IED/VBIED discussion

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Steve, am I right if I understand that a VBIED will appear out of nowhere as a newly spotted unit that will be graphically shown as a civilian car/truck flying towards you, and known to be a threat.

Is that correct?

Theses VBIED's just materialize out of now where and blow up?

Just wondering.

-tom w

[Bigduke6]

Here's an idea, based on the logic that VPs and how they are awarded are a lot easier to manipulate, than coding for the combat stuff. To make it work, you need to have lots of sliders connecting VPs to the missions of either side.

What you do is, at least in some cases, penalize the US player for killing certain Syrian units, specifically the mass crap infantry. This reflects RL: it is not a great thing, per se, for the Americans to get a giant body count.

You could tie the penalty to the mission. If the job is go in balls-to-the-wall kick-tuchus-take-no-names, well then you have a slider turning off the dead Syrian penalty for the Americans off.

But if the job is, say, scout or secure a point, then RL the maximum number of Syrian casualties would not be a good thing for the US. You don't want to hand BBC pictures of lots of dead Syrian teenagers in civilian clothes, and quite possibly you want to capture some of those Syrians alive.

Then you make it so you can push the slider, or pick the VP option or whatever, so that casualties of Syrian troop type X count against the US side N amount of points.

Naturally this set-up would have to be able somehow to distinguish between troop types; there ought to be a way to penalize the US player for killing great hordes of Syrian trash infantry, but giving him points for the fanatic Al Quaeda suicide squads attached to the Syrian special forces.

How to prevent the Syrian player from gamey attempts to get his crappy infantry trashed?

1. Well, in the first place it is crappy infantry that probably will break before actually even hurting the Americans. This replicates US fire discipline, and could even replicate the problems US commanders have with worse-trained National Guard units, which are a bit more likely to open up on a target than the regulars.

2. Make it so the Syrian player doesn't know whether his trash infantry (or whatever troop) might count towards his VPs if it got killed off, by keeping it a secret until the game is over. Scenario design decision here. The briefing can say "Attached to your force you have around 200 militia from the village Baba Ganush, they have a few Kalashnikovs plus shotguns and hunting rifles. Allah will instruct you on how best to employ them."

Thus the Syrian commander has a RL decision replicated in the game as well: What do I do with this crap infantry, is it worth it throwing it at the Americans? Will it allow itself to be thrown at the Americans?

The beauty of this solution (IMO anyway) is that the game engine can do its thing, you don't have to program civilians, you just have varying degrees of troop quality, and varying degrees of VPs - positive and negative - for casualties among the troops.

The scenario designer does the rest.

[MikeyD]

IEDs and VBIEDs being invisible shouldn't cause more concern than anything else in the game that suddenly appears on the map as units come in contact with them. Looked at in that way a suddenly exploding unseen IED is the same as an undetected T55 suddenly opening fire.

On the subject of IEDs, heres a photo borrowed from another site - which was borrowed from another site (lets hope the link holds!) of an M1114 hit by what looks like a Claymore mine! There may not have been any penetrations of the armor, though the little 'moon craters' on the door panels make you wonder what the outer layer's made of.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Looked at in that way a suddenly exploding unseen IED is the same as an undetected T55 suddenly opening fire.

That brings up another question - will battalion/company/platoon level UAVs be modelled?

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6

What you do is, at least in some cases, penalize the US player for killing certain Syrian units, specifically the mass crap infantry. This reflects RL: it is not a great thing, per se, for the Americans to get a giant body count.

That doesn't make any sense. The US military will kill anyone that resists. If the crap Syrian infantry (who wear uniforms, remember) give up, that's one thing, but if they are crap and not giving up... the US military is perfectly prepared to "convince" them that they should. Or die. One or the other.

CMx2 already simulates this just as CMx1 did. Crappy units will fight crappy. They will give up more easily or try running away.

The Iraqi Army, for the most part, did the more sensible thing... they melted away BEFORE getting into contact with US ground forces. The prisoner count was extremely low when one considers the size of the Iraqi Army and the fact that the entire country was quickly occupied.

This is all completely different than unconventional forces. These guys hang out in civilian clothing and are not predisposed to giving up. On the contrary, certain types of them are predisposed to dying. Ironically, this is what the TV cameramen pick up on. Pictures of civilians caught in the crossfire (a deliberate tactic of many insurgents), dead/wounded civilians in Iraqi hospitals, etc. According to hospital officials and patients, they've never ever had a wounded insurgent in their care. They are always innocent civilians. Even the ones of military age with gun powder residue on their hands. If they were in military uniform or screaming "I just blew up a Humvee, praise Allah" it would be easier to know the truth.

But back to the point about unconventional forces...

The suggestions you make don't really solve anything since they are based on conventional forces and the reaction to them. We're talking strictly about unconventional forces. Different kettles of fish entirely.

