Unavoidable IEDs

[Erwin]

Hmm... I didn't know inf (or any vehicles) could cross the marsh. I always got that "no waypoint" graphic.

That would change it since I was able to leave my vehicles back for the majority of the game and support from across the river. But, I did lose a squad to a mine or IED on the bridge.

Also, I can understand the desperate measures issue, guys locking themselves in a flooding compartment to save the ship/sub. But, in the campaign there was no sense that there was desperate need to sacrifice anyone - ie: "You must get to the objective to save the hostages."

There have been xnt scenarios like that made, altho it's a long time since I played em, but there appeared to be no reason for sacrifice in this scenario. To me that's part of my definition of "realism" rather than merely technical "realism." No reason to get smarmy about it.

[gibsonm]

No reason to get smarmy about it.

“Smarmy” !!!!????

I’m far from smarmy (you may want to look it up).

I’m furious at your suggestion that in real life I (and other commanders) just throw the lives of our soldiers away in some sort of off hand, cavalier fashion with no regard for them.

[Erwin]

I am talking about the GAME and IF it reflects RL issues. And you are saying that it doesn't is all as you would clearly NOT act in RL as you would in the game.

Plz let's not get confused between RL and the GAME. This is an entertainment product and some are taking it waaay too seriously.

[Paper Tiger]

Okay, a bit of background on how this mission evolved. The Canadian campaign was originally slated to be a Light Infantry campaign. For a long time, that was how it was going to be and so I got to work on designing my missions for it. Before the first NATO build arrived I had already completed the following missions:

Killing Ground

FAITH

HOPE

Sound of the Guns/Blood on the Rooftops

CHARITY.

These missions were all designed and playtested thoroughly using the US IBCT Battalion in place of the anticipated Canadian Light Infantry group and it worked really well like this. I even subbed in the Brit Light Infantry formation and had a real blast playing it that way too. The main idea here was to keep the REDFor as small as possible in as many missions as possible with the exception of HOPE which was always intended as being a meat-grinder. FAITH, in particular, had a very small RED OB and BLUE outnumbered them 3:1 at this stage.

After all this work was done, it was decided that the main Canadian force would be a Mech Battlegroup and so now, all that work would have to be redone. To avoid having to redo all this work again and the AI plans in particular as they were very detailed, I decided to put an IED on the bridge to inhibit the player from moving his LAVs and tanks in support of the infantry. Since CMSF does not allow the player to locate either mines or IEDs prior to setting them off, I chose to use an IED on the bridge because the player could prevent the IED from going off in two ways: eliminate the triggerman or prevent him from gaining LoS to the bridge.

Putting a fordable tile across the river wouldn't have been a solution as I would have had to mine it too. The Syrians would know this particular part of the terrain far better than the NATO forces ever would so why should NATO be able to sneak across an 'uncovered' ford? That seems foolish in my mind.

And so, that in part should explain why the IED is there. I'm reluctant to say more in case I inadvertently let something slip...

[Erwin]

And given that IED's can be neutralized (in the game at least) by depriving the triggerman of LOS (either by smoke or suppressing/killing him, that is absolutely fine, PT.

I was being a whiny bitch about (perhaps hypothetically) a mine being used on a bridge when that is the only way across and the briefing does not give any urgent reason why one should not simply wait for mine-clearing apparatus to arrive (so no need to risk lives).

(In the event I think one can get a loong way by leaving the AFV's o the far bank in support and doing (most) of the attack with inf.)

It was a super scenario PT, so you don't need to explain.

[ZPB II]

I just played the mission. Since the briefing told me the bridge was wired, I shot it thoughoutly with airbursts and that was it. I also disregarded the ROE a bit and shot linear airburst fires on all the roads, neutralizing a lot of the opposition. All in all took 3 wounded and 2 LAVs disabled.

[Dietrich]

*** FILMED IN SPOILER-VISION! ***

I just LGB'd the building the triggerman was in. :cool:

I don't see why deploying a smoke screen on the enemy's side of the bridge would be so gamey. Sure, one could reckon, "Well, if the triggerman's view of the bridge gets blocked by a smoke screen, he's going to detonate the explosives"; but is that really the most likely eventuality? If that were so, then why have there been so many instances where a prepared-for-demolition bridge was not detonated even though the defenders could see enemy units crossing the bridge?

[gibsonm]

I don't see why deploying a smoke screen on the enemy's side of the bridge would be so gamey.

I don’t think anyone did?

Indeed when I was asked for a possible RL solution that was listed as part of the SOSRA process - since this is an obstacle that needs to be dealt with.

- Obscure the crossing with smoke to maximise the concealment provided.

[Praetori]

I don't see why deploying a smoke screen on the enemy's side of the bridge would be so gamey. Sure, one could reckon, "Well, if the triggerman's view of the bridge gets blocked by a smoke screen, he's going to detonate the explosives"; but is that really the most likely eventuality? If that were so, then why have there been so many instances where a prepared-for-demolition bridge was not detonated even though the defenders could see enemy units crossing the bridge?

As I see it there are two distinct different scenarios that are being discussed here.

1. Facing a classic/normal opponent (ie regular armed force) like the Syrian Army. A prepped bridge in this case is probably rigged to prevent a hostile (blue) force from using it, a delay action so to speak.

The force responsible for defending the bridge would, unless ordered to wait for permission, blow the thing to pieces once it's clear that the bridge is lost.

2. Facing an asymmetrical opponent (insurgents, rebels, terrorist etc). If it's an IED then the main purpose probably isn't to blow the bridge and deny/delay the blue forces access. The intent would probably be more along the line of using it as a mine or booby-trap to cause damage to units moving across the bridge itself.

In case 1 then the triggerman, in most cases, would blow the charges as soon as possible while in case 2 the charges might not get blown at all (unless a good enough target appears). Lying and waiting for a few hours a day for a Humvee or two doesn't seem improbable.

On a side note, my personal opinion in regards to the actual game mechanics are that triggermen should always try to detonate if they come under fire or realize that blueforce units have them cornered. No matter if there's anyone ON the actual IED. If blueforce manages to kill them before they make the call/pull the lever/press the switch then it's a different matter.

If BF decided to include a weapon system then viable AFK methods of countering them should work as well. As most methods for C-IED are way beyond the scope and timeframe of CMSF then detection and neutralization should be possible at minimum.

edit: Although I'd love to see a air mission type with EA-6B with jamming effects against some types of IEDs.

[gibsonm]

If BF decided to include a weapon system then viable AFK methods of countering them should work as well.

Had a look at the UK module?

[tyrspawn]

I'm going to step in and defend Paper Tiger on his choice here. During my service, in a time-limited simulated scenario, where a crossing needed to be made and it is known that it is under observation and a choke point, possibly mined we used the exact same approach.

We (mechanized infantry) took positions on the other bank while mortars shot smoke and a bridgelaying Leopard 2A4 did it's thing. The only difference was we sent a bulldozer Leo across first, followed by tanks, infantry and CV90s with plentiful overwatch. We had F-18s and MD-500s flying overhead, simulating air support.

There was no time or chance to start clearing a minefield that is observed.

CMx2 does not feature engineering tanks, but it is not a huge omission.

But in basic terms of terrain and scenario it was the same. Smoke it and rush across, but do not clump together. This was Finnish Defence Forces doctrine ala 2008.

The situation you just described varies fundamentally from the situation in the game. Concealing a bridging vehicle with a forward smoke screen is a standard tactic, it's a WHOLE OTHER MATTER to smoke a likely LOS of a triggerman and then rush across a company + of forces across a bridge you know is mined hoping that the IED doesn't go off. It's absurd. And the sort of quick breach you were practicing sounds like maneuver warfare against a conventional enemy like the Russians, not Arab irregulars.

Anyway the point of my post was not to bitch about the mission, just to bitch about the inability of clearing the IED. I think the mission would have been much better if there was a kill zone at the bridge but no IED. Such as an SPG-9 and HMG.

