Engineer platoons

[ivanov]

Is there any particular function of the on map engineer units or are they just weak infantry without ATGM's? [:D]

[Tazak]

their warm bodies carrying rifles

[ivanov]

That's what I thought. So basically they don't have any special qualities in the game? As normal infantry they perform really poorly due to the lack of heavy weapons.

[Tazak]

Yes engineer Special functions are abstracted, hopefully we'll see these expanded in 2.1, in the mean time I'm looking to give them RPO launchers and satchel charges in the WGSF OOB

[ivanov]

Im the scenario "Dawn's First Light" I used them to blow all the bridges on the map. I'm looking now at "Test of Wills" and I really don't know what to do with them and why were they placed in that scenario. It would be nice if they had some unique abilities, like placing mines or obstacles. Right now I may just use them as expendable speed bumps, which is a shame...

[CapnDarwin]

In game terms you will not see engineered placement of mines. Takes too long. That is why we have them placed at start. Blowing bridges is possible with the pre-set bridges in Germany. Scattered Mines via arty is possible and in 2.1 we will refine the timing and mechanics.

As for in-game engineers currently, they are for name only and have no special abilities beyond those all units can do. Again things that will see some changes in the next game.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

As for in-game engineers currently, they are for name only and have no special abilities beyond those all units can do. Again things that will see some changes in the next game.

Ok, thanks for clarifying this.

[bayonetbrant]

I thought they were the ones driving the trains?

[IronMikeGolf]

Well, if we ran scenarios 72 hours long, on map mobility, counter mobility, and survivability stuff would fit. And we could have a nice counter-reconniassance battle with Div and Regt Recon elements.

Obstacle building and mine laying is not strictly an engineer squad function, either. I helped string a few hundred klicks of triple strand over my career as an infantryman.

[CapnDarwin]

Good points Jeff. We may see some of that down the road.

[Pawsy]

Well if they armd engineers units there is AVLB and Python for mine clearnace, these are within the time scope.

I think the amphib capability is a little overdone in the game. In reality there were few places you could swim across and always required engr recce. There should be a few stretches or locations of a river. Brits and Germans had really good amhib ferry/bridges

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

Well if they armd engineers units there is AVLB and Python for mine clearnace, these are within the time scope.

Yes, they are.

I think the amphib capability is a little overdone in the game. In reality there were few places you could swim across and always required engr recce. There should be a few stretches or locations of a river. Brits and Germans had really good amhib ferry/bridges

The time frame for doing amphib ops is abstracted a little but the capability would be there for 'most' water obstacles. The deterrent would be water speed in the obstacle.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

Well if they armd engineers units there is AVLB and Python for mine clearnace, these are within the time scope.

Yes, they are.

I think the amphib capability is a little overdone in the game. In reality there were few places you could swim across and always required engr recce. There should be a few stretches or locations of a river. Brits and Germans had really good amhib ferry/bridges

The time frame for doing amphib ops is abstracted a little but the capability would be there for 'most' water obstacles. The deterrent would be water speed in the obstacle.

Good Hunting.

MR

Could hexside obstacle rating (HOR) be used to represent 'likely' crossing points, say HOR 9 is set to totally impassable even to bridges, HOR8 is a high speed water but just about suitable, ranging down to HOR2 is near perfect river crossing point. The higher the HOR the longer it takes to 'bridge' or ferry units across. I'm assuming that nearly even possible crossing point in west Germany has been pre-recced and mapped by NATO engineers, likewise WP engineers would have recon'd and mapped even crossing point in east Germany

[IronMikeGolf]

Some of the north-south crossing points were even improved with cobble stones. Kinda like bridge demo prep, but in reverse.

[Pawsy]

Yup Mike and there location and condition was checked each year. Good idea - and use recce to locate or are they fixed? Either way seems to be a good 'easy' improvement?

[WildCatNL]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Could hexside obstacle rating (HOR) be used to represent 'likely' crossing points, say HOR 9 is set to totally impassable even to bridges, HOR8 is a high speed water but just about suitable, ranging down to HOR2 is near perfect river crossing point. The higher the HOR the longer it takes to 'bridge' or ferry units across. I'm assuming that nearly even possible crossing point in west Germany has been pre-recced and mapped by NATO engineers, likewise WP engineers would have recon'd and mapped even crossing point in east Germany

I'm in favor of differentiating the water obstacles with respect to engineering effort/amphibious vehicle ability to cross it. But a 10-step rating is way beyond what I can make clear on the map so everyone "gets it" while skimming the map. Three levels (major rivers, minor rivers/canals, streams), probably. More differentiation, probably not.

A second challenge is researching those real-world water obstacles to tag them with the correct 'engineering effort / amphibious ability'. Here, the problem IMO is not so much water speed, but shape and slope of the banks.
Water speed and water level in Germany is seasonal, with highest water levels and speed in Spring (due melting snow in the hills / mountains) and probably lowest in late Summer (when 'Red Storm' occurs).
In southern Germany more of the major and minor rivers have steeper banks from which amphibious vehicles may not be able to enter/ exit the water easily. It's really hard to estimate from satellite images how wide and deep the river/stream is, how steep the banks are, whether a bridge layer might be able to access the banks, and/or whether a dozer would be able to fill up the stream.

For the Southern Storm battles that coincide with touristic areas, the web sometimes offers a nice picture. For example, the Nagold minor river in Wildberg:



Suggestions (or sources) are welcome.

William

[Pawsy]

well how about having engr reccee - scouts hex - has % chance that its useable as amphib location?

The % chance could be decreased for southern germany?

NATO should know of a %

[IronMikeGolf]

Looking at FM 100-2-2, here's some figures of merit:

Soviet planners estimated 60% of the obstacles they needed to cross were 20 meters or less in length

Each tank bn in MRRs and TRs had an MTU-20. (20 meter folding bridge on a tank chassis). That's one MTU in an MRR and 3 in a TR. Each MRR and TR had 4 x TMM. That is a truck mounted bridge. Each TMM is a 10.5 meter span. So, organic to the tank regiment, there is enough bridging assets to do five 20 meter spans.

Soviets trained extensively for crossing tanks underwater. This was both using a snorkel with the crew driving and winching unmanned tanks (crews cross in swimming APCs). Tanks had a gyro compass for underwater driving. This type of crossing takes more prep time and has more restrictions on the terrain at the crossing point (ingress slope 47%, egress slope 27%, depth < 5.5 m, flow rate <3 m/sec, no boulders or too much mud on the river bottom).

MRD and TD had organic assault crossing companies. These had ferry units and pontoon bridge units (which could double as a ferry). The pontoon bridge units were compatible with the track and truck mounted bridges in the line units. The Soviets trained to mix and match the assets. Wide rivers might see ingress and egress spans from the MTU or TMM bridges of the bns with a short ferry hope done by div level ferry/pontoon boats.

I advise caution in a high fidelity bridging model. A player could get quite consumed with managing bridging assets. Abstracting this is fine, given the plethora of bridging equipment available to Soviet commanders. The abstraction assumes each commander husbands the bridge assets so they are not lost to indirect fire and the crossing point is adequately suppressed and obscured so they are not lost.

What might be good for 2.1 is:
1. Bridging points: a commander has a fixed number of hexsides he can bridge in the scenario.
2. Have a possibility of bridging asset casualties when taking fire while bridging. That would mean either abandon the bridging attempt is expend an additional bridging point.
3. Units that are amphib capable, but don't have sufficient transport (e.g an MRC missing several BMPs/BTRs) can still amphib cross, but it takes longer.

[Mad Russian]

Consider this, when I first came onto this team after listing all the combat engineer capabilities and functions, which took me the better part of an hour - while Rob and Jim sat quietly, I was told "Flashpoint Campaigns isn't a combat engineer sim." At which point we started down the road to the best possible way to abstract most of what they do.

As to different grades of slope at river banks, the sending of engineer reconnaissance teams to look for shallow water crossings, the breaching of minefields by hand, the laying of minefields by hand, etc.. let's take a deep breath.

While there are some things combat engineers do, most of it can be readily abstracted without too much problem with realism, don't expect to see FPC turn into a Combat Engineer simulation in the near future.

Good Hunting.

MR