mine laying unit

[vee4473]

minefield deployment is not micro at all.

it's actually one of the more macro elements....deploying a large area of mines to influence an enemies movements.

micro tactics is how you would captain an individual sub in a fight, or what orders you would give to your platoon members for them to take an objective.

that's the type of stuff that is too micro for civ...not minefields.

as sophist said, laying a minefield isn't any more micro than building a fortress.

[GeoModder]

A fortress can represent it all. As in Sophist's example of the Korean border, next to the minefields are all sort of fortifications and trenches.

[vee4473]

fortifications can include mines, yes, but mines (as in real life) are a cheap method of denying an enemy access to a certain area.

i guess i'm alone on this one, but mines are by no means micro tactics for pete's sake.

not even close...

once fields are laid, they are not quick or easy to relocate, that proves that they are meant to be part of a broader overall strategy, as fortresses are.


but, it was just an idea.

[sophist]

Actually, I think minefields should be in the game also. I think you should not be able to work mined terrain. I think they should take a whole MP to traverse, also, even if there are roads or railroads there. If you could work and traverse them like unmined tiles, people would just mine every single tile. Rather than being impassable to enemies, I believe they should "bombard" enemy units that enter.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GAZ082
Exactly, mines are for a micro level warfare, not macro like in the CIV series.

QFT^2

[DerSchwarzfalke]

If this were the Operational Art of War, then yes, minefields should certainly be in the game. But the fact is that mines represent tactical maneuvers on the battlefield, not the broader strategic idea of battle that the Civ military model represents. I think minefields are implicitly included with 'fortresses' on a wider scale.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
If this were the Operational Art of War, then yes, minefields should certainly be in the game. But the fact is that mines represent tactical maneuvers on the battlefield, not the broader strategic idea of battle that the Civ military model represents. I think minefields are implicitly included with 'fortresses' on a wider scale.

I can understand the thinking that small scale mines such as claymores etc...are part of a more tactical element.

and also that maybe mines are supposed to be a part of fortresses.

But, larger scale mining of strategic areas is most certainly a part of the broader model civ represents.

to say that mines are a tactical maneuver is to generalize the nature of mine warfare and the type of mining I am referring to.

laying mine fields is not a micro-tactical operation. It requires planning and much execution.

You can consider it a cheaper alternative to fortresses for those trying to repel invaders.

Any sequel to Civ, the MOST venerable game in the genre, should consider these types of evolutions in gameplay to grow.

You are right that there is indeed a fine line to draw between micro actions and what is CIV, and I truly don't think this is it.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by vee4473


a tank wouldn't take a year to move a few tiles either, or 4 years to train one unit for deployment, or 5 years to chop down a forest etc...

Did you just say that a tank would take 5 years to chop down a forest?

[Kuciwalker]

Depends on the size of the forest, but tanks are exactly known for their tree-chopping prowess.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Depends on the size of the forest, but tanks are exactly known for their tree-chopping prowess.

Oh, I see!

What about a tank taking four years to train a unit for deployment?

[H Tower]

aside from the Korean border, can you name any other strategic minefields?

[DerSchwarzfalke]

Minefields are strategic in the sense that it is strategy involved and picking and choosing where to lay minefields in order to create chokepoints, but such strategic minefields you are talking about are beyond the concern of the Civ series, imo. Does a king/president/dictator say, "lay mines here, here, and here"? No. He is more apt to say something like, "defend this area," and leaves it to his military to work out the details. That is Civ, and that is why I think minefields would be redundant in the game.

[GeoModder]

Isn't including minefields in games considered political incorrect these days? With all those voices speaking up for a ban on such devices?

[sophist]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
Minefields are strategic in the sense that it is strategy involved and picking and choosing where to lay minefields in order to create chokepoints, but such strategic minefields you are talking about are beyond the concern of the Civ series, imo. Does a king/president/dictator say, "lay mines here, here, and here"? No. He is more apt to say something like, "defend this area," and leaves it to his military to work out the details. That is Civ, and that is why I think minefields would be redundant in the game.

Does a king/president/dictator say that the 5th cavalry should move 100 miles to the west? Does a king/president/dictator say to irrigate the plains to the north of Izmir? Does a king/president/dictator command the catapults to fire first, then the horsemen attack, and finally that the swordsmen move in for the kill? Does a king/president/dictator say that one of the citizens of Brundisium should work as an Elvis impersonator? Maybe I'm being US-centric here ;-)