Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are described in this game?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are described in this game? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are describ... - 8/2/2018 6:34:46 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 510
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: online
I just signed up for beta, feels too late but just crossing my fingers XD Wish if I could participate.

By the way, IMO engineering aspect of battlefield is really important. Mine and mine clearing, bridge tank and floating bridge, bridge destruction, obstacles and obstacle destruction and etc... Yet they are usually ignored or too much abstracted in so many RTS/Turn-based games. May I ask how those engineering features are introduced in this game?

This question naturally brings the next one, does the objectives in the game are destructible? Like cities, buildings, homes, bridges, woods and etc... Sometimes engineers with C4 clear the woods to make a landing zone, or intentionally break down the buildings to make more cover or to prevent to being used to enemy OP and etc... Of course it would be impossible to 100% of reality, but it would be good to see if we have some sort of description of destruction of map objectives, even if it is abstracted description...

Thank you

Post #: 1
RE: May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are des... - 8/2/2018 11:57:16 PM   
calgar


Posts: 108
Joined: 1/5/2012
Status: offline
Hi,

I think I can refer you to my thread from a while back

Q on Engineering Capabilities

Do you mean objectives or objects? Objectives are abstract concepts and planning tools, they can't be destroyed. Objects are a different story, that is for the developer to answer.

Regards,

A

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 2
RE: May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are des... - 8/3/2018 1:51:11 AM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 510
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: online
Haha wow, that is really a silly mistake, thanks to correct me. It is objects not objectives XD

After reading the link, I got a question. Is this true that cold-war NATO tanks doesn't have any mine clearing capabilities? I think this depends on era. I remember that I saw some pictures US tanks (M60s and Abrams) with mine plows during the first gulf war, which is late cold war era. But I'm not sure US tanks on Europe.

Problem of mine is that, mine can be huge OP if opponent have no way to detect or counter, even sometimes hurt the balance. Combat mission is a good example. I usually play with "no-mine" house rule when I enjoy PBEM of combat mission games, because sometimes mine could just finish the fate of the game regardless of skill of tactics of players. I know this game doesn't have MP yet, but I wish this game may consider mine clearing by artillery or mine plow vehicles in the future.

But anyway, it seems the engineering capabilities will be more or less limited. Well, that is a bummer. Field bridge and bridge destruction might add an interesting strategical / tactical situations for commanders. It would be great if it is introduced to this game later.


(in reply to calgar)
Post #: 3
RE: May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are des... - 8/4/2018 3:59:29 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 774
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: online
As far as I know, it's realistic to not have mine plows for the NATO tanks we have in this period and region.

It's true that in most games the engineering aspect is lacking, and there's a reason for it. I claim that in practice it's almost impossible to make it work without a scripted AI.

Currently in the game, a scenario can come with a bitmap image that has so-called 'no-go zones', water crossing points and destruction zones painted in it. One way to simulate a blown-up or impassable bridge is to make it a no-go area. Similarly, shallow water crossings (or 'improvised bridges'), demolished buildings and burnt forest can be added to the scenario.

In addition to that, scenarios have a generic destruction probability attribute, which randomly turns buildings into rubble and burns trees and forest. Also, we have the 'barren' map environment, that can be used to simulate a post-nuclear battlefield.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 4
RE: May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are des... - 8/4/2018 6:07:05 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 510
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: online
I'm not sure how NATO tanks with no mine plow in cold war Europe is realistic. Even US / Australian M48 Pattons were equipped with mine plows during Vietnam.
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C42032
https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/history/conflicts/australia-and-vietnam-war/events/phuoc-tuy-province/nui-dat/minefield
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M48_Mine_Roller_Vietnam.jpg
M60 at 81' used mine plows
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M60-plow-quantico-19811019.JPG
May I ask the evidence or reason behind your conclusion? Even though FM doesn't include mine plows to tank platoon, it never means that mine plows will not allowed to be applied to tanks at all cost. This depends on situation and field commanders.

Glad to hear about building / tree destruction probability during battle. IMO description on dynamic battlefield after explosion and destruction is really crucial for 'realistic' description of battle. Not much games consider those features. I understand about bridge and bridge destruction. Games with bridge / bridge destruction are John Tiller series and Flashpoint Campaign Red Storm, but those are turn-based. RTS would be more hard to depict such actions.

May I ask one more question? In the game introduction, there is a "command delay" feature introduced. Is this something like we see from Graviteam series, which designate specific amount of delay to the command by player? Or is this something like Flashpoint Campaign series, where the action of units is delayed due to various reasons like low readiness or supply, and player cannot control the delay?

One more question: How about supply and resupply is depicted in this game?

Thank you for your effort to this game, I can't wait for this game.

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 5
RE: May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are des... - 8/5/2018 2:51:48 PM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 219
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
A key note: mine-plows are not mine rollers. Latter are used to detect the minefield edge, and then after a lane is breached, to proof the lane's safety, not to clear mines. Trying to breach with rollers alone tends to fail because repeated mine explosions will demolish the roller. They can usually withstand only 2-3 AT mine detonations before the roller starts getting too much damage; it gets hard to push straight and starts missing mines, and then the pushing tank finds a mine the hard way. So, the point here is that even with the rollers on hand, armored commanders would have expected engineers to do the actual breaching. Until 1988 when MICLIC was finally fielded to USAEUR, that would have meant dismounted sappers hand-placing quarter-pound blocks of TNT next to mines detected mainly by sight.

As for US equipment, there was no plow for M60 Patton series tanks until MCBS in 1990. The M60 did have a roller set available, the "Track-width, Tank-mounted, Mine-clearing Roller System". Apparently, it was type-classified in early 1979 and went into production later that year, a mere 19 years after the tank itself was adopted because the mine problem was just not a priority to the leadership, which is strange since they'd had such trouble with mines in Vietnam and had found the need to develop a roller kit for the M48 during that conflict. When the Israelis acquired their M60A1s in 1971, they knew from experience that mine-clearing equipment was not optional, and so being the pragmatists that they are actually adapted a bunch of captured Soviet KMT-5 rollers for it. Eventually they designed their own plow, which was adopted by the US, and they also got hold of some of the surplus US TTMRS rollers. Ditto for Abrams, there was anti-mine equipment for the M1 tank until they type-classified the MCRS mine roller system in 1986, and didn't actually get them issued to the field until 1990 when the invasion of Kuwait made it a priority. It had been designed for the firm soils of Europe, and soon proved unsatisfactory when used in the Gulf; in training they found that the rollers tended to pile up soft sand and skip over spots. As a result of this dissatisfaction with the rollers, the Army rushed through development of the MCBS plow system in a few months, and that proved to work a lot better in sand than rollers.

Anyway, the initial production run of the TTMRS was for 90 rollers over 3 years. If divided evenly among the forces stationed full-time in Europe, that's enough to equip at the rate of one set per armored company with a handful of spares by late 1982. So, even though it existed, it apparently was never issued at an adequate rate. As mentioned previously, the US then developed the current MCRS roller system for the M1 and M60 to replace it in 1986, but again seemed to be in no hurry to get it issued until Desert Shield forced the issue.

Germans were not in a better shape. They were working on a so-called "indestructible" flail in the 1980s, but it seems like they only put it on PiPz engineer vehicles. There was a dozer blade kit for the Leopard 1 that the Dutch and Canadians used, but the Germans themselves apparently didn't use it, and again, it is not really a replacement for a mine plow.

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 6
RE: May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are des... - 8/5/2018 9:43:06 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 510
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: online
M728 CEV was able to be equipped with mine rakes, one of their main objective is to clear the mine fields, and they ware operational from mid 1960s.

Despite the fact that mine plows were not tough enough to endure 2~3 AT mines, but it would still be better than nothing, it is still a good idea to have them. In game, it would bring a balance issue if specific faction have no way to detect and clear mines.

In addition, I would strongly argue that NATO (especially US army) would've immediately issued 1~2 mine plow / mine rakes (they are functionally the same IMO) to each tank platoons, just like they did right after first gulf war. It would take some time to issue all mine plows to platoons, but logistic ability of US army on Europe during cold war era would be good enough to issue enough amount within proper time frame. Or, it would be possible allocate 1~2 M728s to each tank company during counter offensive, if any action occur in Europe at any time of cold war. However, I'm not exactly sure how M728s were planned to operate, so this M728 opinion is rough estimation. M728s were slow and couldn't match their speed with M1s during first gulf war, but that was desert operation against Iraq army. In Europe, advance speed would be more or less hindered when compared to Desert Storm, so M728s would have enough time to match up with front line tank units.

So IMO it is natural to assume US tanks are also equipped with mine plow / mine rakes.

< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 8/5/2018 9:45:51 PM >

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 7
RE: May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are des... - 9/6/2018 10:18:44 PM   
dd371

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 6/5/2002
From: Connecticut
Status: offline
For what it's worth, I never saw an M60 based mine clearer during my time serving on M60s with the 11ACR. Doesn't mean they weren't around, maybe in the armored divisions. We never trained for mines as well. Perhaps because we would have been shooting and scooting. As for bridging, we had 2 AVLBs that were part of D company and one blade tank D65, the XO's tank.

Fulda 78-81. Allons!

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> May I ask how the engineering units / tasks are described in this game? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.180