I am always a bit unsure as to what happens to ideas thrown up here, but here are some thoughts of mine. If generally acceptable I will post them on the Matrix site.
Fatigue ...should this be reversible if a look at the distance button tells you there is no advantage?
Transport. Still I think a few that are not doubled in capacity. Main one is motorcycles which unlike trucks cannot move on their own and thus really clutter the landscape. Should they be doubled? Are there any transport elements we have missed.
Minelaying Engineers. Why only one field per scen????? Mines are just ammo in a box. If the blokes are undisrupted,in supply etc, I can see no logical reason why they should not lay away happily. I see the reason for large things like Bailey Bridges, but mines????
Clearing blocks. I am thinking the desert here, where blocks meant barbed wire. Regularly cleared by the infantry. Often simply flattened by a tank or truck. Could be trickier in N Europe...fallen trees etc, but most infantry had demolition charges, surely? Why do we need the Eng?
That will do for now. Would appreciate your thoughts, chaps
Not for doubling motorcycles myself. Understand reversible double time, but then understand leaving it the way it is too. Maybe the sarge misjudged the distance or angle of slope that needed to be climbed. Whoops... our troops aren't perfect.
Minelaying engineers... I'm all for them being able to lay more, but I think there needs to be some way to force them to take a few turns to do it. Laying a field in a single turn, on the scales we're looking it at, is humanly impossible (not to mention, mines aren't light, they have to come from somewhere and engineers don't carry 500 weight each you know). But then, with the weak supply rules we have in the game, we could assume the invisible ammo trucks also bring the invisible boxes of mines. If there were some way to say pin the engineers to a hex for 6 turns or so to lay a single field (perhaps give them a percentage of success each turn that would average out at success in six turns, something like the digging in button, so the engineers can run for it and leave the field incomplete if they have to), but allow an unlimited number. And of course, then there is the consideration that what we're modeling in CS is really a mixed high density field (i.e. anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines in an integrated lay out with appropriate camo). My problem with mine fields though is that if you're in one and come under direct or indirect fire, there should be some serious morale consequences, and possibly even enhanced combat damage. While we could tie different levels of this to the density of the fields in question, in actuality, the enemy has no way of knowing what the density of the field is.
I think on the blocks issue, the type of breaching you're talking about is represented by the slow movement of units through the breach hex, infantry cutting small passage ways and cautiously advancing and keeping a lookout for mines, etc..., often done in very out of the way places...., while a thorough clearing of main roads and passages, including mine sweeping to assure the area is truly clear would be the province of the engineers. My vote would be leave it as it is.
LR
(10-29-2010, 02:35 PM)Larry Reese Wrote: [ -> ]Not for doubling motorcycles myself. Understand reversible double time, but then understand leaving it the way it is too. Maybe the sarge misjudged the distance or angle of slope that needed to be climbed. Whoops... our troops aren't perfect.
Minelaying engineers... I'm all for them being able to lay more, but I think there needs to be some way to force them to take a few turns to do it. Laying a field in a single turn, on the scales we're looking it at, is humanly impossible (not to mention, mines aren't light, they have to come from somewhere and engineers don't carry 500 weight each you know). But then, with the weak supply rules we have in the game, we could assume the invisible ammo trucks also bring the invisible boxes of mines. If there were some way to say pin the engineers to a hex for 6 turns or so to lay a single field (perhaps give them a percentage of success each turn that would average out at success in six turns, something like the digging in button, so the engineers can run for it and leave the field incomplete if they have to), but allow an unlimited number. And of course, then there is the consideration that what we're modeling in CS is really a mixed high density field (i.e. anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines in an integrated lay out with appropriate camo). My problem with mine fields though is that if you're in one and come under direct or indirect fire, there should be some serious morale consequences, and possibly even enhanced combat damage. While we could tie different levels of this to the density of the fields in question, in actuality, the enemy has no way of knowing what the density of the field is.
I think on the blocks issue, the type of breaching you're talking about is represented by the slow movement of units through the breach hex, infantry cutting small passage ways and cautiously advancing and keeping a lookout for mines, etc..., often done in very out of the way places...., while a thorough clearing of main roads and passages, including mine sweeping to assure the area is truly clear would be the province of the engineers. My vote would be leave it as it is.
LR
Why not double motorcycles? We have just doubled most other transport.
I agree the fatigue issue has a case either way.
"Mines aren't light"---a sweeping generalisation,as most WWII types were designed to be laid by hand. I suggested in my proposal that the laying element would have to be in supply undisrupted,etc. That is all CS requires to get rations and ammo up. Why should laying a minefield be quicker than clearing one? Has anyone here cleared or laid a minefield?( I have laid wire and set claymores, the latter task physically non demanding as I recall, but a long time ago now.)
" And of course, then there is the consideration that what we're modeling in CS is really a mixed high density field (i.e. anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines in an integrated lay out with appropriate camo).i.e. anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines in an integrated lay out with appropriate camo)" Are we? Really? The staff college solution. More likely what we are laying is what the truck brought.
As for the rest the combat effects of engagement in a minefield are outside the scope of my proposal, which is merely to remove the limitation on laying mines.
