Tris Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Well, the deeper I get into this engine the more anomalies I find. This is fine to an extent, as it aids me with my work with scenario design, but the frustration I have from time to time dealing with the model's lamentable limitations is not inconsiderable. Today I finally got around to roadblocks. I had yet to see one taken out, either by engineers or infantry with satchel charges, so I conducted a test which confirmed my casual observation: roadblocks are indestructible. Next I did a search to find out what BTS's position on this situation is. Here are a couple of links for anyone with interest: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008767.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004163.html The reality of having indestructible roadblocks presents the scenario designer with several considerations. Getting around the ahistoricity of this approach in most cases (read the comments in the referenced threads re felled-trees versus reinforced-concrete blocks), the first problem to confront designers is this: since roadblocks stay where they're put and represent absolute blocks to vehicular traffic (foot travelers can negotiate up and over roadblocks with negligible movement penalty), it follows that if these obstacles are placed in positions contiguous to other terrain off limits to vehicles than absolute vehicular stops exits with the "road net" in mind. Imagine this map design. On defense you enjoy a ridge line of appreciable height which runs perpendicular to the enemy's line of march. Much of this ground is impassable to vehicles. A single road traverses this ridge line with the line of sight interrupted so that the enemy will be unable to see much farther down this road then the first rise and bend. Knowing this force has mobile assets, you then construct a roadblock at a convenient place along this road which permanently scotches vehicular traffic at a juncture out of line of sight of the enemy. In the subsequent fight the enemy reads the terrain the dutifully heads his vehicles toward this one natural pass of the ridge line, only to eventually find his way is barred. Time lost, perhaps the battle is lost into the bargain. I do not offer this circumstance as a means to confound enjoyable play, neither do I wish to suggest a factor of "gamey play" onto this proceeding. Rather I point out that for the reason that our game's roadblocks are unrealistically durable then these assets must be employed by the scenario designer with care deliberation so as to ensure that game-play examples similar to the above do not occur. So, you wish to make a map with a creek that might be forded in several spots and across which runs a road with a bridge. Say this creek runs from one board edge to another, thus ringing in a section of the map. Further say this map section mainly comprises a setup area for one side. The scenario designer is now faced with a poor choice, imposed on him by our sturdy little roadblocks: should the designer place a roadblock on the road tile directly on either side of the bridge then all vehicular traffic across the creek itself will be denied for the length of the scenario! Thus, it becomes necessary to place the roadblock no closer to the bridge entryway than one tile distant. Unfortunately, this placement (assuming no other terrain is contiguous which would serve in conjunction with the roadblock to form an absolute vehicular block), while it conforms in principle to the purpose of the roadblock (to cause a delay in road traffic at a given point) it disallows the defender to place the block in the most advantageous way he might otherwise have devised. Better, surely, for the defense to have enemy vehicular traffic stopped at the far end of that bridge, where friendly artillery might easily find the range (meanwhile enemy engineers frantically try to clear the block whilel under fire) than to allow these enemy mobile assets an opportunity to cross the bridge, more or less unimpeded, by means of simply snaking around one side or the other of said block. Which brings us back approximately to the ahistorical nature and ultimate game-play significance of this dubious design decision: not only are super-durable roadblocks (in the main, as they were found in WW II) contrary to what history tells us of this period, but because of this design error (compromise) our use in game of these objects of fortification is bound to leave both the scenario designer and the eventual player(s) with saccharine tastes in their mouths. By the way, yet another preposterous feature of . . . The Operational Lines . . . raises its ugly head here (big surprise ): the one way to "defeat" these absolute road stops is in operations when, due to "progress" along the front line (taken as an average, I suppose--this has never been clearly explained to me) the setup area for a follow-on battle might well fall beyond one of these stops, thus allowing play to proceed more reasonably. To intentionally design one's Operation scenarios with this absurdity in mind beforehand strikes me as silly on its face, but I offer it up for what value someone might find in it. My suggestion: re-think roadblocks, and either allow engineers/infantry with satchel charges to destroy these obstacles and/or create a new type of roadblock to better illustrate the sort of indestructibility this fortification at present apparently wants to model. One thing is for sure: what we have now does not function intelligently and so it does a serious tactical model no favors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 From long expeience of working with fallen trees, (2-3 per year for firewood) I'd say that it's pretty much impossible to clear a roadblock in the half hour scope of CM. Imagine five or six good sized trees that have been cut down over the road in such a way that they are interlocked. This is easy enough to do, I've accidently done it plenty of times. I doubt a tank could push through them, I've seen a bulldozer stall out pushing one tree. Even if you do have satchel charges, there's nowhere to put them so they detonate with any effect. The branches hold the trees away from each other, so the trunks rarely touch. You can't effectively use explosives to cut a tree in half. Even if you could, all you'd have is two half trees; big improvement. You have to use a chainsaw to cut the tree every six or seven feet, preferabley with someone else using an axe and peavy. CM engineers don't have those. I agree that infantry should be greatly penalized while moving through a roadblock, though. A log pile is pretty hard to climb over, especially since those rotten Germans wouldn't have cut the branches off the trees. Infantry should move pretty slowly, with about a 50% exposure. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waxx_IK Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Easy solution. Don't use roadblocks then. If it's absolutely necessary, make an alternate route. If there's just one route for vehicular advance, don't use the roadblock then. ------------------ Waxx<<<**IK**>>> shall live on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted February 19, 2001 Author Share Posted February 19, 2001 Within the context of the typical CMBO 30-minute battle I would agree with you, Gustav, that roadblocks present thmeselves in a much more realistic light. But all battles are not of a mere 30 turns, and then we have those pesky Operations to consider as well. All in all roadblocks have not been especially well modelled, and this aspect of play ought to be reconsidered for subsequent editions of the game. That was my message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Hmm, in operations you might be right. Perhaps enemy roadblocks (and minefields and wire) that are in your setup zone should be cleared by the next battle. Even in a 60 minute battle, would you ever want to have your engineers spend 30 minutes clearing one roadblock? Seems like a waste when they could be out clearing mines or fighting. Waxx is right, a good scenario designer always gives the attacker more than one route of advance. Even in auto generated maps there's usually a couple of options for attack. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted February 19, 2001 Author Share Posted February 19, 2001 Hmm, in operations you might be right. Perhaps enemy roadblocks (and minefields and wire) that are in your setup zone should be cleared by the next battle. I disagree. Nothing should be "cleared" from one battle to the next. We are burdened with too much system abstraction as it is. Even in a 60 minute battle, would you ever want to have your engineers spend 30 minutes clearing one roadblock? Seems like a waste when they could be out clearing mines or fighting. Waxx is right, a good scenario designer always gives the attacker more than one route of advance. Even in auto generated maps there's usually a couple of options for attack. I would examine the question from a different perspective: Would it be feasible to design a scenario where the clearance of a roadblock would present one side with an interesting problem in play? I can easily imagine such a scenario. At present it isn't possible, though, to design such a situation. And that's a shame. Why would you suggest that a good scenario designer always affords his audience more than one route of advance? I can just as easily imagine a scenario where only one "best" or even possible route of advance exists. I can also imagine that this scenario might well be enjoyable to play. A comparison of custom-scenario and auto-generated maps strikes me as wholly inappropriate. The latter are dreadful bores as a rule, they never come with creeks or rivers, etc. Open up your mind and explore with it. Then come back with suggestions for how to improve this war simulation. That's what it needs, that's what would benefit all. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 02-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Although I'm too lazy to dig up some references, I agree with Gustav 109 on this. As a former 12B (combat engineer in the Guards, after being a tanker on active duty) and a forester, I can attest to the pain in the a** that this kind of obstacle can be. In fact, there is a text-book methodology for creating one: it's called an abatis. A series of interlocked trees can create an obstacle that is, for all intents and purposes in a 30 minute battle, permanent. That said, for playability, Tris' suggestions for scenario design are very good. Much like providing a player with 14-inchers, providing road-blocks should be done with caution. Edit: Found correct spelling for 'abatis'! [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 02-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dog Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Gustav, I would argue that one COULD clear a road with explosives. I'm attached to a combat engineer unit, and I've seen the crazy bastards cut trees down simply with det-cord. I don't know if det-cord existed in WWII, but if such a low power explosive can do such damage, I would say that they were capable of moving trees with what they had then. It might have been a matter of using shaped charges to cut the tree into pieces, then using a vehicle to bust though, but I would say it could have been done. -Teufelhunden Semper Fidelis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnesota Joe Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 I don't see how this would really work. You have a one to two foot thick tree blocking a road. You put explosives on the middle of the fallen tree. You detonate. Now you have a two foot gap in between what is now two halves. This may make it easier to role the trees off the road, but probably not in a 30-turn game. ------------------ Ah scheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Mannahiem Tanker- We never called it an abatis, we called it a G*&*%$n F#@$*d up pain in the a%% logjam. But then I was never an engineer, I was just a firewood-getter. Hadn't heard of det-cord before. Sounds like pretty useful stuff. I don't know if it was avalible in WWII, and if it was part of an engineer platoon's standard equipment. Anyone? I've never tried using satchel charges to break logs in half (sounds like fun tho) but I don't think it would work too well. Like I said before, the logs don't rest against a hard surface like the road or another tree, the branches hold them away, so you don't have anything for the satchel charge to detonate against. My dad found the solution for clearing jammed-up logs long ago. It's to drink beer while a 12-18 year old kid (yours truly) crawls all over that logjam with an axe and bowsaw, cutting off all the limbs until it's possible to get to the trees with a chainsaw. Only then can you move the trees. Roll them aside with the limbs still on? Impossible unless they're small trees and you have a bulldozer. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska [This message has been edited by 109 Gustav (edited 02-19-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropey Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 The roadblocks might also be regarded as demolitions, and these were certainly not filled in the time of a CM scenario. (Bridged by a Scissors or Ark, or filled by fascine maybe, but not filled by shovel or bulldozer even.) If you COULD clear roadblocks/demolitions, my Cassino scenario could be much improved, as this was the task the engineers had during the attack against the Railway Station - fill 10 ruddy great holes in an embankment so hvy support could get through to help the infantry. ------------------ Never leave your mind so open your brains fall out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 I'd imagine that the abatis (or f*&^DE up logjam, as Gustav put it!) were commonly set up with anti-handling devices (booby traps). This was/is common practice with minefields as well. The idea is to slow the engineers down in their efforts to remove said barrier. Imagine crawling through a logjam in the middle of a firefight to set your demolition charges - and having to contend with trip wires rigged up in the middle of the whole damn mess. I'll tell ya, being a combat engineer made me yearn for the days when I was a simple tanker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Without entering on the debate of the relative effect of a satchel charge on a roadblock, it seems quite acceptable that these stuff will take 40 min+ to demolish, preferably *not* under enemy fire... And IMO it's not much hard to find design solutions when creating a scenario : A- Wants an impassable obstacle ? take the roadblock ! B- for any reason don't want one ? Then replace it with rough terrain, a "ditch" (lower elevation terrain), a wall+wire, ... Even with indestuctible roadblocks (and HT ? )the game still offers many solutions to represent various obstacles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Originally posted by Tris: Hmm, in operations you might be right. Perhaps enemy roadblocks (and minefields and wire) that are in your setup zone should be cleared by the next battle. I disagree. Nothing should be "cleared" from one battle to the next. We are burdened with too much system abstraction as it is. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 02-18-2001).] Why not have them cleared in between Op battles? I agree that it would be an abstraction, but then again so is ammo resupply, damaged vehicle removal or frontline adjustments, and they happen between Op battles. IMO, if you are in control of the area around the block (inside your setup zone) then they should be cleared. After all, in some Ops the time between battles could span an entire day. Should the Enginners simply ignore the obstacles during that time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: I'd imagine that the abatis (or f*&^DE up logjam, as Gustav put it!) were commonly set up with anti-handling devices (booby traps). This was/is common practice with minefields as well. The idea is to slow the engineers down in their efforts to remove said barrier. Imagine crawling through a logjam in the middle of a firefight to set your demolition charges - and having to contend with trip wires rigged up in the middle of the whole damn mess. Easy enough, my history teacher (a Vietnam vet) taught me how to do that. See, it is possible to learn stuff in high school. Take a grenade, and carefully put it under one of the logs from the abatis in such a way that the spoon is being held down by the log. Pull the pin out. The grenade won't detonate until the spoon flips up, which will happen when the log is rolled off of it. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. The Last Defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts