Sig Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 Hello all, Much has already been said about the impossibility for engineers to breach roadblocks or modify terrain features during a typical CM battle. Personnally, I believe this is realistic considering the time available. However, engineers are now little more than specialised first line infantry, with a bonus (mine removal). I would propose the following: to simulate the role of engineers before battle has started, why not give the possibility to the attacking player to buy their work. Examples: You think you need to cross impassable terrain, like a marsh: buy corduroy road tiles. Or you know the terrain will contain some kind of a stream: buy ford tiles. Lots of rough and you want your armor to roam the map freely: buy dirt road tiles. These tiles would be placed before the battle starts in the same way the defender places mines, or roadblocks. This possibility would only be available to the attacker (in defense you already have it: roadblocks, wires, mines) and would only be placed in or next to the attacker's deployement zone. These tiles would simulate engineers heavily involved in the preparation of an attack. A good real life exemple for this would be the extensive preparation before Operation Bagration, when all these little streams in Byelorussia where rendered fordable for tanks by the russian engineers. I see one problem with my proposal: the map is not visible before the start of the battle, so what should I buy?? Suggestion would be to give a bit more information when choosing the terrain: for instance instead of having only our usual CMBO features (farmland, rural,... low hills, moderate hills...etc), I would suggest to add to these choices more precise features: swampy (moderate, very..), rough (moderate, very,..), streams (few, lots...), etc... Only a few examples. Such a system would keep the map "secret" (which I think is good), but at the same time give sufficient information to make the proposed "engineering" system work. That's all. Any thoughts? Sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 Sig, while these options would be nice for an Operation, I don't think that they really fall in the time schedule of 20 to 60 minutes of a CM game. Most of the engineer works you described takes quite a bit of time to accomplish, and I think that only things that could be quickly accomplished under fire, such as bulldozing a roadblock or deploying a bridge layer tank would be realistic under the time constraints of a typical battle. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 The Soviets made makeshift underwater bridges by driving turretless tanks into the river. And depending on the type of battle the work of the engineers is not always done before the CM scope battle begins. Also, could the road block tiles be made in the fashion of edifice tiles ? They would act like a very, very narrow (or then again not so narrow) building or a stone wall and they could be reduced to rubble making the place they locate passable to tanks and vehicles. The way they look is just a matter of visual presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 If want to make Engineers more relevant to the game the answer is simple...lower the cost of the current obstacles or make them bigger. The mine fields are too small for what they cost when compared to other units in the game. This would allow more use of mines and AT obstacles which would force the attacker to use his engineers as engineers and not infantry. Another key addition would be to include armoured engineers such that existed during WWII. Sig your idea has merit but the "realist Grog elite" will lay eggs at the suggestion. "Ford tiles and corduroy road!!! Just how in the Hell did they do that in front of my position?!" will be the cry. But again as with most things in CM you can always mutually agree to use or not to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: If want to make Engineers more relevant to the game the answer is simple...lower the cost of the current obstacles or make them bigger. The mine fields are too small for what they cost when compared to other units in the game. This would allow more use of mines and AT obstacles which would force the attacker to use his engineers as engineers and not infantry. Another key addition would be to include armoured engineers such that existed during WWII. Sig your idea has merit but the "realist Grog elite" will lay eggs at the suggestion. "Ford tiles and corduroy road!!! Just how in the Hell did they do that in front of my position?!" will be the cry. But again as with most things in CM you can always mutually agree to use or not to use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then there is the Red Army practice of digging trenches towards the defensive lines so that they could spring up right in front of you when the assault starts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Then there is the Red Army practice of digging trenches towards the defensive lines so that they could spring up right in front of you when the assault starts... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sappers? None of the things described here (building roads, etc.) would have been done within 100 yards of the enemy's positions. yes, roads, bridges, etc. were often built under fire - shellfire from far away. Not in the face of enemy positions, and even if subjected to small arms fire, certainly not within the area delineated by a CM map! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 Thank you Michael, The Grog elite have begun... tero, that practice is a lot older than the Red Army and as recent as Bosnia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 Actually I wouldn't mind seeing two different type of roadblock ... the permanent kind that is in the game now, and the hasty kind that could be cleared by engineers within the course of a battle. I don't think the hasty one should be built within the time frame of a scenario, but it should be clearable within the time frame of a scenario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 >The Grog elite have begun... "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition - our two best weapons are attention to detail, willinness to defend our point of view and the speedy typing of a secretary. Our three best weapons are...." >tero, that practice is a lot older than the >Red Army and as recent as Bosnia. I am aware of this. But as we are discussing CM2 it is relevant. And is definitely inside the CMBO/BB scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 tero, have you done (military) engineer work? Have you participated in a (modern day) engineer recon to find a ford? Have you read about timeframes Soviet Manuals on Engineering put for things like making trenchs, for offensive or defensive purposes, building minefields, etc? I'm really interested in to know about it as I know you did 11 months of military service in Finland, were you are very familiar with Soviet practices. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 I have recently joined the army and my occupation is combat engineer. so i have been doing as much as possible to find out about my job as possible and one of those is studying ww2 engineer units and let me tell you any engineer unit that takes more than 10 minutes to clear an obstacle like a roadblock isnt worth jack. the only thing that should take that long is bridge demolition(wich could take hours) and bunker formations. one idea is to have engineer trucks that carry a bunch of explosive and when they are close enough to the engineer units they alow them to blow up obstacles and stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig Posted June 22, 2001 Author Share Posted June 22, 2001 Hello, First, thanks for the feedback. Now just a little comment concerning the distance to the MLR: I was assuming that BTS will implement these much demanded loooong maps for attack scenario. If this is case, no problem because (second point) it is my opinion that these terrain modifications should be placed in the attacker's deployement zone which will be at quite a distance from the defense. Another good point: is this relevant considering the around 30 minute battles we play? Well, yes, because this should simulate the careful preparations made before a breaching attack, this short, powerful blow to overcome a carefully prepared defense. However, I totally agree that this "engineering" should *not* be available during the type of QB simulating an hasty attack (don't remember if it's "attack" or "assault" QB). I agree also that the technical aspects (the modification of the terrain tile) can be a problem, a critical one in fact. No answer for that, sorry. I'm not a programmer. What I try is to find a way, easy to implement, to simulate this often obscure but crucial work by engineers. The idea just came as I was re-reading "Bagration 1994" by Steven Zaloga (Osprey campaign series Nr 42, ISBN 1-85532-478-4). Page 33 (emphasis is mine): "(...) Two critical, but often overlooked, Soviet advantages were engineer support and logistics. (...)" The author then discribes shortly why this support was crucial to the initial success of Operation Bagration (for instance river-crossing, swamp-crossing, etc). Oops. Need to stop. Too late on this side of the Atlantic. *yaaaawn*. Sorry. See you tomorrow. Sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig: What I try is to find a way, easy to implement, to simulate this often obscure but crucial work by engineers. The idea just came as I was re-reading "Bagration 1994" by Steven Zaloga (Osprey campaign series Nr 42, ISBN 1-85532-478-4). Page 33 (emphasis is mine): "(...) Two critical, but often overlooked, Soviet advantages were engineer support and logistics. (...)" The author then discribes shortly why this support was crucial to the initial success of Operation Bagration (for instance river-crossing, swamp-crossing, etc). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no doubt that this support was important on a operational or strategic level... but on a tactical level? Your quote talks about an entire, army level, campain, I fail to see how it applies to CM. Its very important to realize that you will be able to get all the effects you are asking for (and more) from the scenario editor. Its unreasonable to expect that the QB map making process and force selection process should model all situations. That's what scenarios are for. --Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 It says right in the manual that CM missions start "after the preliminary artillery bombardment" and other preparations - including engineering work. I do like the idea of two types of roadblock. I disagree with the assertion that every kind of roadblock in WW II could be cleared in 10 minutes. Even if they could - how would you code the rules for something like that? Would an engineer be required to be in one place for 10 turns? What if he came under fire - would the 10 turns have to be consecutive, or would he have to start over for 10 turns if he was forced to rout due to enemy fire (or was pinned.) What if 3 men in a ten man engineer squad became casualties? How many turns would it take to clear a roadblock then? Lots to consider. Not saying it ain't doable, but is it worth the effort? Maybe. [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 sorry didnt mean every roadblock could be cleared in 10 minutes but there are so many different kinds of roadblocks everything from wood and barbed wire to reinforced concrete. i just doubt that every roadblock in all the little country dirt roads throughout europe were built with reinforced concrete structures. i realize that it would be impossible to show every kind of roadblock im just saying that the whole reason combat engineers were formed is for mobility/counter mobility war. The whole reason they exist is to clear minefields and roadblocks in the shortest amount of time possible. of course im not saying that every roadblock can be blown in 10 minutes but in the countryside these roadblocks were quite often just felled trees with some kind of support to stop or slow down armored units most of the time what made a roadblock wasnt the actual roadblock itself but the guy with the bazooka sitting next to it. all the roadblock did was make the tank stop for long enough for that guy or guys to pull off a proper ambush. sorry this got long and rambling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 Engineer creed: an obstacle not covered by fire, isn't an obstacle That is the point. Engineer work under fire is difficult to do, or to model (too many variables). But for sure more kind of obstacles and constructions are needed. How to model breaching in the scope of a non-canned CM battle is something I found very difficult to even imagine (Sort of disconnected thoughts too late and under too much Malbec wine, sorry ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts