Jump to content

Pioneers & Engineers


Recommended Posts

Hiya Guys

I was hoping you might be able to help me please. I`m playing the "Road to Montebourg" (2nd mission I think), and I am trying to get my Pioneers and Engineers to blast a way through the Steel X`s (not sure what the proper terminology is!!) road block so I can get my tanks moving down the road. But Im having no success at all. I can get them to blast through bocage and walls etc. but not these things - is it possible, or do I need to find another route for my tanks?

Cheers

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, no; the steel roadblock crosses can't be demolished by engineers.

I've expressed my disagreement with this design decision in the past. Historically, combat engineers were definitely able to blow gaps through these types of obstacles on the CM time scale. If you read period training manual for combat engineers, you will find sections on how to do it, and it was certainly no harder than blowing a tank-sized gap through thick bocage.

I don't know what BFC's logic was for making these things indestructible in-game; as far as I know, there has never been any comment from "the fish's mouth" on this. It may be that this is one of many game features that is "on the list" and they haven't gotten around to adding yet. Or they may have some game design justification for not allowing it at all; I don't know.

The fact of the matter is, there is very little in the way of fortification or obstacle that can't be blown up by combat engineers with a few kilos of explosives and a few minutes working time. Obstacles like road blocks, wire, etc. should only really be tactically impassable as long as they are covered by some sort of fire (MGs, mortars, whatever) that prevents combat engineers from safely approaching and working around the obstacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..."the fish's mouth"...

:) That's a novel expression! I'd expect "horse's mouth" from a native english speaker; do you have a history of where the variation came from?

Or they may have some game design justification for not allowing it at all; I don't know.

Oo! Oo! I know! The magic that lets demo charges be, as needed, bangalore torpedoes, chuckable or big enough to knock tank sized holes in bocage (yet not flatten a building entirely) doesn't know about cutting charges or det cord... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be happy if BFC would just replace the current "lunchbox of doom" graphic with a decent-sized charge. :D

As to the Horned Scullies... these "game pieces" give the player a way to block a road on a map. If the player/designer wants it to be temporary, then he uses Wire. If the player/designer wants to go for a more permanent solution, he pays more for the Hedgehogs.

If Pioneers were the solution to all our tactical problems, then we would see a lot more of them eh? ;)

Yes, a team with some det cord could blow them, and have an engineer vehicle winch the pieces out of the way within the scope of a 1 hour battle. Yes, I agree that it would be cool as hell to give a "winch/tow" command to tow debris, or a tank, away with a Prime Mover. Go ahead and ask for that. I bet the guys at BFC haven't had a good laugh in a while with all the pressure to release by the holidays. :)

----

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the Horned Scullies... these "game pieces" give the player a way to block a road on a map. If the player/designer wants it to be temporary, then he uses Wire. If the player/designer wants to go for a more permanent solution, he pays more for the Hedgehogs.

I suppose they might be said to represent sizable craters or something requiring a lot of time to fill/bridge, but if that's the case, why not just create a graphic with the appropriate attributes and be done with it?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am fairly certain they represent just what they are... Big freaking Jacks made of steel I-beams. :)

Climbing all over them to wrap the det cord properly under fire, then getting back, then setting off the charges, is only the first step. In CM parlance the Team could of course just be forced to hold postion for X amount of time.

Then what? The det cord just pops the welds/bolted areas. Unless the Team is toting along a cutting torch to slice it into manageable sections, and/or torch holes to attach the winch cables.... there is just a pile of steel in the road.

There is no "Carry" command, so you can't order your troops to move the pieces off the road, even if they could lift them.

-------------------

It brings us back to the desire for a Prime Mover with the "Tow" command. :D

Tow the bogged, immobilized, and "knocked out" but not "destroyed" tanks to an exit zone to get 'em back in a campaign or get points in a scenario.

Tow Guns of course.

Tow ammo trailers that carry ammo crates.

Tow away debris caused by Pioneer action.

All these actions can take place in the course of a Large/Huge battle, but I am quite sure we will never see them.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it:

Some fortifications/obstacles are thicker/heavier/bitchier than others.

The ones in the game that can't be blown represent obstacles that (for whatever reason) require hours of work to clear. The ones that can be blown represent "normal" obstacles that can be handled by engineers in a shorter (i.e. game-appropriate) period of time.

In other words, CMx2 is a game with two kinds of obstacles: Can-Be-Blown-During-Battle and Can't-Be-Blown-During-Battle. WW2 reality was this way as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it:

Some fortifications/obstacles are thicker/heavier/bitchier than others.

The ones in the game that can't be blown represent obstacles that (for whatever reason) require hours of work to clear. The ones that can be blown represent "normal" obstacles that can be handled by engineers in a shorter (i.e. game-appropriate) period of time.

In other words, CMx2 is a game with two kinds of obstacles: Can-Be-Blown-During-Battle and Can't-Be-Blown-During-Battle. WW2 reality was this way as well.

That might make more sense if the attributes pre-destruction were the same. As it is, obstacles that infantry can't cross are removable, whereas obstacles that tanks can't cross aren't. It's down to the arguably necessarily simplistic treatment of demos and can't really be rationalised to my satisfaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a team with some det cord could blow them, and have an engineer vehicle winch the pieces out of the way within the scope of a 1 hour battle. Yes, I agree that it would be cool as hell to give a "winch/tow" command to tow debris, or a tank, away with a Prime Mover. Go ahead and ask for that. I bet the guys at BFC haven't had a good laugh in a while with all the pressure to release by the holidays.

So, let me get this straight:

In CMBN, in less than a minute, an engineer team can blow a hole wide enough for a tank to drive through in a 2m wide earthen embankment reinforced with tree roots and bushes. This breach is instantly useable by tanks and other vehicles -- no tree trunks to be cleared, no large rocks to be moved, etc.

Similarly, in CMBN, in less than a minute engineers can also blow a hole wide enough for a tank to drive through in a 3m high heavy stone wall, and what's more, they can control the demolition so that the rubble created by the explosion does not prevent a tank or other vehicle from passing through the breach.

BUT, when presented with a few oversized iron caltrops, or a couple of large trees dropped across a road, our CMBN engineers suddenly forget how to use their explosives, or how to manhandle the resulting detritus out of the way?

Yeah... color me unconvinced. FWIW, I actually think ALL demolition tasks should take much longer in-game than they do now. But for me, there's a pretty huge disconnect inherent in the fact that we can blow through bocage and walls, but not roadblocks.

If BFC wants to include an "undemolishable" tank barrier in the game, that's fine, but that's not what is represented graphically in the game right now, and it's also a disconnect because none of the other fortifications/barriers in the game right now are of this heavy, permanent construction type.

Really heavy permanent barriers like this were generally limited to a few very heavily fortified areas -- you're not talking about a few pieces of steel I-beam welded together or something like that, but rather full-on concrete Dragon's Teeth, or a large, wide tank ditch. In places like the actual landing beaches, the Siegfried line, etc. stuff like this might be appropriate, along with heavy concrete blockhouses that can withstand heavy HE fire, underground shelters, etc. I dunno, maybe someday stuff like this could be released as a "fortification pack". But to have just one piece of this puzzle seems really weird to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly, in CMBN, in less than a minute engineers can also blow a hole wide enough for a tank to drive through in a 3m high heavy stone wall, and what's more, they can control the demolition so that the rubble created by the explosion does not prevent a tank or other vehicle from passing through the breach.

Slight qualification: I blew out a low stone wall that left enough rubble to at least severely complicate passage by jeeps and halftracks (I didn't try tanks). A vehicle aimed through the gap would frequently balk and search around to find a crossing location more to its liking. Very frustrating as I could not predict what path it would take.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The steel obstacles, as noted above, are just like a child's jacks. They CAN be blown up. Literally. They go up...then they fall back down in the same action spot. The end result is no change. The game does not show the flying up in the air and landing again animation (fuitaalaa), but it IS there. Throw some demo charges at 'em and you'll see what I mean.

Really.

;)

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slight qualification: I blew out a low stone wall that left enough rubble to at least severely complicate passage by jeeps and halftracks (I didn't try tanks). A vehicle aimed through the gap would frequently balk and search around to find a crossing location more to its liking. Very frustrating as I could not predict what path it would take.

Michael

Yes; crossing demolition breaches with vehicles can be tricky -- this is true whether it's a gap in a wall or a gap in bocage. Not sure whether this is a deliberate game "feature" to represent the difficulty of passing over the rubble, or if it's simply something that happens because the sudden change in terrain pass-ability screws with the pathfinding AI. In any event, A few tricks I have found that make ordering vehicles through demolition breaches more consistent:

- Plot a waypoint immediately before and immediately after the gap.

- Make the movement leg that actually goes through the gap SLOW.

- Make the movement leg immediately prior to going through the gap MOVE.

- Make sure the vehicle's approach to the gap is relatively straight-on. That is, do not create a sharp turn at the waypoint immediately prior to the leg that heads through the breach. Some turn is OK, but try to keep it no more than 15 degrees or so. Another way to do this is to put a PAUSE order on the waypoint immediately prior to the breach, along with a FACE order into the breach. This will give the vehicle time to rotate and line itself up with the breach before it moves through. Exactly how much pause you need depends on how much the vehicle has to rotate and vehicle type; some vehicles rotate much faster than others.

This same protocol also works well any time you want to make sure a vehicle goes through any type of narrow passage that it can technically pass through, but might take a more open roundabout route if left to its own devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few tricks I have found that make ordering vehicles through demolition breaches more consistent:

- Plot a waypoint immediately before and immediately after the gap.

Was careful to do that.

- Make the movement leg that actually goes through the gap SLOW.

Did that too.

- Make the movement leg immediately prior to going through the gap MOVE.

Also did that.

- Make sure the vehicle's approach to the gap is relatively straight-on. That is, do not create a sharp turn at the waypoint immediately prior to the leg that heads through the breach.

Was careful about that.

Some turn is OK, but try to keep it no more than 15 degrees or so. Another way to do this is to put a PAUSE order on the waypoint immediately prior to the breach, along with a FACE order into the breach. This will give the vehicle time to rotate and line itself up with the breach before it moves through. Exactly how much pause you need depends on how much the vehicle has to rotate and vehicle type; some vehicles rotate much faster than others.

This same protocol also works well any time you want to make sure a vehicle goes through any type of narrow passage that it can technically pass through, but might take a more open roundabout route if left to its own devices.

Pretty much what I do all the time, but it's good to be reminded. Good tips.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...