Fortifications not cost effective?

[Broken]

Besides the many posts on how fox holes, trenches, and sandbags are not cost effective in QBs, I also experience the same thing with mines and barbed wire.

Barbed wire is not cost effective, mainly because it is so difficult to use the way you would want to use it. For example, you cannot use barbed wire to seal off the gap between buildings or the access to a bridge. The game will not allow it. There is always a gap between the wire and the two buildings you want to straddle. Likewise, you cannot run wire to effectively block off access to a bridge. Since denying access to choke points is a primary intent of wire obstacles, why would you spend 100 points on it if it doesn't do the job?

Mines are effective. AP mines will kill 20-25% of the infantry which attempt to pass through (at least initially). But the cost is 150 points, about the same as an infantry platoon. I will take an an infantry platoon over 25% of an infantry platoon any day in a QB. So, why buy AP mines?

AT mines are close to 100% effective in immobilizing vehicles which pass through. Since they cost 250 points, about as much as a Sherman, they will have to destroy at least one tank to be cost-effective. But since AT mines immobilize tanks, not destroy them, one has to hope they immobilize enough tanks to justify their cost.

Sandbag walls INSIDE of buildings? Not allowed currently.

I realize many of my posts are critical of the CMBN. CMBN is a tremendous accomplishment by BattleFront. No one else is in their league. But because they have accomplished what they have, it is hard to resist encouraging them to improve the weaker parts of the game.

[Wengart]

Depending on the location an M-kill is just as good as a destroyed tank.

[JG11Preusse]

Depending on the location an M-kill is just as good as a destroyed tank.

i guess you will thing different, after such tank blasts you away

[Wengart]

That's why I said depending on location

But yea, fortifications are quite expensive and in general hard to place. Currently the only one I find really worth taking is the TRP.

[Ryujin]

It seems the best thing is to mix AP mines and wire if you want to seal off an area. Mines can plug the gaps in the wire, like by buildings. Expensive though.

[Mattias]

Just pointing out that this is really two, partly intertwined, questions:

Nr. 1: Are fortifications cost effective in a QB perspective?

Nr. 2: Can fortifications fulfill a realistic role in game?

Nr. 1 is just a matter of taste, priority and tweaking.

Nr. 2 is where there is real room for creativity and development.

My point is that the discussion will move off track if the perspective is limited to, "Fortifications are not cost effective because they are not realistic".

And, eh, it only takes a 25 point AT mine field to stop that tank. You don´t have to buy all 10 you know. Pretty good value for points if you stop it in the right place. Besides as we all know mines are not for killing, they are for hindering.

M.

[gunnulf]

Proper use of wire and other obsticles is to channel the enemy into your killing ground. If wire forces him to re-route into an area you have covered with a pair of sMG42 or whatever then it should be worth every penny. Likewise mines placed in choke points should pay off, though a massive barrier minefield probably not so much.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Stick a TRP near the minefield. Something trips your mines - smack it with quick arty. :-)

[The_Capt]

On fortifications.

I think foxholes, trenches and sandbags all need (and are lined up for) tweaking wrt cover so I consider them a work in progress. As is, they do work better than open ground.

Bunkers are deadly and worth every penny.

Obstacles. The worth of minefields, wire and hedgehogs should not be viewed in the simplistic terms of "what they can kill". The lethality of these obstacles are a by-product of their primary role; shaping the battlefield.

Obstacles are used to shape/reinforce a defensive plan. They act as a sort of glue to ensure that the value of the rest of your weapon systems are greater than the sum of their parts.

It isn't the troops an AP minefield kills that count but the fact that your opponent will either have to conduct a costly breaching operation, which will be slow and vulnerable OR go around the obstacle. If properly placed, obstacles can be a major contributor in making your opponent "dance to your tune" in a defensive position.

This effect btw is the foundation of the term "force multipliers". Obstacles can increase the force ratio required to attack a defensive position because they leverage the very real concept that, in miltary terms, the value of a point in space and time can drastically change in a very short period of time. If you know where that spacial point is likely to be and reinforce with obstacles you can be assured that when that time bubble comes along you are set.

In that few minutes they can make a platoon deliver the defensive effect of a company.

Now in-game costs are a separate issue related to play balancing. The trick is to read the terrain to ensure you are getting the better part of the bargain. On a tight or small map they can be very effective. On some wide open large map, not so much.

All in all , I think CMBN got it about right wrt QB costs.

[Agua]

Well, here is what I noticed w/ regard to obstacles: they are not a cheap purchase in QBs. In terms of *balance* however, if they were cheap, defense would probably be too easy.

When I'm on defense, man, I want all kinds of wire, hedgehogs, & mines, PLUS a bunch of HMG, AT and foot sloggers. But if I look at it from a balance standpoint, what I *want* would result in a pretty easy, lopsided win, so they're probably priced just about right.

Just an aside here: hedgehogs on heavily forested maps are, imo, generally a pretty good buy.

[Sergei]

Mines are effective. AP mines will kill 20-25% of the infantry which attempt to pass through (at least initially). But the cost is 150 points, about the same as an infantry platoon. I will take an an infantry platoon over 25% of an infantry platoon any day in a QB. So, why buy AP mines?

AT mines are close to 100% effective in immobilizing vehicles which pass through. Since they cost 250 points, about as much as a Sherman, they will have to destroy at least one tank to be cost-effective. But since AT mines immobilize tanks, not destroy them, one has to hope they immobilize enough tanks to justify their cost.

You're mispresenting the prices here. Eg. mines come in groups of 10 mines; you are free to cut this down to just one mine if you wish, in which case an AT mine will only cost 25 points. You cannot buy any combat unit for that price, let alone one that can knock out a Tiger.

But that's beside the point. The purpose of mines is never to destroy the enemy. It is to change the tactical scenery. To take your comparison of buying an infantry platoon instead of mines, okay; but what are you going to do with that extra platoon of yours? It will likely just result in a greater unit density, which makes for a big fat artillery target. Your infantry is easy to kill but a minefield is nigh on impossible to eliminate, and the enemy will find it very hard to advance across a minefield properly covered by fire. And as his troops get pinned down in a minefield, your FO has time to call mortar fire on them. The same with AT mines: the enemy lead tank might get caught in a minefield. This, in turn, allows your ATG or rocket launcher to open fire at an immobile target, preferably from a flanking position.

Plus mines are stealthy, so once your opponent runs into them, he will never be quite sure where the mines are and where there are none. This will make it preferable for his forces to follow a single path, which makes the defender's job that much easier.

[Tarquelne]

AT mine will only cost 25 points. You cannot buy any combat unit for that price, let alone one that can knock out a Tiger.

Isn't a 2-man AT team very close to that in price? There are some disadvantages, but it's far more mobile and has better range...

Anyway...

But that's beside the point. The purpose of mines is never to destroy the enemy. It is to change the tactical scenery.

Yep. What we're talking about here is a sort of force multiplier, yes?

I'd like to know if Broken is judging the points using large QBs. For small ones the err... "capital outlay" may be far too much to justify fortifications. But for large ones, OTOH, where the fortifications will be enhancing far more units, the price might be quite reasonable.

(And by their nature fortifications might tend to be things you need a bunch of. A single mine might be fine if you've got a really juice bottleneck. But unless the map is cooperative you'll generally need quite a few.)

[MikeyD]

QB purchases are attempting to do something quite unnatural, concoct 'balanced' battles out of disparate units. Tigers versus barbed wire versus mg jeeps. If you really want battles to look like you want I strongly suggest practicing up on proper scenario construction. No numerical restrictions, no generic AI orders. Put together your ideal battle then share it with the world. Five miles of barbed wire with mine belts between the rows if you want. Whose going to stop you?

[Broken]

On fortifications.

Obstacles. The worth of minefields, wire and hedgehogs should not be viewed in the simplistic terms of "what they can kill". The lethality of these obstacles are a by-product of their primary role; shaping the battlefield.

Obstacles are used to shape/reinforce a defensive plan. They act as a sort of glue to ensure that the value of the rest of your weapon systems are greater than the sum of their parts.

It isn't the troops an AP minefield kills that count but the fact that your opponent will either have to conduct a costly breaching operation, which will be slow and vulnerable OR go around the obstacle. If properly placed, obstacles can be a major contributor in making your opponent "dance to your tune" in a defensive position.

The problem with AP mines is not their effectiveness, but their price tag. As a defender I can spend 150 points on a platoon or on 10 AP mines. Say I choose the mines. I get lucky and an enemy platoon passes through them suffering 30% casualties, better than average. The enemy now still has 2/3 of a platoon I need to stop and my mines are now next to useless. As defender in an Attack QB, I start at a 1.6 to 1 points disadvantage and my situation just got worse.

If I want to spend those 150 points on "force multipliers", I would get a lot more bang-for-the-buck buying 2-3 medium mortars. I can kill a lot more than a squad with that. The AP mines are not cost competitive with the other purchase options available.

This effect btw is the foundation of the term "force multipliers". Obstacles can increase the force ratio required to attack a defensive position because they leverage the very real concept that, in miltary terms, the value of a point in space and time can drastically change in a very short period of time. If you know where that spacial point is likely to be and reinforce with obstacles you can be assured that when that time bubble comes along you are set.

In that few minutes they can make a platoon deliver the defensive effect of a company.

Certainly this is true. But in QB prices, many of the force multipliers are priced out of the market. Even most machine guns. The way prices are set up now, QB purchases will devolve to just armor, infantry squads, and mortars. I would like to see a richer mix.

Now in-game costs are a separate issue related to play balancing. The trick is to read the terrain to ensure you are getting the better part of the bargain. On a tight or small map they can be very effective. On some wide open large map, not so much.

I hear you on this point. I tested mines in a QB (myself vs myself) on a very constricted map (QB-145). The attacker had to pass through mines on all the major river crossings. The minefields were covered by fire from six squads plus two mortars. The attacker first destroyed the covering squads with mortar and tank fire and then ran four platoons through the minefields. The mines claimed 13 casualties. The defending mortars claimed 30. This was a on very favorable map for mines.

[Broken]

You're mispresenting the prices here. Eg. mines come in groups of 10 mines; you are free to cut this down to just one mine if you wish, in which case an AT mine will only cost 25 points. You cannot buy any combat unit for that price, let alone one that can knock out a Tiger.

I assume most people reading this know fortifications come in packs of 10 (except for TRPs).

But that's beside the point. The purpose of mines is never to destroy the enemy. It is to change the tactical scenery. To take your comparison of buying an infantry platoon instead of mines, okay; but what are you going to do with that extra platoon of yours? It will likely just result in a greater unit density, which makes for a big fat artillery target. Your infantry is easy to kill but a minefield is nigh on impossible to eliminate, and the enemy will find it very hard to advance across a minefield properly covered by fire. And as his troops get pinned down in a minefield, your FO has time to call mortar fire on them. The same with AT mines: the enemy lead tank might get caught in a minefield. This, in turn, allows your ATG or rocket launcher to open fire at an immobile target, preferably from a flanking position.

Plus mines are stealthy, so once your opponent runs into them, he will never be quite sure where the mines are and where there are none. This will make it preferable for his forces to follow a single path, which makes the defender's job that much easier.

I tested the very scenario you describe (see my last post). The mines did indeed suppress the infantry which ran through, but for less than a minute. My conclusion was I would have been much better off buying a couple mortars and an extra squad for the same price. Considering how favorable the map was for mines, I see them being rarely used in QBs.

[cool breeze]

but if he had ran a company through the mines is woulda been a really good deal

[Broken]

QB purchases are attempting to do something quite unnatural, concoct 'balanced' battles out of disparate units.

Which is why they are best played as mirror matches: you pick one map and play two games. One as defender and one as attacker. It doesn't matter if the balance isn't exact.

Tigers versus barbed wire versus mg jeeps. If you really want battles to look like you want I strongly suggest practicing up on proper scenario construction. No numerical restrictions, no generic AI orders. Put together your ideal battle then share it with the world. Five miles of barbed wire with mine belts between the rows if you want. Whose going to stop you?

No, the idea is to have a richer practical unit selection in QBs. Which is hard to do if some units are way underpriced relative to others. Those units get picked to the exclusion of others and you end up facing the same unit mix in QB after QB.

There were units in CM1 which were way under-priced initially. SMG squads for one. Pupchens for another. Pupchens were initially priced at 25 points, yet they could defeat any Allied armor out to roughly 200m. Way more bang for the buck than Panzerschrects. Pretty soon, players were defending with masses of Pupchens. BFC raised the price of Pupchens and the problem was solved.

BFC did downgrade SMGs for CMBB by reducing their ammo load. Even so, they were still so cost effective that good players would choose nothing but SMG infantry as the Russians.

[Broken]

but if he had ran a company through the mines is woulda been a really good deal

He did run a company through the mines.

Re-examining the battle, the most effective mines were a pair placed at both ends of a bridge. 36 men passed through both mine fields and of those 9 were hit. The mines cost 30 and the men cost 36, so this was by far the most cost effective mine application. On the other hand was a mine field of three mines blocking a river ford that the attacker never crossed.

[The_Capt]

I hear you on this point. I tested mines in a QB (myself vs myself) on a very constricted map (QB-145). The attacker had to pass through mines on all the major river crossings. The minefields were covered by fire from six squads plus two mortars. The attacker first destroyed the covering squads with mortar and tank fire and then ran four platoons through the minefields. The mines claimed 13 casualties. The defending mortars claimed 30. This was a on very favorable map for mines.

And you want to buy more infantry..why?

Try this on the same map. Trade in a platoon or so for wire and a few TRPs. Use the wire to canalize the approaches and then double up your AP minefields. Sight TRPs accordingly. See what happens.

You forget you are getting 10 AP minefield, each one can inflict 3-4 squad cas in a narrow point...you get ten of them. You should be able to deny a 100m gap effectively and if you double up across a 50m gap you get twice the lethality. If you have a narrow lane you could stop a Coy coming down it without getting seriously mauled.

It is all in the sighting and overlaying of mortars and direct fire. You get it all right and a Bn wont' be able to push thru or at least won't be much left of it on the other side.

[TheVulture]

Most uses of mines in game are using them to try and funnel enemy troops into kill zones or cause casualties in a bottleneck that the enemy has to pass through (or is likely to).

But there is one other rather evil technique I learned back in CMx1 days of putting mines in (or close to) the cover the attacker will use once you spring your ambush, or cover that they might use as a base of fire (although cost wise youd do better with a TRP and a mortar for those I expect). There is something very dispiriting about having a whole platoon open up on you, running for shelter behind the nearest wall, or putting some trees between you and them to break LoS, and finding you've wandered into a minefield. On open maps it is easier to mine the bits of dead ground an attacker might use once the shooting starts than to try to use mines to channel the attack. And playing against a human is has a certain psychological bonus outside the game too, encouraging a sense of defeatism. Bonus points if the troops run out of the minefield back into the firing line and take more casualties - that's your force multiplier there

[Broken]

And you want to buy more infantry..why?

I would buy more mortars. You can get two German mortars and a rifle squad for the price of a 10-pack of AP mines.

Try this on the same map. Trade in a platoon or so for wire and a few TRPs. Use the wire to canalize the approaches and then double up your AP minefields. Sight TRPs accordingly. See what happens.

I played with the wire a bit, but you can't seal anything off with it due to the limitations on where you can put it and the restrictions of the setup zone on this map (QB-145). The map is quite "canalized" already. The only way for the attacker to get to the main objective is through five river crossings: three shallow fords, one deep ford, and a small bridge. This bottlenecked geography is why I tried mines on the river crossings.

You forget you are getting 10 AP minefield, each one can inflict 3-4 squad cas in a narrow point...you get ten of them. You should be able to deny a 100m gap effectively and if you double up across a 50m gap you get twice the lethality. If you have a narrow lane you could stop a Coy coming down it without getting seriously mauled.

I used all 10 mines that I purchased for blocking the river-crossings. To get complete coverage, you might need closer to 20. The mines are quite effective the first time infantry wanders into them. Once they are spotted, their effectiveness seems to drop off.

The map doesn't really require TRPs. You can position the mortars to direct fire on all of the crossings. Of course, this does carry the risk of your mortars getting spotted and being subjected to counter-battery fire. But the German 81s only have about 2 minutes of ammo, so you can usually wreck a couple of squads before your mortar gets blown up.

It is all in the sighting and overlaying of mortars and direct fire. You get it all right and a Bn wont' be able to push thru or at least won't be much left of it on the other side.

I tested the map with a medium-size QB purchase, so the German defenders don't have the budget to wire, mine, and TRP all the crossings, and still have budget left for infantry, arty, and AT. If you are interested in a QB, we can try out our various theories.

[Broken]

Most uses of mines in game are using them to try and funnel enemy troops into kill zones or cause casualties in a bottleneck that the enemy has to pass through (or is likely to).

But there is one other rather evil technique I learned back in CMx1 days of putting mines in (or close to) the cover the attacker will use once you spring your ambush, or cover that they might use as a base of fire (although cost wise youd do better with a TRP and a mortar for those I expect). There is something very dispiriting about having a whole platoon open up on you, running for shelter behind the nearest wall, or putting some trees between you and them to break LoS, and finding you've wandered into a minefield. On open maps it is easier to mine the bits of dead ground an attacker might use once the shooting starts than to try to use mines to channel the attack. And playing against a human is has a certain psychological bonus outside the game too, encouraging a sense of defeatism. Bonus points if the troops run out of the minefield back into the firing line and take more casualties - that's your force multiplier there

You have the proper evil mindset for this game.

[The_Capt]

I tested the map with a medium-size QB purchase, so the German defenders don't have the budget to wire, mine, and TRP all the crossings, and still have budget left for infantry, arty, and AT. If you are interested in a QB, we can try out our various theories.

Sure send one along, I would like to check out this map.

[dieseltaylor]

From a game I am playing :

I was just thinking that I had run two squads straight over that minefield evilly placed in the hedge row pathway with only one man lost when the third squad goes to ground this turn. Though I'm in another game where I have watched my minefields have virtually no effect on advancing infantry

Is this symptomatic of the super ballsy behaviour problem. It says minefield and we run throug it,