disabling IEDs

[toxic.zen]

i am designing a scenario that involves IEDs as a focal point. One thing i need to know (and should already) is can blue units, say engineers for example find and disable IEDs?

[dima]

They can't do that. The closest thing you can do is put some flavor object (junk, tire, can) next to an IED and then have your blue team shoot something high explosive or something like that into that flavor object. The explosion should destroy the IED if it's a very close hit.

In the briefing you can probably mention all this.

[Erwin]

The only issue I have with IED's is when the briefing tells you "the only bridge over the river" has IED's, and there is no other way through. (As in mission #2 in Canadian Campaign.)

Ordering some poor schmo to drive across just to get blown up and remove the IED just doesn't seem right gamewize or in RL of course.

Now, in the Canuck Campaign I was able to get my inf across and they seem to be doing ok accomplishing the objectives. (25+ minutes to go and I have a "Draw" already.) But in a game where you have no IED/mine clearing equipment, it's not right.

[LongLeftFlank]

They can't do that. The closest thing you can do is put some flavor object (junk, tire, can) next to an IED and then have your blue team shoot something high explosive or something like that into that flavor object. The explosion should destroy the IED if it's a very close hit.

Interesting! Have you confirmed this can be done?

[Sergei]

The only issue I have with IED's is when the briefing tells you "the only bridge over the river" has IED's, and there is no other way through. (As in mission #2 in Canadian Campaign.)

Ordering some poor schmo to drive across just to get blown up and remove the IED just doesn't seem right gamewize or in RL of course.

The IED operator cannot detonate the charge if a) he can't see if there are units in its vicinity or if he's dead. In this case, covering the view to the bridge with smoke should let you pass safely.

[toxic.zen]

thankyou for the advice, I'm gonna test the theory, as it is pretty pertinent to the success of the working scenario.

[Erwin]

Sergei: Yes, thank you for the smoke solution. It's so obvious (after you said it). (duh!)

[toxic.zen]

after the first test the problem i ran into is the imprecise nature of the targeted shooting command. it doesnt allow for targeting directly on the spot The IED is... out of the four IED's only one was disabled with area fire...

[Erwin]

Am confused about "targeting the IED to destroy it."

I thought they were invisible until either they explode or until the end of the game when you see all enemy units.

[toxic.zen]

in the editor i placed a bag/flavor object on each spot where and IED was.

[Erwin]

You mean there are no other flavor/bag object anyplace else in your scenario than on an IED?

Doesn't that make it too easy, going from one extreme to another? Once you know where they are, it's (usually) easier to find a way around the IED.

[toxic.zen]

oh there are other flavor objects... no other bags, but other flavor objects.

knowing where they are is the point, the scenario revolves around the concept of a mechanized detachment getting a tip that uncons are setting up IED's at a power station off the highway. they rush to the site to disable them before they can be completely setup and concealed. and to root out the uncons.

but with the difficulty i am having with the destruction of the IED's i am thinking instead of having the goal being the rooting out of the uncons with extra points for the trigger-men.

[Erwin]

Well, if the IED's are mixed up with other flavor objects I suppose one can waste time and ammo shooting at all flavor objects.

If they are near "bags" and bags are what id's an IED, then the game becomes more about looking for "bags." Not so much fun imo.

Am starting to think that without mine/IED clearing ability, these features should not be in the game. It's ludicrous to think that in RL one would be ordered to go locate IED's, and the only way to find them is to be blown up.

It's perfectly acceptable of course to have a "conventional" mission and to stumble across a deadly IED during that mission. But, to tell us there are IED's at a location and make that a part of the game when nothing can be done seems silly.

[toxic.zen]

oh it would have been fun enough, the area was to be known already, and the fun would have been in the suspense of exposing your troops to enemy fire while trying to disable the IED's.

But this doesnt seem to workable with the limitations CMSF has when it comes to dealing with IED's. so changing it to a mission of killing the triggermen and clearing the area, WITHOUT knowing where the IED's are located will be a satisfactory workaround.

[Erwin]

Have you tried Canadian Campaign mission 3? That is close to what you described and very bloody.

I suppose one could use a lot of smoke and then move freely since the triggermen couldn't see to detonate.

I find myself continuously torn between trying to use RL tactics and realizing they can be disastrous in the game, and being frustrated at being forced to use gamey techniques to win missions.

[LongLeftFlank]

Well, if the IED's are mixed up with other flavor objects I suppose one can waste time and ammo shooting at all flavor objects. If they are near "bags" and bags are what id's an IED, then the game becomes more about looking for "bags." Not so much fun imo.

Some useful strategy tips here:

[Jonny(FGM)]

omg thats amazing

[Paper Tiger]

I suppose one could use a lot of smoke and then move freely since the triggermen couldn't see to detonate.

I find myself continuously torn between trying to use RL tactics and realizing they can be disastrous in the game, and being frustrated at being forced to use gamey techniques to win missions.

Are you serious? Would a real-life commander not use smoke to conceal the movement of his forces in such an environment as you'd find in mission 3? Then perhaps the gamey tactic should be adopted. The purpose of mission 3 is not to go in and identify the IEDs and disarm them. That is beyond the scope of the game, much as some of us would love to have this functionality extended into the game.

Your mission is to go in there and eradicate the pocket of resistance that is forming in this corner of the town before it inspires others to rise up and resist the invader. You are informed that the barricades have been booby trapped with IEDs. At first I used mines at the barricades but because it is impossible for the player to disarm them without first setting them off, horribly gamey, I decided to go with IEDs which you can prevent from going off. The alternative was no mines and the mission was too easy that way and was a rather unremarkable MOUT mission. Since the first two missions fall into this category, I wanted to have something different for this one.

[DaveDash]

I suspected the trigger men may have been in those two small buildings to the right of the bridge, so I levelled them. I then fired a bunch of HE at the bridge and detonated one IED. Then for good measure I popped smoke and FAST moved my guys across the bridge. No dramas.

No game tactics required. Mission 03 looks like more trouble however.

IEDs a scary, and it really sucks to lose an IFV full of men to them, but 90% of the time they never go off because you end up waxing the trigger man.

[Erwin]

Paper Tiger: Seriously, is that what RL troops do?

ie: They pour on a lot of smoke and then behave as if there are no IED's around cos they are sure that cos the triggerman can't SEE the IED location then they must be safe(???)

That's what the game demands, so if you can back that up with RL examples then I will actually be very happy (for real).

Oh and BTW PT, I am enjoying the scenario and campaign immensely, so am not bitching about the scenario actually... I am more frustrated by the CM2 limitations and the lack of clear explanations as to how things work or a manual that explains all the CM2 features and quirks that we seem to endlessly discuss in these forums so that we can play the game intelligently.

Dave: Are you talking about Canadian mission 2 - the IED's on the only bridge to get to the town? There may be different AI plans, but I found at least one triggerman in the town outskirts but no one in the buildings close to the bridge. You have to be pretty observant to know you've killed a triggerman, and I guess there has to be a friendly unit almost standing over him to ID. If you kill and long range you may never know for sure.

[DaveDash]

Paper Tiger: Seriously, is that what RL troops do?

ie: They pour on a lot of smoke and then behave as if there are no IED's around cos they are sure that cos the triggerman can't SEE the IED location then they must be safe(???)

That's what the game demands, so if you can back that up with RL examples then I will actually be very happy (for real).

Dave: Are you talking about Canadian mission 2 - the IED's on the only bridge to get to the town? There may be different AI plans, but I found at least one triggerman in the town outskirts but no one in the buildings close to the bridge. You have to be pretty observant to know you've killed a triggerman, and I guess there has to be a friendly unit almost standing over him to ID. If you kill and long range you may never know for sure.

I got schwacked by an IED in Mission 03

I never found the Trigger man, I just put HE into all the places he could be. Screw the ROE.

[Erwin]

Dave: I think you may be correct. AFAIK one loses far more points for failing to meet the enemy and friendly casualty objectives than for preserving buildings.

I got a Total Victory in mission 2 (IED on the bridge) and a Draw in mission 3 (clearing the small urban area of triggermen). I often find myself less satisfied when I win a Total Victory as it's often undeserved imo - there still being some enemy able to put up a fight. (And I suspect I am a masochist.)

Otherwise was quite satisfied with the Draw result in mission 3, but do feel that the way the game handles IED's (ie one cannot ID them before they kill you) is um... flawed.

I do now suspect that the "Gamey Trick" to winning these types of missions is to:

1) Destroy all buildings with LOS to the IED locations (not always practicable).

2) Smoke the whole area so zero visibility. Then just march through the objectives, get the points and get out fast.

I have noticed that designers get a bit defensive when you bitch about their work, so let me again reassure everyone again that I am having a great time playing the game, and enjoying all your work very much.

[DaveDash]

Yeah, it's not worth it points wise (and also casualties are very bad, given your units are core)

I have done the same thus far. Haven't found any IEDs in Mission 04 yet.

I find that if you suspect an IED, and you have no options left, a 'Fast' move will far more than not get you over it safely. This also is a realistic tactic, or at least was a few years ago. This is only with vehicles. Obviously not much of a help in the Third mission either.

[Erwin]

I did tests in mission 2 after reading about the problems people were having and I indeed did get vehicles across safely on FAST. However, when I tried that later in the scenario, they would get blown up.

So, something else may have been going on. Maybe when I successfully got units across on FAST the triggerman was moving, or hiding or...?

Either way, in that situation, smoke is the way to go.

Why I am uncomfortable about using that tactic in the scenario is that we are TOLD there is a IED on the bridge.

Well, I am sure that if that were known, they would wait for engineers to disarm the thing. I find it VERY hard to believe that CO's would order their expensive vehicles and crews to play russian roulette by racing across such a bridge - whether using smoke or not.

[DaveDash]

I did tests in mission 2 after reading about the problems people were having and I indeed did get vehicles across safely on FAST. However, when I tried that later in the scenario, they would get blown up.

So, something else may have been going on. Maybe when I successfully got units across on FAST the triggerman was moving, or hiding or...?

Either way, in that situation, smoke is the way to go.

Why I am uncomfortable about using that tactic in the scenario is that we are TOLD there is a IED on the bridge.

Well, I am sure that if that were known, they would wait for engineers to disarm the thing. I find it VERY hard to believe that CO's would order their expensive vehicles and crews to play russian roulette by racing across such a bridge - whether using smoke or not.

Hah yeah. When I started playing that scenario I spent ages thinking there was obviously another route over the river. When I actually discovered I HAD to go over the bridge my initial thoughts were 'Oh sh!t'.