Tweet
I could see how mines could easy turn Civ3 into a turtle war. Both sides would lay the mines on thick at their borders, and it wouldn't really be worth it for either team to take all the time to clear the mines out, because so many defenders would be waiting on the other side.
-
-
In Civ ][... one tile represents 1,000 square miles. That means across the diagonal of an isometric tile is 44.72 miles. That's the distance across one tile E-W and N-S. I don't know where you came up with 125 miles. Please explain.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...
On the demographics screen it tells you "Land Area" you control. The land area is the amount of land in your city radii. One city equals 21,000 square miles, and since a city radius is 21, each tile represents 1,000 square miles. This is vastly unrealistic, because based on Civ ]['s map capabilities, the largest map would be 10,000,000 square miles, which is far smaller than the Earth's area.
I'm for minefields, but not in a traditional Civ environment. If Civ4 is going to increase the scale of map detail, then I'm all for minefields.To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
1000 square miles isn't too much to mine...not all areas are accesible, and we'd be talking about hundreds of thousands of mines here.Comment
-
OneFootInTheGrave, Triped: you have some good points for sure.
My best answer is: anyone can tell us how this concept worked out in SMACX?
I played only SMAC classic, not the expansion Alien Crossfire (the demo doesn't have the "minefield/gluefield").
My bet is it ended out to be a mostly irrilevant tactic, so we are probably sitting here speaking about hot air...
Anyone can help us with SMACx memories? I'm going to double post this pray into SMAC area, just for sure..."We are reducing all the complexity of billions of people over 6000 years into a Civ box. Let me say: That's not only a PkZip effort....it's a real 'picture to Jpeg heavy loss in translation' kind of thing."
- Admiral NaismithComment
-
SMAC didn't have mines...they did have gluefields (I think), but they were removed pre-release.Comment
-
Hehehe, SoulAssasin and Patriqvium you discussion was among the funniest in many days.
The size of a square depends on the scale of the map, you fools!
For example:If you model the United Kingdom the size of a square will of course be different than if you model africa or the world!
About the mines: THe idea seems bad and perhaps abstract things such as mines can be a reason to roads not working any more. Civilizaiton is not wargame, remember that.
Actually i think its silly to have units such as the f-15 and the man-o-war, it is to precise to fit in the civilization theme.If you place a thing into the center of your life, that lacks the power to nourish. It will eventually poison everything that you are.
And destroy you. -Maxi Jazz, FaithlessComment
-
Good point, DonJoel
Anyway, I still dislike mines because they would make waging war a hell after their discovery... goodbye for those swarms of tanks and mechanized infantry rolling west from the plains of Mongolia.
Anyway, I think balancing the mines would be hard. How much damage would they cause? How should they be placed? Would they have an upkeep cost?
I fear that if mines are implemented, they become easily either over-powered or useless crap.Wiio's First Law: Communication usually fails, except by accident.Comment
-
How about this: A square represents 200km. When your unit enters the square, there is ? 1/5 ? chance that it is affected. It would then lose points. Go down to yellow...To be one with the Universe is to be very lonely - John Doe - DatalinksComment
-
Nope.
If you place a thing into the center of your life, that lacks the power to nourish. It will eventually poison everything that you are.
And destroy you. -Maxi Jazz, FaithlessComment
-
I don't think it would add gameplay value. A scenario with the mines is the way to go for those who would like to try that concept.Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"Comment
-
Hm, how does a minefield affect combat? That is the important question. There are other questions such as how do you pay for a minefield, how do you lay it, how do you remove it, etc.
There are some new ideas regarding mines, such as ones that self-destruct after a certain period (or otherwise go inert), or ones that can be remotely detonated by radio signals, and so forth. All those will make sweeping easier, but they are still not guarantees.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
I guess no one knows if it will be used. I think it should be added for two reasons.
1) it is a very significant part of warfare as evidenced by the discussions here and the fact that the legacy of being warlike has serious repercussions. Similar to pollution after a nuke. I know it will take away from the tanks rolling across the plains etc, but hey if you haven't notice warfare in the last 50 years hasn't been that way. Accept American military thinkers always like to think in terms of WW2 and cast away terrorists and guerrilla warfare as not "real war."
2) It should atleast be able to implement when we design our own scenarios. I tried cutting and pasting a terrain square and then putting it in for a Civ2 unit, but because it needed movement so the computer players always messed it up.
Chemical warfare. Like how it was used in WW1 scenarios but i wish it had a pollution affect for persistent agents that would make the square damaging when crossed and make a non-usable resource square until cleaned up.Comment
-
Warfare hasnt been like that in the past 50 years? Lets see, Desert Storm, The Iraq-Iran war, most of the wars Israel been in, and Korea off the top of my head. Sure sounds like its still going on.Originally posted by izmircali
I know it will take away from the tanks rolling across the plains etc, but hey if you haven't notice warfare in the last 50 years hasn't been that way. Accept American military thinkers always like to think in terms of WW2 and cast away terrorists and guerrilla warfare as not "real war."
As for minefields they are used for slowing down an attacker or channeling him so he goes where you want him to. Without someone covering the mines with fire its not that hard to sweep a path and go right through as was shown by the British and Germans in north africa durring WW2. Mines in war do not cause very many deaths because minefields in real life are not that dense. Earthling7 said something about a 200km square. If you took all of the landmines that have been made since the start of WW1 you might be able to fill something that size but I really doubt it.The eagle soars and flies in peace and casts its shadow wide Across the land, across the seas, across the far-flung skies. The foolish think the eagle weak, and easy to bring to heel. The eagle's wings are silken, but its claws are made of steel. So be warned, you would-be hunters, attack it and you die, For the eagle stands for freedom, and that will always fly.
Darkness makes the sunlight so bright that our eyes blur with tears. Challenges remind us that we are capable of great things. Misery sharpens the edges of our joy. Life is hard. It is supposed to be.Comment
-
Thats only 5 wars. Thats it. But in the last ten years alone we have seen Lebanon, Afghaistan, Rwanda, Bosnia/Balkans, Kashimir, Philipines, Indonesia. All are guerillas wars (if not also proxy wars). Then go to the 80s with El Salvador, Afghanistan (still), Honduras, Nicarauga, Angola, Eithiopia the list is forever.Originally posted by Shiva
Warfare hasnt been like that in the past 50 years? Lets see, Desert Storm, The Iraq-Iran war, most of the wars Israel been in, and Korea off the top of my head. Sure sounds like its still going on.
The type of warfare actualy depends on terrain (the Midest is "tank country" as are the plains of Europe. But once you start talking jungle and cities where most conflicts have been fought, war is totaly different.
Which brings back mines, its definetely a route weaker powers will take to keep superior powers from rolling through, so it definietely applies to Civ.Comment
-
You probably have very poor source about the real number, or as I did once, really bad guessOriginally posted by Shiva
Mines in war do not cause very many deaths because minefields in real life are not that dense. Earthling7 said something about a 200km square. If you took all of the landmines that have been made since the start of WW1 you might be able to fill something that size but I really doubt it.
An italian site against the mine production (Italy was one of the main producers of land and sea mine) mention United Nation source updated to 1997 and Red Cross Committe updated to 1995 (sorry, the linked table is in italian) .
They calculate that the total number of mines still deployed under the ground of 79 countries amount to a number between
100 million and 125 million
BTW, USA refused to sign a treaty against the banning of mine because it consider them "a relevant part of the weapons arsenal of USA, useful to reduce its own troops risk and losses in defense". Sorry, I'm quoting by memory, but that was the concept IIRC.
Still, if Firaxis removed the feature from SMACx before going final, probably it wasn't balanced or worthy from a game point of view.
"We are reducing all the complexity of billions of people over 6000 years into a Civ box. Let me say: That's not only a PkZip effort....it's a real 'picture to Jpeg heavy loss in translation' kind of thing."
- Admiral NaismithComment
Comment