IED Mechanics?

[MOS:96B2P]

39 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

in real life wouldn't peppering the suspected IED location with sufficient explosives cause them to detonate? 

In RL I think it would cause the IED to detonate or at least disable them.  It would be cool in game to be able to locate, mark or maybe disable an IED.  

In the game I've had luck using smoke.  The triggerman has to see when OpFor is in the kill zone.  When possible I deploy smoke in all choke points.  Smoke grenades carried by the troops will usually work (unless the wind is to strong).      

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Sequoia said:

I agree that's true, but are you familiar with the mission I am referring to? There's a large neighborhood of multi-storied buildings with line of sight to the target spot. I had every available unit open up with area fire to different targets hoping that would suppress the triggerman while I sent my scout vehicle across. (Spoiler There was not one but 2 IEDs at the location. One went off, the other never did even with the 2nd vehicle).

 But again I ask, in real life wouldn't peppering the suspected IED location with sufficient explosives cause them to detonate? Hiding enemy forces were not targeting my dismounted infantry. In real life I would in that case  have waited for bomb experts to check out the choke point rather than send a scout vehicle across in a possible suicide mission, but we don't have that option.

Different approach smoke the area of the bridge and cross. The the trigger man can not ID units near the bomb or even see the location of the bomb. 

[Sequoia]

Smoke! Now why didn't I think of that.   

Anyway I still hope a beta tester will consider suggesting being able to detonate IEDs with sufficient explosives going off around it when work begins on engine up date 5. Thanks!

I suppose it's possible the code is already in the game and I didn't use sufficient explosives, but that would surprise me.

[sburke]

“I don’t often smoke, but when I do I prefer IED locations”. - the most interesting man in the world. 

[Sequoia]

Perhaps I didn't go with smoke because it would have taken a few turns to get everyone across, but it would have been possible.

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Sequoia said:

in real life

In games one has to deal with abstractions.

But, I forgot to mention what the others noted above - best method when one can't realistically find the triggerman is use smoke.  If the triggerman can't see the IED, he can't blow it.  

Edited August 21, 2018 by Erwin

[Combatintman]

59 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

I agree that's true, but are you familiar with the mission I am referring to? There's a large neighborhood of multi-storied buildings with line of sight to the target spot. I had every available unit open up with area fire to different targets hoping that would suppress the triggerman while I sent my scout vehicle across. (Spoiler There was not one but 2 IEDs at the location. One went off, the other never did even with the 2nd vehicle).

 But again I ask, in real life wouldn't peppering the suspected IED location with sufficient explosives cause them to detonate? Hiding enemy forces were not targeting my dismounted infantry. In real life I would in that case  have waited for bomb experts to check out the choke point rather than send a scout vehicle across in a possible suicide mission, but we don't have that option.

This covers off on why there are lots of young men and women in graveyards (including two people I knew very well) or living their lives without the limbs they were born with.

IEDs are a nightmare and defeating them requires a lot of effort. FWIW I have never been taught to put rounds down to defeat IEDs in any of my predeployment training for either Iraq (1 tour) or Afghanistan (3 tours) between 2006 and 2016 or seen the method employed on my time outside the wire. The drills taught to cross a culvert (or any suspect IED location) involved a lot of very methodical observation, movement and steps to mitigate the effects of the device if it detonated by minimising the number of people likely to get whacked by the detonation. That was all complimented by technical means such as ECM and detection devices such as the Vallon

http://www.vallon.de/products.lasso?a=uxo-detection&b=8

Of that suite of measures, the only thing that is lacking in game is the Vallon. Well not quite obviously but in terms of mechanics for IED detection because they can't be detected, then in game terms it is lacking. However, in real life Vallon and similar devices do not find every single device so ultimately IEDs have to be defeated by combinations of means and the sad fact of life is that, despite all of the above, where IEDs are present, they will cause casualties.

Moving through an area with culverts/chokepoints (such as your bridge example) or one identified as a High Activity Zone for IED placement is slow and stressful and does not involve whanging 40mm from a MK19/GMG or similar around the place. Why? Because in reality your ROE rarely allows you to put the rounds downrange on suspected positions/IEDs that the game allows you to and of course  your briefing stated that they were likely to be present which is a luxury not always available in real life. As a result of all of this, you are faced with, in game terms, boring methodical application of time-consuming drills. In real life, stressful and exhausting application of time-consuming drills.

Is it physically possible to get an IED to detonate by firing at it with 40mm MK19/GMG or similar? I'm not an expert but I suspect that yes it is; however,this method, like all others, is never a 100% guarantee and I would guess that the percentage of successfully defeating a device by firing a direct fire weapon in the vicinity of said device would be pretty low.

I can't help you with your requests regarding that particular mission but ultimately I think it is worth remembering that:

This is a game.

You can't control everything that happens on the battlefield.

You are going to take casualties.

[Sequoia]

Thank you for the info regarding real life applications regarding IEDs. If no one had a doctrine of firing 40mm etc. at suspected IED locations to detonate them, then of course it's not necessary to add it to the game engine. 

[DerKommissar]

I am curious regarding the use of robots in IED/demining ops, how practical/widespread are they?

[MikeyD]

IEDs in the game don't get spotted before detonation. At least  I can't recall seeing an unexploded device getting spotted. Which makes disposal of discovered IEDs a moot point. 

IEDs in the game should be used sparingly. By that I mean if you over-use them during H2H play your opponent is liable to stop inviting you to play. If you can't move your forces ten feet forward without tripping over another huge IED mine (especially on smaller maps) that makes the scenario less than fun. The last IED device I planted in a scenario I went for the smallest type. Because I've already seen the huge BOOM that wipe out entire squads. So lets instead pick something that will allow the scenario to continue afterward.

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

IEDs in the game should be used sparingly.

Words to stay alive by.  (Most) players want to enjoy themselves and not have a horrible experience playing a game.  IED's work well when it's either obvious where they may be located (eg chokepoints etc) or the player has been warned re their deployment (eg: to avoid a booby-trapped area).

At worst, designers should ensure that the player has sufficient men so that he can survive losing a squad or two to IED's and still accomplish the mission "satisfactorily" - ie have a good game experience.

[Combatintman]

6 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

I am curious regarding the use of robots in IED/demining ops, how practical/widespread are they?

In British service, they have been around for years and are widely used. Practicality varies as they aren't really suitable for long dismounted patrols but if you've got a vehicle with sufficient space to fit one on a mounted task then they become more practical. I'm not particularly an expert in this area but AFAIK they were designed to allow an ATO (Ammunition Technical Officer) to be able to remotely investigate and disable certain types of devices which therefore lowered the risk to the ATO. The key thing here is that the device has to be found in the first place.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

21 hours ago, Erwin said:

Words to stay alive by.  (Most) players want to enjoy themselves and not have a horrible experience playing a game.  IED's work well when it's either obvious where they may be located (eg chokepoints etc) or the player has been warned re their deployment (eg: to avoid a booby-trapped area).

At worst, designers should ensure that the player has sufficient men so that he can survive losing a squad or two to IED's and still accomplish the mission "satisfactorily" - ie have a good game experience.

The triggerman's tendency to take potshots at enemy forces is a big mitigating factor.....If you suspect IEDs are present (scenario designers should always leave you a hint IMHO as they cannot be spotted) a little 'recon by fire' on possible overwatch sites can pay dividends (well in my scenarios it can, at any rate).

[LongLeftFlank]

Archibald "Harry" Tuttle: IED mechanic, at your service! 

[SimpleSimon]

On 8/22/2018 at 4:58 PM, Erwin said:

Words to stay alive by.  (Most) players want to enjoy themselves and not have a horrible experience playing a game.  IED's work well when it's either obvious where they may be located (eg chokepoints etc) or the player has been warned re their deployment (eg: to avoid a booby-trapped area).

At worst, designers should ensure that the player has sufficient men so that he can survive losing a squad or two to IED's and still accomplish the mission "satisfactorily" - ie have a good game experience.

I think so. I'm all for the inclusion of IEDs in the games but the abstractions they're based on can end up producing some pretty weird scenarios if they're overused. By IED near miss 2 I think we can be reasonably sure the area is covered with them and your force needs to avoid just about all the roads and chokepoints (probably not reasonable given the terrain) or just wait for EOD/Engineers to show up (beyond the scope of the game). 

[Kinophile]

Troops can find/mark mines IN CMBS (don't know about other games). Does this also apply to IEDs in SF2? 

[sburke]

37 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Troops can find/mark mines IN CMBS (don't know about other games). Does this also apply to IEDs in SF2? 

No. The British have some vehicles that have IED countermeasures but you’ll never know if they actually did their job or not unless one goes off. 

Reading Strykers in Sadr city the book starts with a high value target mission. Bull company is assigned and speed is essential to get in, take down the target and get out.  When they find their planned route blocked they end up diverting and having to take what is considered a black route, a road known to be laced with IEDs.  It is a terrifying moment and choice but they have no time and their only hope is to get past before anyone is in position to trigger them.  The decision is made while on the move racing through the city looking for an open route to their destination. I.e. it is made on the fly in a matter of minutes. This is in 2008 so in the same time frame as CMSF was designed around. I have read it more than once and still pucker up at the thought of having to do what those men did. Casual bravery that is humbling. 

 

[MikeyD]

Frankly I've never tried to have engineers crawl around a location hoping to locate an IED. Who knows what will happen? Perhaps (just perhaps) an 'IED mine' could be detected and defused. Tinkering with a command detonated mine while the triggerman is still alive and kicking sounds perilous, though.

[domfluff]

I've tried this in CMSF 1, and couldn't get anywhere - it was all or nothing.

Now, "unfun" in multiplayer? Maybe. A lot will depend on points values, and especially rarity. This is something which we've never really had the chance to test in CMSF 1.

Insurgent forces don't really have many other advantages, so I suspect it'll be fine.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

IEDs are not meant to be nice, or civilised, or fair.....That's the whole bloody point. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Erwin]

Of course.  But this is a game and not RL (thank goodness).  Most folks just want to put the I, E and D in "entertaInmEnt proDuct".

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I meant in the game.....I don't hear anyone complaining that the M1A2 SEP TUSK or the universal presence of NVG amongst Blue units is unfair on the Uncons (or the SAA for that matter). 

If you can't take the heat.....Play CM:WWII (at least until we get finally some partisans to blow your shiny tanks to bits). 

Scenario designers can (& do) take steps to mitigate the inability to detect IEDs, you saw what @MOS:96B2P did in TOC (with mines admittedly), I did similar in Mosul (but with less clues, because ISIS aren't very nice like that), we & others will no doubt do the same in CM:SF2. 

BTW - Do any of the testers know If the Electronic Warfare setting is available in CM:SF2 and whether it will effect Radio/Cell IEDs?

PS - I'm still not convinced that you can't set off at least some of the larger IEDs with HE fire, on a number of occasions while testing The Hornets' Nest I had M1s shoot abandoned Taxis with HE, some of those Taxis contained Large or Huge IEDs (I forget exactly which now), and they certainly appeared to go off! 

PPS - CM:SF2 will have IEDs and real bridges.....If you dislike them now you are gonna hate them soon! 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Combatintman]

54 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

PPS - CM:SF2 will have IEDs and real bridges.....If you dislike them now you are gonna hate them soon! 

+1 Yeah, damn bridges - I hate 'em.

[Pete Wenman]

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Pete Wenman

[MikeyD]

Ah, the good old days when the Beta still sported the CMSF1 building facades.