PDA

View Full Version : Minefield questions



kbluck
24 Sep 03, 16:59
What effect does varying minefield density have on the game? As far as I can tell, even a 1% minefield blocks traffic and forces a breach.

Speaking of which, does the "disable chance" for breachers do anything? I've never seen a breacher killed by mines in the game, although that's a distinct possibility in reality.

Perhaps there can be a "kamikaze" SOP where breach-less units can attempt to bull through a minefield if they think the density and depth is low, with the kill rate related to the actual length of the path through and the density?

Minor quibble on the Volcano --- I think it ought to be four minefields of 275 meters length, each at 120m depth. The 550/320m figure represents a doctrinal turning or blocking obstacle, but requires two passes after a U-turn from a single minelayer. Shortening length and setting depth to 120 means the player can also select to put in twice or four times as many disrupting or fixing minefields if they wish.

Also, just for my personal edification, any particular reason you put it on a HEMTT? In my day, they usually went on a 5-ton, which is what your typical combat engineer company usually had available. The heavier trucks were most often fully occupied hauling Class IV. Are they using HEMTTs for that more often now out at NTC?

--- Kevin

Pat Proctor
24 Sep 03, 19:12
What effect does varying minefield density have on the game? As far as I can tell, even a 1% minefield blocks traffic and forces a breach.

Breachers will ALWAYS stop at an obstacle and breach, regardless of density.

The density rougly equates to the chance per second that a vehicle moving through an obstacle will encounter the obstacle and be blocked.


Speaking of which, does the "disable chance" for breachers do anything? I've never seen a breacher killed by mines in the game, although that's a distinct possibility in reality.

This is a place holder. We eventually intend that breachers such as tank plows will be disabled by subsequent mine strikes (the planning factor is two mine strikes for a M1A2 to destroy the plow)


Perhaps there can be a "kamikaze" SOP where breach-less units can attempt to bull through a minefield if they think the density and depth is low, with the kill rate related to the actual length of the path through and the density? This is already implemented. If you plan a path through an obstacle, it will continue until it actually is blocked (using the density algorithm) by an obstacle. If you through a formation of non breachers at a weak obstacle, you will find that some are, and some are not blocked by the obstacle.


Minor quibble on the Volcano --- I think it ought to be four minefields of 275 meters length, each at 120m depth. The 550/320m figure represents a doctrinal turning or blocking obstacle, but requires two passes after a U-turn from a single minelayer. Shortening length and setting depth to 120 means the player can also select to put in twice or four times as many disrupting or fixing minefields if they wish.

This is an abstraction to prevent us from having to add an interface for the player to input the type of obstacle he wants.


Also, just for my personal edification, any particular reason you put it on a HEMTT? In my day, they usually went on a 5-ton, which is what your typical combat engineer company usually had available. The heavier trucks were most often fully occupied hauling Class IV. Are they using HEMTTs for that more often now out at NTC?

The 2.5 ton and 5 ton trucks you are familiar with are being phased out of the inventory in favor of the LMTV and FMTV. I must plead ignorance as to whether this is also true of engineer battalions, but every volcano launcher I have seen here has been mounted on a HEMMT. I don't know if I just saw them in transit, or if this is their launch platform. If I am not mistaken, they can be launched from anything, even a Helo. Is this correct?

kbluck
24 Sep 03, 21:12
Thanks for the answers.



This is an abstraction to prevent us from having to add an interface for the player to input the type of obstacle he wants.

No interface required. If the player wants a blocking obstacle, he puts in two minefields end to end, hangs a U-turn, and does it again. Just like real life.


The 2.5 ton and 5 ton trucks you are familiar with are being phased out of the inventory in favor of the LMTV and FMTV.

Well, they're all fancied up and have a cool acronym, but they're still basically just 6x6 trucks.


I must plead ignorance as to whether this is also true of engineer battalions, but every volcano launcher I have seen here has been mounted on a HEMMT. I don't know if I just saw them in transit, or if this is their launch platform. If I am not mistaken, they can be launched from anything, even a Helo. Is this correct?

They can be launched from anything that can carry the weight (a bit over 3 tons loaded) and has a sufficiently large flat surface to mount them on. The platforms I've seen used are 5-ton dropsides and M548s. It's possible but a real pain to get them into 5-ton dump trucks. Obviously, a HEMTT is more than sufficient, but it seems a waste of useful haul capacity to me.

And yes, the UH-60 can carry a slightly modified version of Volcano. It'll fire a 1100 x 120m minefield in about 20 seconds flat. Again, to get the 320m deep blocking minefield, it would have to cut it off about 550 meters in and circle back for another pass.

--- Kevin

Deltapooh
24 Sep 03, 21:56
One way to make a mine in ATF is to design a weapon, give it a very small radius with high effect and allow only breachers to kill them using a breaching tool.

At least, that's my thought.

Pat Proctor
25 Sep 03, 00:50
Will You Please Make A Game For Me! ;)

kbluck
25 Sep 03, 12:51
One way to make a mine in ATF is to design a weapon, give it a very small radius with high effect and allow only breachers to kill them using a breaching tool.

You're right, that would be a good method to simulate a "point" or "hasty protective" minefield. I don't know how you would "kill" a unit with a breacher without code changes, though.

Even in v1.03 as is, you could certainly simulate things like the M93 Hornet wide-area munition that way. It's basically a hand-emplaced mine that listens for noise within 100 meters and then lobs a top-attack submunition over the target when its criteria are met. Nasty little surprise, basically a complete anti-tank ambush in a 30-pound can.

I would model MOPMS this way, as well. I don't like the present "MOPMS team" --- while guarding the flanks with on-command minefields is a good way to use spare combat engineers in the defense, there is no reason the team needs to be physically present to deploy the mines. (MOPMS, if you didn't know, is basically a big suitcase full of scatterable mines, great for making fast small minefields on demand.)

First of all, that box weighs like 160 pounds. Troops aren't typically going to carry it more than about 10 feet from the tailgate to the ground. Second, it has a remote control unit that can control multiple units from at least 1000m away, and by laying hard wire even greater distances can be achieved. So, the actual "team" won't likely be anywhere near where the minefield will appear.

I'm going to try to model MOPMS as a special kind of "dismount", one that can't move under its own power. Well, actually, I might let it move *very* slowly, since you can never tell exactly where a dismount will appear when it dismounts, to allow for minor adjustments to position. It's only useful purpose will be to lay a minefield on command.

Similarly, I'm going to create a "smoke pot" unit, to simulate pre-emplaced smoke generators. Again, a motionless dismount unit whose only useful purpose is to generate a smoke screen on command.

Hopefully, their extremely small size will allow them to avoid detection altogether. If the enemy does "kill" them, no big deal, but it might skew victory conditions.

--- Kevin

Deltapooh
25 Sep 03, 13:18
You're right, that would be a good method to simulate a "point" or "hasty protective" minefield. I don't know how you would "kill" a unit with a breacher without code changes, though.

You could add multiple versions of the same mine with different pk stats, then place them in a pattern that increases risk. Another option would be to use the MICLIC setup. The breacher runs out of good fortune (ammo to the engine).



I would model MOPMS this way, as well. I don't like the present "MOPMS team" --- while guarding the flanks with on-command minefields is a good way to use spare combat engineers in the defense, there is no reason the team needs to be physically present to deploy the mines. (MOPMS, if you didn't know, is basically a big suitcase full of scatterable mines, great for making fast small minefields on demand.)

Glad you took the time to explain that. I didn't have a clue what you were talking about.


Hopefully, their extremely small size will allow them to avoid detection altogether. If the enemy does "kill" them, no big deal, but it might skew victory conditions.

--- Kevin

Depends on the victory condition. If it's set to monitor the number of friendly vehicles that survive, then it would.

Pat Proctor
25 Sep 03, 14:58
There is already a MOPM's team in ATF. If you want a MOPM's WITHOUT the associated units, you could just change the size and icon, and give it a speed of zero.

kbluck
25 Sep 03, 16:17
There is already a MOPM's team in ATF. If you want a MOPM's WITHOUT the associated units...

Yes, that's just what I was saying. I don't see a good reason to model soldiers carrying the MOPMS; they're not likely to be lugging it all over the battlefield on foot (its a four-man carry), and they're not likely to be nearby when it deploys. One sapper OP with an RCU could individually control up to 15 separate groups (with any number of individual units per group) spread over as much as 2 kilometers if they're near the middle. This range can be extended with hard-wiring if needed, although hard-wiring sacrifices the ability to recycle the minefield's expiration time or to self-destruct the mines on command.

--- Kevin