08-07-2005 17:29									#1
	mine laying unit Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

How about a unit to use so you can lay mines in certain squares? including anti personnel and anti tank to help with defense.

could be countered with an upgrade to tanks to equip them with mine clearing capabilities...

has this been brought up before?

	08-07-2005 17:34									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

could work in scenarios (already exist in some civ2 and tot scen i played) but not for a normal civ game...you would be mining a area the size of belgium to begin with and second of all..the tiles couldnt be worked anymore...

	08-07-2005 18:06									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

well, seeing as the tiles represent a very large area as you have said, it is possible to have workers and mines in the same large area.

in many real life cases, mines are strategically placed, not over country sized areas.

besides, i was thinking more about mining distant outskirt areas to take up the slack of not having a million units everywhere to defend.

and of course they wouldn't affect your units because they would know where they are.

i think it's a good idea.

	08-07-2005 18:14									#4
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by vee4473 and of course they wouldn't affect your units because they would know where they are.

Riiiiight.

	08-07-2005 18:18									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

yet again it would be great for scenarios...but i dont see it working in normal game because then you would also be able to build barbwire, pillboxen...etc etc...we already have something like that...fortress...

	08-07-2005 18:22									#6
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by vee4473 besides, i was thinking more about mining distant outskirt areas to take up the slack of not having a million units everywhere to defend.

I politely disagree
Minefields could not guard against an army that knows it has no opposition. It would slow it down perhaps, but as soon as they discover the first mine, they'll just put their engineers to work clearing a path, and would continue rolling on.

	08-07-2005 18:23									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

well, in real life, friendly units have mine maps, and in some cases fields are marked as such.

if you don't believe that, than how about keeping your idea of not working mine fields and giving the player the choice to sacrafice a tile or two for mining purposes if the mined tile falls within a city radius?

and to have the mines clearly marked for the player, but invisible to the ai so that the player could easily select a route of travel while the ai has no clue where to go.


that would prevent mining diarrhea.


seems doable to me.

	08-07-2005 18:26									#8
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ninot I politely disagree Minefields could not guard against an army that knows it has no opposition. It would slow it down perhaps, but as soon as they discover the first mine, they'll just put their engineers to work clearing a path, and would continue rolling on.

exactly, but that is the whole purpose of mines... to slow the enemy down.


the fact that they would have to stop the invasion to clear a path gives you a little time and you just proved their usefulness.

or if you want, just have enemy travel be slowed by a couple of movement points through a mined area to reflect the effect that a minefield has on troop movement.

	08-07-2005 18:30									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

ok, then maybe implement mines as a method to stop the movement of an army for a given turn.

but they couldnt be expected to causes loses.

And even then, a minefield wouldn't cause an army to halt for a full year, which is what i'm assuming a game turn would be.

	08-07-2005 18:33									#10
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

this reminds me off a story i read somewhere... in war people were so afraid of mines that sometimes only the a sign that there was a minefield somewhere changed the attack plan...i can already think of a scenario that you could be real minesfield (doing damage to units) and fake minefield (doing nothing)...could be great atleast in multiplayer

	08-07-2005 18:54									#11
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ninot ok, then maybe implement mines as a method to stop the movement of an army for a given turn. but they couldnt be expected to causes loses. And even then, a minefield wouldn't cause an army to halt for a full year, which is what i'm assuming a game turn would be.

well, if we want to start discussing all the things that would or wouldn't happen in a years time, you can take almost anything in civ.

a tank wouldn't take a year to move a few tiles either, or 4 years to train one unit for deployment, or 5 years to chop down a forest etc...civ only pretends to be real, lots of what is in it is not, but it is just a bare simulation.

and mines absolutely cause losses.

but, it was just an idea anyway.

	08-07-2005 19:36									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Mines are good for tactical games. Civ is NOT a tactical game - its a strategicial game.

Mines shouldn't be in civ4 because its way out of its scope.

You want to slow down the enemy for a turn? Build a fortress with a barricade (which most likely has mines in it ), and garrison it with at least one unit. Now each enemy unit loses all its movement points when it moves into this square.

	08-07-2005 19:49									#13
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Exactly, mines are for a micro level warfare, not macro like in the CIV series.

	08-07-2005 20:46									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by GAZ082 Exactly, mines are for a micro level warfare, not macro like in the CIV series.

QFT

	08-07-2005 20:55									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I dunno, I think the border between North Korea and South Korea is pretty significant on a macro scale. You could make the same argument about fortresses, outposts, etc.

	08-07-2005 23:27									#16
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

minefield deployment is not micro at all.

it's actually one of the more macro elements....deploying a large area of mines to influence an enemies movements.

micro tactics is how you would captain an individual sub in a fight, or what orders you would give to your platoon members for them to take an objective.

that's the type of stuff that is too micro for civ...not minefields.

as sophist said, laying a minefield isn't any more micro than building a fortress.

	08-07-2005 23:41									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

A fortress can represent it all. As in Sophist's example of the Korean border, next to the minefields are all sort of fortifications and trenches.

	08-07-2005 23:49									#18
	Support Apolyton

fortifications can include mines, yes, but mines (as in real life) are a cheap method of denying an enemy access to a certain area.

i guess i'm alone on this one, but mines are by no means micro tactics for pete's sake.

not even close...

once fields are laid, they are not quick or easy to relocate, that proves that they are meant to be part of a broader overall strategy, as fortresses are.


but, it was just an idea.

	09-07-2005 00:12									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Actually, I think minefields should be in the game also. I think you should not be able to work mined terrain. I think they should take a whole MP to traverse, also, even if there are roads or railroads there. If you could work and traverse them like unmined tiles, people would just mine every single tile. Rather than being impassable to enemies, I believe they should "bombard" enemy units that enter.

	09-07-2005 03:23									#20
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GAZ082 Exactly, mines are for a micro level warfare, not macro like in the CIV series.

QFT^2

	09-07-2005 03:35									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

If this were the Operational Art of War, then yes, minefields should certainly be in the game. But the fact is that mines represent tactical maneuvers on the battlefield, not the broader strategic idea of battle that the Civ military model represents. I think minefields are implicitly included with 'fortresses' on a wider scale.

	09-07-2005 05:21									#22
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke If this were the Operational Art of War, then yes, minefields should certainly be in the game. But the fact is that mines represent tactical maneuvers on the battlefield, not the broader strategic idea of battle that the Civ military model represents. I think minefields are implicitly included with 'fortresses' on a wider scale.

I can understand the thinking that small scale mines such as claymores etc...are part of a more tactical element.

and also that maybe mines are supposed to be a part of fortresses.

But, larger scale mining of strategic areas is most certainly a part of the broader model civ represents.

to say that mines are a tactical maneuver is to generalize the nature of mine warfare and the type of mining I am referring to.

laying mine fields is not a micro-tactical operation. It requires planning and much execution.

You can consider it a cheaper alternative to fortresses for those trying to repel invaders.

Any sequel to Civ, the MOST venerable game in the genre, should consider these types of evolutions in gameplay to grow.

You are right that there is indeed a fine line to draw between micro actions and what is CIV, and I truly don't think this is it.

	09-07-2005 05:58									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by vee4473 a tank wouldn't take a year to move a few tiles either, or 4 years to train one unit for deployment, or 5 years to chop down a forest etc...

Did you just say that a tank would take 5 years to chop down a forest?

	09-07-2005 06:50									#24
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Depends on the size of the forest, but tanks are exactly known for their tree-chopping prowess.

	09-07-2005 07:18									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Depends on the size of the forest, but tanks are exactly known for their tree-chopping prowess.

Oh, I see!

What about a tank taking four years to train a unit for deployment?

	09-07-2005 07:19									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

aside from the Korean border, can you name any other strategic minefields?

	09-07-2005 10:36									#27
	Suffering from ads?

Minefields are strategic in the sense that it is strategy involved and picking and choosing where to lay minefields in order to create chokepoints, but such strategic minefields you are talking about are beyond the concern of the Civ series, imo. Does a king/president/dictator say, "lay mines here, here, and here"? No. He is more apt to say something like, "defend this area," and leaves it to his military to work out the details. That is Civ, and that is why I think minefields would be redundant in the game.

	09-07-2005 15:13									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Isn't including minefields in games considered political incorrect these days? With all those voices speaking up for a ban on such devices?

	09-07-2005 17:32									#29
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke Minefields are strategic in the sense that it is strategy involved and picking and choosing where to lay minefields in order to create chokepoints, but such strategic minefields you are talking about are beyond the concern of the Civ series, imo. Does a king/president/dictator say, "lay mines here, here, and here"? No. He is more apt to say something like, "defend this area," and leaves it to his military to work out the details. That is Civ, and that is why I think minefields would be redundant in the game.

Does a king/president/dictator say that the 5th cavalry should move 100 miles to the west? Does a king/president/dictator say to irrigate the plains to the north of Izmir? Does a king/president/dictator command the catapults to fire first, then the horsemen attack, and finally that the swordsmen move in for the kill? Does a king/president/dictator say that one of the citizens of Brundisium should work as an Elvis impersonator? Maybe I'm being US-centric here ;-)