I take your point on blocks. But "Slow movement" again a staff solution rears its ugly head. Patton or Rommel would be happy,I'm sure. The Brit A/Cs used to use a grapple and tow the wire aside.
Oh, I'm not saying you can't lay them by hand at all, what I am saying is one engineer platoon isn't going to be able to physically carry sufficient mines to lay a field 250 meter by 100 meters (which we'd need, at a minimum) to cover the hexes the way mines are considered to in the game (or do it in six minutes). And by definition it has to be a mixed field - the fields in the game work equally well against all comers, infantry, trucks, heavy tanks, etc..., the very definition of a mixed field. If a game field was nothing but anti-personnel mines, medium and heavy tanks would have little to fear (and vice versa). So, as a question of game mechanics, it must be a mixed field. (I'd love it if we could have multiple types of fields, but I'm not sure the game engine would allow it.)
LR
Pray tell me why a detail, which IN CS can clear a minefield in one hex in 1 turn, should have trouble laying a field in the same time. Intuitively, laying a field should be easier than clearing it. The lads don't have to find the bloody things...theyre in the truck. In boxes. The size of the field is irrelevant, except insofar it occupies one hex.
(10-29-2010, 08:17 PM)K K Rossokolski Wrote: [ -> ]Pray tell me why a detail, which IN CS can clear a minefield in one hex in 1 turn, should have trouble laying a field in the same time. Intuitively, laying a field should be easier than clearing it. The lads don't have to find the bloody things...theyre in the truck. In boxes. The size of the field is irrelevant, except insofar it occupies one hex.
Gents:
I think we should also look at mine laying engineers in
the context of game balance. IMO, allowing mine laying engineers to lay unlimited numbers of mines per scenario... and as was proposed "in one hex in 1 turn" is going to cause some serious game balance issues.
Imagine letting one of these suckers loose... and in a short while this unit can create mini Siegfried lines all over the battlefield! :eek1:
I agree that mine laying engineers should be able to lay more then one mine field per scenario... but there needs to be limits placed on that capability for game balance purposes.
Not so.......It will only effect balance of scens where the capability is included. The designer will need to take that into account as he considers the great multiplicity of matters which influence the balance. The great mass of legacy scenarios will not be influenced at all, because the capability is not there. If a legacy scenario is modded in any way its balance is changed..... it becomes in effect a different scenario.
You said " Imagine letting one of these suckers loose... and in a short while this unit can create mini Siegfried lines all over the battlefield! "
That is exactly what happened in the desert battlefields.
Don't forget these units/elements are subject to enemy action. Disruption or retreat stops the work. They need to be "in supply". One would hope that their inclusion in the .org is along rational lines.
Has anyone sat down and tried to evaluate the balance change effects of the quantum leap in truck values a while back? I suspect not.
(10-29-2010, 08:17 PM)K K Rossokolski Wrote: [ -> ]Pray tell me why a detail, which IN CS can clear a minefield in one hex in 1 turn, should have trouble laying a field in the same time. Intuitively, laying a field should be easier than clearing it. The lads don't have to find the bloody things...theyre in the truck. In boxes. The size of the field is irrelevant, except insofar it occupies one hex.
lol, because they are simply sweeping a single lane through the field (which I also feel shouldn't be possible in just 6 minutes). So, in the field referenced above, 250 meter by 100 meter, it's a lot quicker to sweep, clear, and mark a 5 meter wide ten meter long corridor than it would be to lay and camoflage the mines needed to cover that entire area (at least in my opinion and experience).
However, when you add up the the turn needed to move into the field, the turn needed to do a clearing of a level one field, you've got 12 minutes there more or less, plus another six for each level of field above that, so for high density (level three) you're looking at a commitment of 24 minutes or so. I can live with that, though I think it is important to note that what that represents is only one or two swept, cleared, and marked lanes through the field, not a total clearing of the hex of all mines. The limitations of the game engine forces some compromises on both laying and clearing, unfortunately.
LR
Great stuff, guys! :)
Being an artillery guy, but having survived the infantry boot camp, I can add to the comment that there's nothing special to laying mines, be they anti tank mines, small land mines, or Claymore's for that matter.
Therefore, it would make sense to have mine engineers capable for laying more than one mine field.
As described above, it takes time: you need to be in supply, undisrupted, and what I did not see mentioned was that IIRC there's a die roll as well. It does not happen automatically.
Depending on hex type, the argument for setting a mine field or clearing a path through an existing field goes both ways. A road through a forest is relatively easy to mine, whereas a desert hex would of course be more demanding for setting up the mine field than clearing a path though it.
You can sort of design around this, can't you. Just have enough of SP1 mine engineers with SP1 engineer trucks (can't recall if you actually even needed trucks...), and have them around for laying the mine fields.
Once done, just get them out from the map so they do not bother too much.
I agree this is not a solution but a fix. I hate to micro manage small units in a larger scenario, but then again: mine engineers (and bridging engineers, and I guess engineers regardless, even when down to 1 SP) are very useful units and one cannot have enough of them around...
Well, "regular" engineer units have a 20% of creating improved positions per turn... why not give mine laying engineers that same percentage chance of laying mines per turn and be done with it? :chin:
I like "simple" solutions! :cool2: