Getting through an obstacle breach

[Rotareneg]

Here's my video showing what I found:

3mBU6COW_Ek

[Gibsonm]

Firstly I withdraw my rather naughty dig about you not liking to be contradicted. And I thank you for taking the effort to make that little demo scenario. That said, I was a bit disappointed that you clearly thought I hadn't got a clue about this subject and needed to be instructed in the basic technique as laid down in the manual.

So retract one dig and insert another - useful.

My idea was to give everyone one who reads this, not just you, otherwise I would have sent you a PM, some information that at least one other posted that they did find useful.

One could, of course, stick strictly to the official method at all times. But thinking 'outside the box' and doing some experimenting often pays dividends

Well it is meant to be a simulation, but go ahead make sh*t up.

Similarly, by experimentation, Rotar discovered that it was actually possible to negotiate a minefield laid across a road with a Humvee by simply looking where you 'put your feet'.

I pretty sure others have done this before (cast your mind back to the Canadians vs UK in OP Variable earlier this year) but it only works for surface laid and to a lesser extent scatterable minefields.

Good luck trying to use it with the buried or advanced options (but of course you already knew that).

[Ssnake]

Removed mines stay removed. If they are surface laid, a human player can navigate through a minefield by simply avoiding to drive on mines. This is of course impossible to do with buried mines, and at least rather difficult with scatter mines, also, I dare you to navigate through a minefield with a human driver and a human commander with no external observer view allowed to appreciate how difficult and nerve wrecking it can be (and in real reality life and limb are in danger).

Anyway, computer-controlled units will recognize only the LAST breach route that has been created. So even if you breach a minefield three times and mark the lane three times, computer-controlled units will only take the lane that was created last (see user manual, page 75).

Note that "expanding a lane" counts as creating many lanes very close to each other.

To reflect real life constraints and procedures better my recommendation to the mission designers is to create clusters of multiple mine fields (with minimal overlap) rather than one big obstacle. These "mini fields" can be breached individually, and you can utilize all breach lanes afterwards with computer-controlled forces.

[Gibsonm]

But I have no experience of RL tanking.

So which do you want.

1. Be told how to do it by some that do to give you the benefit of their experience

or

2.

That said, I was a bit disappointed that you clearly thought I hadn't got a clue about this subject and needed to be instructed in the basic technique as laid down in the manual.

[Tjay]

Good luck trying to use it with the buried or advanced options (but of course you already knew that).

Yes I did. Thank you.

[Tjay]

So which do you want.

1. Be told how to do it by some that do to give you the benefit of their experience

or

2.

Please go back and read my original post. I asked if anyone knew the reason for the anomaly experienced during Sunday's DoW session - not for a run through of the official/basic technique - with which I am totally familiar.

The obstacle had been breached (manually) by Pipe, and his tanks had passed through the gap. But my CS vehicles would not. Fortunately, other persons contributing to this thread understand that and have replied appropriately.

[Tjay]

Many thanks for the video Rotar. Yes, that's exactly the behaviour I'm talking about: although the obstacle has been removed manually the AI appears not to accept that, and if the vehicle is on a route it stops in front of where the obstacle had been. However, jumping into the vehicle allows you drive it through manually. Just that you can't do that with the medic vehicle, and driving a company of tanks through one by one is clearly not viable.

IMHO, if a gap in an obstacle has been created manually and is clearly visible in the 3D world, it should be possible to route vehicles through that gap -either on or off the road - using March orders.

Ssnake's presence in this thread means that eSim are now aware of the anomaly if they weren't before and will undoubtedly take whatever steps they deem appropriate to address it.

[Lt DeFault]

Would this be deemed an exploit I wonder? IMHO, it's not, because in RL if mines could be seen placed on the surface of a road, (not buried) it would be reasonable to clear them just using a mineplow tank. But I have no experience of RL tanking. If the powers that be deem this technique to be an exploit - of a similar nature to placing infantry underwater to observe adjacent land - I will stop using it.

I don't think it's an exploit. I just meant that I don't think most armies would like their troops "experimenting" with a multi-million dollar vehicle in a minefield. They have established procedures that are there for a reason. (Not always a good one, mind you.)

[Tjay]

Thanks Sean. I'm sure they would carry out in any such tests in a careful and professional manner.

I'm going to leave Rotar to post the 'conclusion' to the test he and I have carried out as he's got a better understanding of the AI programming then I have.

[Tjay]

But in the meantime, I can say that the most important things we found were:

It doesn't matter how wide a gap created in a steel beams obstacle appears to be in the 3D world, if you are sending vehicles through by map routing, then there is actually only ONE usable single tank-width breach route, which, unless the person who created the breach puts down some graphics, won't appear on the map. However, it is only necessary to send vehicles to the approximate area (+/- 100m) of this breach route as they will USUALLY detect the start waypoint and move to it.

A multi-vehicle unit such as a platoon can take full advantage of the apparent width of the gap if they are driven through manually as long as the formation width is narrower than the gap. This promises much faster forward deployment and avoidance of the RTAs that are common when many vehicles queue up to use a single-lane breach route. They can, of course, be put back on a conventional route once through the gap.

I stress that our tests were conducted only with the steel beam 'hedgehog' type of obstruction, but we may look at other types in due course.

[Hedgehog]

'hedgehog'

Yes?

[Tjay]

Sit down and be quiet until you and all your siblings are shovelled off the road. :wink:

[Hedgehog]

Sit down and be quiet until you and all your siblings are shovelled off the road. :wink:

Aw.

[Tjay]

LOL. :lol:

[Stardog765]

My recommendation? A tactical nuke should clear that road nicely. And just think the left over radiation would very effectively throw off any electronic targeting systems for miles and miles!

Problem solved right?

:gun:

[Ssnake]

Only if you nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be safe.

[Tjay]

Will that be in the next version?

[Stardog765]

Hmmm nuking from orbit! Now thats why you are the brains of this operation sir!

Awesome idea!

[Ssnake]

Orbital nukes are part of a package with acid-bleeding killer monsters and 10mm pulse rifles. They are scheduled for bzzztcrk zzzt

- Unexpected end of transmission

[Gibsonm]

Also in days gone by orbital bombardment and

Only if you nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be safe.

Was said to be the basis for the off map indirect fire / air support modeling.

[DarkLabor]

Orbital nukes are part of a package with acid-bleeding killer monsters and 10mm pulse rifles. They are scheduled for bzzztcrk zzzt

- Unexpected end of transmission

The first leaked images of the package :diable: :

YhAlYWnwpdE

[Hedgehog]

Orbital nukes are part of a package with acid-bleeding killer monsters and 10mm pulse rifles. They are scheduled for bzzztcrk zzzt

- Unexpected end of transmission

Well, technically, 11.43mm pulse rifles.

[Ssnake]

Well, I was back-translating from the German dubbing. They go with lip-synchronicity, occasionally at the expense of detail accuracy.

[Cougar11]

This is to add that I have found when breaching minefields along a road, where the mine field is not perpendicular or at a close to 90 degree angle to the road, either using plows, or MICLIC with a plow after it, that when you send the marker unit through it, it gets messed up.

When the marker unit goes through on a manual route down the road that is clear, it places the flags at the start, but then stops placing them. If you use a breach route for it, it will drive in a strait line from one side to the other across the minefield, and drive into the mines, but it does place down the markers.

After running this many times, it seems that the marking unit has to or is only allowed to mark a route through a minefield, that is has to be in a strait line perpendicular strait through the minefield, and cannot at a diagonal direction through it.

If I am wrong here, I would appreciate possible working solutions.

Disclaimer that I am not looking for procedure, tactics, but how can I make the units or AI in Steel Beasts work doing this at an angle.

Thanks

[Gibsonm]

I've found no issues with doing it on an angle if you use the earlier described "waypoint either side and breach route" technique

The only times I've really had a problem if the breach changes direction part way through the obstacle (never a good idea anyway).

If you do it manually then YMMV / you are on your own.

Hopefully that helps while remaining within the requirements of the disclaimer?