What will the infantry be able to do in Pro?

[PzrLdr]

They look a bit basic in their movements (graphically) in the videos, and this is ok, as long as they do something worthwhile. What will their capabilities be in Pro?

[3Star]

Well, I have found one thing that they do very well, that carries on in the fine tradition of SB1.

As troops are advancing in the open, they can very happily ignore the enemy tank which is rear-on to them about 300m to their right. Then, once you have finally directed them in the right direction, they excel at making you scream at the screen as you watch them pick up the RPG..and set it down... and pick it up.. and shoot and miss... and then pick up another, and set it down in an effort to look unthreatening as the tank in question turns around and starts machinegunning the squad...

More seriously, they're about as dangerous, if not more so, than they are in SB1. Given that target acquisition in 2 is much tougher, there's a half-decent chance that you can miss troops as you're scanning around.

NTM

[Elf`]

I aint sayin its a hole digger,
But it aint playin with no broke, ah, uh..
Cmon squad get down get down!
Cmon squad get down get down!

-Kanye Elf....(sorry, couldnt resist)

[flyboy]

Geez the squaddies I know creep into close range behind a ridge on your flank and cane your tracks with a continuous stream of RPG,s.Or if they're really nasty call down an arty strike on you.Having you swear and scream while furiously hitting the "Make smoke" button.

[Ssnake]

They aren't perfect, but can be pretty dangerous in the right hands.

Actually, infantry will be a major development focus during 2006. Next year this time we will probably still recognize it as Steel Beasts, but the difference will be ... remarkable.

[Storm91]

Me im sick-developed this bad habit of driving over friendly infantry in Sb1.Enemy to.Picture it grunt Tc runs over fellow grunts=grunt IQ :lol:

[Kingtiger]

They aren't perfect, but can be pretty dangerous in the right hands.

Actually, infantry will be a major development focus during 2006. Next year this time we will probably still recognize it as Steel Beasts, but the difference will be ... remarkable.

"steel beasts busters"

:lol:

[ShotMagnet]

Double post, somehow

[ShotMagnet]

They aren't perfect, but can be pretty dangerous in the right hands.

Or the right terrain. Or both.

Testing to date in a variety of terrains suggest that infantry are a lot more aggressive than they were. In some cases they're a lot more stealthy as well. Whether or not this combination of stealth and elan is a stochastic anomaly remains to be seen, but if it isn't Blind Elephants is going to be a lot more 'Chinese-interesting'.


Shot

[DrDevice]

Ssnake, are more real-world troop organizations part of the Infantry List? (Moving beyond the 6-man squad is a major leap in the right direction.)

[Cobra2]

Next year this time we will probably still recognize it as Steel Beasts, but the difference will be ... remarkable.

Ssnake, I've had enough hype. lets see some Pro PE already. i can just see us hooked on the 'remarkable' bit years to come. i cant wait that long :) [/quote]

[Ssnake]

Uh... sorry. Got carried away a bit, Cobra. But I know what's in the pipeline, so it's more or less inevitable that we'll all be seeing the results after these new projects have been completed. And since the very idea of SB Pro is to provide regular upgrades to anybody interested whenever a customization project has been completed...

Well, back to the tasks at hand.

[LancerVI]

Ok...so I was a mech infantry guy, so I am partial to my digital cousins. In SB1, us infantry were, uhhh.....not represented very well let's say. In my force on force days in the NTC , 'Tha Hood' (Fort Hood) and especially Fort Lewis, Yakima and Korea (all the woods of course) us crunchies were down right deadly to tank crews.

I'm hoping those dragon/ javelin crews are representing well for us. And will they be able to take down obstacles. (Another primary function when sans engineers)
Lancer VI

P.S. I am biting at the bit to fire that "25 Mike Mike" again, although digitally. Gonna shred me some BIMPS!!!!

"Gunner, Sabot, PC, One-Two Hundred"

[mapman]

Love the way the grunts throw out their hands as they die in the .50 Cal Video.

[LancerVI]

anybody?

[LancerVI]

anybody?

[3Star]

What, are the infantry dangerous? Yes. They were dangerous in SB1 as well, I have lost many tanks to the buggers in multiplayer. They need to be intelligently controlled.

If they just sit on top of a hill and plink away with ATGMs, they will likely die horribly to no effect. (My experience of MILES is that ATGMs are over-rated from the fronal arc. Sagger kills M1 every time? Hmm..) If they're used with the terrain sensibly, you will cause serious damage. And, as mentioned, it can be harder to spot troops in SBP, particularly when there's plenty of foilage around.

NTM

[LancerVI]

Do you know if obstacles are going to be modeled and if the crunchies will have breaching abilities???

LancerVI

Sorry if this has been answered before

[DrDevice]

Yes there are obstacles. Abatis, dragon's teeth, steel beams, and mines.

No mention yet of breaching other than the vehicle-based mine removal systems. The M113 Eng can mark lanes, but I don't remember anything about the troops removing obstacles.

No mention of effects of fire from any weapons system on obstacles, but I doubt it. (The game model is not set as a deformable environment, AFAIK.)

[3Star]

Some of the obstacles (Dragon's teeth?) are passable by troops and not vehicles.

NTM

[tarball]

They aren't perfect, but can be pretty dangerous in the right hands.

Actually, infantry will be a major development focus during 2006. Next year this time we will probably still recognize it as Steel Beasts, but the difference will be ... remarkable.

Let's not count chickens yet sir - please lay the "golden" egg first.

[DarkAngel]

Dr D... AFAIK the engineer m113 and lane marking is a pro feature not PE

[LancerVI]

It would be nice to see the infantry with a limited breaching capability. The assault element of a dismount infrantry squad always has a breaching kit with it, to include grappling hook w/rope and bangalors. (At least the units I served with did. 2-5 CAV and 1-23 INF).

Using SOSR (Supress, Obscure, Secure, Reduce) we would light up the obstacle with support by fire elements, including brads a ways back, dismounts would advance, half the squad, a support by fire element would take up a forward SBF and then the assault element would approach. Obscure the far side of the obstacle with smoke, throw the grapple a couple times, dragging it back to clear a "crawling lane" of mines. If there was tripple strand concertina, the last grapple throw would hook it and he would shake it vigorously to set off any mines. Then we would snake our way up and take her down. I know that's a bit complex maybe for SB, but it would be cool to see that implemented in some way. This is, of course, if you are without engineering elements, which happens a bit.

Lancer VI

"Gunner, Sabot, PC, One-Two Hundred"

[LancerVI]

I'm sorry to harp on this, but I forgot. I think SB1 was great. And I know SBProPE will be too. But with SB1, obstacles were missing, except for FASCAM. I beleive that obstacles are a crucial element of the modern battlefield and I am happy to see that they will be modeled. In the defense, this is the only way you can effectively shape the battlespace, and get OPFOR into your killzone. If he bypasses, he pays dearly, if he takes the obstacles down, he pays dearly. It definately adds a level of realism to the sim if this is all implemented.

Lancer VI

[Ssnake]

Of the point obstacles, Dragon teeth cannot be removed at all. Steel Beams can be pushed aside (deleted) by dozer blade equipped tanks. In all Pro versions, engineer M113s will mark successful breachings through mine obstacles.
Dismounts however have no breaching capability per se. Keep in mind that the average duration of a single scenario is approximately 45-90 minutes. Even if a mine field was detected in minute 1, breaching it is likely to cost more time than an hour. Therefore we don't see the dire need for infantry breaching capability (even if they have it in real life).

[LancerVI]

That's too bad Ssnake. I would really like to see this in SBProPE and I'll tell you why. I guess my point was more or less about hasty defensive obstacles as opposed to fortifications. I would lump dragon's teeth and such into a catogory of obstacle that requires significant time (72 Hours +) to emplace. On today's battlefields or the battlefields of the future, I think that Armies are more likely to encounter obstacles of a more hasty nature, (ie. triple strand concertina w/Anti-Personnel and Anti-Tank mine mix and berms, logs and beams, FASCAM, Volcano, trenches, bunkers, etc hastily built.) Defenses that can be errected fairly quickly (within 72 hours or less. the time frame for a Deliberate defense. Even less, minutes even, for a hasty defense) With todays operations tempo, I just don't see dragon's teeth being used in any great number except at the starting points of the conflict. (Defenses put in place during peace time like "Toblerone" in Switzerland) Once the fighting begins, operations move with such fluidity and speed that serious fortifications become a thing of the past. That's where I would say the need for infantry to be able to deal quickly and effectively with obstacles is an important issue, because the majority of obstacles forces are going to encounter, IMHO, is of a more hasty, temporary nature. With a scenario lasting 45-90 min, I guarantee that a number of obstacles, of the more hasty nature, would more than easily be dealt with, depending of course on how OPFOR has chosen to overwatch these obstacles. Remember, every obstacle is automatically logged as a TRP for artillery.

http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/vignettes/tvsol99-2.pdf

above is a link to an example operation. After reading, understand 1.) if that attack was without engineering element, or 2.) if that enginerring element is destroyed. On of those mech squads would be tasked to reduce the obstacle in order to complete the mission and allow for follow on forces to exploit the breach in order to seize and avoid a MOUT situation.

Anyways, maybe I am dead wrong, and would love to hear any other thoughts on it. I was just a grunt, enlisted at that. But I knew my job and my place in our operations.



Lancer VI

"Gunner, Sabot, PC One-Two Hundred!"

[Ssnake]

Very well - we'll take it into consideration as soon as we actually have hasty made obstacles. My point was that the kind of obstacles that are available in SB Pro are not the kind that infantry would deal with - at least not routinely, and within a few minutes. Of course it would be desirable to have more obstacle types in SB Pro, but I think that we already made a great deal of progress so far.

[Storm91]

There are other methods of removing a obstacle like finding an alternate path: a scouts mission.Terrain and time-commanders intent will dictate this though.I know we had a minefield to our front when we engaged the talwakana div in 91.Minefield wasn't removed for another 18 hours give or take.Engagements were the priority.During this time the 2nd brigade flanked<-example of an alternate path Hooah.

[DrDevice]

Lancer - did you notice in the Armor vignette, reader's reply, that the grids are all backwards? It's repeated throughout the article, not just a one-time slip. Do the Marines normally read Y/X instead of X/Y? Or did the Armor editor just not catch it? Odd...

Good example though. These vignettes make for cool SB scenario ideas.

Players and scenario designers should also take note of the ratio of forces: 1 company team vs. 1 platoon. This is a realistic force ratio (3:1) for this type of operation. They aren't expecting one company to defeat another company (1:1) in the process of the attack/bypass.

[LancerVI]

Good eyes Dr. Device. I just noticed that. Hopefully he didn't have to call for ARTY. And you're absolutely right. I don't think a lot of people understand this either. It's is definately a 3:1 ratio. Unless you are on a movement to contact. If you're going to attack, you better have 3:1. That's just basic Army Docterine. Now I'm sure people will point out the Battle of 73 Easting, but remember, their mission was to locate and fix the enemy to allow divisional forces to follow on with the main attack. 2nd ACR found the Iraqi's and suprised them so that they just couldn't break off, it was a smart, opportunistic play by 2nd ACR. That's Cav for ya.

Also, Storm91 you said....
There are other methods of removing a obstacle like finding an alternate path: a scouts mission.Terrain and time-commanders intent will dictate this though.I know we had a minefield to our front when we engaged the talwakana div in 91.Minefield wasn't removed for another 18 hours give or take.Engagements were the priority.During this time the 2nd brigade flanked<-example of an alternate path Hooah.

For me this is a perfect example of a good commander / bad commander situation. You guys are rolling, movement to contact and see an obstacle. instead of breaching it, you decide to bypass and go around. Good Commander.

Bad Commander, Iraqi........didn't have unit's in overwatch of the obstacle and didn't have most of it's direct fire weapons aimed at kill zones in the alternate avenues of approach. Again, an obstacle is only effect if it is overwatched by some contingent of your force and second, you have read the terrain well, and understand the alternate aveneus of approach and guard the bypass. For me, in a commanders role, I would have at least a squad with a Brad in overwatch of the obstacle. If the enemy decides to breach, of course, I have the obstacle as a TRP and I quickly start raining death on the whole force as they're stopped to conduct the breach. I also set a majority of my direct fires in the alternate approaches. If the enemy decideds to bypass, he pays dearly.

Simply put, the iraqi's placed an obstacle, didn't properly overwatch it, and then let you bypass without making you pay. I guarantee the Soviets would not have been as kind.

SSnake.....sir, I love SB. I am not the most active in this community. But I have been around, watching since the beginning. I'm sure SBProPE is going to be great. And I'm sure you have a HUGE list of things to do, because people like me wont give you any rest. I truly appreaciate the work you guys do. This isn't sunshine blowing you know where, it's just, without you guys, I'd still be playing m1 Tank Platoon II. Anyway, consider it a "wishlist" item. I think obstacles of a hasty nature are going to be much more common and it would be cool to see that implemented somewhere down the road.

Lancer VI

"Gunner, Sabot, PC, One-Two Hundred!"

[3Star]

You guys are rolling, movement to contact and see an obstacle. instead of breaching it, you decide to bypass and go around. Good Commander.

Depends. Both Zhukov and Patton had a policy that if a unit encounters a minefield, the unit should proceed through the minefield as if it weren't there. The theory being that the Germans would cover an obstacle with only just enough force to make clearing it a time-consuming affair, and use that time to bring in reinforcements. The alternative was to be channeled by the obstacle to an area where there already were lots of Germans.

It sucked for anyone who happened to stand on a mine, but the overall result was fewer casualties.

NTM

[LancerVI]

3Star,

You're exactly right. And you're making my point exactly. The very existence of the obstacle forces a choice by both commanders, effectively shaping the battlefield, dependent upon those choices. That's my point percisely. Obstacles are a very intregal part of the battle field.

