Just when you thought it was safe to come to the forum....or, Mines!

[MOS:96B2P]

I think most (if not all) of the following I obtained from the Wiki site about a year ago.  It seems correct from my own game play and testing.  When I first found this it answered some questions I had.  Thought this was a good opportunity to share it as it might help others.  

        

 

Minefields on the battlefield. For active, non-marked fields, this is a red sign with a skull and crossbones, saying "Danger Mines".  A marked minefield has its sign changed to off-white.  A known neutralized mine field (all mines detonated) has a green sign with a white X on it.

Here are the setup strength levels of the three kinds of minefields, in the two kinds of mine. All amounts are approximations based on in-game testing:

                         AP    AT

antipersonnel    14      0

antitank              0     2-3

mixed               10     1-2

Marking a minefield substantially reduces the chance of triggering a mine for infantry traversing the minefield. Although antitank minefields can be marked, marking them appears to have no effect, since infantry can traverse them without risk in any case and vehicles don't benefit from marking.

 

Minefields can be neutralized by heavy artillery (150mm+), if it scores a direct hit. Minefields can be neutralized by a blast from a demo charge, although due to the game's limitations, a blast can only be performed if there is some blastable obstacle (such as wire) in the action spot.

Anti-personnel mine explosions damage a vehicle's tracks or wheels.  No other system on any vehicle is affected. Vehicles have varying levels of damage that their tracks/wheels can withstand before they are immobilized, ranging from only a handful of hits (3-4 for jeeps) up to many (roughly 22 to immobilize a Sherman).  Anti-tank mines cannot be triggered by infantry.  

[c3k]

Mines are awesome only because its SOOOO gratifying when your opponent actually stumbles upon them. That said, they're only needed in very specific situations. I tried to raise awareness of what I feel is a bug a year or two ago and dont know if it was resolved but if it hasnt know that vehicles moving at SLOW will not be disabled by mines! They will just take track damage!  This should NOT be the case and I tried to make a big flap of it - at the time I was using AT mines in a PBEM and immobilized my opponents 2 tanks that were using hunt. he had two more using slow and both of those (this was the only time Ive had an opponent hit 4 sets of mines) were not immobilized and kept going even though the mine detonated.

I feel  if this hasnt been resolved it should be looked at. I wouldnt be surprised if it hasnt been - mines are rarely used.

The opponent cannot see the minefield flag, thats for you.  A minefield flag represents a... minefield. not one mine.   Though with AT mines it generally is only one, maybe a  few mines, AP its maybe 5-10.

 

I'm pretty sure that has been addressed.

 

Map edges: I love 'em. Shrug. If the designer doesn't want someone hugging an edge (there will ALWAYS be an edge), then put impassable terrain there. (Now, you still have an edge to the playable area, you just get to see what's on the other side.) Or, fill it with mines. Or, make the edges an exit zone for both sides, with no bonus points for exiting. Unit gets too close...you lose it.

 

Ken

[A Canadian Cat]

I'm pretty sure that has been addressed.

Yep it has.

[Sublime]

Excellent i had an amazing scenario where .managed to force enemy tanks into at mines four times which if you,ve used minss u know is almost.impossible,unfortunately my oppoz panthers.rolldx thru em on slow set em off and laughed,,,,.that got ugly quick

[Sublime]

Double post pls delets

Edited January 28, 2015 by Sublime

[Bud Backer]

Map edges: I love 'em. Shrug. If the designer doesn't want someone hugging an edge (there will ALWAYS be an edge), then put impassable terrain there. (Now, you still have an edge to the playable area, you just get to see what's on the other side.) Or, fill it with mines. Or, make the edges an exit zone for both sides, with no bonus points for exiting. Unit gets too close...you lose it.

Ken

As someone who designed maps and scenarios for other games, I have to say that this is the best approach. The map edge is an abstraction, a limit on the area of operations. One can argue that the forces would be able to move a few dozen metres to the left or right, (taking one off the map in the process). So one can extend the map the few more metres needed, and then again, make the same argument, over and over until your map spans from the Bay of Biscay to the Urals.

So if one accepts that the map delineates the area of operations, then using all of it is logical and suitable and appropriate. Ken's use of impassable terrain along the edge satisfies some visual esthetics, it also affords an interesting opportunity to put trees or other LOS/LOF obstructions, or, choose not to, to create the tactical situation you wish players to experience using the map.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Bud_B

[General Jack Ripper]

If your enemy is advancing over open terrain, find any spot that offers cover from your fire and put mines in it.

