Idea: Formation flying

[Batz]

One thing....formation flying is not done by using "peripheal" vision.

No one said that. Here is what I said:

The lack of peripheral vision makes true formation flying more difficult.

Take a 2-man line breast. You can't gauge relative position without turning your head 180 degrees.

Those hollywood shots of pilots looking straight ahead, or away from the lead for extended periods of time, while maintaining "perfect" form is complete BS. When flying close form, the wingman is looking at his lead's aircraft 90-95% of the time...

90% of the time?.

In typical finger 4 formation pilots had designated search areas. The whole point behind the development of certain formations wasn’t just to "be together". They allowed greater flexibility in defense and attacking. WW2 fighters didn’t have avionics and awacs telling where the bad guys were. Until late in the war most planes didn’t have bubble canopies. There were blind spots and by flying in formation the unit could help cover each other visually.

When flying close form, the wingman is looking at his lead's aircraft 90-95% of the time...the other 5-10% are quick quick glances at the gauges, horizon, other wingmen, etc. If you don't, your gonna swap paint, and Look at any closeup photo of aircraft in formation, and you will see the pilots heads all turned towards the aircraft they are flying wing off of....they definitely are not turning to smile at the camera

Who said close? We said 500 to 1k yards, 1500ft - 3000ft.

Now if flying in a loose cruise position...yes...you will have a little more time to be looking about, positioning is not as rigid (more fluid), and gives the pilot more time to look for enemy. But the majority of your time you are still flying off the lead, and maintaining your position.

No one said anything about combat formations. We are talking cruise. Certain formations allow for better defense against attack. With a formation like line abreast there are any number of counters to an attacker. From a "sandwich" to any number drag maneuvers. Spacing is important. It varies with plane type and the main consideration is turn radius at the given altitude and cruise airspeed.

Entering combat, you will be in a combat spread....very fluid, and loose formation, positioning not rigid at all. Here you more eyes all around, rather than padlocking your lead, trying to find the enemy. You still check lead for positioning, but not quite as often....you basically have a piece of sky a few hundred feet above and below leads alt, and a set range (.5-1.0 for ex) from your lead to fly in.

We (the guys I fly with) enter combat with any number of tactics and formations. Sometimes "welded wing" where the wingman stays locked. He basically follows the leader in. Loose Deuce where 1 stays high and one engages or Double Attack. We aren’t talking wingman tactics anyway. As stated from the beginning Fariz suggested that the formation is only maintained in level flight. He never said the "wingmen" would follow you like bomber drones.

If this was ever implemented, I would'nt use it. Have to agree it is "gamey". There is no "perfect" formation flying unless you are the Blue Angels, and it is a hell of a workload. Majority of form flying *today* is done in loose cruise. Tight form flying is for initial joinups and when getting ready to enter the break at an airfield/CV, or in crappy weather

Well this is a game and there are many "gamey" things. Auto climb/level/speed. Auto takeoff, auto trim, to name a few. Again no one said "perfect blue angle" formations. Maintaining between 1k and 800 yards isn't close nor does it need to be perfect.

Re-read the thread. Fariz's suggestion only has to do with "cruise". Flying to and from the battle.

I just got home from work so I am headed to bed before the super bowl. But here’s a link to a SimHQ article Andy Bush wrote.

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_013a.html

There are a couple of articles on my webpage as well.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Batz
Player 2 locks to Player 1; Player 3 to Player 2; Player 4 to Player 3 etc... Then if 1 breaks the rest stay in formation.
 

In (*Fill with whatever country you want *) mode they all link this way , dive on a enemy field and the last locked pilot press the trigger to detonate the whole


@saw : perfect description  it sounded very real

[eskimo2]

I've wanted this for buffs for a long time.  It takes constant flying for a buff to stay in formation, which is fine until fighters attack.  Within a few minutes of manning guns, most buffs will drift apart.  We already have a weakness in buffs that the jobs of 5 to 10 must be done by one.  A "Lock On Leader" command would at least allow gunners to man guns while maintaining formation.  

Back when I used to fly regularly with my squad, we used to fly buffs with a .speed command and make minor adjustments from the nose gunner position with the rudder.  This worked fairly well, but not everyone could do it well and a few would never manage to get in tight with the group.  Extended gunner time would tend to cause some to drift as well.