[Paper Tiger]

Yes, but that standard tactic also prevents the triggerman from getting LoS to the IED. While playtesting, I still smoked the other side of the bridge even when there were no IEDs in the missions because it was, and still is a kill zone. THAT's how I discovered that the smoke also prevented the triggerman from detonating the IED.

Take a look at this very early screenshot of one of my playtests using the US IBCT formation. I used smoke all the time to cover my assault across the bridge.

BTW, the bridge is a kill zone and is well covered.

[Praetori]

Had a look at the UK module?

I'm intrigued. I own all the modules but have yet to play the UK campaign. Or is it something included with the IBCT? At least it's not been mentioned in any of the manuals as far as I'm aware.

[Praetori]

The situation you just described varies fundamentally from the situation in the game. Concealing a bridging vehicle with a forward smoke screen is a standard tactic, it's a WHOLE OTHER MATTER to smoke a likely LOS of a triggerman and then rush across a company + of forces across a bridge you know is mined hoping that the IED doesn't go off. It's absurd. And the sort of quick breach you were practicing sounds like maneuver warfare against a conventional enemy like the Russians, not Arab irregulars.

And that is exactly the kind of problem and frustration modern day commanders face against asymmetrical threats.

Education and training in most armies is geared towards facing conventional opponents (because that's a capability you cannot afford to lose).

Everyone would like to believe that the guys fighting in Afghanistan or elsewhere are trained specifically to deal with insurgents and asymmetrical warfare but that is rarely the case.

[sawomi]

...

If BF decided to include a weapon system then viable AFK methods of countering them should work as well. As most methods for C-IED are way beyond the scope and timeframe of CMSF then detection and neutralization should be possible at minimum.

edit: Although I'd love to see a air mission type with EA-6B with jamming effects against some types of IEDs.

Had a look at the UK module?

I'm intrigued. I own all the modules but have yet to play the UK campaign. Or is it something included with the IBCT? At least it's not been mentioned in any of the manuals as far as I'm aware.

Some IVF variants in the British module have IED-Jammers. Look for it in the vehicle system tab of the UI. (Warrior and Bulldog, I think)

Edit: It can even be found in manual, but you have to look hard for it:

[Praetori]

Some IVF variants in the British module have IED-Jammers. Look for it in the vehicle system tab of the UI. (Warrior and Bulldog, I think)

Wow. That was news to me. I didn't even know they had those IRL tbh.

[gibsonm]

Well their effectiveness can be limited depending on the trigger used.

For example the move from mobile ‘phones as a detonator to IR systems like remote garage door openers can drastically change how effective a given counter measure is.

[Erwin]

Wow, thanks for the anti-IED info. It's so dam hard to notice that sort of info in the manual as it's packed with so much detailed useless info.

Of course in this scenario they were not Brits. I guess we have to go study all the game's nationalities' vehicles now.

Of course the obvious question is do the anti-IED devices work in the game, and what are the parameters? (I'll bet that's not in the manual either.)

BTW: It's been mentioned a couple times already that in RL one would bring up the bulldozer or whatever to clear the mines/IED's. But, we don't have those in the CMSF game, so the real question is what do you do if you DON'T have that specialized equipment and it is NOT a "do or die" situation. My guess is that you just wait(?)

As a solution to designers wanting to design this sort of dilemma is either 1) make it a do or die situation that forces the player to risk men and material; 2) use IED's but never mines when there is no choice but to cross at that point - but ensure that smoke is available to blind the IED triggerman.

( I read that mines can be cleared by firing at the ground?? Any data on that? How much and how heavy fire needed?)

[Boche]

Cant tell how useful those IED jammers are, so many times after a mission ends I look at the map and see so many places IEDs where and my vehicles never exploded...whieww

[Erwin]

It's puzzling as it could be due to smoke, dust, the triggerman being suppressed/KIA etc. Since it's in the game, one would hope that BFC could tell us this stuff - altho' I hear they're distracted these days...

My concern is that it may just be "detail candy" - put in cos the RL vehicles have it and to con the "realism school of thought" players that the game is really realistic. But, who knows - wish someone could clarify.