Minefield Mayhem....

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 2:21 AM, IICptMillerII said:

Personally I'm hoping for an engineering vehicles pack, similar to what was done for CMBN. I would be satisfied with some Abrams and T-72s with mine plows, but I would be even more happy if we got a whole bunch of engineering vehicles, such as MICLICs and the ABV to name a few. 

Honestly, I'd be happy with a mine-clearing plow on the front of the already existent Engineering Support Vehicle.

We need nothing more than that.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

CM:SF2 'One-Minute-Test' of a Snake type demining charge:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/xaza5aww1cws6xk/[Test] Line Charge.btt?dl=0

Select Blue and click the big red button. 

Once you've tried it in your normal play mode, run it in scenario author mode (and/or look in the editor) to see the techniques used and monitor the effects in game (the map is mined in that area).

Edited March 17, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Select Blue and click the big red button. 

+1  Nice!  Very cool!!

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Cheers fella, it seems about 90% reliable as a demining tool and obviously you can tweak the charge placement for better (or worse) effects.....I tend to use the Huge charges around buildings as it creates a wonderfully complex moonscape even on dead flat ditch-locked areas (all the buildings here follow my usual policy).  Detonation reliability is 100% so far, the longest it's taken to go off is 58 seconds.

Here's a video of the charge in action, courtesy of @General Jack Ripper:

 

Edited March 17, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[MOS:96B2P]

23 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Here's a video of the charge in action, courtesy of @General Jack Ripper:  

+1  Its like dominoes   .   I guess it could be used to simulate a few things.  Maybe a conventional bomb drop by an airplane.  With more of a fire look it could be napalm.     Now I'm thinking about CM Vietnam............ . 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Whatever you use it for, it's not at all kind to units in the vicinity! 

[IICptMillerII]

Looks very cool. Love the daisy chain effect. 

 

Have you tested if it works on clearing mines at all?

Also a quick little “did-you-know” about MICLICs; they’re ineffective against mines that are placed on pavement, meaning the mines have to be manually removed by using a lasso and pulling them out of the road to create a lane. Just a fun little tidbit. 

[A Canadian Cat]

12 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Also a quick little “did-you-know” about MICLICs; they’re ineffective against mines that are placed on pavement,

Interesting. Why would that be? Or do you mean they are ineffective if you also want there to still be pavement?

[IICptMillerII]

45 minutes ago, IanL said:

Interesting. Why would that be? Or do you mean they are ineffective if you also want there to still be pavement?

I’m not an explosives expert so if someone is more knowledgeable behind the physics wants to chime in please do, but my understanding is because the mines are placed on the pavement, the explosion just scatters them around and clutters the area with debris making the mines harder to spot. 

The resulting state of the road is less of a tactical issue

[Sgt.Squarehead]

15 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Have you tested if it works on clearing mines at all?

Yup.....I'd say it's about 80% effective in that role (to date). 

If you download the 'One Minute Test' file above and run it in author mode you can evaluate its effectiveness for yourself (the map is mined). 

It also leaves a handy trail of craters to show you what should be the 'safe route'

[IICptMillerII]

I’ll check it out when I get a chance to. 

The fact that the explosions can clear most, but not all mines is pretty cool. In reality a MICLIC lane still has to be cleared and proofed due to this. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Fairly sure I'll be using this concept in a scenario, plenty of options in Syria, not sure if these were used in Mosul.....@Combatintman, any idea if the Iraqis had such a system, maybe with 9thAD? 

[DerKommissar]

Awesome line charge! I really need those to prevent empty AFV traffic jams!

Why not use a mine clearing crab tank?

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Fairly sure I'll be using this concept in a scenario, plenty of options in Syria, not sure if these were used in Mosul.....@Combatintman, any idea if the Iraqis had such a system, maybe with 9thAD? 

No I don't know for sure. According to this, they were used in Ramadi:

https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/642097/iraqi-security-forces-sharing-lessons-of-ramadi-officials-say/dom/foxnews/src/syn/

According to this, they were still being trained on the equipment in the lead up to Mosul:

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/468579/iraqi-army-miclic-live-fire

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Cheers.....Reckon I'll leave it for a 'Battle of Ghouta' scenario, one day, maybe. 

[Alchenar]

On 2/17/2019 at 1:02 PM, General Jack Ripper said:

You don't. Just walk your engineers back and forth through the suspected minefield and they should eventually spot all the mines. Make sure to give a movement waypoint on every action spot. Once the mines are spotted, move your engineers into the spot adjacent to the mines, and the mark mines command will be active.

It usually takes a turn or two to mark mines, but realize one thing:

Marked mines are still dangerous.

 

Ignore the naysayers in the thread, it's really not all that difficult. Observe, and learn:

 

I love how your strategy for clearing mines is to have your squad of engineers stand and work right in front of a platoon of Abrams shooting downrange.  

I just came to the forum having experienced exactly the same issue.  At a minimum it is completely intuitive and not really apparent from the manual that in order to 'mark mines' you have to actually see the mines first, and by 'see' them actually see them even if you 100% know they are there because the briefing and map tell you they are there.  

Right now the scenario is designed to tell you that CM doesn't handle mines well.

 

[General Jack Ripper]

27 minutes ago, Alchenar said:

I love how your strategy for clearing mines is to have your squad of engineers stand and work right in front of a platoon of Abrams shooting downrange.

So... The Abrams tanks have absolutely nothing to do with the point being made. The engineers work would be exactly the same if the tanks weren't there.
I care not for your analysis of my tactical acumen, because I found and dealt with the mines, and apparently you were unable to do so.

 

Quote

At a minimum it is completely intuitive and not really apparent from the manual that in order to 'mark mines' you have to actually see the mines first, and by 'see' them actually see them even if you 100% know they are there because the briefing and map tell you they are there.

How can you 'Mark Mines' if you haven't detected them yet?
What game in existence allows you to activate a context-sensitive command when the context necessary for that command is nonexistent?
Notice how no one is complaining about their inability to 'Acquire' weapons and ammo out of thin air?
That's because it's self-evident one must be in a vehicle or next to an ammo dump to use it. WHY ARE PEOPLE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT 'MARK MINES' WORKS DIFFERENTLY?
You have to be standing near the mines to have it work, and in order to stand near the mines, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. The manual also makes it explicit that anti-tank mines do not harm infantry, so you can draw the logical conclusion that having infantry walk around and among the AT Mines will allow you to detect them without any possible risk.

 

Quote

Right now the scenario is designed to tell you that CM doesn't handle mines well.

I would say the scenario is designed to hold your hand by telling you where the evil scary minefield is, and also give you all the tools you need to overcome the obstacle. Imagine for a moment the anguish you would feel, if the game DIDN'T tell you there was a minefield there!

 

Quote

MINES

There are four "flavors" of minefields in the game: anti-personnel, anti-tank, and mixed (meaning: a mix of both anti-personnel and anti-tank mines in the same field). Obviously, anti-personnel mines are meant to harm infantry primarily, while anti-tank mines are usually bigger and pack more punch, and are intended to disable or at least immobilize vehicles and tanks. Anti-tank mines cannot be set off by infantry on foot, but anti-personnel mines can be set off by vehicles.

Troops moving through minefields have some ability to notice the mines without exploding them. This is much more likely when the soldiers are crawling or walking (and to a lesser extent, "hunting"), the soldiers are engineers or are experienced, and if the minefield has already been discovered (e.g. by setting off a mine)

Engineers have the ability to mark known minefields. After a minefield is marked by an engineer unit, other units may safely (but slowly) move through it without running the risk of setting off additional mines. See the Mark Mines command in the Command chapter of the engine manual for more details.

MARK MINES

This command enables engineer units to detect and mark hidden minefields so that other units are aware of them. Other units can then move through the marked minefield, albeit slowly. Mark Mines is a very slow movement command that takes the unit’s full attention and reduces awareness and returning fire. 

Restrictions - only Engineers can mark mines. 

If there is any problem with marking mines, it is the ambiguous wording in the engine manual which makes it seem like 'Mark Mines' is a movement command, but by referencing the bolded spots of the game manual section quoted above (emphasis mine), one can easily see the technique by which one detects and marks an anti-tank minefield:

• Anti-tank mines cannot be set off by infantry on foot,
• Troops moving through minefields have some ability to notice the mines without exploding them.
• Engineers have the ability to mark known minefields.

See? It's as easy as 1, 2, 3.

Now just wait until you get to a scenario where you are told, "There may be some minefields somewhere," but are NOT told where they are, what type they are, or how large they are...

[Howler]

2 hours ago, Alchenar said:

I just came to the forum having experienced exactly the same issue.  At a minimum it is completely intuitive and not really apparent from the manual that in order to 'mark mines' you have to actually see the mines first, and by 'see' them actually see them even if you 100% know they are there because the briefing and map tell you they are there.

You can also call "heavy" artillery (155+mm) on suspected locations to blast them away. You'll know the barrage can be ended once 'green signs' start showing.

One nice to have feature would be mine clearing equipment. CMBN has it (VP module?) but neither modern title have any.

 

[Alchenar]

Okay so to be absolutely clear: the manual is self-contradictory on what is hidden and what is not.  A command described to 'detect and mark hidden minefields' is not obvious that it can only be used to target non hidden minefields.

This is also literally the only move command that works like a target command.  It's inconsistent with how all other controls work, if it worked like other move commands then you'd expect it to be a special form of 'hunt', which is clearly what so many new players expect.

 

MARK MINES

 This command enables engineer units to detect and mark hidden minefields so that other units are aware of them. Other units can then move through the marked minefield, albeit slowly. Mark Mines is a very slow movement command that takes the unit’s full attention and reduces awareness and returning fire. 

Restrictions - only Engineers can mark mines. 

[MOS:96B2P]

15 hours ago, Alchenar said:

Okay so to be absolutely clear: the manual is self-contradictory on what is hidden and what is not.  A command described to 'detect and mark hidden minefields' is not obvious that it can only be used to target non hidden minefields.

Restrictions - only Engineers can mark mines. 

The manual can be a little confusing sometimes.  Engineers can both discover mines and may also Mark discovered mines allowing other infantry units to more safely navigate the now marked minefield.  Of course any unit can discover a minefield by detonating some of the mines.  After the mines are discovered (however the discovery was made) engineers can Mark the minefield.

A discovered, active, non-marked minefield displays a red skull and crossbones sign. 

A discovered, active, marked minefield displays a off white (yellow?) skull and crossbones sign. 

A neutralized minefield (all mines detonated) displays a green sign with a white X. 

To further complicate the issue CMSF2 has a fourth minefield type called IED Mine.  So in addition to AT mines, AP mines and mixed mines there is IED minefield.  This is different from the cellphone, radio and wire IEDs.  An IED minefield looks and deploys like a minefield.  See the below screenshot.  The difference may be the ability to "discover" the IED minefield. 

There is a different topic here on the forum where players were discussing the problems with discovering the minefield in the Task Force Thunder campaign, scenario one.  I suspect an IED minefield may have been used in this scenario.  Possibly an IED minefield falls into unconventional settings with civilian density etc which makes them difficult (impossible?) to discover without detonating.  Since this scenario is in a campaign and not a stand alone scenario I can't open it in the editor to check. 

Just a possible idea as to what is going on ....................          

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 6:10 PM, Alchenar said:

Okay so to be absolutely clear: the manual is self-contradictory on what is hidden and what is not.  A command described to 'detect and mark hidden minefields' is not obvious that it can only be used to target non hidden minefields.

This is also literally the only move command that works like a target command.  It's inconsistent with how all other controls work, if it worked like other move commands then you'd expect it to be a special form of 'hunt', which is clearly what so many new players expect.

Indeed, it does seem the game manual is in need of a rewrite.