Mines in PBEM games

[Capt. Pixel]

Originally posted by G_X
My cat hates Mines. I play with the volume pretty high, so if I'm rolling allong and step on a mine, you can watch the cat jump up, literally, into the air.

Your cat wouldn't be named 'Bouncing Betty', would she?

[tracer]

Originally posted by Capt. Pixel
I managed to convince one opponent to completely avoid one of my flanks. Not because of mines, but because of Anti-tank obstacles.

He could, of course, see these already placed as he deployed, and it concerned him no end. Not knowing exactly what I was up to in that quadrant, he conceded the territory and let me have it.

I'm impressed...you pulled the old 'Jedi Mind Trick' on him.

Cpt. P: "You don't want to go that way"

Dazed opponent (in a monotone): "I don't want to go that way..."

I gotta remember to give that one a try!

[Capt. Pixel]

Originally posted by tracer


I'm impressed...you pulled the old 'Jedi Mind Trick' on him.

Cpt. P: "You don't want to go that way"

Dazed opponent (in a monotone): "I don't want to go that way..."

I gotta remember to give that one a try!

LOL

Sometimes you get lucky and can capitalize on your reputation for being a twisted thinker.

{Between you and me, I wouldn't have gone near that area either. That boy is sick!}

[Ivan]

yeah i once miss-used mines in a game against me pal.

20k points each, i bought...hmmm... a cr@pload of mines.
mined the entire southern sector. 4 hexes deep. i put no units down there.
all was going well, i saw my friend driving a huge tiger column that way.
buuuut...his air-strikes came and being the old version, he saw the minefield and what do i see next turn.
all activity in south just died and he pulled up.

[Curieus]

I have used mines in a PBEM game against spain. There was some good defensible terrain i ruined because i laid mines. But then, given the troops i had, forests were extremely bad defensible terrain (look at the troops, point and they run). So i decided to block this terrain partially (leaving gaps).
This also freed troops for an offensive in the north (which died under a massive 210 mm barrage.

In short, a single, non continuous line covering between 30 to 50% of the front.

[tracer]

I think the point alot are missing is that the vast majority of PBEM battles are meeting engagements; both opponents advancing into an area where they currently have *no* forces (as in 'no forces to lay a minefield'!). In a defend/assault or even a delay/advance pre-laid minefields make perfect sense...but to have them show up in a meeting engagement is about as believable as a Chinese redhead.

But, to each his own.

[Frank W.]

i believe you´re right.

in meetings there should be no mines.

in assault´s it depends of the dedending sides
tactics.

Originally posted by tracer
I think the point alot are missing is that the vast majority of PBEM battles are meeting engagements; both opponents advancing into an area where they currently have *no* forces (as in 'no forces to lay a minefield'!). In a defend/assault or even a delay/advance pre-laid minefields make perfect sense...but to have them show up in a meeting engagement is about as believable as a Chinese redhead.

But, to each his own.

[rbrunsman]

Originally posted by Curieus
I have used mines in a PBEM game against spain. There was some good defensible terrain i ruined because i laid mines. But then, given the troops i had, forests were extremely bad defensible terrain (look at the troops, point and they run). So i decided to block this terrain partially (leaving gaps).
This also freed troops for an offensive in the north (which died under a massive 210 mm barrage.

In short, a single, non continuous line covering between 30 to 50% of the front.

I never found any gaps!

I've only ever used engineer laid mines, but I don't think it's bad if my opponent uses them. The game is fairly balanced, so points spent in one place are points not spent elsewhere.

But I do agree that in a meeting engagement, it is not terribly realistic. But then again, neither is several batteries of 210mm arty supporting an otherwise small force.

[Bernie]

Originally posted by rbrunsman


I never found any gaps!

I've only ever used engineer laid mines, but I don't think it's bad if my opponent uses them. The game is fairly balanced, so points spent in one place are points not spent elsewhere.

But I do agree that in a meeting engagement, it is not terribly realistic. But then again, neither is several batteries of 210mm arty supporting an otherwise small force.

I'll agree that mines in a meeting engagement aren't always realistic (unless the scenario calls for a behind the lines attack perhaps) but it's quite realistic for a small force encountering an enemy to call in all the arty they can. After all, such a meeting engagement is usually a front-line probe or scouting party with plenty of support behind them.

