the player. Sometimes its dispositions clearly arise from the battlefield chaos - so very often in Race for Bastogne, for example, I see the AI Axis organic structure almost completely forgotten by day 2, with the Axis forces recombined into 'ad hoc' groupings as a consequence of the traffic jam and combat chaos produced by trying to funnel massive, disparate forces down a few major roads to reach distant objectives and being blocked here and there and forced to re-plan. (I believe a coincidental effect of some of the impending update changes will be to ameliorate this because part of the chaos is produced by pathing issues that are being looked at.) But to come back to the Gremercy scenario yesterday, the AI Axis invented a weird battlegroup (KG Bake, it was, under the commander of that name) whereby it grouped about six towed AT units with that commander and infiltrated them through the Allied lines by night. Come morning, when they were visible, they were easy to kill off because the KG did not include any infantry or significant armour support. Again, part of the issue here was the pathing, I think, but aside from that I found myself thinking - why on earth did the AI create such an odd grouping, and should there not be a greater weight given to trying to maintain organic structure, perhaps? But since all time is being spent on the update, there was no where for me to raise the observation!!!! (And my frustration led to me posting this little report instead....)
I should say that it's still possible for me to play the game - certain scenarios - as it is and be beaten by the AI!!
I wouldn't worry about addressing it in this revision -- there's plenty of good in the work that should get into users' hands.FYI I have revised the AllocateForcesToTasks() and AllocateForcesToFormations() code several times while overhauling attacks. Inside these functions the standard Allocate() is called. This creates a set of requirements for each task or formation subGroup. It then determines the suitability of each unit to these requirements. There are various biases and special requirements thrown into the mix and some of these favour staying with your organic boss, subordinates and siblings. But I do acknowledge that sometimes these aren't strong enough. There's always scope to review.