Assaults, mines

Pack Rat · Post by **Pack Rat** » Wed Aug 09, 2000 11:23 pm

This is a carry over from another thread and my anal wish for more ammo for off-board art. I don't request it for meeting or defend engagements as I think there is plenty. Assaults are another matter. It's a simple test to buy alot of mines and lay them indepth across the board. The AI will not get through with any kind of support to your mine field. Human v human is another matter, but I would bet a huge advantage to the player behing the mines. I'd be also willing to bet there are areas in North Africa to this day that you wouldn't want to take a walk in. Mines can give you a sense of false security as well, also proven in North Africa.

So what am I going on about? I would ask are assults to hard with any kind of mine fields to speak of? What do you think (if it were possable to add) about more ammo for off-board art, just for assults? Do engineer tanks go fast enough? Do engineer units go fast enough? Do you avoid playing assaults all together? Are mines to powerful/not powerful enough? Should the number of mines be limited? Is there another way that you think might handle mines better in the game?

------------------

Good hunting,
Pack Rat

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Wed Aug 09, 2000 11:39 pm

I agree that the AI can't handle mines. FOr humans however assaults against mines and other prepared defenses can be easy.

Any obstacle can be breached and engineers/engineering tanks give you this capability in the game. IRL (as well as in the game) you should keep obstacles covered by observation and fire to prevent them from leisurely being breached (with the exception of nusiance obstacles). IRL (as well as in the game) use lots of smoke and suppressive fires to prevent direct/indirect fire interference with you breaching parties.

Prepared defenses should be sited with interlocking fields of fire so that if you try and take out one, you get attacked by another. Again, smoke and suppressive fire on the supporting positions can break this grid and allow you to unhinge the defense.

Its kind of slow and boring but not rocket science. Figuring how to maneuver against in a meeting engagement is lots more mentally challenging IMHO.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Aug 09, 2000 11:44 pm

Dont believe that mines are 'too' powerful, provided that the battle has enough turns in it.

renwor · Post by **renwor** » Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:29 pm

Originally posted by Nikademus:
Dont believe that mines are 'too' powerful, provided that the battle has enough turns in it.

Thats EXACTLY my point! Unless you are forced to rush through minefield by the turn counter, mines are OK.
But if you want to try how annoying they could be, try "Moment of truth" ? as germans.
And thats not A LOT of mines, thats just SOME mines.
AI definitely cannot handle mines, so maybe for vs. computer that may be good reason to limit their numbers. (for generated battles) Or maybe raise their cost??? Several times?

Also (as mentioned in other thread already), I would like some "pathfinding/pathclearing" ability for engineers, faster than it is now for clearing the hex. Hell, all I need is 4meter path through hex, not to find all mines in hex!!!

errr.... one addition, from ...

Minefield: Where are those mines again?

A minor quibble, perhaps, but minefields are too dangerous. Why does moving through an already detected minefield cause more
casualties to units subsequently entering the hex? The first unit that moves through a minefield will mark it as such. Who is going to
drive right through it again? An already detected minefield does not represent one square kilometer of mines, and as such, paths can
be found around them, once detected. These paths take time to find, which is why I would suggest a movement-point penalty to
subsequent movement "through" a minefield hex. An exception to this would be a densely laid minefield, such as the so-called Stalin
Line. To be fair, few games realistically portray this properly.

.... Smolensk 41 review. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

One more stupid idea:

Mines combined with wires are "known" /visible minefields, right??? If I build a continuous line top/bottom of those visible minefields, would AI EVER get through without engineers and engineer tanks?
I must try! I really fear it would not

But then the "defend" scenarios stop to be any fun

(I mean generated defend, not scripted)

Maybe a ring around every victory hex would be enough????

Renwor

[This message has been edited by renwor (edited August 10, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by renwor (edited August 10, 2000).]

renwor · Post by **renwor** » Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:35 pm

I am not allowed to delete my own posts!!!! WHY?????

[This message has been edited by renwor (edited August 10, 2000).]

Michael Wermelin · Post by **Michael Wermelin** » Thu Aug 10, 2000 3:18 pm

Defend scenarios vs the AI can be real fun if you play with the following set.

1. No mines. The AI can advance as usual.

2. Give the AI more points than the game itself normally gives an attacker.

3. Buy few or no forts/bunkers etc.
The AI tends to stop until they are destroyed. AI has no tactical ability for avoiding strongpoints, not in my experience.

4. Do not use too much artillery since it is so effective vs the AIs usual massing of troops.

Perhaps such battles are not the most historical accurate ones, but giving the AI such benefits makes it worth to play against even with the bad attack ability it has.

Just finished a defend generated battle. I played german and was assaulted by the soviets in june -44. Instead of using AT-guns I used tanks, stationary at positions I would have placed AT-guns. Some pioneers and MGs, no mines, no bunkers/forts, sparse with AA. And no artillery at all. Oh my what a battle. I made it to a marginal victory but I really had to fight for it.

One other really fun thing to do is to buy the AIs troops yourself. In this you can really choose what is most leathal to your own core and then you will have a really hard time.

Good luck

[This message has been edited by Michael Wermelin (edited August 10, 2000).]

renwor · Post by **renwor** » Thu Aug 10, 2000 3:27 pm

Well, it's getting a bit extreme.

You may try to buy just two motorcycle batailons

Defending with just the motorcycles could be a real challenge!

Or maybe just the HQ unit itself? And forget about entrenching, and move at least two hexes every turn, and don't shoot ...
Can you still win? No? And who said AI cannot attack?

Renwor

Michael Wermelin · Post by **Michael Wermelin** » Thu Aug 10, 2000 4:01 pm

Well I didn't mean it that bad. Just try it for once for a challange. No mines!??? Start with that. It is fun and challanging giving the AI superiority of sorts. After all, can you say that the AI is handling minefields well when it is attacking?

And I must say that one other of the reasons I'm not using much artillery is the much frustrating 'out of contact' situations.

Playing against another player is the best. But I cannot do that often. So to keep the AI challanging when it is attacking, I must take means to ensure a fight. The mines, I use them sometimes, are just one way to make it easier for the AI to attack.

The reason why I don't use motercycles is that I prefer the pack mules

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Thu Aug 10, 2000 5:01 pm

I'm trying to find out how to enable "user deletes own posts"

For now if you post something you wish to retract, hit edit and edit away the text so its just a blank message.

Sorry about that!!

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Thu Aug 10, 2000 5:16 pm

Mines are definately not too powerful, except against a "stupid" AI (no offence to your code, AI can't ever be constructive

). They are actually more of a delay obstacle than a killer, or a way of forcing an enemy to turn the way you want him to.

In SP, it's easy to defeat them i think.. and even more so against AI.. use smoke to shield the supporting defenders behind the mine field, and advance slowly but surely. Engineers and engineer tanks are a very good asset here.. for campaigns, i usually buy a couple of them as support troops in assaults if i don't have them already in the core. Mines shouldn't be too easy to clear either.. for real, it's a painstakingly slow and nerv-wrecking job to probe for them.

Another "mine-comment" slightly off topic, I don't think the defenders should be able to notice when the attackers clear the mines if they have no LOS to the mine-field! I believe this is the case right now, at least i got messages about it as defender.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Thu Aug 10, 2000 6:23 pm

increasing the average # of turns for an assault or even putting in an option to eliminate a 'turn limit' for a certain battle might be in order.

Often i've had the urge to play a battle that did'nt at least partially depend "on the clock" so to speak, where i could better plan and deploy my forces.

It was a similar issue to infantry heavy battles using forces that historically were not all that motorized or even not motorized at all.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Thu Aug 10, 2000 6:37 pm

In version three you can set the length of the battle up to 60 turns. We felt that was about the limit of the length of time appropriate at this scale (this length representing on average 3-5 hours.)