[G_X]

I don't get this whole idea that a large attack force heading for another large attack force in scenarios like Meeting Engagement wouldn't have large caliber Off Board arty support. Yes, I can see them not having On Board arty support in large calibers.

Mines though...eh, I just hateses Mines.


And no, my cat's name is Tiger, and actually King Tiger. I got him about 11 years ago, and we've always refered to him as the King of the house because of the way he acted, I named him tiger because of the stripes he has on him.

Ironic huh?

[OKW-73]

Originally posted by tracer
I think the point alot are missing is that the vast majority of PBEM battles are meeting engagements; both opponents advancing into an area where they currently have *no* forces (as in 'no forces to lay a minefield'!). In a defend/assault or even a delay/advance pre-laid minefields make perfect sense...but to have them show up in a meeting engagement is about as believable as a Chinese redhead.

But, to each his own.

Isnt it possible that in meeting engagements that in that area had fights earlier and mines have laid there before

[Capt. Pixel]

Maybe the battle generator out to pump out a few random mines around the map to represent previous battlefields or old WW I mine leftovers.

Wouldn't that be wild?

[Curieus]

I never found any gaps!

But then you were not looking very hard.
Your troops were too busy dodging those 12 cm shells. How do you think those troops of mine passed the minefield?

[Curieus]

Btw, we call it a meeting engagement because 2 opposing forces meet. However there is no indication whether they meet after a 100km long advance, or that they spring off from a well entrenched position.
This means that use of mines may well be waranted, depending on how you think the engagement starts. Or perhaps those are minefield laid by the previous owner of the area, and the current owner adapted his defenses/initial positions to these existing fields.

But i agree that excessive use of mines is not fun. A four row deep minefield the lenght of the map is, shall we say "boring"

[Ivan]

i think mines laid during battle by engineers is acceptable and a great tactic.
hehe my friend sure got suprised when he blew his kingtiger on one. ´how the hell did you get mines there, that one blew on my side1´

[tracer]

Originally posted by Curieus
Btw, we call it a meeting engagement because 2 opposing forces meet. However there is no indication whether they meet after a 100km long advance, or that they spring off from a well entrenched position.

Entrenchments in SPWAW only appear in assault/defend battles. But like I said before: to each his own...if there are no agreements or restrictions put in place beforehand, 'anything goes'. I still feel that the spirit of a meeting engagement assumes both forces arriving on a 'fresh' map.

But i agree that excessive use of mines is not fun. A four row deep minefield the lenght of the map is, shall we say "boring"

Beer! Even in assault/defend battles I usually place mines in small arcs in front of fortifications or scatter some on a likely approach route....unless its an assault against a historically strong defensive line (something like Omaha Beach).

[john g]

Originally posted by Curieus

But i agree that excessive use of mines is not fun. A four row deep minefield the lenght of the map is, shall we say "boring"

That sort of battle is the perfect reason to use paras, glider and spec op troops. If your opponent is expecting to stop you with the mines, you just ignore them.

Those who are only able to use one weapon will be beaten by those able to use all the weapons.
thanks, John.

[tracer]

Originally posted by OKW-73


Isnt it possible that in meeting engagements that in that area had fights earlier and mines have laid there before

In that case they would be random, capable of hindering either side. Assault/defend & advance/delay battles assume the defending player had control of the field beforehand...meeting engagements assume nobody did. Remember too that in A/D's the advancing player gets a larger force to compensate for things like minefields, so in a meeting engagement where both sides have equal buy-points you have to figure 'something's wrong with this picture'

[challenge]

The idea of spending lots of points on the "specials" and less on the standard troops is what I think causes the irritation. I don't mind mines, off-board artillery, strike units, air drops nor infiltrators. What bugs me is when my opponant spends two-thirds of the allotted points on those items and a third or less on the "regular" troops. It's no different than when you turn off rarity and buy four companies of Tigers, or what ever the heavy tank of the day is...

I like a balanced game -- and as soon as I get my household back online I'll be looking for one .

[tracer]

I always think about the feeling of accomplishment, and my opponents feeling of inadequacy, as his units gets torn into by a 'historic' force after he has stacked the deck with top-of-the-line equipment and 'specials'. There's nothing like watching a 3 year old Marder or 50mm ATG brewing up a troop of shiny-new IS-3's or Jacksons costing 10 times as much! If you listen real hard I think you can hear him cursing during VCR playback.