The only reason I say good commander in that one instance is because the OPFOR obviously did not have the obstacle overwatched effectively to see the bypass occur and make the blue forces pay for it. The whole idea behind an obstacle is to force the opponent into a choice. 1.) Risk the delay and the inevitable artillery strike and overwatching support by fire units by breaching the obstacle, or bypass into what could possibly be the enemies kill zone.

An obstacle does not have to be the killzone for a defense. It could be a means of redirecting your opponent into a killzone. That's what's so cool about obstacles.

Also, the strategies employed by Zhukov and Patton were undoubtably sound in WWII, but a Volcano/Fascam minefield is much more deadly I would say, although I take your point. It just create a great tactical decision.


Lancer VI

[Bluewings]

You gentlemen will not be disapointed by what is existing in pro PE . I can think of at leats 5 scenarios of mine where Commanders will have to take a crucial decision .
As you rightly pointed out , an obstacle is NEVER a "stopper" , but merely a time deciever and/or a batllefield "shaper" ..

Cheers . :3starSK:

[DrDevice]

BW - shouldn't EVERY scenario include a situation where the commander has to make a tough decision? ;)

If not - it's just range practice!

[Hell_Hound]

I don't mind the occasional scenario where, if you plan carefully and execute well, the battle ends up being range practice.

I wouldn't want scenario designers thinking that every .sce they make has to contain a dramatic surprise. Sometimes a quick attack is just a quick attack. ;)

[Gunfighter]

I don't mind the occasional scenario where, if you plan carefully and execute well, the battle ends up being range practice.

I wouldn't want scenario designers thinking that every .sce they make has to contain a dramatic surprise. Sometimes a quick attack is just a quick attack. ;)

Excellent! I am glad that I am not the only one that lusts after Operational Art!

[DrDevice]

Yea, I can see that. I'm not saying every scenario should have a twist. No need for dramatic surprises all the time.

But it should always be about some sort of decision. You can't be strong everywhere in most combat situations. You are always short on something: men, ammo, time, vehicles, arty...something. The best scenarios embrace that. Every tactical vignette in the Armor series is about having to choose the best course of action from a bunch of tough choices.

The reverse is also true. A scenario that is "hard" just because you never have enough time, firepower, etc. even with good planning and are simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers is rarely fun. It may be realistic, but it's rarely fun. Sisyphean tasks just don't cut it.

[Gunfighter]

Sisyphean tasks just don't cut it.

Yeah, but I bet somebody is making his/her own version of SB Pro PE 'Kobiyashi Maru'.

[DrDevice]

Yeah, but I bet somebody is making his/her own version of SB Pro PE 'Kobiyashi Maru'.

No doubt. The thing is - that's the easiest scenario in the world to design. It's EASY to make things too hard to win, or too easy to win. It's hard to make it challenging without overwhelming.

I don't mind the occasional scenario where, if you plan carefully and execute well, the battle ends up being range practice.

My point to that is this: the tough decision comes in the planning stage, rather than as a "battlefield surprise" (recipe to follow). You still have the challenge of planning well and executing well, even if the mission is clear and "a cigar is just a cigar."

[LancerVI]

That's why, when you go to the field, they are called "Field Problems". I totally disagree that an attack is just an attack. That sounds like russian/chinese wave thinking to me. No disrespect intended. You must always look to find that tactical decision that is going to give you an edge.

Lancer VI

[DrDevice]

Absolutely. You always go through the decision cycle to maximize your advantage. But if nothing exceeds your expectations, you aren't going to have to re-think the whole plan, let alone make a snap decision where victory hangs in the balance. In fact, those situations are hard to create in a scenario.

In MP, they tend to only be visible in hindsight. From a scenario design standpoint, you have to build those situations in - both in SP and MP games. In MP, it's easier, as humans tend to do the wackiest things. In SP, you have to build in the chance for a player to make choices that matter, rather than just shoot at targets that either attack or defend.

So we aren't talking about being mindless on the field, but saying that some scenario designs that don't try to throw a twist in everything are OK too.

[Ssnake]

There will be a totally pre-scripted breaching scenario which just demonstrates how such an action could be scripted. The player only needs to activate the one or other trigger. It shows however that preplanning a breach will involve a lot of careful planning to orchestrate the entire breaching in a fluent manner which is crucial to overcome enemy resistance quickly before a counterattack can be mounted by OpFor. This would be an example of a "surprise-less" scenario which still would be challenging because the mission itself is simple, yet difficult to execute.

[colin]

Lancer
Did you say "woods" in Yakima?? I know I haven't been there in 20 years, but I don't think they grown many trees since then!

I agree Ft Lewis is nothing but woods