Official SEOW

As discussed in TS and noted here for reference.
Morale

Morale improvement for a combat unit when it destroys an enemy unit.

Morale improvement for all units in an area where an enemy aircraft is shot down. The reverse is true and morale is lost when a friendly aircraft is shot down over its own troops.
Hmmm. this could have a big morale at an airfield that is bombed/strafed and going on from that, could a squadrons morale affect skill level?

Defense obstacles

Barbed wire and tank obstacles be able to be placed to provide additional defence structures. These may need a target object added to the defense object to provide a target so tanks, troops and aircraft will attack and destroy them etc. Can be built/removed by engineers/sappers.

Ace Pilot recovery

If an Ace pilot is in a campaign and is shot down but pilot bails out and is NOT captured, the ace plane is basically out for a few missions to simulate pilot being returned to duty and having a new plane allocated (from off map topup or a plane allocated from another flight at same airfield?)

Dynamic Withdrawl point/Spawn point for future version HSFX/SEOW

With new HSFX possibly having a dead zone object which can be placed in map at which aircraft plotted to arrive at are removed from game.
This could be placed on map in the MP for a mission where aircraft can be plotted to be withdrawn from. Aircraft that arrive and are removed at this point are automatically placed into the supply point which is created at this point. These aircraft must spawn next mission and continue mission with reduced fuel and same loadout. It only lasts for the one mission and is not a persistant withdraw and spawn location.
I envisage that this can only work for for last minute or so of mission so that it is not abused as a teleport to withdraw from map out of danger. A player flown aircraft cannot withdraw using this object. The MP should only allow a withdraw if flight arrival time is plotted for last minute of mission.
This would allow very long or delayed flights to arrive near target near mission end and be setup to spawn next mission in the same spot ready to attack. Alternatively, a long flight that attacked in one mission and was able to get a safe distance from target to withdraw can then spawn next mission to continue on home.

This concept I know can be worked now but only with admin assistance.
The idea is to allow commanders to be able to plot delayed action missions or setup an attack on an unsuspecting enemy for next mission.
A concept discussed many times I know but this object may allow it to become workable?

Cheers,
5

Seems like some great ideas here. What about minefields? I know they cannot be replicated ingame but perhaps MP side they could have an effect? ie. a commander plots grd movements which he believes will be succesful but when the mission is generated the units tasked to drive across a minefields have their destination set at the edge of the minefield in the .mis file. To simulate units stumbling into the minefield perhaps some % of those units can be destroyed or immobilised for one mission. Once the minefield is detected some time will need to be spent clearing a path which would require infantry, combat engineers or specialist mine clearing vehicles attached to tank platoons?

Yes! We used minefields "manually" in the Supercharge campaign. An addition would be great! A possible way:
- Use a special stationary unit (that could be freightened) for the minefields' limits. e.g. 4 x objects for a square.
- Others units can't cross this square except Engineers units that can removed these stationary "mine units" and then "open the road".

G'day,

Interesting talk on minefields and worth a look. First off, I am personally of the opinion that gentlemen's agreement on where things can be plotted or moved, are not worth the paper it is written on. In war, I am not a gentleman and nor are you. Get over it! In SEOW campaigning, I have frequently seen how any loophole will be exploited and is therefore essential that something physically representing and behaving as as a minefield is needed for a designated minefield to be an effective barrier. This is much akin to the difference between making laws and enforcing laws. They are two different beasts altogether.

So lets chat about minefields. To my mind, a minefield object would be most beneficial to SEOW. Especially the desert scenarios. However, before discussion of such, it is necessary to have clear understanding of the purposes and uses of minefields in the second world war. A minefield was used to deny territorial access to enemy forces. They were also used, to free up forces that would otherwise be utilised for patrolling or in occupying ground. A resource saver. A minefield is defensive in nature, a man made obstacle, so to speak, that is purely there to deny passage. In the western desert, minefields were extensive and normally clearly marked for both friend and foe alike to easily identify. Often, decoys and dummy minefields were used.

Now to the question of what can be used for a minefield? Clearly, utilising a multitude of objects to simulate individual mines goes well beyond the pale! Whats required, is an object that covers a large area, yet leaves a miniscule FPS footprint to be of any use. To my mind, this only leaves a variation or adaptation of the existing industrial plates in HSFX FMB to represent minefields. It therefore follows that practical answers to the following questions would first be required before pursuing this train of thought any further.

My questions in relation to the industrial plates used in HSFX are:

1. Can a plate be configured in such a way, that whilst it still remains invisible, it stops or impedes ground/sea movement passing onto the area where it is placed? I.e. An invisible barrier object that stops the trangressing units movement or wastes the remainder of its movement plot for the remainder of SEOW mission.

2. If yes, then could such an object remain hidden or its physical dimensions only revealed through scouting and reconnaisance functions already within SEOW?

3. If the above is possible, could the shape of the industrial plate used as the basis of minefield be changed to form a line?

4. What is the maximum size for a proposed minefield on this basis? Could it be larger than the largest of the industrial plates currently being used?

5. I would envisage that gaps will be needed between the placement of minefield objects to allow passage of friendly vehicles or ships. I.e. Minefield objects should not overlay each other. I perceive the need to create a marker object which is used to designate to friendly units, that this is where there is a safe or clear passage between the minefields? Conversely, this same object could be used to indicate a false paths to the enemy.

6. A distinction should be made between "air" and "ground" reconnaissance. With the above in place, light ground recon vehicles start to play an important and valuable role in scouting the way for an impending attack.

7. In deference to my opening remarks about minefields, I don't think its absolutely necessary for objects to "blow up" upon entering minefield. Yes, a minefield will immobilise a tank, or destroy the first vehicle of a convoy entering one, but eventually the tank is recovered, the vehicle convoy halted, the advance stopped and another path sought. And this is basically the purpose of a minefield, a barrier to impede movement through a tactically sensitive area.

8. So to a computer luddite, a programming pygmy or whatever, such as myself, what actually are the limitations or problems in developing the existing industrial plates for this purpose?

For those curious about in minfields, here's an interesting site to whet your appetite.

http://www.allworldwars.com/German-Mine ... l#Foreword


Thanks for any constructive feedback.

An object like what you described Warg would be useful in many ways. It could also be used to fix maps that should have barriers like steep hills but are traversable due to the limitations of the game engine. We currently do not have any objects that are not penetrated eventually by vehicles. That is a good thing as it does not choke the ability of planners to move their forces, excessively tight barriers would bring the game to a halt. On the other hand their are situation where you truly need to punish commanders who insist on using unrealistic terrain as a route. I personally would like to be able to plan templates where crossing rivers even for simple movement forces is impossible. In the end I guess I'm agreeing with you that relying on gentleman's agreements even when both parties have the best of intentions is problematic. Few campaigns are planned by a single opponent and communicating rules is always an issue for substitute commanders for example.

In most cases I think that mindfields should be place only where the ground would allow for it and both sides should know where they are. There is no ability for the AI to reroute itself during a mission as you would expect in real life. Having them visible would also prevent weird commanders from placing them in places they should not be like in two feet or water on a beach. Which brings us to the next question what about mines at sea?

Any mine field in IL2/SEOW land and sea requires an object that can be used in game and recreates the effect a real minefield would.

It is in my mind a must that it would need to create an event in the event log when triggered. This I think is the hard bit. An object that is set as red or blue is always visible to the enemy and is attacked by ground units and ships on site. This is a problem in that even a very small object is readily destroyed by tanks, infantry or ships in tests using the target objects as a possible substitute and which are practically invisible.

A real minefield by its nature is difficult to spot (unless marked) and hopes to damage/destroy by stealth.

So how do you make this happen in game in IL2?

I would prefer to have a real object create a destruction event or a ship damage event if collided with. There is no collision modelling for ground units that creates an explosion and destruction in IL2 that I am aware of.
Edit: except when a player aircraft collides with a tank truck etc.

A ship object can collide with a ship but that creates 100% damage and they both sink instantly. Not ideal that a mine hit is always 100% effective and if coded as red or blue and as we know, any ship with a gun will shoot and destroy it anyway.

For sea going mines there could be a small ship class object created that should be practically invisible to naked eye, have a reasonable size to simulate proximity detonation and be set as neutral in game so that they are not fired upon. A collision would destroy any ship however but I suppose we could live with that.

SEOW would need to track the objects, an event from the collision would create the required ship sunk and responsible object events for stats. This object/s could be loaded onto minesweepers or A/C in SEOW.

Maybe mines layed could have a percentage randomly set to red/blue so that ships do spot some of them and can destroy them but not all. These events would also reveal the minefield and require removal by appropriate forces. This would also create effect where distant ships would fire on them so that isn't really realistic either.

At least for the sea then maybe a modified version of the current target objects that has a large collision box (10mtr perhaps?) and a rather small mine looking object.

Thats a possible solution for sea but land minefields is another thing again.

As I've indicated earlier, most minefields (at least those in the desert) were marked for friend and foe alike. They were essentially a barrier to exclude an enemy, offer a passive defence and sometimes assist in channelling forces in an intended direction. Likewise, minefields at sea were often around fixed positions such as harbours, ports and other naval installations. Additionally, in places where their numbers could mean something, e.g. the confined waters of the English Channel or areas of the Baltic. In a lot of these cases, the friendly minefields were charted or in areas where an enemy could reasonably expect them to be.

But first and foremost, I am not particulary concerned about registering the destruction of a tank or ship. This is not what I'm after. I am much more interested in the intrinsic value of a minefield to act as a barrier. Its singular ability and use in restricting or stoping naval and vehicular movement. I have only suggested the factory plates by reason of their large size for just one object used in the FMB. If them being red or blue negates their use for this, then which other object can be used for my stated intentions above?

For instance, I note that vehicles cannot move through buildings or are blocked from transiting across rivers. What are the values or qualities of these things which ensure this? Can this be used? Would it be possible to modify a building object in the FMB, where it is
(a) very large
(b) invisible to the eye
(c) neutral
(d) stops or restricts vehicular and naval movement and
(e) does not interfere with aerial movement
If this is possible then we may have something that goes some way to represent a minefield. For SEOW purposes, a minefield should be something that will basically wastes a missions worth of plotting if you plot your units incorrectly into a minefield. Nothing more than this.

Upon recognition of the above, we can then discuss the possibilities of doing recon to identify such minefields and if a minefieldt can be shown on the map for the budding SEOW mission planners.

Sea mines:
A good object is the submerged submarine. It shows a small periscope that when hit sinks both, the submerged sub and the ship.
Inconveniences: A blue periscope will be always tracked by red ships arty and viceversa. Laying a large minefield will requiere hundred of periscopes to be efective. yes, probably mines weren't layed each 10 meters but in any case many were used to build one. Maybe neutral periscope will not drag arty.

Land mines: SEOW moving vehicles do not have a collision "sensor" and will probably pass through.


Yes, i think the industrial plates are good for that. They should probably be moved down to the sea/ground level as they stay above and only big ships will collide their superstructure causing damage. Vehicles will drive freeley under the circle.

We are looking for a visually destroyed or damaged vehicle/ship entering the minefield but I think we do not need that as we usually are not flying/driving next to them.
I think it can be coded in SEOW. Currently, SEOW detects the proximity of any CC unit, supply drop or vehicle, leaving the neighbour units to be controlled or supplied automtically.
The invisible airfields/airstrips can be used as minefields borders. A square built with four airstrips will encircle the minefield. Coordinates of each corner can be picked up by SEOW code and saved. If any commander plots a route or many across the encircled area, SEOW will let him plot freely across it but should calculate the intersection of the route and the minefield border, get and intersection point coordinate and cut the route in this point. Of course, the cutted route will not be visible for the commander who plots.
Once the mission is run, the units will stop at the intersection point. Once analyzed maybe some of them should be destroyed (percentual as usually).
Of course, the invisible airstrip is not needed to build a square. I believe would be better to use just icons in the MP. A minimum of three and up to six or eight to build an irregular poligon if required. With this, narrow paths could be set for friendly units crossing through. Of course, some rules must be set and the main is the distance between each "corner". I don't know how much time does an engineer platoon need to plant a minefield, but I think it can be similar to the bridge repair time and procedure.

Even building a template, minefields can be built using any other object like the ones we use to set a control point.

Warg's Restriction Model
If all a minefield does is prevent movement into/across the area, then there doesn't need t be any IL-2 support made for it. If SEOW knew about such things, then they could simply be placed on a map in the MP, and SEOW would know to track any plots up to the edge of the minefield and truncate them there. Reasonably simple, done in DCS.

However, commanders would still want the ability to lay or remove minefields dynamically, by sea, air or ground.


Hawk_5's Damage Mode
For mine explosion/damage events to be generated, there would need to be a mod constructed. This could be a simple neutral object (representing a field of mines) that runs some code to periodically determine proximity of any unit, and rolls a die for each nearby unit to determine whether it sets a mine off or not and hence incurs damage/destruction. The event is parsed by DCS and loss calculations are made for affected units.

Again, commanders would still want the ability to lay or remove minefields dynamically, by sea, air or ground.


Personally, I think the nicest solution would be to use a damage mode, so that commanders could elect to drive their units through the minefield and accept subsequent losses as part of their plan, if need be. But either method would take some careful work to get right.

Cheers,
4S

Well, once one unit enters a minefield and blows up, the whole column stops for a while.
Once the mission is analyzed and data shown, the commander will know about the minefield. If he wants to keep moving forward, then he can and SEOW will calculate randomly a percentage of units lost once the convoy, platoon or even flotilla crossed the minefield.

I would still like to have the ability to restrict movement in certain situation unrelated to minefields. My thought is that Warg's idea of a barrier has utility in several ways and is both simpler to do and test. Additional development of the barrier for use as a minefield would be understood as a subsequent phase for developers. Since there seems to be a limited supply of developers available I saw it as a efficent way to proceed. Hawks points are all valid but I want it now Seriously I have no idea where something like this falls in the list of priorities and have faith that the team will apply their best efforts to critical issues as time allows.

Would infantry or tank groups really continue to advance through a known minefield? Not all fighting men had the same mental approach to combat as the Japanese

As I said in a much earlier post I dont think minefields need any direct in game unit, just the MP side of things is where the minefield would be most effective. It can be actioned in the battlefield by perhaps use of combat engineers to have to take position on the battlefield and deploy the mines. Those units perhaps half-tracks would be the only units needed in the .mis file to drive to the required location and then in the MP use that unit to lay a minefield.

It all sounds pretty simple but I bet it will generate a lot of bugs

Warg's Restriction Model
If all a minefield does is prevent movement into/across the area, then there doesn't need t be any IL-2 support made for it. If SEOW knew about such things, then they could simply be placed on a map in the MP, and SEOW would know to track any plots up to the edge of the minefield and truncate them there. Reasonably simple, done in DCS.

However, commanders would still want the ability to lay or remove minefields dynamically, by sea, air or ground.

Okay, so building a minefield barrier is possible, but is within the confines of the SEOW mission planner. Am I correct in reading this assessment? Naturally, I'd personally prefer something neater and all in the IL2 FMB. I like to encompass everything within a template and still hold concerns in regard to adequate resolution on the SEOW planner for accurate placement. However, I fully understand and accepting that this is the only alternative. Would therefore be possible if "a paint brush tool" could be added to the SEOW planner menu. Something easy to use in enabling minefields to be added to SEOW templates upon initialisation? Much better and less time consuming than listing a jumbled series of coordinates.

Am unconcerned whether the minefield is shown to allies and axis on the planner, though I do think that a facility of gathering extra recon to find gaps would be rather entertaining. Special mine clearing units or damage taken by units passing through a minefield can also be interesting and perhaps essential in the scheme of things.

Would infantry or tank groups really continue to advance through a known minefield? Not all fighting men had the same mental approach to combat as the Japanese

Actually, advances were occasionally made through known minefields. These were planned advances. It is something which happened to the cost of the 150th Brigades last stand and subsequent destruction in their box at Gazala. It was practiced on a grander scale at the later Second EL Alamein battle. Most armies (including the Japanese) tended to put infantry or flail tanks through first to lift or clear the mines before the main advance. Additionally, I think that Soviet "Penal Batallions" with NKVD rear area machine gun support is a much more appropriate example for the above argument.

Whatever the case, I do think that minefields are an integeral part of land and sea warfare and our sim is much the lesser for not having it represented.

I think would be easier to "paint" the minefield using the mouse pointer in the same way the routes are plotted. To end the minefield laying, a "close polygon" button will finish the minefield encirclement in the way you want it. Like in the route plotting, you can edit each waypoint's coordinate if needed.