MikeyD,

A popular IED type is one that is packed with bits and pieces of stuff, usually metal. But by the looks of that M1114, I'd say they got their hands on either some ball bearings or a claymore type mine.

Fytinghellfish,

We will simulate UAVs to some extent. We're not going to simulate armed UAVs, though. The one the Stryker formations use is called Shadow.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hoolaman,

Steve, am I right if I understand that a VBIED will appear out of nowhere as a newly spotted unit that will be graphically shown as a civilian car/truck flying towards you, and known to be a threat.

Correct. Think of it as no different than coming around a corner in a CMx1 game and suddenly spotting a big, nasty tank sitting right there out in the open. Before you moved around the corner you thought the street might be clear, but once you got there you found it wasn't. Same basic concept for unconventional forces. The difference is they will be a LOT harder to spot. In theory, they could be within a few meters of you and you won't spot them. But there are ways to spot these things earlier rather than later. Most of that will have to do with how well the Syrian player handles them.

Hezbollahs campaign seemed very non-suicidal, and I wonder wether a Syria would act the same.

Hezbollah is an interesting force, for sure. They apparently sit somewhere between a conventional military force and an insurgent force. They certainly engage in many of the same tactics, like high risk kidnappings, but they appear to have "outgrown" their tendency to blow themselves up for their cause. I can take a few guesses as to why. I'm not sure these same factors will hold true for Syria. They certainly weren't for Iraq during the initial invasion, and obviously it's only gotten worse since.

Tom,

Is the game abstracting a chance that somehow, (and it appears to be out of control of EITHER the US or the Syrian player) that a "cloaked" VBIED will "sneak up" on a US vehicle or position and just blow up?

Correct.

Neither player having any real in game control over what gets spotted and what does not?

Quite the contrary. The Syrian player's behavior will most likely decide if an unconventional unit gets spotted or not. Moving a VIED down a street, full speed, at a US convoy is going to be a sure spotting. Leaving it parked on the side of a downtown street probably not. Leaving it parked in the middle of a field, probably. Etc.

What does the Syrian player need to know or do to decrease the chance of getting spotted?

We'll outline these things in the manual, but basically its moving the unit medium speed in an environment that makes sense for that type of unit.

What does the US player need to know or do to increase the chance of spotting the cloaked threat?

Not much he can do since it will be handled by the TacAI for the most part. So just do the same things you'd do for any situation, like the one I outlined for Hoolaman; move cautiously with overwatching units, don't assume that the coast is clear, and above all don't bunch your units up!

Steve

[ August 24, 2006, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks for the replies Steve.

That makes sense.

Q:

Neither player having any real in game control over what gets spotted and what does not?

A:

Quite the contrary. The Syrian player's behavior will most likely decide if an unconventional unit gets spotted or not. Moving a VIED down a street, full speed, at a US convoy is going to be a sure spotting. Leaving it parked on the side of a downtown street probably not. Leaving it parked in the middle of a field, probably. Etc.

[LongLeftFlank]

I wonder whether it's possible to abstract civilian foot or auto traffic by "color coding" trafficked roads and open spaces in some aesthetically acceptable fashion. Threat units moving in these "red zones" would be harder to spot (i.e. suddenly materialize out of nowhere ready to shoot/blow up as described above).

This would give the US player an option to position/maneuver in relatively untrafficked areas where threat units are subject to normal spotting rules. Mission requirements, however, might still require his units to enter or fire on "red" zones at times.

"Red zones" would likely shrink over the course of a game. Vehicle traffic "red zones" might not fall off at once when a firefight begins since civilian drivers don't always hear the shooting), but foot traffic "red zones" might disappear rapidly as civilians on foot scurry for cover (or don't, as in Mogadishu).

You might also apply an abstract VP penalty for total volume of US firepower landing in "red" zones, even if it was targeted on threat units (aggregate impact of civilian collateral damage).

[Homo ferricus]

on the color coding-i think it would be great if a map-creator can "color code" (green meaning less populated and more obvious, red being more populated and less obvious) neighborhoods in a city, for instance,in downtown Damascus, the Army would have lots of trouble spotting and eliminating civilian dressed targets and VIEDs, on the other hand, a civilian truck flooring it across open desert would likely be spotted and knocked out from a mile away, as would a lone "civilian" standing by the entrance to a city(perhaps on a cell phone???). So you could make an equation that determines how easily a Civilian dressed Syrian unit could be spotted based on the tint of the area marked in the map editor.(like color coding setup zones in CMBB, sort of)

edit: of course this wouldn't be necessary if you have already came up with a system that determines spotting of special units more realistically or sumfink. Plus, it would kinda be more work if you have to edit all those zones on every map, or it could be more fun, for people who are control freaks over that kinda stuff, like i can be sometimes.

[Cpl Steiner]

VIEDs using civilian traffic as a form of "cloaking device" is fine, but won't this also mean that a successful VIED attack will kill a lot of civilians as well as Americans?

Indeed, any sort of firefight in an area that the scenario designer has deemed to be busy with civilian traffic (presumably pedestrian as well as vehicular) has the potential to cause a lot of civilian casualties. All such casualties should count against the US side's victory level, no matter what the cause. Such is the nature of conflict in an age of mass media.

I would give all fire, from either side, a certain chance of causing civilian casualties, but vary the chance depending on the circumstances. For instance, if fire suddenly erupts in a civilian area, the chance would be quite high, but if the firefight continued for several minutes the chance would drop dramatically as the civilians got out of the way. Likewise, fire into a building containing no spotted enemy would have a higher chance than fire into a building known to be enemy occupied.

I know civilian casualties is a distasteful subject for many but in the modern era I don't think they can be ignored. At the very least the US side should have a reduced victory level if a high percentage of civilian infrastructure is damaged.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Indeed, any sort of firefight in an area that the scenario designer has deemed to be busy with civilian traffic (presumably pedestrian as well as vehicular) has the potential to cause a lot of civilian casualties. All such casualties should count against the US side's victory level, no matter what the cause. Such is the nature of conflict in an age of mass media.

That would allow for some pretty gamey tactics for the Syrians, no? You could just start leveling some buildings and have it count against the US victory points.

[aka_tom_w]

" You could just start leveling some buildings and have it count against the US victory points"

Oh Yes

THAT would be gamey!

I have every confidence Steve and Charles will do everything possible to reduce all opportunities for gamey exploitation like that one.

-tom w

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Indeed, any sort of firefight in an area that the scenario designer has deemed to be busy with civilian traffic (presumably pedestrian as well as vehicular) has the potential to cause a lot of civilian casualties. All such casualties should count against the US side's victory level, no matter what the cause. Such is the nature of conflict in an age of mass media.

That would allow for some pretty gamey tactics for the Syrians, no? You could just start leveling some buildings and have it count against the US victory points. </font>

[Cpl Steiner]

Point taken - I withdraw the suggestion. Only those casualties attributed to US fire should lower the US victory level. As we won't see any civilians in the game, I doubt whether anyone would care to see how many civilians the Syrian side had killed or wounded as they wouldn't have any effect on who won or lost and it might be considered unnecessarily morbid. Civilian casualties caused by the US side might be worth recording in some way though, but again, as we won't actually see any civilians it might be better to just say the US side lost X amount of Victory Points for causing Y amount of damage to designated populated areas. This would avoid any accusations of morbidness whilst correctly penalizing the US side for indiscriminate fire.

Having said all that, I have a sneaky suspicion Battlefront will probably leave out civilian casualties or colateral damage altogether for the usual reasons (i.e. too time-consuming to do it justice etc). The CMx2 battlefield may well end up looking as uninhabited as the CMx1 battlefield, albeit with much better graphics and the occasional VIED teleporting into play.

On a related note, someone above suggested colour-coding areas of highest civilian traffic. To my mind this could be done more aesthetically by having civilian vehicles parked on the sides of certain streets. Anywhere within a certain radius of such parked vehicles would be considered "busy". You could even have the odd market stall to represent areas of high pedestrian traffic.

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner,

Having said all that, I have a sneaky suspicion Battlefront will probably leave out civilian casualties or colateral damage altogether for the usual reasons (i.e. too time-consuming to do it justice etc).

Er... yeah, already said that about a hundred times (many of those times in this thread ). You'd be looking at a 2008 release for sure if we did civilians. And that's being generous. Could be 2009. It requires almost an entirely separate and unique simulation to pull of civilians, and we simply can't undertake that sort of effort.

Since there is no way to show civilians there is no way to account for civilian casualties. At least not in any direct way. We can't even think of an indirect way either. So it simply isn't going to be a factor. It rarely is during the opening combat phase anyway. US forces try to avoid civilian casualties if at all possible, but they will not allow that to compromise their own safety. The enemy uses this to their advantage, but it is an advantage that is outside the scope of the game (i.e. large PR war).

We can penalize the destruction of civilian property. That's already in the plan. Basically, the Scenario Designer specifies general levels of acceptable structural damage and (optionally) which specific structures are off limits to hit. Failing to keep within these parameters will count against the US player's score.

Color coding traffic areas sounds like a good idea, but it really isn't First of all, there would be no good way to show it without it being ugly/distracting. Second, patterns change once fighting starts. People don't tend to continue milling around in open streets when the shooting starts. So something would have to keep track of this stuff and switch the meanings of the zones accordingly. And that isn't an easy thing to throw together. Plus, we already have this covered by looking at the terrain types and a scenario wide variable which determines what the overall level of civilian activity is. Thus a VIED in the open desert is a sure spot item, a VIED in a city that has a scenario wide low civilian presence is going to get spotted easily, same VIED in same terrain with high civilian presence not as easy to see, etc.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

I'm happy for civilians to be left out of CM:SF altogether If it means seeing the game sooner rather than later. I want to see this game out by Christmas as much as anyone. Incidentally, if, as Steve said, putting them in would make the release date 2008 or 2009, I wonder if this means we should expect a 2007 release rather than 2006? I hope not.

[C'Rogers]

Plus, we already have this covered by looking at the terrain types and a scenario wide variable which determines what the overall level of civilian activity is.

Does this mean that there is a civilain setting for a map/scenario as a whole with every sector the same? For example if the map is an approach on a city, with there being being desert lead up to an urban area, does the whole map have the same civilain level? Would a VIED have the same levels of disguise in all areas, even if the Syrian player moved it out into the normally open desert? Or does the scenario creator specify areas within the map for levels of civilain activity?

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner,

We're still shooting for 2006, but if we slip into 2007 it won't be by much. We need to get the game out before anything else crazy happens on Syria's doorstep. We've already had the assassination of Hariri, the subsequent withdrawal of Syrian troops, the findings that Syria was behind the killing, various border clashes with US forces, the Hezbollah/IDF fight, and Syria's recent chest thumping. And imagine that just 3 years ago we were told that Syria wasn't a likely scenario for a conflict

C'Rogers,

Each terrain type will have its own affect which can be magnified or minimized by a global, sceanrio wide setting designated by the Scenario Designer. The rest is handled by CM. So yeah, a VIED in the open desert, no matter what the global setting is, will be fairly easy to spot. A VIED on a paved road will be harder to spot, but more sensitive to the global setting. That sort of thing.

Steve

[metalbrew]

The think the magically appearing threat is a good compromise. This allows mobile IED and suicide bombers to be part of the game. I agree that other solutions would cause a player to simply blast anything that moves indiscriminately.

There are other IED types to consider, such as (static) vehicles on the roadside. A patrol making it's way through a neighborhood would do well to avoid burned out hulks of cars and debris piles where possible. If these objects were invisible until the threat is perceived then how would a player avoid coming down that street? Will the static IEDs act more like mines? For the same reasons BFC (and ultimately the player) shouldn't have civilians wandering around, I think burned out cars and such should be included. It entirely plausible for a patrol to bulldoze any suspicious (static) vehicle or debris pile off the road, after all it's not really the same as randomly killing civilians.

Steve

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

... The net result is that the US player will become extremely frustrated with the game itself because he knows he's being screwed with unrealistically and yet he can't do anything proactive because the game will likely remove any hope of him winning the scenario. ...

Steve

Steve, are you talking about CM:SF, or the 8 o'clock news?

[MikeyD]

"I think burned out cars and such should be included. "

If they include parked cars in the game and give us access to the skins I think it'd be quick work to do a little mod magic to burn 'em up right-nice

I think Steve(?) said earlier that he wasn't fond of the idea of suicide bombers in the game. They're not usually a major factor in the initial assault (Japanese Kamakazi's not withstanding). its usually after the country's occupied and we're sending out security patrols that they become a problem. The game does keep evolving and evolving, but I just can't imagine ever having the option of selecting a 'suicide bomber' in a pull-down unit list and then issuing commands directing him into the enemy's midst to die gloriously.

[ October 04, 2006, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

"I think burned out cars and such should be included. "

If they include parked cars in the game and give us access to the skins I think it'd be quick work to do a little mod magic to burn 'em up right-nice

Well, that's cool with me. If the standard parked vehicles can: a) be the host for an IED and be moved/bulldozed clear of the road then it fulfills my idea of dangerous interactive enviroments. The skinning is seperate for me, personally I'd like to see a ice cream truck IED.

[Imperial Grunt]

On the topic of IED's, one the the newer versions is an IED that is called a platter charge. It works very much like a HEAT round, but with a very very effective molten slug, formed from the "platter" part of the charge. It produces very little shrapnel and it is really an anti-armor IED.

Any thoughts of including various types as well as sizes of IEDs available to the Sryian player?

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, we've discussed this type before. They are called Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) by the US military. They are nasty when they work. The problem with them, from the bad guy's standpoint, is that they require a little more technical knowhow to make and a lot to detonate effectively. They are also less effective than most other types of IEDs which are also easier to make and use. So EFPs do not appear to be anything other than a specialized tool in their toolbox.

We are trying to get EFPs into CM:SF's initial release, but due to the same difficulties that the real life bombers have, we've had to put it on the back burner for now due to UI and "trigger" coding reasons. This type requires different stuff than the other IEDs and we can't prioritize what amounts to a distraction. If you want to get rid of an Abrams, use the 500 pound aircraft bomb IED. That will do it.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Sounds good. Now what about Allah spiders?