BFC, Is it possible to get a size depiction for minefields?

[John Kettler]

Back in CMx1, buried minefield dimensions were shown by a kind of graphic postage stamp, so you knew where they were when emplacing and could see what was and wasn't covered. That model seems to longer be with us, and to me, indicating the minefield via a point, much like a TRP, isn't all that helpful in laying them or in orienting the field, which ought, IMO, also to be doable. Would it be possible to provide us with some sort of graphic showing the extent of the mines? IRL, putting in mines is a very detailed business, and I guarantee that the extent of the ground covered is precisely known, since the mines are emplaced using a carefully defined Combat Engineer SOP. Surely, as CO, each of us should be able to know what exactly is and isn't covered by a given minefield, right?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 16, 2015 by John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

Each minefield covers one action spot, i.e. 8 meters x 8 meters.

[Nidan1]

Also not all minefields are carefully established. Only a permanent/semi permanent position would have minefields with deliberately established covering fire and precise location of mines. The CMx1 games also had "hasty minefields" IIRC, these types are more in keeping with the fluid nature of the encounters in CMBS. Something of that type should have been labeled as such on the icon. I assume that all minefields in CMBS are of the "hasty" variety and can potentially cause trouble for both sides. Although they are not really defined as such in the manual. 

Edited August 16, 2015 by Nidan1

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

 

I've got theCM x 1 CMBO manual right here on my desk, open to pp. 90-91 under "Mines." It defines three types: Antipersonnel, Antitank and Daisy-Chain. Only the last have any characterization so much as implying any sort of emplacement which isn't systematic. Of the last, it says "Hastily placed anti-vehicle mines..." But my major discovery is a real shocker--the Incredible Shrinking Minefield™. What do I mean? According to the CMBO Manual, p. 90, the dimensions of a minefield are 20 x 20 meters, whereas CM x 2 minefields are only 8 x 8 meters!  Seems to me we're missing a very substantial chunk of our mine warfare capabilities from that alone, never mind the complete absence of FASCAM from our martial toolbox.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[sburke]

christ John, the size of AS changed in the game from CMx1 to CMx2.  It has only been bantered about for how many years now?

[John Kettler]

sburke,

 

I'm well aware and have long been of the terrain granularity improving size change in the AS. Duh! I was not aware of the drastic downsizing in minefield coverage, which has very real tactical impact. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Baneman]

... I was not aware of the drastic downsizing in minefield coverage, which has very real tactical impact. 

 

 

 

It is NOT a downsizing, it covers 1 AS. In CMx1, a minefield covered ... 1 AS.

[womble]

I bet the points cost changed between x1 and x2, Quel surprise!

 

John, making comparisons like that between x1 and x2 is singularly unproductive. Didn't x1 have some "free" fortification points for the defender in "Assault" type battles, too? Was the chance of hitting a mine the same per proportional-QB-purchase-point?

 

You can still have a 20m x 20m minefield: just buy three mines and plonk them down in a diagonal line. Anyone crossing that square is going to have a chance of setting off some mines. Or if you want to cover more directions of approach, buy 5 and put them in an X-shape in that 3AS x 3AS space.

[MikeyD]

I'm not sure how minefields are coded but most-everything else in the game is specific and not abstracted. So theoretically if Charles decided to do a 'display mine pattern' option we'd get glowing circles showing where each mine has been placed. Rather like foxhole placement. That would be cool to have. I don't know if I'd want him to drop whatever he's doing now to code it up, but that would be cool to have. 

[Baneman]

Actually my own gripe with CMx2 minefields is that after you've laid them and the game proper begins, you can't tell which were AT and which were AP.

 

In a long / large battle, it's easy to forget.

[John Kettler]

womble,

 

Since I can't fire up CMx1, perhaps you could put together the point cost for the minefield types in CMx1 so that a direct comparison can be made? I can't speak to what was and wasn't available under "Assault," but I recall stacking minefields in order to raise the hit probability if the foe entered the covered area. Nor can I speak to the proportionality issue you raise. I can say, though, that making comparisons between the two game engines, their features, troop and equipment coverage is, IMO, appropriate. There was a thread not all that long ago in which a direct comparison was made between CMBO and CMBN in terms of the vehicle list, so why shouldn't mines be fair game?

 

Baneman,

 

My point is that because one AS is now only 8 x 8 meters, and the CMx1 AS was 20 x 20 meters, we've gone from 400 m² to 64 m². Rounding off, a given minefield now covers 6.3 x less area than under CMx1. Does the pricing reflect this? As for your minefield distinguishing issue, there is a simple (wag mode on) solution. Stick to CMBS and play only US, since it has no AP mines. Problem solved!

 

MikeyD,

 

What a remarkable idea!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 18, 2015 by John Kettler

[MOS:96B2P]

Actually my own gripe with CMx2 minefields is that after you've laid them and the game proper begins, you can't tell which were AT and which were AP.

 

In a long / large battle, it's easy to forget.

 

Yes.  This.  I sometimes make a field sketch of the layout but it would be a lot easier if it just said on the minefield signs that are visible to the side that placed them anyways.      

[c3k]

Yeah. I'd like to get icons over fortifications...in the game. Now, they only exist when placing. Once the game starts, all the fortification icons disappear.

[John Kettler]

I waited too long to post a related thought on mines in CMBS, which is presumably also true of the other CMx2 titles. 

 

What's not being addressed here is opportunity cost. If I shell out 250 points to get a tiny (handful of 1 AS minefields) static AT defense of very much unknown effectiveness (real minefields have carefully calculated kill probabilities), with minefields apparently no longer stackable, what am I giving up as a result? If, for example, I bought Javelin teams at Specialist Formation prices under Typical, I could buy 4. Is anyone here going to argue that 4 Javelin teams aren't going to do better in bringing the antiarmor pain than a handful of tiny minefields? Somehow, I doubt it. With those Javelin teams, I can, practically at will, kill anything on the ground seeable either visually or thermally that's in their map girdling range. For what seems to me to be meager coverage, not great effectiveness (based on what I've read on this Forum) and very high opportunity cost, I think AT mines are way overpriced. Consequently, I'm going to reevaluate how I go about defending, given what I now know. Mines are weapons of mass employment, and I think the pricing is too much to get enough to be truly worth the outlay.

 

In a related thought, if emplaced mines and barbed wire are in, where are the pillboxes, roadblocks and related combat engineering obstacles? If you look at actual manuals for US troops defending in place, part of the defensive plan has those things on a barrier map or overlay. We used to have roadblocks in CM when there was only CMx1. In CMx2 we don't; no idea why. But combat engineers, at least in the Cold War US manuals I've read, had the capability of creating roadblocks, AT ditches and large craters impassable by vehicles, too. Nor is that list complete. It would be great if we had two-man fighting positions and emplacements (which aren't instantly spotted trenches) for crew-served weapons. It's readily demonstrable these sorts of things are in the WW II manuals covering field fortifications. And please get us some overhead cover.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

Edited August 18, 2015 by John Kettler

[Baneman]

Baneman,

 

My point is that because one AS is now only 8 x 8 meters, and the CMx1 AS was 20 x 20 meters, we've gone from 400 m² to 64 m². Rounding off, a given minefield now covers 6.3 x less area than under CMx1. Does the pricing reflect this? As for your minefield distinguishing issue, there is a simple (wag mode on) solution. Stick to CMBS and play only US, since it has no AP mines. Problem solved!

 

My point was that in CMx1, a squad occupied a 20mx20m AS. Now in CMx2, it occupies a 8mx8m AS. So the minefield is interdicting the same area that a squad would move through.

 

Granted it's not a completely 1:1 relationship having moved from an abstracted depiction of the squad to a WYSIWYG version, but it's effectively the same thing.

 

Costs for mines may be too high, that's a separate issue really ( and comparing costs in CMx1 to CMx2 is futile because all costs have changed so much ).

Ideally ( and I'm not the first to suggest it ), Defenders in Attack or Assault battles could get a certain amount of free fortifications - or points usable only for same.

 

Sadly, your solution to ID mine types will not help a WWII-only curmudgeon like me

 

I'm not sure how minefields are coded but most-everything else in the game is specific and not abstracted. So theoretically if Charles decided to do a 'display mine pattern' option we'd get glowing circles showing where each mine has been placed. Rather like foxhole placement. That would be cool to have. I don't know if I'd want him to drop whatever he's doing now to code it up, but that would be cool to have.

Hehe, yeah, that could be cool for watching the replay as the enemy squad approaches ... "nearly ... nearly ... rats, he sidestepped..."

Edited August 18, 2015 by Baneman

[womble]

womble,

 

Since I can't fire up CMx1, perhaps you could put together the point cost for the minefield types in CMx1 so that a direct comparison can be made? I can't speak to what was and wasn't available under "Assault," but I recall stacking minefields in order to raise the hit probability if the foe entered the covered area. Nor can I speak to the proportionality issue you raise. I can say, though, that making comparisons between the two game engines, their features, troop and equipment coverage is, IMO, appropriate. There was a thread not all that long ago in which a direct comparison was made between CMBO and CMBN in terms of the vehicle list, so why shouldn't mines be fair game?

That's rubbish and you know it is. Bemoaning a change in how a given system is implemented as you have is thoroughly pointless, because there are so many different variables to consider that it is effectively impossible to draw a worthwhile comparison in effectiveness "per point". That was the drift of my sequence of rhetorical questions. I'm sorry you missed the point. And comparing your comparison to a list of vehicles is thoroughly straw man.

[Vanir Ausf B]

What's not being addressed here is opportunity cost. If I shell out 250 points to get a tiny (handful of 1 AS minefields) static AT defense of very much unknown effectiveness (real minefields have carefully calculated kill probabilities), with minefields apparently no longer stackable, what am I giving up as a result? If, for example, I bought Javelin teams at Specialist Formation prices under Typical, I could buy 4. Is anyone here going to argue that 4 Javelin teams aren't going to do better in bringing the antiarmor pain than a handful of tiny minefields? Somehow, I doubt it. With those Javelin teams, I can, practically at will, kill anything on the ground seeable either visually or thermally that's in their map girdling range. For what seems to me to be meager coverage, not great effectiveness (based on what I've read on this Forum) and very high opportunity cost, I think AT mines are way overpriced. Consequently, I'm going to reevaluate how I go about defending, given what I now know. Mines are weapons of mass employment, and I think the pricing is too much to get enough to be truly worth the outlay.

Totally disagree. Anti tank mines are if anything underpriced. They are the same price as in the WW2 games despite there being roughly 3x more points to spend, making them effectively 3x cheaper (I have a request in with BFC to increase their cost). Because they are nearly impossible to remove you can close off entire routes of advance at choke points, which is enormously valuable even if they don't destroy a single vehicle.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Perhaps unrelated, but maybe there should be varying degrees of minefields?  Either replicating the fact that this one AS is literally just a layer of dirt over a few dozen mines that are all touching each other, down to it's part of a wide area that's been impacted by FASCAM type mines (so very low chance of a hit, but it makes a much wider area dangerous)*.  Paying a low price per AS to turn a whole hilltop into a FASCAM impact area, or the same price to make about 3-4 AS certain explosive doom (and options in the middle) seems like a thing that wouldn't be too bad. 



*Also that setting would be useful in replicating a battlefield that's been hit with a decent pile of sub-munitions or even just a variety of victim initiated IEDs. It's not safe, but nine times out of ten it's less dangerous.  

[John Kettler]

Baneman,

 

While I certainly take your point that a minefield still takes up the space a squad occupies, my point is that for mine warfare, it's all about frontage covered per minefield. IN CMx2, it now takes three minefields and change to cover the frontage one did before. That hurts when trying to create barriers.

 

womble,

 

I object strongly to your statement that I knowingly stated rubbish, for I did no such thing. Recommend you go back and add "IMO" to that sentence, since you've stated an opinion, not a fact.

 

Vanir Ausf B,

 

While it's true there are more points available for purchases in an absolute sense, I find your logic highly questionable. Why? Because it now costs a fortune to field a formation, even a cut down one. I did a 6K and change QB buy, huge by my standards, and my resultant force looked badly dinged up in consequence. To make the limit, I dropped an  entire Bradley platoon, staff units, FS teams (fortunately, I had several), dumped my JTAC, two Hummers and more and had only one Bradley platoon at full strength, with another missing many Bradleys. What I wound up with was the sort of thing I'd expect to see in a unit that had been through a fair amount of combat, a formation anything but full strength and especially hurting in the fighting power department. People think of the American Way of War as being based on artillery and tacair, but I couldn't afford much artillery (bought in sections because I needed ability to cover multiple axes of attack), and tacair was astronomic in cost, which meant I bought none. Since I had to worry about Putin's tacair and rotary wing capabilities, I also got to eat the costs of fielding the Stingers I might need, too.

 

My only CMx2 QB experience is in CMBS, so I can't speak to how things stack up there, relatively speaking. I strongly suspect, though, that it's much easier to field, say, a full Armored Infantry company, for the points allocated in a given QB category for the CMx2 WW II titles. The point allocation in CMBS for defending in Probe is 6802, but an Armored Mech company is 6903 at typical settings. It may be more than that with rarity, but I'm too tired to be sure. If I'm right, even if I slightly blow my entire budget by tweaking a setting a bit, all I get is one company. No tacair, no Stingers, no artillery, no barded wire, no mines, no TRPs, no foxholes, no entrenchments.  Consequently, since I can't afford anything like what the US typically brings to a fight, I find your idea of trebling mine costs to be ill advised at best, and I'm being kind. 

 

(goes off and sets up a CMBN Probe buy with Americans defending)

 

Probe budget is 3445. I don't know why this is the case, but "A" Company is 1525, "B" Company is 1809, and "C" Company is 1856, again, at Typical. So, the Probe budget in CMBN buys me a complete Armored Infantry Company at the very least. I can buy two "A" Company units if I wish. Let's say I don't. I take my remaining budget and buy the very pieces I couldn't afford in CMBS. A full battery of 105s, the basic American howitzer of the war (155 is the go to now), leaving me with 1188 points. I buy an FO section for 147 points (lets me control artillery and use tacair). 1041 left. Next, I buy a TRP for 150, 5 x Foxhole at 250, leaving 641. I then buy 1 x AT mine for 250, leaving 491, 2 x barbed wire for 200, and still have 191 left. Then follow two sniper teams for 46 points, a .30 HMG for 36 and medium mortar (81 mm) team for 49. 60 points remaining. I then buy a light mortar section (60 mm) for 48. 12 points left. These I'd spend tweaking unit capabilities. This force has 3 x 57 mm ATG organic to it and, if modeled correctly, every single squad should have a bazooka, too. This is a Company (+), and a very heavily armed one at that and is provided with protective holes and several barrier types, too. As noted above, the entire budget for the Americans in a CMBS Probe would buy only the Mech I Company and nothing else. Not exactly a fun situation if defending in place, right?

 

Seems to me that if mines are too cheap anywhere, it's in the WW II CMx2 titles, not CMBS! And the WW II titles have bunkers, hedgehogs, AP mines and mixed mines, too.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 18, 2015 by John Kettler

[womble]

No, John. If you think about it, you're asking stupid questions, non-rhetorically. Or you're trolling. And I don't think you're a troll.

Edited August 18, 2015 by womble

[Baneman]

Baneman,

 

While I certainly take your point that a minefield still takes up the space a squad occupies, my point is that for mine warfare, it's all about frontage covered per minefield. IN CMx2, it now takes three minefields and change to cover the frontage one did before. That hurts when trying to create barriers.

Yes, but the thing you're creating the barrier against is commensurately smaller, so your 8x8 'barrier' has the same effect. In CMx1, your 1 minefield barrier stops 1 squad's width of enemy. And so it is here - the scale has changed, but you have effectively the same tool.

 

Vanir Ausf B,

While it's true there are more points available for purchases in an absolute sense, I find your logic highly questionable. Why? Because it now costs a fortune to field a formation, even a cut down one. I did a 6K and change QB buy, huge by my standards, and my resultant force looked badly dinged up in consequence. ...

 

Huge to you, yes, but in CMBS that is a SMALL QB. Modern stuff is expensive.

You're not going to get a massive formation in a Small QB, hence your need to chop stuff out - but your opponent has the same problem, so you're on an equal-ish footing.

6k points would be HUGE in the WWII titles where mines cost exactly the same - hence his point that mines are either too cheap in CMBS or too expensive in the WWII titles. ( addresses your last point ).

 

My only CMx2 QB experience is in CMBS, so I can't speak to how things stack up there, relatively speaking. I strongly suspect, though, that it's much easier to field, say, a full Armored Infantry company, for the points allocated in a given QB category for the CMx2 WW II titles. The point allocation in CMBS for defending in Probe is 6802, but an Armored Mech company is 6903 at typical settings. ..

 

(goes off and sets up a CMBN Probe buy with Americans defending)

 

Probe budget is 3445. I don't know why this is the case, but "A" Company is 1525, "B" Company is 1809, and "C" Company is 1856, again, at Typical. So, the Probe budget in CMBN buys me a complete Armored Infantry Company at the very least. ... As noted above, the entire budget for the Americans in a CMBS Probe would buy only the Mech I Company and nothing else. Not exactly a fun situation if defending in place, right?

Nope, that's wrong.

In a SMALL Probe QB in CMBN the attacker get 1836 points which buys you 1 German Mechanised Company and a cut-down Weapons company ( and that's with some of their Halftracks excised etc. ). If you wanted some armour, you'd have to chop it down more.

 

Hard choices have to be made about what to take and what to leave, but that can be part of the fun of QB's

 

PS: to address your last point in the quote above - the "Typical" setting will give you a mix of leadership, morale and fitness, hence the different costs for the different companies - if you select the whole force and set it to "Regular, 0, 0" ( for eg. ), each Company will cost the same ( barring TO&E differences like US HQ Company and so forth ). Did think you knew that.

These tweakings are what permit you to adjust the force minutely if you have some points left over - I typically set my whole force as I suggest, then adjust it for some Leadership and Motivation with my last points.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Baneman

[Sublime]

john you know when you buy mines you.re not getting one action square of mines you.re getting several per purchase. same with trps trenches foxholes etc as we went over

[Vet 0369]

Yes.  This.  I sometimes make a field sketch of the layout but it would be a lot easier if it just said on the minefield signs that are visible to the side that placed them anyways.

I might have misunderstood your comment, but in the "Backs to the Wall" scenario of the U.S. Campaign, the U.S./Ukr mine field indicators are visible to the U.S. player. I just completed that one.

[Baneman]

I might have misunderstood your comment, but in the "Backs to the Wall" scenario of the U.S. Campaign, the U.S./Ukr mine field indicators are visible to the U.S. player. I just completed that one.

 

Visible, yes, but you can't tell ( in the WWII titles anyway ) whether it's AP or AT ( after the deployment phase ).

Edited August 18, 2015 by Baneman

[MOS:96B2P]

I might have misunderstood your comment, but in the "Backs to the Wall" scenario of the U.S. Campaign, the U.S./Ukr mine field indicators are visible to the U.S. player. I just completed that one.

 

Yes the minefield signs are always visible to the player who placed the mines.  But instead of the sign just reading danger mine it would be useful if it read AT mine or AP mine or Mix mine.     

 

Visible, yes, but you can't tell ( in the WWII titles anyway ) whether it's AP or AT ( after the deployment phase ).

 

Also can't tell what type of mine in CMBS.  Although the US only has AT mines.

 

The way it is now.

 

The way it might be for an anti-tank sign.  (Just better looking than my Paint program attempt).