What I hate about Mine Clearing

[foeh@mmer]

I was just playing Zipuli's "Springing the Trap" in which you have to clear a mine field before you can advance. Zip has already programmed the scenario to do the process (which I appreciate). I really think mine clearing is a cool feature of Pro PE. What I hate is the ham handed manner in which the AI negotiates the cleared lane. Inevitably, one of the vehicles blunders into a mine blocking the whole lane. The other vehicles get stuck in the lane and you end up manually pushing the disabled vehicle out of the way. Yes, I suppose this is realistic training but it really ruins game play. You end up wasting a lost of time just trying to get your units through the mine field. Negotiating minefields and crossing bridges are the two most frustrating aspects of the game. If there is one big improvement that could be made to this game it is the AI logic in these two areas.:mad3:

[Wicked]

Crossing bridges and/or minefields are best handled by the player. Take control of each unit manually and cross bridge/minefield. I know, its time consuming but if you want to save your armor and mission I would go for it. Train yourself to do this alone. The military train such scenario's most likely in a LAN setup so all can move manually. I understand your frustration but for now take control of the unit and drive them yourself. I cant think of a better solution right now.

Cheers! 8)

[ShotMagnet]

Dark Angel has written a very nice tutorial regarding how to clear mines. I think it's in the download section.


Shot

[GH_Lieste]

Several times I've lost vehicles driving straight with the plow deployed.

The vehicle is imobilised in game, but the damage is not reported in the AAR (either in session or in the xml version).

This differs from mine damage caused by driving into a minefield without a deployed plow, when the damage does appear to get logged in the AAR.

[RENEGADE-623]

i use mine plows, not miclics, if scenerio has a miclic i edit scenerio and exchange miclic for an m1 with plow. I clear one lane thru mines with plow, mark it with the m113 marker thingy, then i will clear mines from one side of markers vehile width and other side same. Then i have no problems putting units thru with ai drivers on march orders thru the lane. I notice that miclic doesnt clear all mines in path and will hit a mine after it supposedly clears a lane so that is my solution. And no, not extra firepower cause i set ammo for it to 0

[Gibsonm]

Well that makes sense.

In Real Life a MICLIC or Giant Viper is never relied on solely. Sure you fire one of those first but then you need to prove the route by following up and clearing the same lane with either a plow or a roller.

Then you can send the normal vehicles through.

You should also allow for 50% cas in your clearing assets (so if you want 2 lanes you should start by attempting to clear 4 [or start with 2 and have the remaining assets in cover ready to continue when required] and each one of these lanes needs a MICLIC / Viper and Plow / Roller combination).

[CharlieB]

Marc is of course exactly right. Neither should be relied upon individually. The MICLIC should be used in conjunction with the plow. In real life a plough would not be able to sustain the level of damage that would caused by exploding mines.

The frustrating part is attempting to line up the MICLIC so that it deploys on the same line that you wish to plough.

You also need to check that there are no rocks or large pieces of foliage as the mine plough tends to drive around them causing a kink in your lane - unhelpful!!!

[GH_Lieste]

Doesn't really address the issue of driving straight down a road centre-line from the drivers position, plow down. I frequently hit mines that disable my track(s) - I would be happy for that to happen, or preferably the plow to be damaged (or both for light vehicles) sometimes, but I need it to show in the AAR as well... And not to occur every time that I encounter mines online.

[foeh@mmer]

Guys, if clearing the minefield were the focus of the scenario I would consider your advice apt. However, the mineclearing is just the initial phase, the real attack only begins after the minefield is breached. So, if your force gets stuck in the minefield, the whole thing is essentially over. Now one aspect that I do find interesting and fun is how to clear a mine field while under enemy fire. If a mine plow gets knocked out by enemy fire in the middle of a breaching then I consider that part of the game play. Ditto for an artillery attack. What I don't like is fiddling around with the mechanics of just getting my forces through.

[ShoutingDog]

Guys, if clearing the minefield were the focus of the scenario I would consider your advice apt. However, the mineclearing is just the initial phase, the real attack only begins after the minefield is breached. So, if your force gets stuck in the minefield, the whole thing is essentially over.If you don't mind my asking and no sarcasm intended - if the battle doesn't start until after the minefield is cleared then what's the point of the minefield? If it's removed from the scenario would it impact the battle.

Minefields in real life are used to channel forces into kill sacks - that's why they're usually marked. True - some minefields are meant to be a surprise but those usually have forces setup near by to take advantage of the confusion engendered by same.

If one can clear a minefield without being shot at there's really no point in even laying it since unless it is a very extensive one breaching it with modern equipment won't slow an advancing force down by a significant amount.

My point - scenario designers shouldn't put stuff in scenarios just because they can. If it doesn't impact the situation why bother?

[foeh@mmer]

No, getting past the minefield is part of the scenario. What I'm saying is fiddling with the vehicles to get them through shouldn't be part of it. I want the AI to know enough to drive through the breach without blundering into mines. The senario should be to test whether you can successfully breach a minefield while under fire not spending 15 minutes trying to move your units through a single gap.

[RENEGADE-623]

well, i actually like driving my unts myslef thru lanes i cleared, i practice it the way we do it in the army, set up near side/ far side security, call up the breaching assets, breach the minefield, assault thru. its fun to do it manually altho i would like too to have ai do it on their own if i do get into an engagement.

[Ssnake]

A possible workaround would be to create two minefields instead of just one with an intentional gap between the two. Once that you have reconnoitered those two fields computer controlled units will avoid them and use the gap pretty reliably. Of course, it's just a workaround - but one that may help you (especially since it is just the opening of the scenario).

[CharlieB]

Renegade is right.

Obstacles should always be covered by fire and or observation. The whole point, as Shouting Dog stated, is to canalise the ememy in to KA (Killing Areas) of your chosing. The obstacle is not an obstacle if it can be breeched un apposed.

The home bank force (emplaced force) should provide overwatch to the engineer task. Once breeched the away bank must then be secured. then the follow on force should then exploit and continue the advance.

Obstacle crossing drills are not simple and are made all the more complicated when opposed. Engr vehs required to conduct the breeching operations are sitting ducks. Good use of direct and idirect fire assets along with sceening effects such as smoke will make this task easier. The employment of deception should also be used to try and convice the oposition that you intend to breech at an alternative location. If you have the assets, more than one breech should be attempted at the same time to increase chances.

Finaly a reseve should also be maintained and scearios designers should keep this in mind when supplying MICLIC MT55s, BIBERs and other Engr equipment. Granted the assetts down at Sqn level may not normally be significant but if the Bde ME (Main Effort) is to establish crossings over the river... or sieze line ??? in order to allow X Bde to exploit in to Obj XXX then I would be supprised if the Fwd BG (Battle Group) would not be given the correct engr assetts from within the Bde.

Players should remember the Engr assets are scarce and valuable tagets on the battlefield. I seem to recall that they were allways listed as HVT (High Value Targets) and signature vehs in orders. I also remember using the AVLB as a decoy on numerous occassions to confuse the opposing force as to which axis was the ME.

At least in this simulater we dont have to facter in the prep time required for bridging and breeching operations.

[Flash-Kiwi]

All are valid points above,

When it happens to me i just think that its the friction of battle and get on with it, as you have to in real life (i would imagine)

That will be my post for the year.

Cheers

[CharlieB]

All are valid points above,

When it happens to me i just think that its the friction of battle and get on with it, as you have to in real life (i would imagine)

That will be my post for the year.

Cheers

0.01 posts per day is pretty good going!

[flyboy]

The best way to avoid a trap is to know it,s there.....If I came up to a minefield in the middle of a valley I would definately make sure I had a shitload of guns covering me.

[Volcano]

Has anyone tried "Deliberate Assault 01"? Automatic breaching works for me in that one and the breach is conducted as it is supposed to be (overwatched by the enemy, smoke on the minefield, MICLIC, proofing, far side security, assault force etc). It is an old scenario I made back in SB1 and should be in the classics folder. It is based upon a CCTT operation my unit conducted one year.

That said, there might be a problem with the scripting of the breaching units if they are not working correctly. You have to remember that (or at least from my experience) is that the follow on forces that are not equipped with plow or roller must also have breach orders and must not have march or engage, or assault orders. One last suggestion, never use time acceleration when breaching as the AI seems more prone to making mistakes when you do this.

[Volcano]

Also, keep in mind that no breaching lane is ever totally considered clear. Clearing a miniefield is a complex and extremely risky process. There is always a chance (IRL) for a mine to have survived which is why we "proof" the lane. Even still there is a possibility of a mine remaining but the possibility decreases with the more times that you proof the lane. Obviously, and realistically so, if you only use a platoon of plow tanks to clear the lane then you have a high probability that a mine is still present to be hit by a follow on vehicle. The plow tank is supposed to simply push *most* of the mines to the side. What you should do is proof the lane after the plows with roller tanks. The purpose of the roller tanks is to roll over the plowed lane and detonate any surviving mines that were not pushed aside.

The optimal and safest breach is conducted in an order of something like this:

1) MICLIC to blast a lane
2) plow tanks to plow the lane (far side security)
3) roller tanks to proof the lane (from near side security)
4) engineers mark the lane (or some other such expeditial marking)
5) follow on forces (assault force) pass through the breach

You can still breach the lane with less but the more elements you take from 1-4 the higher the risk you take of striking a mine in the lane.

Actually, I have been in the SIMNET or CCTT where a lead follow on vehicle struck a mine in a poorly proofed lane and the second vehicle pushed it through. What better way to proof a poorly proofed lane when artillery and direct fire is coming down on you?

[CharlieB]

Roller tanks are frustrating slow!

[12Alfa]

Renegade is right.

The obstacle is not an obstacle if it can be breeched un apposed.


The obstacle is not an obstacle if it can be breeched un apposed.
[/QUOTE]

I have heard this many times in the armoured world. To me it is BS. The obstacle is always a problem even without covering fire. It slows a unit down time wise; it makes you think there is a force covering it. It gets a unit to deploy mine assist and bring indirect fire into play or standby for fire. I makes the unit deploy other than in a movement mode.

In fact it will make a unit go through all the loops and drills that they will deploy for an obstacle covered by fire.

So my question what is the difference between a obstacle that is covered and one that’s not (but is not known by the unit) coming upon it?

Answer-Nothing, we treat them the same.
So covering it seems to me un-necessary if your aim is to slow down a force, and an obstacle is most of the time just that.

If an obstacle is for gathering a force into a kill zone, well that’s a different matter.

Has to be covered by fire, I think not.
I will however keep this to my self when at orders, telling officers that they are not quite right is tricky at the best of times. I do however inform my upcoming commanders the difference to enlighten them in the art art of modern thinking.

[foeh@mmer]

Well, the scenario is set up with a preplanned breach route which I use to put all my units through after the mine field is breached. However, I think Volcano has a point about proofing the lane. The scenario only has a mine plow push through followed by engineers marking the lane. Perhaps the scenario needs to be modified to include MICLIC and/or mine rollers. I guess, you know, this is the sort of thing that could be simplified when SB2 comes out. Not every gamer is going to really care about the intricacies of mine clearing.

[Ssnake]

Just what I said all the time. ;)

[Ssnake]

As far as covering an obstacle with direct/indirect fire: While it may be true that any force running into a mine obstacle will probably go through the full drill, the obstacle value of a mine field can be significantly increased if you DO cover it with direct and indirect fire. Hold the fire until you can clearly make out the breaching assets, then take them out while they are about to deploy. Strike with artillery while the main body tries to squeeze through the lane. Maximize confusion with smoke and HE. Use bomblets if a significant number of vehicles bunch up at an obstacle that they just dicovered by accident.
Mine obstacles are a great way to increase standoff range, and keep the enemy at range for a while unless they decide to go around the obstacle, in which case they're taking the route that you want them to. Either way, the defender is given the chance to exact a serious toll on the attacker.

I tend to place mine obstacles on forward slopes. The attacker cannot clear them without exposing himself. An artificiality of SB Pro is that a minefield's dimensions are fully revealed as soon as you detect it. The workaround to enforce cautious movement and to prevent quick bypassing is to create a cluster of small 100x100m obstacle segments. That way only a small portion of the minefield will be revealed at any time. This is especially important for force on force network sessions, not so much when playing against the computer (be it solitaire or collectively).

[IrishHussar]

Hi I cant remember where I stole this from:

"Breaching is a combined arms operation which is an integral component of any attack. Preparation for breaching operations begins with the maneuver commander's planning process and the provision for an effective reconnaissance. Prior to an attack, task forces conduct reconnaissance, push logistics forward, task organize, and rehearse the entire combined arms team along with numerous other actions. The key to breaching and taking the objective is to mass overwhelming combat power against the enemy's weakest point. During the attack, task forces develop the situation, isolate the enemy weakness, and further recon the minefield before deciding to breach or bypass. Finally, task forces suppress, obscure, and secure the far side by fire or maneuver as the prerequisite to breach."

