The Engineer Battle

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

Other threads have touched on this matter (some have become bogged down it probably inappropriately) so I thought it better to start a specific thread on the matter.

It is aimed aimed at those who see it as vital to conduct of the defence or attack.

Engineers (be they called Combat, Assault or Field depending on one's background) have a role in:

- creating and/or enhance natural obstacles to impede the enemies advance, to channel him into killing grounds, to assitant in the protection of vulnerable or vital assets;

- to destroy or overcome thos obstacles in the attack so as to improve the advance of own troops...

They have an array of technological and "native cunning" attributes and resources to fulfil their mission.

(Not textbook but good enough to start the thread).

How, where, why and when they should be included in CM is the aim of this thread - not necessarily just the means employed.

[Mace]

I've always purchased at least a platoon of engineers when going against a static defence (rather than Meeting Engagement), and generally keep them very close to the front of my main advance.

I've also found them to be handy in the defence, especially as a reserve force.

This is probably due to their equipment options (eg flame throwers etc).

Mace

PS Hurry up and call that election will you?!

[Andreas]

Since the other thread has degenerated completely now...

Engineers really don't have the role you describe in CM now, because of the 20x20m tile system, the absence of trenches/AT ditches etc.

A lot of the work of engineers was done once the battle moved on (removing road-blocks, mine-fields).

They currently perform the following role:

- removing minefields

- use their inherent weaponry (demo charges) to assist bunker destruction

Curiously enough, the only real obstacles in CMBO are minefields and bunkers. So you could argue (and I do) that there is a good match between the capabilities of the defender to establish obstacles and the attacker to defeat them. Adding e.g. Fascines or S.B.G. Bridges would be pointless, because they would have no role on the CMBO battlefield.

Wire emplacements are different - every one can ove through them, albeit more slowly, and that is an abstraction of wire cutting.

While IRL the specialised vehicles of 79th AD were used in a variety of roles to defeat a variety of defensive obstacles, again in CMBO the two vehicles that are still useful in the absence of real obstacles are the Crocodile and the GP-AVRE, and both are in fact modeled, although the Petard does not appear to be modeled correctly, but that is a different question.

When asking for specialised modeling of anything, be it air-power, engineering, or beach landings, the question has to be whether the resources used to model this are well used, and whether they could not be more gainfully employed elsewhere. Economists know this as the problem of opportunity cost (Economics 101). Creating a realistic CMBO model of engineering combat has very high opportunity costs. Is it worth doing it anyway? BTS has answered this question a few times with a resounding 'No'. Maybe if you start a successful campaign of organising people to send in blank, undated cheques for the new version of engineering combat 'Fascine Mission: Beyond the Latrine Ditch', you will convince them that the engineering battle holds promise in the market place.

I would not hold my breath.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Since the other thread has degenerated completely now...

Engineers really don't have the role you describe in CM now, because of the 20x20m tile system, the absence of trenches/AT ditches etc.

A lot of the work of engineers was done once the battle moved on (removing road-blocks, mine-fields).

They currently perform the following role:

- removing minefields

- use their inherent weaponry (demo charges) to assist bunker destruction

Curiously enough, the only real obstacles in CMBO are minefields and bunkers. So you could argue (and I do) that there is a good match between the capabilities of the defender to establish obstacles and the attacker to defeat them. Adding e.g. Fascines or S.B.G. Bridges would be pointless, because they would have no role on the CMBO battlefield.

Wire emplacements are different - every one can ove through them, albeit more slowly, and that is an abstraction of wire cutting.

While IRL the specialised vehicles of 79th AD were used in a variety of roles to defeat a variety of defensive obstacles, again in CMBO the two vehicles that are still useful in the absence of real obstacles are the Crocodile and the GP-AVRE, and both are in fact modeled, although the Petard does not appear to be modeled correctly, but that is a different question.

When asking for specialised modeling of anything, be it air-power, engineering, or beach landings, the question has to be whether the resources used to model this are well used, and whether they could not be more gainfully employed elsewhere. Economists know this as the problem of opportunity cost (Economics 101). Creating a realistic CMBO model of engineering combat has very high opportunity costs. Is it worth doing it anyway? BTS has answered this question a few times with a resounding 'No'. Maybe if you start a successful campaign of organising people to send in blank, undated cheques for the new version of engineering combat 'Fascine Mission: Beyond the Latrine Ditch', you will convince them that the engineering battle holds promise in the market place.

I would not hold my breath.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has indeed been very much BTS response, but I think there is potential for more, but each time a discussion gets going it also gets side tracked by bailey bridges and nationalism.

To prove to BTS your point and get your wish of a better engineering simulation all that is needed is a thread that takes your questions and takes small bits of the engineering battle, and then makes it clear to BTS that what you want can be coded, is historical, and is within the scope of the game.

Engineering has joined the 88L70, the Tiger, and the superiority of the Finns / Commonwealth as concepts that have a major uphill battle because of previous very poor arguments on their behalf. That does not mean the end, since as Rexford showed, a well martialled argument can cut through the flames and BS, impressing BTS immensely, but no matter how many threads of this sort start, someone who wants change will at some point need to qualify and support that request with more than a training film and a single reference from a manual.

My suggestion is to take the engineering battle as a whole, and lop off as much as you can that is obviously out of battle scope. Then take what remains and work with it for a few weeks. Then come back with a plan for how a new engineering function would work, supported by historical and technical data. Finally, you cannot hide from the nationalists, but you can at least tell them even if they are on your own side. Both Andreas and I, discussing a point with each other upon which we do not agree, have had to tell others who agree with us to chill out because their taking things personally was just hurting my own argument.

I think the final thing is that when you present a big ideal like engineering, and if you have done a lot of work on it, there is a need to accept the fact that it needs to get kicked around, and grow a thick skin. The death of the last 4 threads was because people presenting an idea felt offended that others were willing to disagree with them.

[The_Capt]

Ok I just have to comment on this,

"What is the role of Engineers in CM?"

Well it is whatever you want it to be. If you want to put out realistic minefields, you can. You just have to stop looking at your purchase points and instead go with a realistic OOB.

You can breach minefields in CM and bunker busting/house demolition is also possible. In a QB engineers and obstacles rarely get used because they are too expensive for the terrain they cover. If obstacles don't get used neither do the engineers.

"How much should engineers be included". Well I think that question is just too loaded and filled with unknowns to be answered easily. I personally think there is room for a bit more but if you modeled total realism, you would have a game which I believe wouldn't be much fun for the majority of casual players. So the gains made, for the effort expended would probably be quite small if a positive at all. I think there is room for removing wire, AT Ditching, Fascines, Dragons Teeth and Crater Groups and Pre-Dug veh positions. I think existing obstacles need to be a lot (read 50%) cheaper and then the players can decide amongst themselves to restrict the use (A The_Capt's Rules for Engineer Play most definitely).

But I am a professional military Engineer and know how to use these elements. An average player may be put off by the added complexity and a loss in the fun factor will be felt. As an example, I have played games very cautiously, using proper recce techniques and ensuring the enemy locations and movements are covered. It makes for a very slow game. For this I have been accused of being "not fun". Totally realistic but "not fun". Well the reality is that "realistic is often not fun". In a ME you may hold back and recce out the enemy, decide his forces are too well placed and wait for back up to put in an assault. Very realistic but one hell of a boring game.

I think everybody needs to remember that this is a game. You may be the best CM player in history but you are absolutely deluding yourself if you believe you could actually command a Bn in Combat based on that fact alone. CM is so far removed from reality that it is in fact a "Game". One can use elements from CM to teach lessons to professionals but playing it alone will not put amateurs into the big leagues. So total realism has to be tempered with the gaming asset in mind.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

You may be the best CM player in history but you are absolutely deluding yourself if you believe you could actually command a Bn in Combat based on that fact alone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*shred* (sound of application to be a BN commander in the Highland Light Infantry being torn up)

Damn, and after the last PBEM I thought I would be able to...

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

Ok I just have to comment on this,

clip

So total realism has to be tempered with the gaming asset in mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good points. And Andreas, I have already warned MI5 about you, so I don't think you will be a battalion commander anyway.

[Brian]

I believe I've made my position fairly clear.

Given that the problem lies more in the way the terrain is modelled, as others have noted, most of the bridging vehicles would not work. Fair enough. If, however, the terrain modelling was to change, then its very obvious that methods of ditch/stream/river crossing would have to be included.

At the present moment with terrain tiles being so large, I think that bridging could be "abstracted" without too many problems - in effect creating a terrain feature that a player could place between or before "battles" are started.

Obsctacle clearing, however, does fall within the present scope of the game and is not covered by it. AVRE's did blow road blocks, while dozers and tank-dozers also cleared them and sometimes under fire.

Wire cutting. While many have claimed this is "abstracted" by the game, The_Capt has quite rightly pointed out, that when Engineers clear a path through wire, they do so in a manner that means troops following are not hindered by the wire. Yet, in the present method, the game appears to portray each successive unit cutting its own path through a wire obstacle. This is clearly wrong.

Digging in, is another area which is not well covered by the game. The digging of a shellscrape is well within the artificial constraints laid down as to what represents a "battle" as would be Stage One, IMO. I've read so many accounts of troops digging in, under fire, even to the point of exhaustion and falling asleep in the process. I also find the manner in which vehicles are dug in, without any way of them being able to withdraw from those positions, a trifle strange to say the least.

Finally, there is the matter of demolitions. As mentioned before as well - what happened to the matter of demolitions - in particular of bridges? Again, this could be "abstracted" but its a necessary feature which is badly missing IMO.

Therefore, from my viewpoint, its fair to say that the game is crying out for the inclusion of a great deal more of the Engineering battle. Some of it can be handled in an "abstract" manner, I agree but it badly needs to be there in whatever form it takes.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

I believe I've made my position fairly clear.

Given that the problem lies more in the way the terrain is modelled, as others have noted, most of the bridging vehicles would not work. Fair enough. If, however, the terrain modelling was to change, then its very obvious that methods of ditch/stream/river crossing would have to be included.

At the present moment with terrain tiles being so large, I think that bridging could be "abstracted" without too many problems - in effect creating a terrain feature that a player could place between or before "battles" are started.

Obsctacle clearing, however, does fall within the present scope of the game and is not covered by it. AVRE's did blow road blocks, while dozers and tank-dozers also cleared them and sometimes under fire.

Wire cutting. While many have claimed this is "abstracted" by the game, The_Capt has quite rightly pointed out, that when Engineers clear a path through wire, they do so in a manner that means troops following are not hindered by the wire. Yet, in the present method, the game appears to portray each successive unit cutting its own path through a wire obstacle. This is clearly wrong.

Digging in, is another area which is not well covered by the game. The digging of a shellscrape is well within the artificial constraints laid down as to what represents a "battle" as would be Stage One, IMO. I've read so many accounts of troops digging in, under fire, even to the point of exhaustion and falling asleep in the process. I also find the manner in which vehicles are dug in, without any way of them being able to withdraw from those positions, a trifle strange to say the least.

Finally, there is the matter of demolitions. As mentioned before as well - what happened to the matter of demolitions - in particular of bridges? Again, this could be "abstracted" but its a necessary feature which is badly missing IMO.

Therefore, from my viewpoint, its fair to say that the game is crying out for the inclusion of a great deal more of the Engineering battle. Some of it can be handled in an "abstract" manner, I agree but it badly needs to be there in whatever form it takes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of your points are good, but there needs to be more development to each one of them. Yes, I have read about a M4 Dozer, but how fast does it work on how large of an obstruction, was it a major tasks or something that just took a minute or two, and how many dozer blades were put on M4s. Here you need a wide range of data, collated, and given a good interpretation to present this to BTS in a way that they will respond to.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

... a M4 Dozer, but how fast does it work on how large of an obstruction, was it a major tasks or something that just took a minute or two, and how many dozer blades were put on M4s. Here you need a wide range of data, collated, and given a good interpretation ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The data you refer to could probably be sourced from current equipment (civil or military) of approximately the same size. Doctrine and SOP, of course, are a seperate matter.

Another data point required is just what the rubble/roadblocks are supposed to represent. I know its more than a couple of farm carts and a rubbish bin, but is it as much as dragoons teeth (ie specially prepared, steel reinforced, formed concrete)? Without knowing that we end up in circles again.

Regards

JonS

P.S. When you "reply with quote" could you please cut out the extraneous stuff - I've already read the post once so I don't need to see it all again, but having the specific bit you are replying to there is handy. Thanks

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Another data point required is just what the rubble/roadblocks are supposed to represent. I know its more than a couple of farm carts and a rubbish bin, but is it as much as dragoons teeth (ie specially prepared, steel reinforced, formed concrete)? Without knowing that we end up in circles again.

Regards

JonS

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is another good point, since many road blocks would fall to a tank but not a truck, while a tank would fall to a prepared road block, but not a dozer working for 15 minutes, while even a dozer is defeated by a cement poured road block without hours of engineering time added to the mix. Again -- this data has to be gathered.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

...many road blocks would fall to a tank but not a truck, while a tank would fall to a prepared road block, but not a dozer working for 15 minutes, while even a dozer is defeated by a cement poured road block without hours of engineering time added to the mix. Again -- this data has to be gathered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not really gathered I would say - merely stipulated within the game (or whatever). Currently there are 4 (?) types of bunker, persumably one could envisage 4 or more types of road-block.

Actually, we already have two in CM, but you need to use your imagination A roadblock defeats all vehicles, while wire is no obstacle to fully tracked AFVs but fully defeats all other vehicles (wheeled and 1/2 tracked). The only problem is that - as has been noticed - the first vehicle through the "wire roadblock" doesn't clear a passage for those following.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Well, not really gathered I would say - merely stipulated within the game (or whatever). Currently there are 4 (?) types of bunker, persumably one could envisage 4 or more types of road-block.

Actually, we already have two in CM, but you need to use your imagination A roadblock defeats all vehicles, while wire is no obstacle to fully tracked AFVs but fully defeats all other vehicles (wheeled and 1/2 tracked). The only problem is that - as has been noticed - the first vehicle through the "wire roadblock" doesn't clear a passage for those following.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good current compromise, followed by a proposal for a 4 level system:

1) Defeats Wheeled Vehicles

2) Defeats Light Tanks / Halftracks

3) Defeats Tanks (takes a dozer 1/2 time)

4) Defeats Dozers

Here I would have a vehicle have to work on an obstacle for a set number of turns, to represent battering through it, with the final an an obstacle with a hole in it. Perhaps other items could be rated in this scale also, so a dozer could knock down a building maybe if it was light enough or weak enough, assuming that this was done tactically.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

...Here I would have a vehicle have to work on an obstacle for a set number of turns...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... with a certain random fuzzy-ness thrown in of course :cool:

Can't have things too predictable

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

... with a certain random fuzzy-ness thrown in of course :cool:

Can't have things too predictable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be perfect. I think the new engine will include fuzzy logic (according to Matt on this forum earlier) and I think there will be a more complex variable system. Thus an experienced dozer attacking even the "unkillable" barrier may find that there is a thoudandth of a percent chance turn of the barrier falling, while a more predictable barrier maybe it falls middle of turn 5, maybe start of turn 6, maybe the dozer hangs up and screws you.

[JonS]

I'd like to see a bell curve thrown around pretty much everything in the game. Movement rates, order delays, ROF, etc, you name it.

One caveat though - one should still be able to co-ordinate some actions. Eg a platoon stepping off to advance across a field: they should all start moving at the same time (if they are in command and not taking cover or pinned etc), even though the delay to when they all start moving is itself variable.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

I'd like to see a bell curve thrown around pretty much everything in the game. Movement rates, order delays, ROF, etc, you name it.

One caveat though - one should still be able to co-ordinate some actions. Eg a platoon stepping off to advance across a field: they should all start moving at the same time (if they are in command and not taking cover or pinned etc), even though the delay to when they all start moving is itself variable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is part of a fuzzy logic AI is to have bell curves and complex variables controlling actions. In the case of a platoon, the bell curve is thrown around the leader and weighted by experience, suppression, terrain type (denser terrain, harder to get started). A true bell curve would perhaps be a Z distribution with possible but extremely improbably actions happening that could screw you up (for example, they messed up your orders completely, and being green, got confused and retreated. ) Of course a frustrating one like that would be way way out on the Z table (if this distribution was used) and very unlikely.

[JonS]

I think there would need to be more to it than that though (for the pn stepping off together that is).

Hmm, I'm free-forming again, so bear with me.

At the moment, you know that 'x' experience means a delay of 'y' seconds. When co-ordinating movement one can use this to ensure that all units move together, especially if they are all the same experience. But, if all delays were variable about experience level set-points, then in the specific (but not rare) case of trying to move a platoon together, one would need ... another order maybe?

One way to do it could be to group-select via the leader, with that implying - to the AI - that one wants all units selected to start moving together. Currently we are limited to a single way point with group moves, which may or may not be too much of a limitation.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

The only problem is that - as has been noticed - the first vehicle through the "wire roadblock" doesn't clear a passage for those following.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's always bugged me a little bit that Allied tanks penetrating bocage do not create an opening that can be exploited by following non-tank vehicles (and personnel).

Michael

(Just felt like getting that off my chest. Thank you. )

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

I think there would need to be more to it than that though (for the pn stepping off together that is).

Hmm, I'm free-forming again, so bear with me.

At the moment, you know that 'x' experience means a delay of 'y' seconds. When co-ordinating movement one can use this to ensure that all units move together, especially if they are all the same experience. But, if all delays were variable about experience level set-points, then in the specific (but not rare) case of trying to move a platoon together, one would need ... another order maybe?

One way to do it could be to group-select via the leader, with that implying - to the AI - that one wants all units selected to start moving together. Currently we are limited to a single way point with group moves, which may or may not be too much of a limitation.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, because if you take a platoon and double click the leader, the whole platoon lights up. Now make move commands. The only change is the need to allow this conglomerate to have more than one movement plotted.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

At the moment, you know that 'x' experience means a delay of 'y' seconds. When co-ordinating movement one can use this to ensure that all units move together, especially if they are all the same experience. But, if all delays were variable about experience level set-points, then in the specific (but not rare) case of trying to move a platoon together, one would need ... another order maybe?

One way to do it could be to group-select via the leader, with that implying - to the AI - that one wants all units selected to start moving together. Currently we are limited to a single way point with group moves, which may or may not be too much of a limitation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as we are brainstorming here, how about something along these lines: in the case of a platoon or other group of units moving together, a squad/team will execute its movement order within a small but variable number of seconds of the beginning of movement of the nearest squad/team with which it has LOS. This would be a kind of entrained movement with movement beginning with the squad/team closest to the controlling HQ.

The first difficulty I see with this idea is effectively defining "a group of units moving together" and this may be a killer, but I wanted to get the ball rolling.

Michael

[JonS]

Slap,

yes, but the other change 'needed' would be for them all to have the same delay, where otehrwise they wouldn't.

Actually, having only one waypoint might be a better way of doing it. Wheeling a platoon around in a co-ordinated way is hard work, so forcing players to go back to the platoon on a regular basis to change direction or whatever isn't so bad.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Slap,

yes, but the other change 'needed' would be for them all to have the same delay, where otehrwise they wouldn't.

Actually, having only one waypoint might be a better way of doing it. Wheeling a platoon around in a co-ordinated way is hard work, so forcing players to go back to the platoon on a regular basis to change direction or whatever isn't so bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More likely I would say that the units would centipede a little, but not as much as if alone, so the entire unit command would work well if a platoon gave its subunits its own delay, +- a small amount.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

... +- a small amount.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, ok, I'll buy that as long as the 'small' here was noticeably smaller than giving them individual orders.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Yeah, ok, I'll buy that as long as the 'small' here was noticeably smaller than giving them individual orders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely. Now maybe by giving them fuzzy movement speeds (when not in convoy, another needed command) they can centipede a bit, and very long moves may see a need for thegroups to wait for the slow poles, but the start difference should be small (1-2 seconds) since essentially a platoon leader has said "lets go: or blew a wistle, or something.

I am reading right now in a number of books on this subject and I think there is a great deal of support for the "small centipede" theory. I think you can get some of this now just by choosing a platoon with all units in command radius, but the fuzzy logic part is not in place yet.