minefields

[unmerged(59544)]

could minefields be added to the game or maybe if they made a ho3. i thought it would make a nice defensive feature on both land and sea. maybe each province could have a border in the next game etc.

 

[theokrat]

Province wide minefields? Like in covering thousands of square miles?

 

[ForzaA]

Not going to discuss the relevance or possibility of this being included..
but it IS an enhancement suggestion at best..

*moved*

 

[unmerged(59544)]

opps, just be a nuclear powerplant or forts, when a nuclear plant is on a province i dont aussme that they have power plants all over the area.

 

[theokrat]

opps, just be a nuclear powerplant or forts, when a nuclear plant is on a province i dont aussme that they have power plants all over the area.

Hugh this has been moved? Hm right then.

For nuclear reactors its that the effect would not be on the whole province (it has no effect on the province at all).

For Forts, thats a more valid point, and indeed i kind of always wwished those had a direction.

Anyway i dont see why minefields are something that should be included beyond the assumed inherence in forts and dug in modifiers

 

[unmerged(59544)]

yeah i can see your point on the land fronts/forts but the i think the sea minefields could work. even if you sail in your own minefields combat event could come up if any of your ships hit them. a little icon with a mine could be on the sea to represent that the area is mined.

 

[unmerged(52476)]

I think that both land and sea mine fields are below the resolution of the game.

 

[Manziel]

yeah i can see your point on the land fronts/forts but the i think the sea minefields could work. even if you sail in your own minefields combat event could come up if any of your ships hit them. a little icon with a mine could be on the sea to represent that the area is mined.

sea-mines are already represented by coastal defences since (again) a minefield of several thousands of square kilometers would be very unrealistic while smaller minefields would be below the scale of the game. there are no minefields on strategical level

 

[unmerged(59544)]

ah okay, i mistook the level of preception of this game, the scope is strategic. i was looking at it from a tactical suspective like a action rts.

 

[unmerged(50584)]

regarding the "strategic role of mine warfare", esp. for blocking sealanes....I'd say it's essential for any navy.

IIRC the reason why - nowadays - most of the navies have exactely this only very mission...protection/ interdiction of sealanes....(let us for once forget the 21st century US Navy ) is the success mine warfare experienced in certain naval areas during WWII.

I would really fancy, mainly for flavour I admitt, to send my (e.g. Germany) destroyers/ minelayers on a minelaying mission to block the northern entrance to the channel....being intercept by british DD's or CL's.......I am slightly bored by this super CTF thinking (AI and human related) and therefore would appreciate any "enhancement" of naval warfare. So everything that motivates me to build a propper multitasking navy is more than welcome.

 

[Balesir]

I can't find the threads right now, but this has been discussed recently. The best (IMO) idea was to treat naval minefields as similar in effect to static AA but with the targets being naval units and convoys instead of air units. Minelayers could be abstracted as a 'build' within a set range of a naval base, with enemy naval units entering the target area disrupting the build (like land units entering a province where a build is going on). Minesweepers would need to be modelled - a new mission type for light naval units, perhaps? Akin to airborne 'installation strikes' versus static AA?

I agree with an earlier poster that land minefields are included in current 'digging in' and fortifications, but naval minefields were widely used 'offensively' in shipping lanes so they really need something additional.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I agree with an earlier poster that land minefields are included in current 'digging in' and fortifications

Why not add a couple off land mine techs then. They could either raise the maximum dug in bonus (ala vicky), or they could lower the infrastructure of captured province (to simulate slowing down enemys advancing on mined roads exc). Or they could Increase the general defensive effectiveness.

This might be slightly OT but I would like to se two separate trees alongside the infantry one with both tactics and development of offensive / defensive aids. The offensive tree could add better frag grenades, flamethrowers exc resulting in offensive bonus to all land units. And the defensive would revolve around killing zones with mines, tank trenches and barbedwire use exc.

 

[OscarIsaiah]

I think this is pretty much assumed in the whole land fort/dug in thing.

I like the idea for being able to reaserch doctrines what increase how dug in or give a bonus to your land forts.

But to stop this making the game to defensivly orientated they should have the 'landfort only being able to face one direction/province' idea.

 

[Balesir]

I think this is pretty much assumed in the whole land fort/dug in thing.

For land mines it is, yeah - but not for sea mines, which were used quite 'offensively' to channel convoys and 'escaping' fleets into kill-zones.

But to stop this making the game to defensivly orientated they should have the 'landfort only being able to face one direction/province' idea.

Part of me says this is a nice idea, but in practice the sort of 'dispersed interlocking' forts used could work from more than one direction. Maybe actually just have one direction from which supply comes be the 'vulnerable direction'? Dunno - might even just be best saying 'out of supply' covers it.

Generally, out of supply units should take much higher STR losses, anyway, due to surrendering troops, IMO.