What it does say though is that any minefield breeching Op must be thouroughly planned. In SB Pro PE lots of the detail can be glossed over, as of course it is not an Engineer Sim.
By covering any choke point or obstacle with fire it is going to give you, as the defenders, some advantage. If your plan, as a defending commander, is "bomb proof" enough not to need to do this then perhaps your in the wrong job!!
Imagine yourself in the real situation of being part of an attacking force, in a minefield lane, with vehicles being taken out left, right and centre with no opportunity of manouvere.
Its enough to scare the s**t out of anybody who has done any realtime breeches.
So the question to cover, or not to cover a minefield with fire is not that hard to answer IMHO.

Irish

[Chaplain]

I agree with 12Alfa. The old saying focuses on only one part of the equation. What it really should say is, "an obstacle not under observation and fire will only be short-lived," not that it isn't an obstacle at all.

If a commander wants to merely 1) stop the enemy advance for a short bit and 2) force the enemy to reveal that it is taking a particular avenue of approach, then he doesn't need fire covering the obstacle. Depending on the circumstances, he may not even need direct observation of the obstacle.

To insist that ALL obstacles MUST be under cover of fire is to unnecessarily reduce a commander's options.

The better thing to do is to ensure that commanders know which obstacles will likely be breached with a matter of moments, as opposed to those obstacles that will take some serious time to breach, based on the expected tools and/or experience of the likely enemy force. Obstacles that would be easily brushed aside are worthless unless they are covered by fire, but obstacles that are difficult to breach will delay the enemy either way.

Now the question of whether it is better to use a tough obstacle without resistance, or a simple obstacle with resistance, is a much harder one to answer. I would think that the latter would usually be more effective. However, if the defenders are short on manpower but they have the time & tools to emplace difficult obstacles, I think the former choice would be valid.

[GH_Lieste]

Unless the attacker knows for sure the obstacle is unobserved, he must assume at least indirect fires could be called on the breach.

I don't recall if the paper was posted here, but there was a pdf from a veteran of the 1GW, who observed that at NTC much ingenuity was applied to the breaching of obstacles, when in many cases a much more rapid, safer and cheaper alternative was bypassing it.

[Ssnake]

That's the alternate way of luring the enemy into your kill zone, if breaching obstacles is becoming a knee-jerk reaction. ;)

[RENEGADE-623]

Another thing to keep in mind, an obstacle is not always meant to steer, but also to block. there are two types of obstacles, a blocking obstacle and a steering obstacle. a steering obstacle is what most here are talking about, steers the enemy into a certain area, also known as a kill zone. A blocking obstacle is meant to just keep someone from getting into a certain area.

[flyboy]

An idea might be to send a recon around the obstacle to feel out any possible threats.Trip the trap before the clearing is attempted.

[CharlieB]

I woud say that all the comments above are pretty vaild - but I am still in the camp that says the Obs should be covered by fire or observation. Obs are there to steer, block, canalise or just delay; but unless you know the enemy are there then you can't bring about effects on him. Obs are there to shape the battle field in your favour not just to bugger the enemy around!

Snake, I am a big fan of your suggestion to use small minefields to make big ones thus driving a more thourough recce to complete the task and not make bypass the obvious answer.

[Vati]

CharlieB, you are right to say fire OR observation. As there it is not uncommon (except if you are superpower) that you cannot stretch your forces around to cover by fire all obstacles.

In our independence war in 91, our army was ultra tinny and hugely underpowered compared to the opposing one. So our main strategy was to create blockades on all possible land logistic routes in minimal possible time to delay advance of opposing side armored forces. It was impossible to cover all this by fire, so only the important blockades were covered, while our forces raced to the mission goals which were shared by the opposing force. It worked incredibly well.

P.S. That mission in question, can be completed w/o breaching.

[Volcano]

Yes the trick to a well placed minefield is to place it in such a way that there IS an obvious and *seemingly* easy bypass available, into an area where the artillery is pre plotted and the sector sketches of an entire company of tanks cover all the dead space. :)

[12Alfa]

Yes the trick to a well placed minefield is to place it in such a way that there IS an obvious and *seemingly* easy bypass available, into an area where the artillery is pre plotted and the sector sketches of an entire company of tanks cover all the dead space. :)

Dam straight!:luxhello: