H1nd

At this point I am quite baffled how this could get through the testing. This issue with troops charging towards enemies when evading is very obvious from simply just playing the game as you normally do. I have been trying out the revised road to montebourg campaign and aside from first mission I have seen this issue come up in all scenarios regularly during normal gameplay. It is just plain and simply broken. Not as badly as it may have been before but broken nevertheless. For H2H games it seems that the remedy is once again using the pause command (exploit?) to stop troops from fleeing. But the poor AI will get its infantry massacred in simple firefights. 

From quite a lot of experience on messing around with fortifications (I think i may have some sort of dug in troops fixation) I am pretty sure that the troops do need to be actually inside the foxholes to get the cover bonus. Most casualties seem to occur on men left outside the foxholes or moving out of the foxholes on their own  so I am pretty sure it is important to try to get the men actually in to the foxholes to give them any extra cover. What is happening in the picture: I would say that the road bank is overriding the foxholes as preferred position for the men. Much like the already mentioned elevation slopes and other terrain features. I have argued in the past that the problem seems to be the prioritization by which the pixel troops select their positions inside action squares. Number one priority is to place troops next to buildings or walls/hedges and this is why you need to be really careful when using foxholes or trenches close to buildings or walls. Second comes the priority to have troops lay down along any ridge or bank or such elevation feature inside the action square and this is why foxholes don't work well in steep terrain but rather need relatively flat action squares. Third comes the trees: foxholes and trees don't mix very well since the troops seem to prefer to seek shelter behind trees rather than in the foxholes, although this usually affects only some of the pixel troops in a group. And then there are the shell holes which might actually be on the top of this priority but i am not sure. So all in all any terrain feature that has a overriding effect on default troop placement inside any given action square usually has a higher priority than the foxholes which them selves seem to also have some overriding effect vs the default placement of troops.  The problem is that the foxholes should have higher priority than the other overrides.  So to sum up troops place them selves by: 1) walls/buildings 2) ridges/banks 3)trees (and maybe flavour objects) 4) shell holes (might actually be the no.1) 5) any fortifications 6) default placement. 
Using the facing command, as has been pointed out, does help in some cases but often the troops might still crawl back to the wrong positions on their own. 

Well somebody is a real pleasant fellow. Yes is is true that I might have missed the point a bit since yes english is indeed not my native language and also because every time there is a talk on the forum about infantry engineers breaching minefields, wich you definitely can not do in CM games, since marking is not breaching in sense of clearing a mineless lane through the damn thing, there is immediately somebody popping up with the "Its not in scope of CM something something.." like literally every freaking time. Whole discussion on whether it might be reasonable to add the ability for engineers to breach minefields is just brushed aside without any consideration if the popular perception about the issue might actually be wrong. So yeah, I might be tad bit frustrated about the whole thing.
But there is still no excuse to accept such immature and completely insulting behaviour as your reply. Is this the sort of thing we want to see here on this forum? 
Last word on the mine issue: I am actually quite optimistic that we will eventually get at least mine clearing vehicles to both modern CM titles. And that is enough for me. 
-H1nd

Well somebody is a real pleasant fellow. Yes is is true that I might have missed the point a bit since yes english is indeed not my native language and also because every time there is a talk on the forum about infantry engineers breaching minefields, wich you definitely can not do in CM games, since marking is not breaching in sense of clearing a mineless lane through the damn thing, there is immediately somebody popping up with the "Its not in scope of CM something something.." like literally every freaking time. Whole discussion on whether it might be reasonable to add the ability for engineers to breach minefields is just brushed aside without any consideration if the popular perception about the issue might actually be wrong. So yeah, I might be tad bit frustrated about the whole thing.
But there is still no excuse to accept such immature and completely insulting behaviour as your reply. Is this the sort of thing we want to see here on this forum? 
Last word on the mine issue: I am actually quite optimistic that we will eventually get at least mine clearing vehicles to both modern CM titles. And that is enough for me. 
-H1nd

Well somebody is a real pleasant fellow. Yes is is true that I might have missed the point a bit since yes english is indeed not my native language and also because every time there is a talk on the forum about infantry engineers breaching minefields, wich you definitely can not do in CM games, since marking is not breaching in sense of clearing a mineless lane through the damn thing, there is immediately somebody popping up with the "Its not in scope of CM something something.." like literally every freaking time. Whole discussion on whether it might be reasonable to add the ability for engineers to breach minefields is just brushed aside without any consideration if the popular perception about the issue might actually be wrong. So yeah, I might be tad bit frustrated about the whole thing.
But there is still no excuse to accept such immature and completely insulting behaviour as your reply. Is this the sort of thing we want to see here on this forum? 
Last word on the mine issue: I am actually quite optimistic that we will eventually get at least mine clearing vehicles to both modern CM titles. And that is enough for me. 
-H1nd

Well somebody is a real pleasant fellow. Yes is is true that I might have missed the point a bit since yes english is indeed not my native language and also because every time there is a talk on the forum about infantry engineers breaching minefields, wich you definitely can not do in CM games, since marking is not breaching in sense of clearing a mineless lane through the damn thing, there is immediately somebody popping up with the "Its not in scope of CM something something.." like literally every freaking time. Whole discussion on whether it might be reasonable to add the ability for engineers to breach minefields is just brushed aside without any consideration if the popular perception about the issue might actually be wrong. So yeah, I might be tad bit frustrated about the whole thing.
But there is still no excuse to accept such immature and completely insulting behaviour as your reply. Is this the sort of thing we want to see here on this forum? 
Last word on the mine issue: I am actually quite optimistic that we will eventually get at least mine clearing vehicles to both modern CM titles. And that is enough for me. 
-H1nd

Funny how this was major part of all the training we did in FDF Combat engineers, to get through minefields, in combat, in matter of couple of minutes. But yeah.. totally not in scope of Combat Mission.  And we did not even have any fancy vehicles to do that...

Well I am a trained combat engineer and a reserve officer. When it comes to breaching minefield to keep the assault going I do have a plenty of training. But it all really comes down to the specifics of the task. One can't simply state that demining is out of scope of CM. What do you guys really mean by that? Demining, mine removal, minefield breaching.. what ever you want to call it takes time proportional to the size of the task. Just like anything else. You need to clear a path through simple hastily laid AT-minefield with no AP-mines, minefield is 50 meters deep, has probably mines in about 5 rows, each mine about 5-10m apart (if using something likeTM62 or TM 65-77). If you can locate the mines which I asume the mark mines command in CM is about, then the hard part is already done. Getting rid of the found mines is easy. Now with AP-mines in the mix the whole thing gets much much harder but that is the thing.. that is entirely different task. 
In general the whole idea of combat engineers versus regular engineers is that these are the people who are there, right at the tip of the offensive and It is their only job to keep the offensive going forward at all cost. I don't claim it's easy or safe, but I am claiming that with proper training and equipment, you can breach small minefields, especially ones with only AT-mines in span of minutes. Well within the scope of combat mission. 

Well I am a trained combat engineer and a reserve officer. When it comes to breaching minefield to keep the assault going I do have a plenty of training. But it all really comes down to the specifics of the task. One can't simply state that demining is out of scope of CM. What do you guys really mean by that? Demining, mine removal, minefield breaching.. what ever you want to call it takes time proportional to the size of the task. Just like anything else. You need to clear a path through simple hastily laid AT-minefield with no AP-mines, minefield is 50 meters deep, has probably mines in about 5 rows, each mine about 5-10m apart (if using something likeTM62 or TM 65-77). If you can locate the mines which I asume the mark mines command in CM is about, then the hard part is already done. Getting rid of the found mines is easy. Now with AP-mines in the mix the whole thing gets much much harder but that is the thing.. that is entirely different task. 
In general the whole idea of combat engineers versus regular engineers is that these are the people who are there, right at the tip of the offensive and It is their only job to keep the offensive going forward at all cost. I don't claim it's easy or safe, but I am claiming that with proper training and equipment, you can breach small minefields, especially ones with only AT-mines in span of minutes. Well within the scope of combat mission. 

All lakes are in same map? Water can only have single elevation value per map and is always the lowest value. :/

First of this post is meant to to give sort of feedback and wishes with full knowledge that many of these things might be too resource intensive for BF to make actually make them happen.

In the future could it be possible to give us map makers more tools to make the terrain even more varied. The addition of smaller tree type was a very nice thing in RT but I still find my option very limited when it comes to making realistic and varied vegetation and terrain. Here are some things that come to my mind that could have huge impact on the games outlook as well ad additional "gameplay features" for lack of better words (read even harder LOS conditions).

-The ability to change the look of certain terrain tiles by adding brush is very nice indeed. Especialy the way "brushing" changes the way mud tiles can be used to make ditches. Could this feature be expanded even more? Maybe have another different sort of "brush -like" modifier tile say like "rocky" or "rough" that aint quite the same yet as current rocky tiles but just something to rough up the tiles a bit without changing the entire tile type from grass or etc.

-I would very much like to be able to place bushes in same tile with trees to make very messy and thick woods and vegetation. Atm the transitions I can make from low brush to woodlands is still too stark. If this is impossible due to both trees and bushes being in same category of vegetation then maybe we could have a new third forest terrain tile with even taller undergrowth? The heavy forest tile is very nice but its brush is still very low even if very thick. Or make a similar terrain modifier as the current brush that could be added on top of regular forest tile. Also additional types of bushes would be welcome with more variety in height and size. Also additional types of small trees would be welcome.

All in all I'm slightly dissapointed with the new forest floor textures that look way too dry to properly fit in to Byelorussian context. More moist and mossy textures could have been more apropriate. However maybe these could be added along side with the current textures and maybe it could be possible to give us the option to also use the older textures from CMBN as well to give the forrest terrain even more variety. As a Finn the forest has a big importance for me as some of you might have noticed from this post..

-Current flower texture is so underwhelming that I rarely use it but rather I almost always opt for weeds instead. The problem is that even when zooming very close to the terrain the flower tiles are almost impossble to make out in the midle of all the other tile types. I would love to see taller and more clearly visible flowers. Btw are the sunflower fields in game atm behind some modtag? EDIT: after taking another look at flowers at best possible quality I have to recall some of my argument that they are underwhelming. They are actually quite pretty but still could use more taller flower variety.

-The rock textures! Why are they brownish? The CMBN type of grey rock textures would have been very good addition along side these new textures.

I'm pretty sure that I had additional stuff in mind but seems like I forgot them along the way. However these are the most pressing issues that have come to my mind after the release of RT and rather intensive effort to make new maps. (Nemanitsa version 2 is coming out this week if all goes well)
Some of you might think that mehh why not just use modded textures but the thing is that when making maps I really want to have them look the same for everyone with unmodded base game. The addition of the new mod tag option is ofc a new interesting option but it will only solve part of the problem.

Lastly the new marsh textures are very beautifull!

Cheers! And sorry for all the typos

-H1nd

First of this post is meant to to give sort of feedback and wishes with full knowledge that many of these things might be too resource intensive for BF to make actually make them happen.

In the future could it be possible to give us map makers more tools to make the terrain even more varied. The addition of smaller tree type was a very nice thing in RT but I still find my option very limited when it comes to making realistic and varied vegetation and terrain. Here are some things that come to my mind that could have huge impact on the games outlook as well ad additional "gameplay features" for lack of better words (read even harder LOS conditions).

-The ability to change the look of certain terrain tiles by adding brush is very nice indeed. Especialy the way "brushing" changes the way mud tiles can be used to make ditches. Could this feature be expanded even more? Maybe have another different sort of "brush -like" modifier tile say like "rocky" or "rough" that aint quite the same yet as current rocky tiles but just something to rough up the tiles a bit without changing the entire tile type from grass or etc.

-I would very much like to be able to place bushes in same tile with trees to make very messy and thick woods and vegetation. Atm the transitions I can make from low brush to woodlands is still too stark. If this is impossible due to both trees and bushes being in same category of vegetation then maybe we could have a new third forest terrain tile with even taller undergrowth? The heavy forest tile is very nice but its brush is still very low even if very thick. Or make a similar terrain modifier as the current brush that could be added on top of regular forest tile. Also additional types of bushes would be welcome with more variety in height and size. Also additional types of small trees would be welcome.

All in all I'm slightly dissapointed with the new forest floor textures that look way too dry to properly fit in to Byelorussian context. More moist and mossy textures could have been more apropriate. However maybe these could be added along side with the current textures and maybe it could be possible to give us the option to also use the older textures from CMBN as well to give the forrest terrain even more variety. As a Finn the forest has a big importance for me as some of you might have noticed from this post..

-Current flower texture is so underwhelming that I rarely use it but rather I almost always opt for weeds instead. The problem is that even when zooming very close to the terrain the flower tiles are almost impossble to make out in the midle of all the other tile types. I would love to see taller and more clearly visible flowers. Btw are the sunflower fields in game atm behind some modtag? EDIT: after taking another look at flowers at best possible quality I have to recall some of my argument that they are underwhelming. They are actually quite pretty but still could use more taller flower variety.

-The rock textures! Why are they brownish? The CMBN type of grey rock textures would have been very good addition along side these new textures.

I'm pretty sure that I had additional stuff in mind but seems like I forgot them along the way. However these are the most pressing issues that have come to my mind after the release of RT and rather intensive effort to make new maps. (Nemanitsa version 2 is coming out this week if all goes well)
Some of you might think that mehh why not just use modded textures but the thing is that when making maps I really want to have them look the same for everyone with unmodded base game. The addition of the new mod tag option is ofc a new interesting option but it will only solve part of the problem.

Lastly the new marsh textures are very beautifull!

Cheers! And sorry for all the typos

-H1nd

There was some earlier discussion on this subject in another thread ( http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119282-how-to-mark-mines/) and I thought that it might be a subject worthy of further discussion and hopefully we might get some feedback or response from the devs as well.
 
First of all I want to state that I'm by no means an expert in things related to mines or engineers and there are probably some vets here on this forum who have actually done EOD or regular mine disposal in real conflict zones. My perspective on this matter comes mainly from peacetime training during my military service in FDF (Finnish defence forces) and subsequent reservist training both voluntary and compulsory. As most have guessed by now I did my service in the FDF combat engineers service branch and I currently hold a rank of lieutenant first class in reserve so I think I got some things right during and after my service.
 
Now to the matter at hand!
I seriously think that mine warfare and combat engineering in combat mission series and especially in CMBS need some love in the future ("soonish" I hope) and indeed if I'm not mistaken something like this has been hinted by the devs and the recent entry of flail shermans to the normandy front certainly implicate that this is indeed considered a worthwhile (and doable) effort by the devs. Much kudos!
 
First of I will point the problems with the current state of mines and more specifically AT-Mines in CMBS.
 
-They are very effective. According to some old wiki entry a AT-mine square in CM has 2-3 AT-mines. They have on my subjective experience at least roughly a 50% chance to detonate and if you combine more mine squares (more depth) the probability ramps up quickly. Action square (or spot) is 8m in diameter and for example a t-72 has roughly a what.. 1m total? in track width that has to roll over a detonator usually size of your palm or even smaller. So the chance to miss is actually quite big! Naturally when mining a road it is easier to estimate the probable path of tracks to maximize hit probability. To put it other way, imagine tossing three 3-8cm diameter discs to a area 8mx8m and then imagine a tanks rolling through it.. This is why in real life you need lots of mines to have a decent probability to stop a tank. Now this problem is naturally for regular "dumb" AT-mines with mechanical fuzes. We have plenty of "smart" mines that need to "hit somewhere" in the width of a tank passing through the mined area. Smart mines are however far more uncommon and expensive in real life than the "dumb" ones and could deserve a separation from the "generic" CM AT-mines. Solution: Lower the QB cost and overall "hit probability" of regular AT-mines and introduce a new expensive type of smart AT-mines with high hit probability, fewer mines in square (harder to detect) and more devastating effect since many smart mines are Shaped Charge or EFP-types so they have a high probability of total kill.
 
-They are impossible to demine/clear/remove what ever word you want to use. Currently there is no way to effectively demine a AT-mine square in CMBS and this violates everything I have been taught about AT-mines and mine removal in general as well as the core principle and ethos of combat engineers everywhere: WE WILL GET THROUGH! There is a plethora of different AT-mines out there but compared to AP-mines they are generally a lot easier, faster and safer to demine. I will get back to this once we get to the actual engineers section but in a nutshell, even the most basic rifleman could in many cases simply remove the detonator or move the mines out of the way to clear a path for vehicles (unless it's trapped but we get back to that later...).
 
Then on mine warfare in general:
Mines (and IEDs) are a pivotal and important part on modern battlefield. They are dirt cheap when compared to all the high tech gadgetry that we currently have on the field as mainstay of modern armies. For a cost of a single MBT we can have thousands upon thousands AT-mines and in optimum situations this can lead to very very cost effective outcomes for the mine user. And while there are plenty of modern mechanized mine clearance vehicles and tanks out there, using them in the heat of battle will almost always puts them at risk of AT-weapons which will prioritize these special vehicles and tanks over anything else. So the mine is ideal weapon of a poor man. And I would dare to wager that given proper political will the Ukrainians facing a full scale land warfare with more modern Russian armed forces, would and should use all of their most likely plentiful stocks of cold war-era mines to even the odds. I can't say for the modern doctrinal approach of either side for certain but it is my understanding that WP-armed forces emphasized laying protective minefields whenever troops went  on defence, be it short stops in between attacks or after being forced to halt by determined resistance. So there should be know how.
 
At-mines are a crucial force multiplier in light infantry vs mechanized opponent type of scenario. And given the state of Ukrainian army I would once again wager that lot's of action would be between lightly armed volunteer and reservist formations against mechanized Russian forces. At-mines are the reason why tanks and especially IFV's should fear RPGs and other light infantry AT-weapons. Even APS equipped vehicles would be at a dire situation when immobilized or cornered in restrictive terrain with plenty of enemy infantry about. Right now in current state of CMBS light infantry has absolutely no staying power whatsoever which could be remedied to more realistic proportions by more abundant and realistic usage of mines. This in turn is not possible because of the two above mentioned flaws in current mine system in CMBS. Naturally the prospects of light infantry vs mechanized force are still, even with realistic mine fields, very slim and poor. But it would be far from the pushover that (ukrainian) infantry currently is in CMBS imho.
 
Just to give you a rough idea just how much a modern army can be expected to use mines:  Battalion of light infantry on a critical sector = ten thousand  AT-mines in the battalions AO. Thats 3333 CMBS AT-Mine squares. To do that now, even 10% would be utter madness and completely unplayable.
 
Now on to the engineers themselves:
 
We will have modern mine clearance vehicles. This I think is pretty clear since the appearance of flail shermans in CMBN. I know that US armor guys are itching to get their fancy toys and Russian and Ukrainians both should also have a plenty of tank based devices for quick "on the fly" breakthroughs through minefields. Mine plows and rollers should however not be 100% fool proof since there are plenty of engineer dirty tricks to wreck havoc on those vehicles. For example a simple delayed blast explosives made up of multiple mines stacked together, dug in deep enough and then triggered either mechanically by the plow or roller, or by remote control. Fancy plow and roller tanks will DIE when a stack of 100kg explosives goes up right under them. Trust me they do and even lot less should do the trick.
 
We should have engineers that can actually do something and not just be TOE curiosities. At the moment the engineers do have the "mark mines" ability which in most sense makes no sense at all since finding the mines is usually the hard part and disposal is a lot easier task. Marked AT-mines are just as lethal to vehicles as unmarked ones and when considering the "tossing three 8cm diameter plates on a 8mx8m area" example I mentioned earlier, it should be possible to move vehicles through marked AT-mine fields. It's still very risky but should be doable to at least some degree. More importantly engineers should have the ability of remove the mines all together in order to clear safe lanes through minefields. This should be possible even under immediate enemy threat if not "under fire". And there are plenty of real life methods for doing so:
-explosive removal: either by small man carried timed explosive charges (50g of TNT with simple time fuze). Just get the squad in, find the mines (mark mines) and then place the charges on top of each mine (as many as you got men) and simultaneously order to lit the fuzes and everybody runs like hell. Kaboom, you got yourself a cleared patch of minefield. Rinse and repeat until you get through. It's fast (as fast as you can find the mines) and leaves a terrible mess. You can't get wheeled vehicles through it unless they are ATV. Other methods of explosive removal include shooting the mines with heavy calibre rifles (visible AP-mines) and the all time "favorite" of all FDF engineers: the "putkiraivain" or more commonly known as the "bangalore torpedo" which is basically a tube packed with enough explosives to set off any mines within certain width (for infantry carried versions this is usually roughly 0.5m or so) in the mine field. It is very fast and very dangerous way to open up a path through a minefield. Squad of engineers will assemble the "torpedo" in situ from smaller individual sections and then runs up to the edge of the minefield and pushes the 20m-50m long bastardly (just try running for your life in woods while holding a 20m long pipe) device in to the field, everybody takes cover and kaboom! This path can then be widened by using smaller and heavier "torpedoes" spread evenly from the cleared path. All of this can be done in CMBS scale, takes anything from minutes to half hour but IT CAN BE DONE.
 
-Manual defusal/removal: Many mines, especially most common AT-mines have relatively simple fuzes that can be easily removed manually. However it is safe to assume that the opponent has been dirty enough trap the mines or has installed anti handling devices so that should you attempt to remove the mine you might get 5-10kg of tnt exploding on your face. That's why it is safer to pull the mines from their holes by using any sort of hook and rope. This way you can be at safe distance should the bastard explode when moved. Also most "smart" mines have anti handling systems built in so explosive removal is highly recommended! The key here is improvisation: Anything will do that gets the job done and not yourself or your mates killed/maimed.
 
So in summary: It could be reasonable easy to give engineers two sets of options after detecting a minefield:
-mark the mines and then have a possibility of manual removal. Both take more time but leave the roads and the area in general passable for wheeled vehicles.
-explosive "blast -like" command that either simulates the small charges = one tile at a time, or even better allows removal of multiple mine squares along a longer axis simulating the bangalore torpedos. Downside could be the extensive cratering which IIRC does already cause higher risk of bogging for wheeled vehicles. Naturally this is also faster than the manual removal but also tied to limited supply of explosives/torpedoes.
 
Now I'm going to end this wall of text here since it's already nearly 4am here in Finland at the time of writing. There probably was even more stuff I intended to write about but I think I got my concerns and wishes summed up in there somewhat nicely. Please do feel free to discuss the issue at hand and I would especially love to hear about other peoples experiences about combat engineering and/or mine removal both in real life as well as in the game.
 
 
Cheers!
-H1nd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Pause command negates the evasion from laser detection. Vehicles will still launch smoke but they will hold position. It is very handy when using asp vehicles against laser designated ATGMs. In most other situations, being lased means that you are seconds away from death and evasion is only sane thing to do. 

There was some earlier discussion on this subject in another thread ( http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119282-how-to-mark-mines/) and I thought that it might be a subject worthy of further discussion and hopefully we might get some feedback or response from the devs as well.
 
First of all I want to state that I'm by no means an expert in things related to mines or engineers and there are probably some vets here on this forum who have actually done EOD or regular mine disposal in real conflict zones. My perspective on this matter comes mainly from peacetime training during my military service in FDF (Finnish defence forces) and subsequent reservist training both voluntary and compulsory. As most have guessed by now I did my service in the FDF combat engineers service branch and I currently hold a rank of lieutenant first class in reserve so I think I got some things right during and after my service.
 
Now to the matter at hand!
I seriously think that mine warfare and combat engineering in combat mission series and especially in CMBS need some love in the future ("soonish" I hope) and indeed if I'm not mistaken something like this has been hinted by the devs and the recent entry of flail shermans to the normandy front certainly implicate that this is indeed considered a worthwhile (and doable) effort by the devs. Much kudos!
 
First of I will point the problems with the current state of mines and more specifically AT-Mines in CMBS.
 
-They are very effective. According to some old wiki entry a AT-mine square in CM has 2-3 AT-mines. They have on my subjective experience at least roughly a 50% chance to detonate and if you combine more mine squares (more depth) the probability ramps up quickly. Action square (or spot) is 8m in diameter and for example a t-72 has roughly a what.. 1m total? in track width that has to roll over a detonator usually size of your palm or even smaller. So the chance to miss is actually quite big! Naturally when mining a road it is easier to estimate the probable path of tracks to maximize hit probability. To put it other way, imagine tossing three 3-8cm diameter discs to a area 8mx8m and then imagine a tanks rolling through it.. This is why in real life you need lots of mines to have a decent probability to stop a tank. Now this problem is naturally for regular "dumb" AT-mines with mechanical fuzes. We have plenty of "smart" mines that need to "hit somewhere" in the width of a tank passing through the mined area. Smart mines are however far more uncommon and expensive in real life than the "dumb" ones and could deserve a separation from the "generic" CM AT-mines. Solution: Lower the QB cost and overall "hit probability" of regular AT-mines and introduce a new expensive type of smart AT-mines with high hit probability, fewer mines in square (harder to detect) and more devastating effect since many smart mines are Shaped Charge or EFP-types so they have a high probability of total kill.
 
-They are impossible to demine/clear/remove what ever word you want to use. Currently there is no way to effectively demine a AT-mine square in CMBS and this violates everything I have been taught about AT-mines and mine removal in general as well as the core principle and ethos of combat engineers everywhere: WE WILL GET THROUGH! There is a plethora of different AT-mines out there but compared to AP-mines they are generally a lot easier, faster and safer to demine. I will get back to this once we get to the actual engineers section but in a nutshell, even the most basic rifleman could in many cases simply remove the detonator or move the mines out of the way to clear a path for vehicles (unless it's trapped but we get back to that later...).
 
Then on mine warfare in general:
Mines (and IEDs) are a pivotal and important part on modern battlefield. They are dirt cheap when compared to all the high tech gadgetry that we currently have on the field as mainstay of modern armies. For a cost of a single MBT we can have thousands upon thousands AT-mines and in optimum situations this can lead to very very cost effective outcomes for the mine user. And while there are plenty of modern mechanized mine clearance vehicles and tanks out there, using them in the heat of battle will almost always puts them at risk of AT-weapons which will prioritize these special vehicles and tanks over anything else. So the mine is ideal weapon of a poor man. And I would dare to wager that given proper political will the Ukrainians facing a full scale land warfare with more modern Russian armed forces, would and should use all of their most likely plentiful stocks of cold war-era mines to even the odds. I can't say for the modern doctrinal approach of either side for certain but it is my understanding that WP-armed forces emphasized laying protective minefields whenever troops went  on defence, be it short stops in between attacks or after being forced to halt by determined resistance. So there should be know how.
 
At-mines are a crucial force multiplier in light infantry vs mechanized opponent type of scenario. And given the state of Ukrainian army I would once again wager that lot's of action would be between lightly armed volunteer and reservist formations against mechanized Russian forces. At-mines are the reason why tanks and especially IFV's should fear RPGs and other light infantry AT-weapons. Even APS equipped vehicles would be at a dire situation when immobilized or cornered in restrictive terrain with plenty of enemy infantry about. Right now in current state of CMBS light infantry has absolutely no staying power whatsoever which could be remedied to more realistic proportions by more abundant and realistic usage of mines. This in turn is not possible because of the two above mentioned flaws in current mine system in CMBS. Naturally the prospects of light infantry vs mechanized force are still, even with realistic mine fields, very slim and poor. But it would be far from the pushover that (ukrainian) infantry currently is in CMBS imho.
 
Just to give you a rough idea just how much a modern army can be expected to use mines:  Battalion of light infantry on a critical sector = ten thousand  AT-mines in the battalions AO. Thats 3333 CMBS AT-Mine squares. To do that now, even 10% would be utter madness and completely unplayable.
 
Now on to the engineers themselves:
 
We will have modern mine clearance vehicles. This I think is pretty clear since the appearance of flail shermans in CMBN. I know that US armor guys are itching to get their fancy toys and Russian and Ukrainians both should also have a plenty of tank based devices for quick "on the fly" breakthroughs through minefields. Mine plows and rollers should however not be 100% fool proof since there are plenty of engineer dirty tricks to wreck havoc on those vehicles. For example a simple delayed blast explosives made up of multiple mines stacked together, dug in deep enough and then triggered either mechanically by the plow or roller, or by remote control. Fancy plow and roller tanks will DIE when a stack of 100kg explosives goes up right under them. Trust me they do and even lot less should do the trick.
 
We should have engineers that can actually do something and not just be TOE curiosities. At the moment the engineers do have the "mark mines" ability which in most sense makes no sense at all since finding the mines is usually the hard part and disposal is a lot easier task. Marked AT-mines are just as lethal to vehicles as unmarked ones and when considering the "tossing three 8cm diameter plates on a 8mx8m area" example I mentioned earlier, it should be possible to move vehicles through marked AT-mine fields. It's still very risky but should be doable to at least some degree. More importantly engineers should have the ability of remove the mines all together in order to clear safe lanes through minefields. This should be possible even under immediate enemy threat if not "under fire". And there are plenty of real life methods for doing so:
-explosive removal: either by small man carried timed explosive charges (50g of TNT with simple time fuze). Just get the squad in, find the mines (mark mines) and then place the charges on top of each mine (as many as you got men) and simultaneously order to lit the fuzes and everybody runs like hell. Kaboom, you got yourself a cleared patch of minefield. Rinse and repeat until you get through. It's fast (as fast as you can find the mines) and leaves a terrible mess. You can't get wheeled vehicles through it unless they are ATV. Other methods of explosive removal include shooting the mines with heavy calibre rifles (visible AP-mines) and the all time "favorite" of all FDF engineers: the "putkiraivain" or more commonly known as the "bangalore torpedo" which is basically a tube packed with enough explosives to set off any mines within certain width (for infantry carried versions this is usually roughly 0.5m or so) in the mine field. It is very fast and very dangerous way to open up a path through a minefield. Squad of engineers will assemble the "torpedo" in situ from smaller individual sections and then runs up to the edge of the minefield and pushes the 20m-50m long bastardly (just try running for your life in woods while holding a 20m long pipe) device in to the field, everybody takes cover and kaboom! This path can then be widened by using smaller and heavier "torpedoes" spread evenly from the cleared path. All of this can be done in CMBS scale, takes anything from minutes to half hour but IT CAN BE DONE.
 
-Manual defusal/removal: Many mines, especially most common AT-mines have relatively simple fuzes that can be easily removed manually. However it is safe to assume that the opponent has been dirty enough trap the mines or has installed anti handling devices so that should you attempt to remove the mine you might get 5-10kg of tnt exploding on your face. That's why it is safer to pull the mines from their holes by using any sort of hook and rope. This way you can be at safe distance should the bastard explode when moved. Also most "smart" mines have anti handling systems built in so explosive removal is highly recommended! The key here is improvisation: Anything will do that gets the job done and not yourself or your mates killed/maimed.
 
So in summary: It could be reasonable easy to give engineers two sets of options after detecting a minefield:
-mark the mines and then have a possibility of manual removal. Both take more time but leave the roads and the area in general passable for wheeled vehicles.
-explosive "blast -like" command that either simulates the small charges = one tile at a time, or even better allows removal of multiple mine squares along a longer axis simulating the bangalore torpedos. Downside could be the extensive cratering which IIRC does already cause higher risk of bogging for wheeled vehicles. Naturally this is also faster than the manual removal but also tied to limited supply of explosives/torpedoes.
 
Now I'm going to end this wall of text here since it's already nearly 4am here in Finland at the time of writing. There probably was even more stuff I intended to write about but I think I got my concerns and wishes summed up in there somewhat nicely. Please do feel free to discuss the issue at hand and I would especially love to hear about other peoples experiences about combat engineering and/or mine removal both in real life as well as in the game.
 
 
Cheers!
-H1nd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

BMP3m with arena. Masochistic mix of fear and joy.

BMP3m with arena. Masochistic mix of fear and joy.

Recon by fire. Target any terrain tiles you can get a grey or blue los that is in the general direction of the suspected enemy positions. Woods are rarely so thick that you can't get any los at all in front of your troops. Many of the bullets and rounds will fly deeper in to the forest and might reach and suppress hidden enemies.
 
Use two man scout teams to find the enemy. They might be dead for sure but at least you have not sacrificed more troops to find the enemy.
 
Use hunt with many waypoints and maybe even give each way point a 5sec pause so that your troops stop to listen and look around for a while before moving to next waypoint.
 
Use arty.
 
Avoid the woods if you can.

Woop woop. Just wanted to be the first to "chirp" this. Call it a "tactical insertion"

Found this beauty today: http://fr-fr.topographic-map.com/places/Ukraine-551299/
 
Very handy interactive topographic map to get those pesky cryptic contour lines right!
 
This one is also quite nice: http://www.maps-for-free.com/
 
And for those wondering what the weather could be like in Ukraine (I know I did today!): https://weatherspark.com/averages/33809/12/Kiev-Kiev-City-Ukraine
 
looks like there's some real nice chances for daring armored counter attacks during thunderstorms in June and July!
 
Cheers!
-H1nd
 
 
 
 
 

As the OP I would humbly ask people to refrain from turning this thread as argument war on nature of NATO/WP/Modern day Russia and instead let us focus on the tactical and strategic plausibilities. Thank you. 
 
-H1nd

First off I want to thank you every one for participating in this interesting discussion! Please do continue presenting your visions/speculations about the tactical and strategic nature of this hypothetical war.
 
I will now follow with my "case study" for a Ukraininan defensive delaying action in a strategic location along the E101 Highway near town of "Krolevets"
When planning this study I was struck by the enormous distances each military unit will have to cover. Gone are the days when battalions, brigades or even divisions would share common borders with their Areas of Operations. I was also struck by what seemed at first glance as impossible terrain to defend or even to conduct delaying action of any sort. However after some late nights spent with google earth i began to find some defendable locations along the Moscow-Kiev Highway, wich would be vital to clear and capture regardles of the ultimate goal of the war. It is simply strategically very important if you are going to attempt offensives towards Kiev.
 
One of these locations is Krolevets with it's surrounding terrain of forest, marshy riverbeds, hills and gullies with broken farmlands and minor villages. It is by far NOT a perfectly defendable location, (if there ever is one) and would be bypassed eventually, but the aim here is to buy as much time as possible and deplete the enemy as much as possible, even with the prospect that the defending troops never get to go home again.
 
The following picture is the rough outline of defensive sector of single Ukrainian Mechanized Brigade (would be most likely the 72nd)
 

 
The AO for the brigade is way way too large but the problem here is that ukraine military does not have the brigades to defend along the entire border. Therefore we must make do with what we have and this is my estimate of a possible AO. Now the catch is this: There is also a ukrainian artillery brigade or at least elements of it, within the Mechs AO near "Baturin" wich should be able to use their BM-30 smerch (or similar systems) to strike at advancing RA-forces  along the E101 and as well as other locations of importance (demonstrated by the yellow "explosion" markers)
 
The brigades objective is to act as the first line of defence, buy time, wear down the RA-advance units and protect the artillery brigades assets while they pound the invading enemy as long as they can (asuming the first airstrike wont neutralise them withing first hours of war). Brigade has been divided into three separate mechanized combat teams: one in Krolevets, one screening the SE direction near Konotop and one in reserve near Baturin ready to reinforce either one of the two other combat teams and/or conduct counterattacks with or without support from armored brigade situated around "Borzna, Nizhyn, Ichnya" -area. If the brigade is bypassed or otherwise compromized, the remaining units are to fall back towards Chernigov for regroup and refit. Expected RA forces will range from 3-4 mech and tank brigades in strenght, attacking in battalion formations. Brigade must rely on recon screen in Shostka, Buryn, Terny -directions  to provide intel on enemy axis of advances and counter them by redeploying battalion combat teams accordingly as well as provide target info for the artillery brigade assets.
 
Next picture is the possible locations I have planned to map (if RL allows) in the Krolevets area:
 

 
Each should be reasonably plausible locations for actions ranging from platoon to company/depleted battalion scale. They can also be easily converted for use with more robust defensive formations (for example an entire brigade defending the locale) and should cover the most likely paths of advance by RA-units locally (naturally the entire locale is possible to bypass elsewhere)
 
Next three pistures are my very rough demonstrations of a possible defensive plan for the ukrainian Mechanized taks force defending Krolevets:
 

 
-the broken blue arrows represent the intended direction of retreat  and should these direction be compromized the battalion will be isolated quickly. The "toothed" blue lines are possible prepared defensive locations wich a mechanized company can occupy according to the situation at hand. As with the brigade, the battalion must also rely heavily on intel to be able to respond to the multiple possible directions of threat. This intel is to be provided by attached brigade level recon screen and drones.
 

 
-Likely russian routes of advance, the hollow arrows point out the threat of flanking through "Yaroslavets-Bezkrovne" -area but that is something the defenders will just have to live with.
 

 
and finaly the rough demonstration of planned demolitions and minefields to cut the highway E101 and provide some security along flanks. Naturally each mechanized company has own mine fields and other demolitions in their corresponding AO's  depending on available time and materiel. The primary taks of the attached brigade level engineers and corps level engineer assets is to deny the E101 from the enemy. The more time there is to prepare the better. If preparations are begun well before the advent of war, all of the avenues of advance will be covered with extensive minefields, demolitions, and AT-ditches.
 
The defending battalion must be proactive in it's defence and ready to pull back to secondary and tertiary defensive positions in timely manner before the inevitable RA artillery grinds to dust any known point of resistance. Concealment must be taken from built up and wooden areas. Krolevets will be the last stand before the remaining men and materiel are to fall back towards west and north west. (I seriously doubt there will be any!)
 
Any thoughts, comments and/or critique is much welcomed!
 
Cheers!
-H1nd
 

First off I want to thank you every one for participating in this interesting discussion! Please do continue presenting your visions/speculations about the tactical and strategic nature of this hypothetical war.
 
I will now follow with my "case study" for a Ukraininan defensive delaying action in a strategic location along the E101 Highway near town of "Krolevets"
When planning this study I was struck by the enormous distances each military unit will have to cover. Gone are the days when battalions, brigades or even divisions would share common borders with their Areas of Operations. I was also struck by what seemed at first glance as impossible terrain to defend or even to conduct delaying action of any sort. However after some late nights spent with google earth i began to find some defendable locations along the Moscow-Kiev Highway, wich would be vital to clear and capture regardles of the ultimate goal of the war. It is simply strategically very important if you are going to attempt offensives towards Kiev.
 
One of these locations is Krolevets with it's surrounding terrain of forest, marshy riverbeds, hills and gullies with broken farmlands and minor villages. It is by far NOT a perfectly defendable location, (if there ever is one) and would be bypassed eventually, but the aim here is to buy as much time as possible and deplete the enemy as much as possible, even with the prospect that the defending troops never get to go home again.
 
The following picture is the rough outline of defensive sector of single Ukrainian Mechanized Brigade (would be most likely the 72nd)
 

 
The AO for the brigade is way way too large but the problem here is that ukraine military does not have the brigades to defend along the entire border. Therefore we must make do with what we have and this is my estimate of a possible AO. Now the catch is this: There is also a ukrainian artillery brigade or at least elements of it, within the Mechs AO near "Baturin" wich should be able to use their BM-30 smerch (or similar systems) to strike at advancing RA-forces  along the E101 and as well as other locations of importance (demonstrated by the yellow "explosion" markers)
 
The brigades objective is to act as the first line of defence, buy time, wear down the RA-advance units and protect the artillery brigades assets while they pound the invading enemy as long as they can (asuming the first airstrike wont neutralise them withing first hours of war). Brigade has been divided into three separate mechanized combat teams: one in Krolevets, one screening the SE direction near Konotop and one in reserve near Baturin ready to reinforce either one of the two other combat teams and/or conduct counterattacks with or without support from armored brigade situated around "Borzna, Nizhyn, Ichnya" -area. If the brigade is bypassed or otherwise compromized, the remaining units are to fall back towards Chernigov for regroup and refit. Expected RA forces will range from 3-4 mech and tank brigades in strenght, attacking in battalion formations. Brigade must rely on recon screen in Shostka, Buryn, Terny -directions  to provide intel on enemy axis of advances and counter them by redeploying battalion combat teams accordingly as well as provide target info for the artillery brigade assets.
 
Next picture is the possible locations I have planned to map (if RL allows) in the Krolevets area:
 

 
Each should be reasonably plausible locations for actions ranging from platoon to company/depleted battalion scale. They can also be easily converted for use with more robust defensive formations (for example an entire brigade defending the locale) and should cover the most likely paths of advance by RA-units locally (naturally the entire locale is possible to bypass elsewhere)
 
Next three pistures are my very rough demonstrations of a possible defensive plan for the ukrainian Mechanized taks force defending Krolevets:
 

 
-the broken blue arrows represent the intended direction of retreat  and should these direction be compromized the battalion will be isolated quickly. The "toothed" blue lines are possible prepared defensive locations wich a mechanized company can occupy according to the situation at hand. As with the brigade, the battalion must also rely heavily on intel to be able to respond to the multiple possible directions of threat. This intel is to be provided by attached brigade level recon screen and drones.
 

 
-Likely russian routes of advance, the hollow arrows point out the threat of flanking through "Yaroslavets-Bezkrovne" -area but that is something the defenders will just have to live with.
 

 
and finaly the rough demonstration of planned demolitions and minefields to cut the highway E101 and provide some security along flanks. Naturally each mechanized company has own mine fields and other demolitions in their corresponding AO's  depending on available time and materiel. The primary taks of the attached brigade level engineers and corps level engineer assets is to deny the E101 from the enemy. The more time there is to prepare the better. If preparations are begun well before the advent of war, all of the avenues of advance will be covered with extensive minefields, demolitions, and AT-ditches.
 
The defending battalion must be proactive in it's defence and ready to pull back to secondary and tertiary defensive positions in timely manner before the inevitable RA artillery grinds to dust any known point of resistance. Concealment must be taken from built up and wooden areas. Krolevets will be the last stand before the remaining men and materiel are to fall back towards west and north west. (I seriously doubt there will be any!)
 
Any thoughts, comments and/or critique is much welcomed!
 
Cheers!
-H1nd
 

First off I want to thank you every one for participating in this interesting discussion! Please do continue presenting your visions/speculations about the tactical and strategic nature of this hypothetical war.
 
I will now follow with my "case study" for a Ukraininan defensive delaying action in a strategic location along the E101 Highway near town of "Krolevets"
When planning this study I was struck by the enormous distances each military unit will have to cover. Gone are the days when battalions, brigades or even divisions would share common borders with their Areas of Operations. I was also struck by what seemed at first glance as impossible terrain to defend or even to conduct delaying action of any sort. However after some late nights spent with google earth i began to find some defendable locations along the Moscow-Kiev Highway, wich would be vital to clear and capture regardles of the ultimate goal of the war. It is simply strategically very important if you are going to attempt offensives towards Kiev.
 
One of these locations is Krolevets with it's surrounding terrain of forest, marshy riverbeds, hills and gullies with broken farmlands and minor villages. It is by far NOT a perfectly defendable location, (if there ever is one) and would be bypassed eventually, but the aim here is to buy as much time as possible and deplete the enemy as much as possible, even with the prospect that the defending troops never get to go home again.
 
The following picture is the rough outline of defensive sector of single Ukrainian Mechanized Brigade (would be most likely the 72nd)
 

 
The AO for the brigade is way way too large but the problem here is that ukraine military does not have the brigades to defend along the entire border. Therefore we must make do with what we have and this is my estimate of a possible AO. Now the catch is this: There is also a ukrainian artillery brigade or at least elements of it, within the Mechs AO near "Baturin" wich should be able to use their BM-30 smerch (or similar systems) to strike at advancing RA-forces  along the E101 and as well as other locations of importance (demonstrated by the yellow "explosion" markers)
 
The brigades objective is to act as the first line of defence, buy time, wear down the RA-advance units and protect the artillery brigades assets while they pound the invading enemy as long as they can (asuming the first airstrike wont neutralise them withing first hours of war). Brigade has been divided into three separate mechanized combat teams: one in Krolevets, one screening the SE direction near Konotop and one in reserve near Baturin ready to reinforce either one of the two other combat teams and/or conduct counterattacks with or without support from armored brigade situated around "Borzna, Nizhyn, Ichnya" -area. If the brigade is bypassed or otherwise compromized, the remaining units are to fall back towards Chernigov for regroup and refit. Expected RA forces will range from 3-4 mech and tank brigades in strenght, attacking in battalion formations. Brigade must rely on recon screen in Shostka, Buryn, Terny -directions  to provide intel on enemy axis of advances and counter them by redeploying battalion combat teams accordingly as well as provide target info for the artillery brigade assets.
 
Next picture is the possible locations I have planned to map (if RL allows) in the Krolevets area:
 

 
Each should be reasonably plausible locations for actions ranging from platoon to company/depleted battalion scale. They can also be easily converted for use with more robust defensive formations (for example an entire brigade defending the locale) and should cover the most likely paths of advance by RA-units locally (naturally the entire locale is possible to bypass elsewhere)
 
Next three pistures are my very rough demonstrations of a possible defensive plan for the ukrainian Mechanized taks force defending Krolevets:
 

 
-the broken blue arrows represent the intended direction of retreat  and should these direction be compromized the battalion will be isolated quickly. The "toothed" blue lines are possible prepared defensive locations wich a mechanized company can occupy according to the situation at hand. As with the brigade, the battalion must also rely heavily on intel to be able to respond to the multiple possible directions of threat. This intel is to be provided by attached brigade level recon screen and drones.
 

 
-Likely russian routes of advance, the hollow arrows point out the threat of flanking through "Yaroslavets-Bezkrovne" -area but that is something the defenders will just have to live with.
 

 
and finaly the rough demonstration of planned demolitions and minefields to cut the highway E101 and provide some security along flanks. Naturally each mechanized company has own mine fields and other demolitions in their corresponding AO's  depending on available time and materiel. The primary taks of the attached brigade level engineers and corps level engineer assets is to deny the E101 from the enemy. The more time there is to prepare the better. If preparations are begun well before the advent of war, all of the avenues of advance will be covered with extensive minefields, demolitions, and AT-ditches.
 
The defending battalion must be proactive in it's defence and ready to pull back to secondary and tertiary defensive positions in timely manner before the inevitable RA artillery grinds to dust any known point of resistance. Concealment must be taken from built up and wooden areas. Krolevets will be the last stand before the remaining men and materiel are to fall back towards west and north west. (I seriously doubt there will be any!)
 
Any thoughts, comments and/or critique is much welcomed!
 
Cheers!
-H1nd
 

Sumy-Romny-Kiev axis should be covered by other mechanized brigade formation (I intentionaly left out any other ukrainian units from my map since that would require whole another case study of strategic positions for all the ukrainian forces), but the position is even more exposed than the E101. However, any forces defending Sumy should be able to buy some time since the terrain there is once again somewhat defendable. Naturally this leaves a HUGE gap around byryn-terny area between the two brigades. Any RA-thrust trough this gap would have to be met by mobile forces held futher west around Ichnya-Pryluky-area. Wich is a whole another story.
 
Same goes for area north of the brigades AO wich should be held by neighbouring unit of some size, at least independent battalion formations or two at minimum.
 
As far as i understand the RA would definately enfix the defenders at Krolevets and go for a flanking move, but the major highways are still important as supply routes and I would hold it as fairly certain that some forces would be commited to clearing the highway. As for why going to Kiev at all, well tbh I dont want to even speculate too much at that but its the core of the official "story line". Ofc artillery pounding down on kiev could be a leverage for bargaining for the real prize wich would be, like you posted, the sympathetic south and south east.