It would also be nice to have a "Bomb On Leader" command.  This would be an option to make another pilot's bombardier yours.  Great for carpet bombing.

eskimo

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Batz
If everyone uses it how is it "unbalancing"?

[/B]

Because those who choose not to use it gain no advantage from their choice.  So basically you want an entire arena or scenario or whatever filled with picture-perfect finger four formations requiring no skill or effort.  How quaint.

How is it more unbalancing then 3 guys flying together "loosely" communicating over squad vox?

[/B]

Because this requires one to simply hit a button and then do nothing other than pan around.  The scenario you've just given requires teamwork, communication, and skill in order to work successfully.  Personally, I feel these are good qualities that should be rewarded rather than punished.

It simply reduces workload like auto climb/level/speed does now. It’s not a matter of adjusting mp. The group can match speed by typing .speed xxx.

[/B]

I see this analogy bandied about, but I don't buy it.  Auto-climb/level/speed really are just workload reducers.  Formation flying is a tactical choice, however, and not just busy work like trimming to climb.  Apples and oranges... one saves you the trouble of having to constantly adjust trim for speed or angle while the other turns, adjusts speed, trims, maintains distance, etc etc.  You cannot compare these two.

The lack of peripheral vision makes true formation flying more difficult.

[/B]

The lack of peripheral vision makes engaging in combat more difficult too.  Would you like an auto-combat function now?

All the “formation” would do is allow a unit to maintain a more orderly spacing instead of the gaggles of planes typically seen. It may improve the individuals SA by reducing his workload but the group itself has no better SA then anyone of the auto climb/level gaggles.

[/B]

I disagree.  If those in the auto-climb/level gaggles must also pay attention to their wing leader and any commands he might issue, then they must balance situational awareness with tight formation flying.

We have 360 Linda Blair in AH, there aren’t many blind spots that would require specific types of formations. 4 guys spaced 500yrds apart in formation won’t see anymore then the 4 guys on auto climb spaced loosely.

[/B]

So now you've just undermined Fariz's argument.  He stated, "It makes formations like a classic finger 4 very hard to maintain, and even if you mannage to create this formation in flight, it is unstable, and takes too much attention to maintain. So in AH, formation flying turns into flying in 'trains', where all the wingmans shall have leaders in their direct view."

If the point of auto-formation is to eliminate players looking directly at the leader and thus reducing their situational awareness, how can auto-formations not increase situational awareness?  Do you disagree with his statement?

Well good for you. What I said was "most people". You made the choice to include yourself in that generalization.

[/B]

Oh, please.  About three people spoke up in opposition to this idea in this thread.  You clearly were pointing the finger at all of us while giving yourself an "out" by saying this.  Spare me.

My reply wasn't specifically directed toward you. I flew ToD (now squad ops) from the 1st one until I gave up my “Wotan” account. Only maybe 3 times did I see anything resembling a formation.  Most were gangs of aircraft with a few stragglers.

Formation flying can be taught.  The lack of proper formations ties directly into the lack of decent air combat maneuvering and tactics witnessed in the main arena and elsewhere.  Players just don't know how to do these things because nobody taught them how.   Rather than spend the energy implementing an auto-formation command, why not take that time and effort to train players to wing properly?

The peripheral vision argument is well made by Fariz and others, but we must remember that the lack of realistic views impacts many facets of AH and not just formation flying.  Once we start tinkering with that, where do we stop?

-- Todd/Leviathn

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Citabria
but then how do you impliment this?

what ai coding would be necessary to achieve this?

would it work like fleets? where there is a carrier and the little ships maintain position around it? somthing simple and straightforward would be nice

It's fairly simple.  Simguild (of flying circus fame) had your option 1 in their Battle of Britain.  It was a very nice feature.

curly

[Fariz]

Thanks everyone who answered Now it is up to HTC, if they will find this idea interesting and worth their time to implement, we will see it in sometime. If no, then no.

[Batz]

Because those who choose not to use it gain no advantage from their choice. So basically you want an entire arena or scenario or whatever filled with picture-perfect finger four formations requiring no skill or effort. How quaint.

Are you asking me or telling me what I said? I said a simple line abreast with around a d800 spacing.

Because this requires one to simply hit a button and then do nothing other than pan around. The scenario you've just given requires teamwork, communication, and skill in order to work successfully. Personally, I feel these are good qualities that should be rewarded rather than punished.

There's no skill required for auto climb/level and hat switch manipulation. Whether in a finger 4 or just within the same 3k radius they still are able to search the same amount of sky.

You need the same level of teamwork in what Fariz has suggested. All auto-formation does is keep planes spaced while otw to your target. Any maneuvering or course adjustments are made by each pilot. When AH 2 comes out then folks with TrackIR or Freeview will have a an advantage over those who can't or don't use them. They make SA, combat and formation flying easier. Are you going to tell HT not allow these to be used?

I see this analogy bandied about, but I don't buy it. Auto-climb/level/speed really are just workload reducers. Formation flying is a tactical choice, however, and not just busy work like trimming to climb. Apples and oranges... one saves you the trouble of having to constantly adjust trim for speed or angle while the other turns, adjusts speed, trims, maintains distance, etc. You cannot compare these two.

All Fariz's suggestion does is reduce workload. There's some tactical advantage to formation flying but no more then what we see now. No one said the these formations would work like bomber drones.

The lack of peripheral vision makes engaging in combat more difficult too. Would you like an auto-combat function now?

No it doesn't. SA in combat is different situation. We aren't talking about combat anyway.

I disagree. If those in the auto-climb/level gaggles must also pay attention to their wing leader and any commands he might issue, then they must balance situational awareness with tight formation flying.

Even if the auto-formation feature Fariz suggested is apart of AH the individual pilots would need to balance all these issues like they do now. The formation only maintains space while in level flight. Listening to AH voice or reading the text buffer will effect SA the same in both examples.

So now you've just undermined Fariz's argument. He stated, "It makes formations like a classic finger 4 very hard to maintain, and even if you mannage to create this formation in flight, it is unstable, and takes too much attention to maintain. So in AH, formation flying turns into flying in 'trains', where all the wingmans shall have leaders in their direct view."

If the point of auto-formation is to eliminate players looking directly at the leader and thus reducing their situational awareness, how can auto-formations not increase situational awareness? Do you disagree with his statement?

Most folks in AH aren’t flying any kind of recognizable formation for the very reason Fariz said. They are simply in close proximity heading in the same direction. Proper search patterns in a wedge or line abreast formation are directed inward toward each other.



All the auto-formation will do is eliminate the adjustments needed to keep your spacing, thus reducing workload like auto climb/level/speed.

Oh, please. About three people spoke up in opposition to this idea in this thread. You clearly were pointing the finger at all of us while giving yourself an "out" by saying this. Spare me.

I don't know how many in this thread are against it. I read a few replies then typed a response. Even if there were only 3 including yourself it’s still up to you to decide whether or not to include yourself in my generalization. What do I need to get "out" of? If I was specifically replying to you I would have used quotes like in this thread.

Formation flying can be taught. The lack of proper formations ties directly into the lack of decent air combat maneuvering and tactics witnessed in the main arena and elsewhere. Players just don't know how to do these things because nobody taught them how. Rather than spend the energy implementing an auto-formation command, why not take that time and effort to train players to wing properly?

The peripheral vision argument is well made by Fariz and others, but we must remember that the lack of realistic views impacts many facets of AH and not just formation flying. Once we start tinkering with that, where do we stop?

Sure it can and what better way then to add an auto feature so the new guys can learn? The better the pilots and the group the less need there is for rigid formation. In ToD my squad of guys were all good pilots. We all knew what to do with out really talking about it. Urchin, AG, Erlkonig, Leitwolf, Heinkel, Scot etc... didn't need constant direction.

Contrast that against a scenario with guys who have never flown together and across the spectrum of skill levels and you end up with a less then cohesive unit.

Reducing workload allows the new guys to watch and pay attention to what’s going around them without worrying about if they are in the right spot. Once combat commences this all changes. But no one is talking about combat anyway.

[Cobra412]

I've been trying to implemement a loose Finger 4 formation set in the squad I fly in as of late.  To do this isn't as hard as some may think.  For starters there is no friendly collision so that is one less con to formation flying. And you have the auto level/auto climb options.  If you were in different style aircraft this could be a bit more difficult.

 Plus at the spread ranges any particular flight should be flying shouldn't cause to many problems either.  Your going to have enough distance that even with friendly collision on you shouldn't be hitting them.  When doing tac turns, if friendly collision was on then you'd have to be a bit more careful.

 Once in an engagement your flight should be breaking of in pairs so it then becomes even slightly easier.  And to top it off you'd also most likely be going to a line abreast position at that time anyway.  This is due to it's advantages in both attacking and defending against bogeys.

Only issues I see with formation flying is the folks knowing what the formation sets are, there pros and cons, and there responsibilities in the formation.  Once they have those basics down it's pros definately out weigh it's cons.  The most you'll be doing is adjusting for slight variances whether it be your closing rate or extension rate to the leader.  Majority of the time you'll be scanning around and then coming to check your spreads.

Once this is down you'll get into the more difficult stages of tactical doctrines (ie; double attack, loose duece, fighting wing(welded wing).  The proper use of bracketing, the sandwhich, Thatch Weave, half splits, defensive splits,nose to nose turns and nose to tail turns.  I guess the question is if your going to do formation flying how deep do you plan on going into the whole subject?  If it's just for the sake of it looking pretty then there is no reason to spend the time doing it.  It's only one small piece of a very large and complicated puzzle.  

To top it off when doing bomber formations the basic Finger 4 is only a small part of the overall group formation.  The Mighty 8th used many different formations through out the war as I'm sure other bomber squadrons did.  They aren't just as simple as lining up in the Finger 4 and head to your target.  There is a major issue of proper spreads in both the horizontal plane and the vertical plane.  Now add there escorts and you're puzzle gets even more difficult.

[CavemanJ]

While this sounds like a fine idea, I think it would be too much of a crutch in the pre-engagement manuevering.  I think it would be a nice tool to have in the training arena and to be able to turn it on in H2H games for training purposes.

There's no problem flying a nice formation without any kind of formation autopilot in the game.  The biggest problem I've seen people have with formation flying is they make too much of a correction on the controls.  Instead of just nuding the bird over a hair then bank it at 45degrees and then try to yank it back.  

I have no problems holding my position in formation with anyone in my squadron, especially when we're flying our ponies.

Of course, formation flying with dissimilar aircraft is a challenge.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Batz
Are you asking me or telling me what I said? I said a simple line abreast with around a d800 spacing.

[/B]

I was referring to Fariz's statement about the Finger Four formation in pointing out the logical conclusion of an auto-formation command.  You'll have an arena or scenario full of perfectly formed flight groups without requiring any skill or practice.  As formation flying is a skill one can and should learn in the game, such a function does not strike me as preferable.  

There's no skill required for auto climb/level and hat switch manipulation. Whether in a finger 4 or just within the same 3k radius they still are able to search the same amount of sky.

[/B]

So why the auto-formation command then?  For aesthetics?  I'd hate to allow such a realism compromise for purely aesthetic purposes.

You need the same level of teamwork in what Fariz has suggested. All auto-formation does is keep planes spaced while otw to your target. Any maneuvering or course adjustments are made by each pilot. When AH 2 comes out then folks with TrackIR or Freeview will have a an advantage over those who can't or don't use them. They make SA, combat and formation flying easier. Are you going to tell HT not allow these to be used?

[/B]

You're very good at comparing apples to oranges.  Do I really need to explain to you how TrackIR and Freeview substantially differ from a universally available formation autopilot function with only advantages and no disadvantages?

All Fariz's suggestion does is reduce workload. There's some tactical advantage to formation flying but no more then what we see now. No one said the these formations would work like bomber drones.

[/B]

By reducing workload you achieve a tactical advantage by enhancing situational awareness.  But wait a minute... didn't you just say that auto formation requires no more or less work than auto-climb or auto-level?  So which is it... is it a workload reducer or not?  If it reduces the workload no more or less than the features already available to users, why even include it at all?

No it doesn't. SA in combat is different situation. We aren't talking about combat anyway.

[/B]

Yes, it does.  The fact that I can see 45 degrees up but not to either either side puts me at a severe disadvantage compared to situational awareness in reality.  And of course we weren't talking about combat, but then again I wasn't either... I was referring to how the lack of peripheral vision in the game affects many facets of gameplay and not just formation flying.  Yet nobody has (yet) proposed gameplay concessions to account for those deficiencies.

Sure it can and what better way then to add an auto feature so the new guys can learn? The better the pilots and the group the less need there is for rigid formation. In ToD my squad of guys were all good pilots. We all knew what to do with out really talking about it. Urchin, AG, Erlkonig, Leitwolf, Heinkel, Scot etc... didn't need constant direction.

[/B]

I'm certainly in favor of a training auto-formation command that is arena-configurable.  Enable it in the training arena and in H2H arenas sort of like the bomb practice marker and stall limiter so that new players can experience proper formation flying first-hand.  But for the main arena or scenarios?  Let them put that practice to the test.

Contrast that against a scenario with guys who have never flown together and across the spectrum of skill levels and you end up with a less then cohesive unit.

[/B]

Part of the thrill of scenarios is trying to stick together, cover one another, and keep a vestige of organization in chaotic surroundings.  I'd hate to see that go away with the press of a button.

Reducing workload allows the new guys to watch and pay attention to what’s going around them without worrying about if they are in the right spot. Once combat commences this all changes. But no one is talking about combat anyway.

No, we're not talking about combat.  But part of a successful formula for combat is remaining a cohesive unit up until the moment of combat. In my opinion, the game should reward those capable of maintaining better cohesion over those who cannot.  Auto-formation removes that variable entirely from the equation.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Fariz]

Originally posted by CavemanJ
There's no problem flying a nice formation without any kind of formation autopilot in the game.
 

I just want to say in my understanding and experience it is a problem. If it was not, we would see formations all around, specially from immersion and realism buffs like many guys who fly in scenarious. To see what the real picture is very easy, you have to film any of AH scenarious and check how many fighter groups you see will looks like historic formations. I personally made a try for a formation, and found it hard and unrewarding. Simply saying, while some simplification will not be made in this field, it will be same way, no historic formations. It shall be clearly understood.

Next step is if HTC consider it important or unimportant part of the game. In my understanding, for AH classic it is not very important, because classic it is not structured. I even could live without it for scenarious, because they are not so often. But for something like TOD, which targets a specific niche of players, such things shall not be overlooked. It is such details which make picture a whole; seing a box of b17s and a messed gang of fighters over them as an escort is a strong immersion breaker IMHO.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Fariz
Shall not happen. Right now formation drones are autopiloted from the server, that is why some anomalities. Formation autopilot if implemented is clint side, it just will use AI for plane position instead of joystick input, while client-server message flow will be the same.

I believe formations drones are presently set by your FE and positional data communicated the usual way............

This is a good idea Fariz............I believe it could be simpler ...............the AI drone model could be used directly.

The command could be

/.formL or /.formR or /.formT

There could also be  range setting /.formD ###  (0 to 999)

Your FE then takes over holding you at a set distance (with a fixed tolerance) to the left/right/trial position of your chosen lead man.

All limitations of the present drone formation FM then apply and the whole thing is set in each players FE without any increase in data traffic(except for the fact that there are actually lots of AC close together). In this way massive formations could be made.


Only down side is that 20 guys could /.formL fariz at 500 and all sit in the same space. This could be eliminated by a single latch (like the join command) where by "Fariz" could only have one left/right/trial at any one time.



I would not be concerned re the use of the Bomber AI model in combat............AI drones can even now only make quite gentle course corrections........ once you drop out of the tolerance zone then the AI formation model drops out too.

Also remember the daisy chain effect on a finger 4.  A small correction by the lead could end up a large correction for tail end charlie

[hitech]

I wouldn't say it's the "Next step" fairz, I say it was a step decided a long time ago. I.E. I still don't belive it is a good idea for the game.

HiTech

[Batz]

I was referring to Fariz's statement about the Finger Four formation in pointing out the logical conclusion of an auto-formation command. You'll have an arena or scenario full of perfectly formed flight groups without requiring any skill or practice. As formation flying is a skill one can and should learn in the game, such a function does not strike me as preferable.

Here is what you said,

So basically you want an entire arena or scenario or whatever filled with picture-perfect finger four formations requiring no skill or effort.

You even quoted me before that.

So why the auto-formation command then? For aesthetics? I'd hate to allow such a realism compromise for purely aesthetic purposes.

I didn't mention aesthetics. I said it reduces individual pilot workload. Auto-anything is there to reduce workload. If there was no auto climb then folks would need to take attention away from SA to maintain climb rate and speed. If there was no auto level folks would need to spend more time maintaining their heading. If there was no Auto speed folks would to spend more time watching mp etc...

