mines ? land and or sea ?
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
-
herr neumann
- Captain
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Dec 02 2003
Ok I had some thought about this topic over weekend and here are my prepositions. IF you decide to implement mines anyway.
I agree with Jürgen that it is really difficult to decide without actually testing it in the games wether mines add to game or just turn them into sitzkriegs. So to avoid it - let's make them an Option!
NEUMIE's ULTIMATE MINEFIELDs:
lets separate minefields into three different categories - light, medium and heavy.
1) light minefield:
takes 20 days and erm... 10 millions $ to construct + military goods + industrial goods.
Casualities would be realtively low too. Let's say that battalion loses about 10-15% of its strenght when crossing.
Clearing would take average 10 days (although this has to be connected to how many platoons specific engineer battalion has).
2) medium minefields:
50 days and 30 mil + ind and mil goods.
Casualities 15-35%.
Clearing average 25 days.
3) heavy minefields:
something what would make Maginot lines proud!
100 days and 60 mil + ind and mil goods.
casualities 35-60%.
Clearing average 45 days.
Pros and cons:
Pros: Beside obvious defencive bonuses it would improve mil approval a bit (after all minefields are military investments).
Cons: bit lower life expectancy (every now and when some unhappy wanderer walks where he shouldn't) and immigration. Moderate negative pressure on approval rating. Big negative pressure on foreign approval (World market rating).
All the numbers above are fictional - I don't have any idea how much building minefields costs in real life and feel too brain-dead at the moment to do extensive googling.
Just few ideas.
I agree with Jürgen that it is really difficult to decide without actually testing it in the games wether mines add to game or just turn them into sitzkriegs. So to avoid it - let's make them an Option!
NEUMIE's ULTIMATE MINEFIELDs:
lets separate minefields into three different categories - light, medium and heavy.
1) light minefield:
takes 20 days and erm... 10 millions $ to construct + military goods + industrial goods.
Casualities would be realtively low too. Let's say that battalion loses about 10-15% of its strenght when crossing.
Clearing would take average 10 days (although this has to be connected to how many platoons specific engineer battalion has).
2) medium minefields:
50 days and 30 mil + ind and mil goods.
Casualities 15-35%.
Clearing average 25 days.
3) heavy minefields:
something what would make Maginot lines proud!
100 days and 60 mil + ind and mil goods.
casualities 35-60%.
Clearing average 45 days.
Pros and cons:
Pros: Beside obvious defencive bonuses it would improve mil approval a bit (after all minefields are military investments).
Cons: bit lower life expectancy (every now and when some unhappy wanderer walks where he shouldn't) and immigration. Moderate negative pressure on approval rating. Big negative pressure on foreign approval (World market rating).
All the numbers above are fictional - I don't have any idea how much building minefields costs in real life and feel too brain-dead at the moment to do extensive googling.
Just few ideas.
-
BattleGoat
- General
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
Our current rule for mines is on the first page of this topic. After the research we did on mines we learned that on their own they aren't that effective at causing too many casualties, they just slow down forces. It is only when the unit in a mine field also comes under additional attack and have to maneuver that they become more susceptible to notable damage. When we do the implementation of mines, that's the initial rule we will use and see how it works out...
-
prime_642
- Captain
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Jan 14 2004
I'm wondering...
Can you combine minefields and fortifications? This should make it very hard and prolong the time it would take engineers to clear the minefield since they would be under attack from the forces at the base. It would also make it impossible for conventional forces to make a straght out rush since they would take heavy casualties. The "only" thing that that would be effective would be artillary, or perhaps tunneling... If tunneling is in the game that is. By tunneling i mean the tunneling that they did in WW1 when they tunneled under the trenches and blew up the tunnels and attacked over the rubble. Only in this case the tunnels would blow up the mines along with the fortification in one fell swoop... The tunneler could then attack an unguarded choke point.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: prime_642 on 2004-01-15 14:30 ]</font>
Can you combine minefields and fortifications? This should make it very hard and prolong the time it would take engineers to clear the minefield since they would be under attack from the forces at the base. It would also make it impossible for conventional forces to make a straght out rush since they would take heavy casualties. The "only" thing that that would be effective would be artillary, or perhaps tunneling... If tunneling is in the game that is. By tunneling i mean the tunneling that they did in WW1 when they tunneled under the trenches and blew up the tunnels and attacked over the rubble. Only in this case the tunnels would blow up the mines along with the fortification in one fell swoop... The tunneler could then attack an unguarded choke point.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: prime_642 on 2004-01-15 14:30 ]</font>
-
sladeross
- Corporal
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Jan 14 2004
Justa couple thoughts:
Minefields are obstacles.
Obstacles are only effective when covered by fire.
Can this be realisticly simulated on the operational level enviroment? Is there someway that a lane can be cleared in a matter of minutes or a couple hours if the mines are undefended? If the obstacles are defended how does this affect the attacking units? More casualties, time, reduced assault effectiveness? Or would it just modify the defending values?
Minefields are obstacles.
Obstacles are only effective when covered by fire.
Can this be realisticly simulated on the operational level enviroment? Is there someway that a lane can be cleared in a matter of minutes or a couple hours if the mines are undefended? If the obstacles are defended how does this affect the attacking units? More casualties, time, reduced assault effectiveness? Or would it just modify the defending values?
-
BattleGoat
- General
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
-
Vesson
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Apr 29 2004
Based on the below information on mines, this is what I'd like to see for gameplay in 2010.
First and foremost from my reading above I suggest that the current status of mine fields (allied, neutral and enemy) should determine a few things.
1. Allied mine fields should be able to be completely cleared with very minimal cost & time (maps are supplied).
2. Neutral and enemy mine fields should not be able to be completely cleared by mine sweepers. The field should be reduced to 0 (zero). This should represent the fact that military units can traverse the old field without taking damage, but completely clearing mine fields for civilian use such as farming is very costly and time consuming, and should require...
3. A right click "restore land" function, costing significant money & time to completely eradicate mines from that land.
4. Domestic approval should drop slightly for using allied mines in your own territory.
5. Domestic approval should increase slightly for removing allied mines in your own territory.
6. Domestic & world market approval should drop slightly for using neutral mines (helicopter/aircraft deployed mines), to simulate the lack of respect the govt has for its, and its neighbour's civilian populations. I say only slightly as the US used such mines in the gulf war, and I hardly remember a peep on the news about their use, even though they were still being cleared years later. Also, the UK failed to remove massive numbers of mines from the beaches of the Falklans, even after maps were supplied. The area is still fenced off.
7. Domestic & world market approval should increase when neutral/enemy mines are completely eradicated.
8. Loyalty should increase if the dominating country/state spends time & money on removing mines.
So ummm... whens u guys gonna do all that stuff I want? Now? Now? Now? Now? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? =)
First and foremost from my reading above I suggest that the current status of mine fields (allied, neutral and enemy) should determine a few things.
1. Allied mine fields should be able to be completely cleared with very minimal cost & time (maps are supplied).
2. Neutral and enemy mine fields should not be able to be completely cleared by mine sweepers. The field should be reduced to 0 (zero). This should represent the fact that military units can traverse the old field without taking damage, but completely clearing mine fields for civilian use such as farming is very costly and time consuming, and should require...
3. A right click "restore land" function, costing significant money & time to completely eradicate mines from that land.
4. Domestic approval should drop slightly for using allied mines in your own territory.
5. Domestic approval should increase slightly for removing allied mines in your own territory.
6. Domestic & world market approval should drop slightly for using neutral mines (helicopter/aircraft deployed mines), to simulate the lack of respect the govt has for its, and its neighbour's civilian populations. I say only slightly as the US used such mines in the gulf war, and I hardly remember a peep on the news about their use, even though they were still being cleared years later. Also, the UK failed to remove massive numbers of mines from the beaches of the Falklans, even after maps were supplied. The area is still fenced off.
7. Domestic & world market approval should increase when neutral/enemy mines are completely eradicated.
8. Loyalty should increase if the dominating country/state spends time & money on removing mines.
So ummm... whens u guys gonna do all that stuff I want? Now? Now? Now? Now? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? =)
-
Vesson
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Apr 29 2004
** Long post warning **
Below are a few cut & pastes from numerous sites I've found on mines... makes very interesting reading.
1-Something to think about for mines... What is the cost even when mines are mapped? Sounds to me from this article that even when mines are mapped that it is a serious disruption to both military and civilian vehicles... even more so for air delivery... http://www.ccwtreaty.com/AVMinesBackgrounder.htm
2-On the topic of cost per mine and mine removal costs... http://www.ccwtreaty.com/111203solomon.html...
"For those states choosing to procure self-destruct or self-neutralize technology for remotely-delivered mines, the costs need not be prohibitive. We estimate that the cost for the United States is approximately 20 USD per mine using high-quality, off the shelf retail components. While even $20 per mine may sound high, put in the context of the cost to clear a long-lived mine, which on average is $300 to $1000 per mine, the cost is comparatively low."
Added to the above reference to cost to remove (ESPECIALLY for higher tech plastic mines which could be built by American states in 2010) from... http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/mines_wrs94.htm
"Coincident with this shift in the use of antipersonnel mines has been a rapid change in their design and the materials used to create them. Plastics have largely displaced metal in antipersonnel mine manufacture. In some instances, almost no metals are used, so that many mines are virtually undetectable. In size, they can be as small as a human hand. They are cheap to produce; market rates for some mines are now as low as $3.00 per mine."
3-And from ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mine
"The Chinese Type 72, which is according to some sources the world's most popular land mine, costs only $3 apiece if bought in large quantities. It is mostly plastic, only about the size of the palm of a man's hand, and contains just enough TNT to blow off a foot."
4- More on costs etc to remove from the same site...
"It should be noted that "demining" does not mean the complete eradication of all mines in a country, but usually only their removal from essential locations, transportation corridors, urban areas, etc."
Further info also on this link re dimining & "smart mines" ...http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/smart.htm
5-A view point on how mines might affect domestic approval.
"Generally, leading NGOs argue that antipersonnel mines have already demonstrated a terrifying potential for indiscriminate death and unnecessary injury to civilians in post-conflict environments. They believe, consequently, that antipersonnel mines are in the same category as bacteriological, chemical, and nuclear weapons."
6-Interesting historical entry which may be useful for scenario building.
"Using a classification system based on these and other reports, including the Department of State's 1993 worldwide survey of the use of landmines, it can be said that a severe threat of injury or death to civilians in post-conflict situations exists in ten countries: Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mozambique, Somalia (especially northern Somalia), Sudan, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Bosnia, and Iraq (especially in Kurdistan); a significant threat exists in 17 other countries." from
http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/mines_wrs94.htm
7-Some interesting figures which might help to quantify domestic reactions and costs etc.
"LAND MINES BY THE NUMBERS
More than 110 million: land mines scattered across the globe.
$33 billion over 1,100 years: estimated cost and time to remove all existing mines using normal methods, if no new mines are buried.
70: people killed or injured every day from land mines.
More than 1 million: people killed or maimed by land mines since 1975.
25: number of new land mines laid in the ground for every one removed
$3: cost to make a mine.
$1,000: cost to clear one.
Source: OneWorld International Foundation
8-And from... http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/info/myths.html
"Most demining programmes now assign different priority and risk levels to land, depending on the knowledge of mines which may be there, and the socio-economic value of the land. For instance, 323 sq km of land have been identified in Afghanistan as being high priority areas to be cleared, and a further 401 sq km are low priority (3).
Overall demining programme costs in third world environments are typically $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 per sq. km of cleared land."
---remember this is costing for 3rd world... I hate to think what that would cost in a western country with danger pay, labour costs etc etc!
9-More from the same site...
"Minefields may be laid by several means. Mine-laying shells may be fired by artillery from a distance of several tens of kilometers, ejected from cruise missiles, or dropped from helicopters or airplanes. (Armored fighting vehicles) equipped to lay mines have also been built. However, if time allows, the preferred way is to place them into the ground by hand or with relatively simple tools, since this will make the mines practically invisible and reduce the number of mines needed to deny the enemy of an area."
10-And, "Poison gas land mines were manufactured at least until the 1980s in the Soviet Union and the US was also known to have at least experimented with the concept in the 1950s.
Nuclear mines have also been developed, both landmines and naval mines. An example is the British Blue Peackock project."
11-More on how landmines might affect domestic approval from the india pakistan conflict where recently laid mines appear to be killing civilians AND military personnel... http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story ... 46,00.html
"We do deploy landmines but we do it in a most responsible manner," he said. "We fence the areas and mark them very clearly and use them only on the border, not anywhere else." He added: "We have reluctantly been forced to take the measures in self-defence...
"Casualties from mine explosions along the border have been rising in recent days. At least 11 people were killed by Indian devices in the Punjab region last Saturday. A few days earlier, 19 Indian soldiers were killed in a similar explosion at the border in Jaisalmer in Rajastan..."
Below are a few cut & pastes from numerous sites I've found on mines... makes very interesting reading.
1-Something to think about for mines... What is the cost even when mines are mapped? Sounds to me from this article that even when mines are mapped that it is a serious disruption to both military and civilian vehicles... even more so for air delivery... http://www.ccwtreaty.com/AVMinesBackgrounder.htm
2-On the topic of cost per mine and mine removal costs... http://www.ccwtreaty.com/111203solomon.html...
"For those states choosing to procure self-destruct or self-neutralize technology for remotely-delivered mines, the costs need not be prohibitive. We estimate that the cost for the United States is approximately 20 USD per mine using high-quality, off the shelf retail components. While even $20 per mine may sound high, put in the context of the cost to clear a long-lived mine, which on average is $300 to $1000 per mine, the cost is comparatively low."
Added to the above reference to cost to remove (ESPECIALLY for higher tech plastic mines which could be built by American states in 2010) from... http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/mines_wrs94.htm
"Coincident with this shift in the use of antipersonnel mines has been a rapid change in their design and the materials used to create them. Plastics have largely displaced metal in antipersonnel mine manufacture. In some instances, almost no metals are used, so that many mines are virtually undetectable. In size, they can be as small as a human hand. They are cheap to produce; market rates for some mines are now as low as $3.00 per mine."
3-And from ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mine
"The Chinese Type 72, which is according to some sources the world's most popular land mine, costs only $3 apiece if bought in large quantities. It is mostly plastic, only about the size of the palm of a man's hand, and contains just enough TNT to blow off a foot."
4- More on costs etc to remove from the same site...
"It should be noted that "demining" does not mean the complete eradication of all mines in a country, but usually only their removal from essential locations, transportation corridors, urban areas, etc."
Further info also on this link re dimining & "smart mines" ...http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/smart.htm
5-A view point on how mines might affect domestic approval.
"Generally, leading NGOs argue that antipersonnel mines have already demonstrated a terrifying potential for indiscriminate death and unnecessary injury to civilians in post-conflict environments. They believe, consequently, that antipersonnel mines are in the same category as bacteriological, chemical, and nuclear weapons."
6-Interesting historical entry which may be useful for scenario building.
"Using a classification system based on these and other reports, including the Department of State's 1993 worldwide survey of the use of landmines, it can be said that a severe threat of injury or death to civilians in post-conflict situations exists in ten countries: Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mozambique, Somalia (especially northern Somalia), Sudan, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Bosnia, and Iraq (especially in Kurdistan); a significant threat exists in 17 other countries." from
http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/mines_wrs94.htm
7-Some interesting figures which might help to quantify domestic reactions and costs etc.
"LAND MINES BY THE NUMBERS
More than 110 million: land mines scattered across the globe.
$33 billion over 1,100 years: estimated cost and time to remove all existing mines using normal methods, if no new mines are buried.
70: people killed or injured every day from land mines.
More than 1 million: people killed or maimed by land mines since 1975.
25: number of new land mines laid in the ground for every one removed
$3: cost to make a mine.
$1,000: cost to clear one.
Source: OneWorld International Foundation
8-And from... http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/info/myths.html
"Most demining programmes now assign different priority and risk levels to land, depending on the knowledge of mines which may be there, and the socio-economic value of the land. For instance, 323 sq km of land have been identified in Afghanistan as being high priority areas to be cleared, and a further 401 sq km are low priority (3).
Overall demining programme costs in third world environments are typically $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 per sq. km of cleared land."
---remember this is costing for 3rd world... I hate to think what that would cost in a western country with danger pay, labour costs etc etc!
9-More from the same site...
"Minefields may be laid by several means. Mine-laying shells may be fired by artillery from a distance of several tens of kilometers, ejected from cruise missiles, or dropped from helicopters or airplanes. (Armored fighting vehicles) equipped to lay mines have also been built. However, if time allows, the preferred way is to place them into the ground by hand or with relatively simple tools, since this will make the mines practically invisible and reduce the number of mines needed to deny the enemy of an area."
10-And, "Poison gas land mines were manufactured at least until the 1980s in the Soviet Union and the US was also known to have at least experimented with the concept in the 1950s.
Nuclear mines have also been developed, both landmines and naval mines. An example is the British Blue Peackock project."
11-More on how landmines might affect domestic approval from the india pakistan conflict where recently laid mines appear to be killing civilians AND military personnel... http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story ... 46,00.html
"We do deploy landmines but we do it in a most responsible manner," he said. "We fence the areas and mark them very clearly and use them only on the border, not anywhere else." He added: "We have reluctantly been forced to take the measures in self-defence...
"Casualties from mine explosions along the border have been rising in recent days. At least 11 people were killed by Indian devices in the Punjab region last Saturday. A few days earlier, 19 Indian soldiers were killed in a similar explosion at the border in Jaisalmer in Rajastan..."
-
dizzycow
- Sergeant
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Apr 20 2004
- Location: Norway Ã…lesund
hmm mines would make it imposible to attack.. like in the mp game yesterday (friday night) It would be no problems for me (madrid) to proteckt my capital against yellow.. I had al ready a river in the south and deasert in the east. if I had mines to it would be inpossible fore him to take all of my industries there. even with superior forces.. my attilyri stratagy would had killed him even more.. so please make mines weak..
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
-
BattleGoat
- General
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
-
Baloogan
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Aug 14 2004
- Location: Canada, BC
could we have it possible that the people who deployed the minefield beable to clean it up faster that a minecleaer would? cause they have the maps were the mines are...3iff wrote:How about clearing minefields? While it might be possible to clear a path, removing all mines from a hex would be impossible within the timescale of a game/scenario??
Missiles!! Nukes!
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios