Is useing the editor the only way you can do it?

You can do it by hand, too. Using the stock mission editor. But with 10,000 waypoints per group, that might get... tedious.

just fantastic:D

I've been wanting to use those torpedo fire plans for zigzagging convoys written about in the Submarine torpedo fire control manual for ages, and now looks like I can :)

Great work!

I'm an owner of a pretty old machine, so I wonder if this will have an impact on performance...? :hmm:

I'm in the same boat (so to speak) and was pondering the same question. I think I know the answer and it's probably not one we're gonna like.:damn:

I read you...to quote a famous Jedi, "I have a bad feeling about this" :hmm:

There is already zig-zagging in TM and in RSRD. Variable legs, variable speeds, etc. The short time scale stuff is certainly more effective, though, particularly at higher speeds. I remember reading, I think in Silent Running, about an attack on a convoy that was zig-zagging on 2 minute legs.

As for how it impacts your computer... good question. I need to put together a layer with more than a couple in it.

This is Great Stuff tater :up:!!! I've been working on a new campaign for about a month now (just about done up to 44 at this point) and I'd really like to incorporate something like this.

Main potential issues I see are:

1. Overloading the computer (as you already mentioned)

2. Convoys becoming Very scattered because of the way they "view" their station/position. (When a course change for the convoy happens, they dash more individually than as a group to get to their allocated station).

3. The larger the convoy/TF, the more likely that ships will be mulling about and acting "lost".

These are things I'm sure you're already aware of.

Question: Will these types of patterns work with Random Groups and Scripted Groups? I plan to have a lot of scripted convoys when my campaign is done...

Again--Great Work! You continue to impress :yep:!

:rock:

Scripted groups have issues, frankly. Lurker's method of using pseudo-random groups is superior, I think. That said, the staion keeping is indeed an issue. I had a random group generate its own spacing of 589 with 3 rows. I left it that way to test. They became a little mixed up just doing the ZZ pattern, but were still a coherent group. Once I attacked, it got really messy. The AI prevented them from crashing into each other, but man, were they a mess.

I need to test for ideal ship spacings, I would expect that any larger sized group should have more maneuver room for ships once they try and ZZ plus constant helming. Maybe 1000m or so.

One thing I need to test is how long it takes them to settle down on a new heading.

Think I will make a test mission pre-war so I can run with them on the surface and watch. If they barely get settled at 5 minutes, perhaps for the sake of the game engine, I might up all the leg times by 1.5. So a 5 minute leg becomes 7.5 minutes, 10 becomes 15, and so forth. That alone might solve issues with convoys in closer spacing.

I've been checking some of this type of data for the past couple weeks. My findings are rather general as I didn't actually time how long it takes to reform a convoy which scatters from a course change (no sub attack involved).

The larger the spacing, the longer it takes to regroup as the individual ships "think" they have farther to travel to attain their proper station. 3 columns with a speed of ~9 knots/1200 spacing took a good 15 minutes to regroup after a 30-40 degree course change. Some ships actually swung out of the convoy and had to catch up from well astern (not all bad--fast stragglers LOL). Personally, I don't like the auto spacing the campaigns use because the columns should be farther apart (I've read of convoys using 4000 yards between columns) and ships in a single column typically tried to stay closer--usually following about 600 yards behind the ship in front of it. Oh well--can't change that :hmm:!

The formations that hold together the best are the single columns. They have less distance to go. I think the most important factor is speed. If a ship can go about 3 knots faster than the convoy's speed, they can reorganize faster.

I plan on running a couple tests in the next couple days. I'll "try" to watch/gather better info for you. But it's kind of luck of the draw as to what I encounter in my testing...

Useful to know. I agree that the "AI" spacing in random groups is less that ideal. Heck, I wish I could determine the ORDER of ships in a random group somehow. It seems to always put them with the large ships on one side and forward, smaller ships to the back.

Personally, I tend to use wider spacings for the most part.

tater

Agreed. I've never been able to determine a consistent pattern to how random groups place ships in a convoy or TF. I also tend to use large spacing for groups although it tends to make them a tad more apoplectic when they're ZZing ;).

EDIT: I have found radar and map updates on to be very usefull for watching formations change course and reorganize after ZZs. They seem to hold position better in excelerated time (64X plus) than in RT. At high time exceleration the formation just "snaps" to the new course.

Tested a part of one of my scripted invasion forces tonight.

Lingayen Gulf Invasion: Currently 60 ships in 5 groups (should be about 80 when done). Main group consists of 38 ships deployed in 7 columns (1000 yards between), 4 ships per column (500-700 yards between ships), 6 close escorts (within 2000 yards of main body) and 4 advance escorts (about 10K yards out from main body). This group seems to station keep very well on a 30 degree turn. I made sure that each ship would have about 3 knot top speed more than the set convoy speed. A similar sized formation using similar speeds has more trouble when it is a "random" group--I think because the gap between ships in column is so large (call it 1000-same as distance between columns).

The reason it works this way (I think) is because when a formation reaches a waypoint all ships recalculate where they need to be. With the 1000 yard spacing between ships in column, it actually means that some of the ships have to make a radical course change to reach their new position. They will actually turn away from the new course to achieve their new station. This results in chaos--at least for a few minutes. Shorter Columns seem to make station-keeping easier. So far anyway :hmm:.

No idea how to smooth random groups ZZ without ensuring small degree turns and allowing time for them to regroup after each turn. I'd say 10 minutes at least for a 3 column formation.

Note: Timing the simultaneous arrival of 5 seperate groups to meet at one place is just a bit on the challenging side. Now I just have to get a couple escorts to peel off at the right place to set up patrollong at the entrance to Lingayen Gulf. That should be pretty easy though. The next step is to set up "the next couple days". Anchored ships, "empty" ships moving back out in small convoys and harbor patrols that try to keep anyone trying to break into the Gulf on their toes. Played part one and took a righteous beating :shifty:. Looking forward to setting up/testing Part II :yep:.

Yeah, I've seen similar issues. The reason it is not so terribly pronounced in current ZZing campaigns is that the legs are long enough that the player is unlikely to see any up close, lol.

The problem, of course, is that in RL you should be seeing ZZs on short time scales, otherwise what's the point?

I will test line astern groups next. Might be that the short time frame ZZs are only appropriate for task forces and smaller groups of faster merchants.

I designated a few convoys as fast convoys, and certainly many of the troop transports are faster liners. Such ships could move at high speed for merchants (~15 knots) and still have plenty of excess capacity for station keeping. Warships, OTOH, can easily have twice the possible speed they would cruise at, so station keeping for them should be straight forward.