Preplaced shell holes, haystacks, ditches, small clumps of trees, river fords, road crossings, hedgerow gaps, narrow alleyways, holes in walls, dummy foxholes, etc.

Remember, mines will not STOP your enemy, but they will cause major delays or force your opponent to move onto different ground.

 

Whenever I'm placing mines, which admittedly is not often, I look at the map from the enemy's perspective, and try to shut off an avenue of approach.

Failing that, I will try to take away a piece of key terrain by mining it heavily.

 

While doing my terrain survey, if I find myself thinking "it would suck if the enemy showed up there" then I place mines on the spot in question.

[John Kettler]

Bud_B,

 

Good thread.

 

Baneman,

 

I didn't know you couldn't stack minefields in CMx2. Verily that sucketh! We could do that in CMx1, and given the numerous waltzes by the opponent through the minefields at only single density in CMBO and such, though expensive in QBs, it was pretty much a tactical necessity to stack them. 

 

Everyone,

 

While we're on mines, and now that we've got all the goodness of 3.11, did we ever get Daisy chain mines back into the game? They most definitely belong there, as set forth by me quite some time back. 2013, to be specific, and we had them in CMx1, starting with CMBO.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited January 30, 2015 by John Kettler

[womble]

I didn't know you couldn't stack minefields in CMx2. Verily that sucketh! We could do that in CMx1, and given the numerous waltzes by the opponent through the minefields at only single density in CMBO and such, though expensive in QBs, it was pretty much a tactical necessity to stack them.

It only sucks if mine density/chance of detonation is the same in both games. It evidently isn't, since vehicles almost always set of AT mines in an AT field and infantry doing other than Slow/Normal/Hunt almost always lose someone to Antipersonnel mines. So there remains no necessity to stack the CM game elements.

While we're on mines, and now that we've got all the goodness of 3.11, did we ever get Daisy chain mines back into the game? They most definitely belong there, as set forth by me quite some time back. 2013, to be specific, and we had them in CMx1, starting with CMBO.

No.

[Baneman]

Well, you can stack them ... in adjoining AS's

 

That is actually better, since a 2-deep row reduces the chance that infantry can waltz through to "total-outlier" status.

Plus, you've increased the danger area overall.

 

In general, a single-AS "minefield" is relying on luck to a very great degree that the enemy will cross that one AS.

 

There's plenty of tricks available in minefield setting.

My favourite is to have a row of AT mines just beyond the AP ones. Anyone who thinks he can clear a path through the AP mines with an ordinary tank gets a rude shock

[A Canadian Cat]

Indeed. All my testing of AT mines shows that having them next to each other is a good thing. When the first tank hits one the following guys go around. If you don't have a wider mine field that single immobilized tank can save the rest of the platoon. I can create a three wide two deep minefield across a road and deal with a whole company of tanks. Well sometimes one gets through.

[Bud Backer]

Indeed. All my testing of AT mines shows that having them next to each other is a good thing. When the first tank hits one the following guys go around. If you don't have a wider mine field that single immobilized tank can save the rest of the platoon. I can create a three wide two deep minefield across a road and deal with a whole company of tanks. Well sometimes one gets through.

Wow, that's amazingly effective! The whole thing about units moving around the immobilized one and accidentally avoiding the mines isn't something I considered.

[A Canadian Cat]

Oh but don't forget I am testing to see if the tanks get damaged or destroyed. If I was really commanding the force probably only one or two would actually be taking out - initially at least. After that everyone's move orders get cancelled. I just don't want to set any expectations that setting a mine field guarantees that 10 tanks are going to be immobilized or destroyed...

[Bud Backer]

Oh but don't forget I am testing to see if the tanks get damaged or destroyed. If I was really commanding the force probably only one or two would actually be taking out - initially at least. After that everyone's move orders get cancelled. I just don't want to set any expectations that setting a mine field guarantees that 10 tanks are going to be immobilized or destroyed...

Whaaaa??

No no, you can't back out of it. I have a firm commitment from you! Says so in the manual..."IanL guarantees at least ten tanks will be..."

I realize YMMV always applies. Random factors, placement, movement speed, no worries. Minefields are not a defence into themselves.

[Bulletpoint]

I think it might be possible to stack minefield markers in single squares, at least in the editor. Sometimes I've played scenarios where there are clearly two minefield signs in one square.