Auto-formation adds nothing more then any of these others. What it does do is reduce the individual workload and keep his spacing. Not everyone in a group is distracted at the same time making adjustments. So there’s no reduction in the groups SA.

You're very good at comparing apples to oranges. Do I really need to explain to you how TrackIR and Freeview substantially differ from a universally available formation autopilot function with only advantages and no disadvantages?

All these fall under your umbrella of "realism compromises". You claim that an individual would be at a disadvantage because all groups would use it. Well the "individual" who doesn’t use the features quoted above are at a disadvantage as well. So if you claim that certain features ought to be left out of the game because it may disadvantage some one it’s logical to inquire how far you would go in opposing "realism compromises".

Remember you typed the below as a reason why you believe auto-formation will be "unbalancing".

Because those who choose not to use it gain no advantage from their choice.

By reducing workload you achieve a tactical advantage by enhancing situational awareness. But wait a minute... didn't you just say that auto formation requires no more or less work than auto-climb or auto-level? So which is it... is it a workload reducer or not? If it reduces the workload no more or less than the features already available to users, why even include it at all?

No what I said there's no advantage gained from auto-formation that isn't already there for 5 guys on auto climb in a 3k radius using auto -climb/level/speed. Go re-read it.

 I am referring to work load reduction for the individual. Like the multiple spacing corrections necessary on prolonged flights. Some folks will takeoff and set the direction and hit auto-climb then go afk. Well a player might want to up and use auto-formation and go grab a drink without drifting half a sector away from his flight. He may want to alt tab out and review his orders. He may want to take the time to review a few things with command etc.

This is what I mean by reducing individual pilot workload. Your claim is that it folks on auto-formation get some extra tactical advantage that they currently don't have. I certainly don’t see it.

But if HT decides he is against then that's that.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Batz
You even quoted me before that.

[/b]

Are you now actually engaging in a semantics argument?  Jesus, Batz, stop wasting both of our times.

I didn't mention aesthetics. I said it reduces individual pilot workload. Auto-anything is there to reduce workload. If there was no auto climb then folks would need to take attention away from SA to maintain climb rate and speed. If there was no auto level folks would need to spend more time maintaining their heading. If there was no Auto speed folks would to spend more time watching mp etc...

[/B]

And one of the points I was trying to make earlier was that formation flying requires quite a bit more attention than manually performing any of the other tasks you mentioned, and often times it includes combinations of all of them (maintaining heading, watching MP, RPMS, etc.).  This isn't just a workload reducer; it's a substantial workload reducer not consistent with the other auto functions you've mentioned.

Auto-formation adds nothing more then any of these others. What it does do is reduce the individual workload and keep his spacing. Not everyone in a group is distracted at the same time making adjustments. So there’s no reduction in the groups SA.

[/B]

Basically where I disagree with you is this notion that "keeping spacing" should become automatic.  Spacing, formation flying, and the like strike me as skills that require practice to perfect and yield real benefits in scenario environments.  In contrast, the sorts of things that auto-level, auto-climb, and auto-speed handle really are just brainless busy work requiring no skill.  Once you begin automating a skill-based function (formation flying), what next?

All these fall under your umbrella of "realism compromises". You claim that an individual would be at a disadvantage because all groups would use it. Well the "individual" who doesn’t use the features quoted above are at a disadvantage as well. So if you claim that certain features ought to be left out of the game because it may disadvantage some one it’s logical to inquire how far you would go in opposing "realism compromises".

[/B]

Formation flying provides tactical advantages particularly pre-engagement by keeping groups cohesive and close together.  I've already stated this.  The fact that not turning on auto-formation provides absolutely no tactical benefit means that auto-formation would become so dominant as to become the norm.  And since formation flying is a skill, you would basically have an arena full of players supplanting skill for automation.  Is that what we really want?  It seems that's not what HiTech wants.

No what I said there's no advantage gained from auto-formation that isn't already there for 5 guys on auto climb in a 3k radius using auto -climb/level/speed. Go re-read it.

[/B]

I disagree.  Unless you somehow think that a close-knit group of players flying in close formation within 800 yards of one another somehow equates to a loose grouping of players in a 3k radius of one another once combat begins, auto-formation clearly provides a tactical advantage beyond simple situational awareness.

But if HT decides he is against then that's that.

Indeed he does seem against it, but I wish he'd explain the choice a bit further.

-- Todd/Leviathn