Minefields, Chemical warfare etc.

[izmircali]

ANybody got any info if Civ3 will have other weaons of war besides the typical maneuver and conventional armies of Civ 1 and Civ 2?

Specifically, stuff like building minefields or chemical warfare? (I guess they can be simulated like in civ2, but perhaps they worked on it).

[Tjoepie]

Sorry no info, but minefields would be a cool addition to tile-improvements

[Bleyn]

I doubt we'll see minefields outside of modified units in scenerios.

For the scales that we're dealing with in terms of distance and time, mines just wouldn't be appropriate in a regular game.

But if they were to be there, there are several restrictions that would have to be in place for them to be done right.

1. Minefields are completely non-discriminatory in who they blow up. You may be the one to lay a minefield in a square, but it still attacks you if you move units there. You _might_ get a small advantage in escaping it, but your units should still take damage.

2. That square is at the least cut down in productivity, if not completely taken out of production.

3. Minefields generate unhappiness. Civilians tend to be rather unhappy when there are large areas that they risk blowing up if they go into them. This particular one could be turned off for scenerios if need be.

4. It takes several turns of action by a mine clearing unit to eliminate the field.

There are probably a few other rules that someone might come up with. These are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head.

[Wexu]

Bleyn, great ideas!

I'd love to see minefields, but the scale is rather large for them. But they could be implemented some way.. (is that a right word?)

[Tjoepie]

yep , great ideas there ! send them to the civ4-team

[Adm.Naismith]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Bleyn
I doubt we'll see minefields outside of modified units in scenerios.
[quote]

Probably you are right, but SMACx had something similar to minifields, IIRC: glue-something tiles you can enter but slowing you down or damaging you - sorry, I can't remember better right now.

For the scales that we're dealing with in terms of distance and time, mines just wouldn't be appropriate in a regular game.

Not sure. They can work more or less as an automatic "bombing" of the square.
You can still have some balancing trouble, but that must be checked.

But if they were to be there, there are several restrictions that would have to be in place for them to be done right.

1. Minefields are completely non-discriminatory in who they blow up. You may be the one to lay a minefield in a square, but it still attacks you if you move units there. You _might_ get a small advantage in escaping it, but your units should still take damage.

2. That square is at the least cut down in productivity, if not completely taken out of production.

3. Minefields generate unhappiness. Civilians tend to be rather unhappy when there are large areas that they risk blowing up if they go into them. This particular one could be turned off for scenerios if need be.

4. It takes several turns of action by a mine clearing unit to eliminate the field.

1. No, usually you know the minefield map (if not lost after war ). You can force a quick unit to slow down, but that's all.

2. Agree

3. Agree again

4. Yes, you could disarm the minefield using an engineer for a few turns - less if the minefield is yours.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Go to the enemy city, lay mines all around it and leave it to starve, and revolt... a good way to prevent democracy, and to ruin the enemy without actually conquering cities... I guess this would unbalance the game.

After a while you could have maps full with mines... mine clearing would be a micromanagement hell ... unless engineers finnaly grew up.

[DonJoel]

Nah, i dont like the idea, no offence. Minefield seems to be a little bit to much micromanagement to fit in the civilization theme.

[Patriqvium]

Well, considering the fact that the real-world width of a single Civ tile is about 200 kilometers (125 miles for those still using the imperial measures), minefields would really not fit into the scale...

[Tventano]

In reality clearing a field of mines is also a micromanagement-hell, so that would be a good simulation. Removing a mine costs about a thousand times as much as laying it. Laying mines and producing them is now internationalkly forbidden, just some rogue nations and/like the USA are not recognizing this.

Having a map often does not help. After a real rainshower, mines are often floating around and fields previously [i]clear[/], are again unsafe. Ofcourse one could use PoW's to clean up their minefields, as they did in WWII, but also the very good documenting germans did not have maps of minefields in the coastal areas of Europe. So it is always very risky. Iran used, in their war against Iraq, thousands of children who walked hand-in-hand over the minefields to clean them.

For all these reasons I do not think it a wise idea to put minefields in Civ. Besides, Diana, would not like it.

[Inverse Icarus]

i always thought mine layers would rule, like a mech inf that has a 0 defense and 0 attack but "builds" land mines every 3 turns.

:sigh:

another one of my ideas ignored

[Triped]

Something the equivalent of the SMAC terraformer, except it has a minelaying enhancement...(for lack of the Civ equivalent)

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Patriqvium
Well, considering the fact that the real-world width of a single Civ tile is about 200 kilometers (125 miles for those still using the imperial measures), minefields would really not fit into the scale...

Anything is oversimplified about game scale: why just a road or a railroad line on 200*200 Km area?

Look how many large area in France where mined during WWI and II, not to mention IRAQ dense minefield (e.g. see this site )

Facing the enemy, Iraq placed three anti-personnel mines one meter from an anti-tank mine; four to five meters separate each anti-tank mine. During the Gulf War, Iraq consistently followed this doctrine across its entire 400 kilometers of minefields.

But we shouldn't necessary consider a minefield fitting all the area: common terrain always have better zone for transit (traced path, rural roads, mountain or hill pass, etc.). You can mine them and have at least the side effect of slowly down enemy.


OneFootInTheGrave,

Go to the enemy city, lay mines all around it and leave it to starve, and revolt... a good way to prevent democracy, and to ruin the enemy without actually conquering cities... I guess this would unbalance the game.

But you must defend your engineer during the (some turns long) action of mining! If you can stay the counterattack, your siege is legitim, from a game point of view IMHO

The only problem I feel, is that minefield will appear in the game really late: if they can't be inherited by SMACx they probably require too much programming considering the limited effect on a game that may be will be won by mid game (if Civ III don't already address that very effectively, by rules and AI changes).

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I think that the final effect of mines would be having engineers all over the place clearing the minces like they cleared pollution in the late game...


Instead of going to a war with the army you would have to have an army of engineers as well... and of course it would slow down attackers considerably. That would be the final effect. Another favour for peaceful builders... well it seems that the game is too peaceful already... who needs more war-slowing strategies....

[OneFootInTheGrave]

actually this would make sure that everyone would be going for the spaceship or diplomatic victory....

Bloodlust option would be a slow hell though, which might be interesting... maybe a mine layer unit can be created in the scenarios. I wouls at least like to try a game with it.