Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Minefields

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Conquest of the Aegean >> Minefields Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Minefields - 8/3/2005 10:43:28 AM   
loyalcitizen


Posts: 222
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
I've looked over the new features for COTA thread and did not see mention of minefields. I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone what a strategic and tactical concern these were for both sides and the huge impact they made on offensive operations.

Hell, Monty almost had to give up on the Alamein offensive as the advance was so slow. Mainly due to minefields. Vast fields of them.

I can't recall a major prepared desert defensive position without them. So are they in?
Post #: 1
RE: Minefields - 8/3/2005 1:58:13 PM   
Bil H


Posts: 1984
Joined: 4/24/2003
From: Richmond Virginia
Status: offline
Not with COTA, they will be in the next game though, Battles from the Bulge (BFTB).

Bil

(in reply to loyalcitizen)
Post #: 2
RE: Minefields - 8/4/2005 9:03:44 AM   
loyalcitizen


Posts: 222
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
Rather disappointing.
Bulge doesn't need them half as much as COTA.

Can I ask why?
Tell me they were impossible to code.
Tell me they ground every offensive into a motionless quagmire (often the reality) during testing.
Tell me the code for clearing them with sappers and arty barrages was impossible.

How is Rommel supposed to defend himself so brilliantly, even outnumbered 5 to 1, when he can't even channel the enemy into his horseshoes of 88's?

Can someone make a terrain type that causes casualties to cross? We can all wink and know they are minefields...

(in reply to Bil H)
Post #: 3
RE: Minefields - 8/4/2005 12:06:38 PM   
CriticalMass


Posts: 596
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Minefields did not in themselves create great attrition to the forces crossing them: their purpose, as you mention, was to create areas that were easier to defend and where often artillery was ranged to.

I guess with that knowledge one could use a river terrain, for example, to simulate a mine field. You could then use the bridging units as sappers.

Was Rommel a part of the CotA (I don't think so), though of course mainefieds were massively used in the Western Desert.

Andrew

< Message edited by CriticalMass -- 8/4/2005 12:07:29 PM >


_____________________________

I decided to ignore my orders and to take command at the front with my own hands as soon as possible
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel

(in reply to loyalcitizen)
Post #: 4
RE: Minefields - 8/4/2005 12:16:15 PM   
sterckxe


Posts: 4605
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: Flanders
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen
Rather disappointing.
Bulge doesn't need them half as much as COTA.


Actually quite the reverse

quote:

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen
Can I ask why?


Only so many features can be coded - what features are absolute "must haves" and which are optional gets discussed rather heavily at the beta-forum - so it's not an oversight, but a conscious decision by Arjuna.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen
Tell me they were impossible to code.


Nah, the Panther boys can just about code anything given unlimited funds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen
How is Rommel supposed to defend himself so brilliantly, even outnumbered 5 to 1, when he can't even channel the enemy into his horseshoes of 88's?


Aha - now we're getting to the crux of the matter :) - I'm pushing for an African adventure myself so hang in there - and rest assured that minefields will appear in the engine as soon as they're essential.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen
Can someone make a terrain type that causes casualties to cross? We can all wink and know they are minefields...


Now that's an idea I like ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

(in reply to loyalcitizen)
Post #: 5
RE: Minefields - 8/4/2005 3:49:00 PM   
Agema

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline
Sorry if this has been asked before and I've forgotten or not noticed, but would there be different types of minefield catered for? I don't know if they had different anti-tank and anti-personnel mines in WW2, but there were daisy-chain minefields where they didn't bury them due to lack of time or whatever.

(in reply to sterckxe)
Post #: 6
RE: Minefields - 8/4/2005 4:20:44 PM   
Golf33

 

Posts: 1962
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Short answer: mines are not in COTA as they were either not used or did not significantly affect the outcome in any of the battles included in the game.

Regards
33

_____________________________

Steve Golf33 Long

(in reply to Agema)
Post #: 7
RE: Minefields - 8/4/2005 4:58:54 PM   
Bil H


Posts: 1984
Joined: 4/24/2003
From: Richmond Virginia
Status: offline
MInefields as CriticalMass has said were not to inflict casualties... they were to canalize movement and slow an attacker down.. if anything they would have an effect on movement before any casualties from moving through them would be felt at this level. Unless of course they were covered by fire, but then of course the game will take care of that.

Using terrain to represent them has been thought of before... nothing new, all you would have to do in the MapMaker is select a type of terrain that has not been used on the map already and assign it a highly restricted movement cost to it. This goes for all engineer works actually... road blocks, etc. could be represented this way.

Of course it will be better when they are actually coded in. As Golf33 said, they were not used extensively in COTA. If oyu are planning an Afrika Korps scenario using the COTA Estabs then there are many battles in that theater that didn't use them either. Even Gazala, which had extensive use of minefields, had its best battles fought well away from them.

Bil

(in reply to Golf33)
Post #: 8
RE: Minefields - 8/5/2005 3:53:14 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17785
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
loyalcitizen,

We hear you and believe you me we are also keen to include minefields. But as the others have noted they did not feature in any significant way in the battles fought in Greece and Crete. We have flagged them for inclusion in the game after COTA, Battles from the Bulge ( BFTB ) where they and roadblocks did have a significant impact.

You may also be pleased to know that we have set up a North Africa Data Design Team (DDT) to develop the maps, estabs and scenario for titles set in North Africa. We are currently discussing the scope of the first in this series and the features required for it. Needless to say minefields was very close to the top. In any event it will either be done for BFTB or in time for the first game in the North Africa series.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Bil H)
Post #: 9
RE: Minefields - 8/5/2005 6:48:43 AM   
cabron66


Posts: 350
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Status: offline
Hey

When you include minefields could you not do what everyone else does, namely, make them 1-dimensional and uniform in size and density. If I see one more game with unrealistic minefields I am going to scream. Most designers tend to treat them like a nuisance or an afterthought.

Cheers

Paul

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 10
RE: Minefields - 8/5/2005 10:47:38 AM   
CriticalMass


Posts: 596
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: London, UK
Status: offline
I'm sure there are lost of questions to be asked about the functionality and scope of minefields. One springs to mind: we they be deployable in game or only via the scenario maker?

Oh and another: with the discovery of a mine what portion of the field is revealed?

Oh and.....

The likelyhood is that many questions/thoughts have made it to the Panther wish list over the last...5 years (modest estimate)

Andrew

_____________________________

I decided to ignore my orders and to take command at the front with my own hands as soon as possible
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel

(in reply to cabron66)
Post #: 11
RE: Minefields - 8/5/2005 11:09:36 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17785
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Well here's your chance to put forward what you want about minefields.

Paul,

What do you mean by 1 dimensional and uniform? How would you see it being handled?

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to CriticalMass)
Post #: 12
RE: Minefields - 8/5/2005 2:28:38 PM   
CriticalMass


Posts: 596
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: London, UK
Status: offline
OK


  • In-game deployed by sappers (and assuming you were thinking of using this engine in a modern setting you would definately need to have artillery deployed minefields
  • Dummy fields
  • Anti-armour/personnel
  • Friendly visible lanes
  • Density (increases over time with in-game deployment)
  • Clear lanes (improved with proximity of Engineers)
  • ...


_____________________________

I decided to ignore my orders and to take command at the front with my own hands as soon as possible
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 13
RE: Minefields - 8/5/2005 3:41:34 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17785
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Andrew,

Thanks for the quick response.

re In-game Deployment. Given that most of our scenarios are less than ten days we will probably take the easy option initially and not try and simulate the laying of minefields. Better to start small and easy and grow the code. That way we can start with the scenario developer laying them out in the ScenMaker and not have write complicated code trying to get the AI to work out how, when, where and why it should lay one. However, we will need the option for clearing them within the Game.

Re Dummy fields. Yep no problems with that.

Re Anti-Armour/AntiPers. ditto no probs.

Re Friendly visible lanes. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Re Density. Again why is it essential to change the density of these over time given the time scale we're talking about. If we were dealing in weeks or months, then I could understand.

Re. Clearing. Yep agree on the need. Though I would say that in the operational context non-eng units should only be able to clear passage for themselves. To create a cleared lane should really require an eng unit. What do you think?

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to CriticalMass)
Post #: 14
RE: Minefields - 8/5/2005 4:53:59 PM   
oi_you_nutter


Posts: 418
Joined: 10/28/2004
From: from Bristle now living in Kalifornia
Status: offline
my thoughts / ideas on friendly visible lanes

the side that layed the minefield could be able to move through it because of known mine free lanes while taking some movement penalty with perhaps restricted to only some movement types

when an engineer has cleared a lane in a minefield other units should be able to move through with corresponding movement and formation penalties

just my two pennies worth



(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Conquest of the Aegean >> Minefields Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.152