mines mines mines...

Cromort · Post by **Cromort** » Fri Oct 05, 2001 6:29 pm

Hi to all,

i mostly play the long campaign (ok i know there's not much variation <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> ) and when i defend(i buy the mines) or when i assault , there are always hundreds of mines present.
My question: would it be more pleasant to play without the mines (or not)?? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

I would like to know your oppinions?
Thanks

"Dulce bellum inexpertis"

Erasmus

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Fri Oct 05, 2001 6:37 pm

Mine warfare is a fact. It would be more pleasent to play without the AIP haveing any forces at all but not so challenging. Mines do not represent any real challenge if you clear them properly. Please consider reading my tactics guide http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/spwaw_downloads.htm and the section on battle drills covers this.

Alternately when you have ver 7, you can have a human buy, setup (& play if you want) the other side so you can have this they way you want it.

IKerensky · Post by **IKerensky** » Fri Oct 05, 2001 6:51 pm

Hum, ep is is historical, but the AI just use them like mad, especially at high budget.

When you ahve to cross a finnish forest infested by 6!! concrete minefield row, bunkers and entrenched finnish bycicle ( sic. ) with your Tank regiment and cossack, believe me or not it is NOT funny, even when you use 15 203 gun bataillon to open a way <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Seriously the worst thing was a german early war defend agains my soviets : i counted a miefield 15 hex!!! wield at one place <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Fri Oct 05, 2001 7:30 pm

When I saw this topic title I first thought of a variation on the old Monty Python "Spam" song. "We got mines & wire, mines & trenches, mines, wire, trenches & mines, mines & mines...". You get the idea. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> Anyway, for my long campaigns I set my own Geneva Convention rule of "mines off". Nothing is more boring than setting up a three or four-deep minefield when you're in the "defend" mode. Not ONE assaulting AI unit gets through before they're slaughtered. Not very sporting. It may be ahistorical, but it sure leaves more room for maneuver.

john g · Post by **john g** » Fri Oct 05, 2001 7:53 pm

Originally posted by KG Erwin:
<img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> Anyway, for my long campaigns I set my own Geneva Convention rule of "mines off".

While on the subject of mines, I just tested the reaction of DT to direct fire against their hex. They function like mines, they can be removed with enough firepower as well. Now lack of engineers will not stop a vehicle cold when it comes up against a line of DT.
thanks, John.

m10bob · Post by **m10bob** » Sun Oct 07, 2001 7:23 pm

I hate mines..I also hate bullets,but it's all part of the historical picture,and is part of the total tactical battlefield...(An even more awesome,realistic aspect of those mineields are an enemy keeping them covered with mortars and mmg/hmg teams,(pre-sighted)..That will just ruin a good engineer units day! <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Sun Oct 07, 2001 7:55 pm

I play with "mines off" in my campaigns.

Gen.Hoepner · Post by **Gen.Hoepner** » Sun Oct 07, 2001 7:59 pm

I agree with those who like mines.Mines is one of the most important aspect of modern warfare.The "infernal gardens" or whatever they were called by Rommel were used in all the theaters of ww2.

Dave R · Post by **Dave R** » Sun Oct 07, 2001 8:47 pm

Hi Guys.
The problem with mines it that they are not realy depicted quite right.
In warfare there are two distinct types of mine warfare.
The large scale mine fields were a static long term defence structure which often took many weeks, if not months to place, and as a side note. In accordence with the Geniva Convention had to be clearly marked for all to see, so they shouldn't be hidden. Their purpose being to slow, or channel your enamy into a killing zone.
The second use is the much smaller nuisence usage. The odd hex full of mines on a junction for example. These don't have to be marked, their effectivness comes in their nasty surprise value.
To get a correct feeling for mines, Large fields should be known to the attacker, then he has the choice of do you try to worm your way through them, or brave the killing zone for that quick offence. Single hex mines should always be hidden and found the hard way, unless you have the right equipment.
Because the computer can't handle mines well. I usually play with them off in a random battle, but are happy for them to be used when I'm playing with a human opponant.

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Sun Oct 07, 2001 8:53 pm

If the mines are mine, I don't 'mine'd as much is if they're not mine. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Eric Maietta

john g · Post by **john g** » Sun Oct 07, 2001 10:17 pm

Originally posted by Dave R:

The large scale mine fields were a static long term defence structure which often took many weeks, if not months to place, and as a side note. In accordence with the Geniva Convention had to be clearly marked for all to see, so they shouldn't be hidden. Their purpose being to slow, or channel your enamy into a killing zone.
The second use is the much smaller nuisence usage. The odd hex full of mines on a junction for example. These don't have to be marked, their effectivness comes in their nasty surprise value.
To get a correct feeling for mines, Large fields should be known to the attacker, then he has the choice of do you try to worm your way through them, or brave the killing zone for that quick offence. Single hex mines should always be hidden and found the hard way, unless you have the right equipment.
Because the computer can't handle mines well. I usually play with them off in a random battle, but are happy for them to be used when I'm playing with a human opponant.

If you use wire in a mine hex, it becomes a known hex to both sides, satisfying your concern about a marked field.
thanks, John.

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Mon Oct 08, 2001 6:13 am

Originally posted by Dave R:
...In accordence with the Geniva Convention had to be clearly marked for all to see, so they shouldn't be hidden. ....

Actually they have to be recorded so that they can be cleared or marked after the battle/war so as not to create a threat to non-combatants. There is no requirement to mark minefields so that an opposing combatant force can see them.