Possible Mods

Larry Reese · 10-31-2010, 04:56 AM,

That's what I'm saying Kat.... There needs to be more time involved in my opinion. We're not just scattering them on the ground (lol, no slight on FASCAM) they have to be laid out, buried appropriately, and camoed where necessary. Not very much of a mystery if there are freshly dug piles of dirt every five meters or so.

Even though in my scenarios I tend to equate each turn to far more than 6 minutes given historical rates of advance, etc..., I still think 20% or so should be good. But that's just my opinion.

LR

LR

Kool Kat · (This post was last modified: 10-31-2010, 07:23 AM by Kool Kat.)

(10-31-2010, 04:56 AM)Larry Reese Wrote: That's what I'm saying Kat.... There needs to be more time involved in my opinion. We're not just scattering them on the ground (lol, no slight on FASCAM) they have to be laid out, buried appropriately, and camoed where necessary. Not very much of a mystery if there are freshly dug piles of dirt every five meters or so.

Even though in my scenarios I tend to equate each turn to far more than 6 minutes given historical rates of advance, etc..., I still think 20% or so should be good. But that's just my opinion.

LR

I agree. Look at it this way. Since regular engineers have only a 20% chance of building an improved position per turn... and that's usually with ready material (e.g. fallen trees, debris, rubble, etc.) lying around... how can laying mines be a "faster" task? ... especially when a "wrong" move can get you killed?

Not to be labor the point here... but IMO, mine laying engineers need to be "restricted" in either a percentage chance per turn or the number of mines that may be laid per scenario.

BTW... I think both you and Rod have laid out excellent points in this thread! cheers

K K Rossokolski · 10-31-2010, 01:46 PM,

FACTS. Engineers have been in CS since the start. Engineers inter alia clear minefields. CS is not interested in the layout of the minefields, their geometrical pattern, whether they are camouflaged, FASCAM (or indeed any other scam). These matters are supremely irrelevant to this discussion.
Minefields are deemed to be anti vehicle, anti personnel without any distinctions. Everything gets blown up. Except engineers and certain other units such as flail tanks. These are called "Mine Clearing Units (MCU)* The minefield covers the entire hex, and may be Strength 1, 2, 3. Until recently, minefields could not be laid in play, but had to be placed by the scen design.
Undisrupted MCU entering a minefield are not attacked, and immediately begin clearing. Each turn in the minefield clears one strength level. Thus a strength 3 minefield will be cleared in 3 turns. No die throw....to stop the process the MCU must be disrupted or made to retreat. As far as I am aware, the MCU strength has no effect on the process...one undisrupted sapper with his probing bayonet can clear the whole lot.
Recent CS developments have brought exciting new engineer capabilities, including mine laying engineers. These are allowed only one Strength 1 field PER SCENARIO. I maintain this is unrealistic in the extreme, implying that minelaying ....a very common activity in WWII...is some kind of exotic activity practiced only by soldiers with PhDs in engineering. Which is an idea even sillier than the present restrictions. How many were laid in WWII,mostly by hand.....100 million? Who knows?

I believe the restriction on minelaying in CS needs to better reflect reality. Mine clearing involves finding, digging (both very carefully) moving and disposing /storing/relaying. Minelaying involves moving, planning layout, digging** Thus as these are equivalent activities in most ways,the minelaying capability should reflect the clearing capability ie Undisrupted, unfatigued, but additionally within supply range. An element low on supply will cease laying until supply is restored (if that is feasible wrt game mechanics). No dice roll is necessary.....what they are doing is essentially the reverse of CS mineclearing. No balance aspects come into play, except for the relatively few scens that have minelayers. There appears to be a concern, unjustified by argument, that this activity should take time. Easy...limit the numbers available in the .org. Has anyone seen a scen where the basic engineers are available on the spot at the drop of a hat? If so, IMO that is a worthless scenario.

MR Kool Kat commented wisely in an earlier post on the virtues of simplicity. This proposal seems a simple way to change a ridiculous addition into one with some semblance of reality. And one which will, I believe give CS players another set of options, a little more to think about.

* Correctly, this should read elements, not units. The smallest UNIT is Battalion or equivalent.
** A minefield need not be camouflaged to be effective. Its prime purpose is to deny the use of ground. The Australians caused problems in the desert by making lots of little sandcastles laid out neatly.

Crossroads · (This post was last modified: 10-31-2010, 04:21 PM by Crossroads.)

I agree the current implementation of a Mine Engineer unit is not perfect. Maybe there was programming limits, or maybe a decision was made for one reason or another to limit the minefields to one.

Anyhow, the mine field is not created automatically:

To lay a minefield, place the Mine Engineer in the desired hex and select Lay a Minefield from the Unit Menu. There is a 60% chance it will lay a minefield. Mine Engineer units are incapable of clearing minefields.

The consensus seems to be: keep them as they are, but remove the one-mine-field-only restriction?

K K Rossokolski · 10-31-2010, 04:54 PM,

Absolutely!!

Crossroads · 10-31-2010, 10:28 PM,

OK, sorted the Mine Engineers, we did :)

Next!

(10-29-2010, 01:15 PM)K K Rossokolski Wrote: Fatigue ...should this be reversible if a look at the distance button tells you there is no advantage?

Yes please!

(10-29-2010, 01:15 PM)K K Rossokolski Wrote: 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.

Valid for bicycles and skis as well. Cluttering the landscape that is. Easy points for anyone with an assault capable unit around, though. Just jump in to rid them off.

K K Rossokolski · 11-01-2010, 07:48 AM,

I invite input on the doubling of motorcycles, as has been done with other transport.
I remain equivocal on the Double Time/Fatigue ON/OFF issue, but the ability to double time should certainly be aplicable to bicycles. It can be used with a wagon carrying troops, so would seem to be feasible technically.
I guess doubling bicycles would be possible, but it doesn't "feel right" to me, so I don't propose it.
Petri, I am sure ski troops have integral skis...they don't have to be "loaded" onto them.