Minefields, Chemical warfare etc.

[Patriqvium]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


You probably have very poor source about the real number, or as I did once, really bad guess

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.

Most of those 100 millions are civilians who walk into poorly marked and probably forgotten minefields years or decades after the war...

So SMACx was going to have minefields? Maybe they unbalanced the game to one way or another, as I pointed out earlier...

[Shiva]

Originally posted by izmircali


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.


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.

As I said that was off the top of my head. First you say that warfare hasnt been like that then when I point out a few you say thats the only five The point is that that type of war still happens and your statement that "but hey if you haven't notice warfare in the last 50 years hasn't been that way" is false.

Originally posted by izmircali
Accept American military thinkers always like to think in terms of WW2 and cast away terrorists and guerrilla warfare as not "real war."

That must be why the US has been training thier special forces for that since before 'nam. That must be why said said special forces have been fighting in unreported fights around the globe for the past 30 years.

[DonJoel]

That must be why the US has been training thier special forces for that since before 'nam. That must be why said said special forces have been fighting in unreported fights around the globe for the past 30 years.

Really, what unreported fights?

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
You probably have very poor source about the real number, or as I did once, really bad guess

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

Sorry about that. You could only fit 80,000,000 mines in a 200km square. My bad. So you might be able to get 5 or 6 civ squares covered if for all the worlds mines ever made.

And I still stand by my statement that mines in war do not kill very many people. Sorry its the truth. Instead of quoting numbers of total killed (which very few are soldiers at war) you should take a look at tactical use and case studies of them used in war. Do you really expect an Anti-Mine website to be unbiased with their facts. The numbers they give are total killed of which most are civilians as Patriqvium pointed out. All mines amount to in real life are an obstacle and if they are not covered by defenders then they are as useful as a speedbump.

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
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.

Yes because mines are still useful for channeling the enemy to a killingzone. Just like wire, ditches and anything else that blocks the way. The DMZ in Korea is the heaviest mined area ever. Why? To by time. No one on either side thinks that it will stop anyone let alone do any serious damage. Whats going to do the damage is the people killing the poor bastards trying to breach the mines.

Mines are useful in a tactical sense in real life but in the strategic sense of Civ combat are useless.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Shiva
Sorry about that. You could only fit 80,000,000 mines in a 200km square. My bad. So you might be able to get 5 or 6 civ squares covered if for all the worlds mines ever made.

May be I joked a bit too much with my reply, but do you ever read my previous post on the topic?

A minefield will never be layed down so dense packed: you could elsewere just shot a mine and everyone in the field will probably explode for "sympathy", or induced explosion.

Not to mention I already agreed with you about the use of mine as a way to slow enemy advance on the more easy road/pass/free fields. What's your problem about it?
But you need a minesweeper with your army to pass a minefield, so what's wrong with an engineer unit added to the army for that purpose?

Mines are useful in a tactical sense in real life but in the strategic sense of Civ combat are useless.

Probably is my bad english, but wasn't me writing the same with my previus post?

Still, if Firaxis removed the feature from SMACx before going final, probably it wasn't balanced or worthy from a game point of view

Look! I was blindy believing in Firaxis judgment

BTW, of course the whole mine problem is around civilian, but more because none is really amazed that military troops died in war

I agree a minefield can't destroy a military army, but try to pass it without minesweeper protection and you risk to take almost as many damage as under a medium artillery barrage (no direct aimed) fire. My proposal was that, in fact: entering a minefield without a previous engineer minesweeping will cost your unit something like the damage you get by an artillery bombing (I'm thinking it as in comparison with SMAC artillery "softening" effect).

Ok I haven't anything more useful to add to this post, I think. So long, and thanks for all the fish

[Jaybe]

Minefields effects

The effects of minefields is basically to SLOW the passage of military units. You really just mark (and potentially fence or wire off) the minefield area and "Oops! I don't want to move through this area."
Actual mines in the area are not necessarily required, although at least a few placed mines add to the credibility. Now you have to get the combat engineers to the location and laboriously remove or detonate the mines. If the minefield is also covered by defending fields of fire, then just small defensive forces can hold off a major attacker.

The same concept applies to defending a river. Relatively small defending units can cover much more than their normal 'combat frontage.'

In the Civ2, the building of fortifications (in modern times) could be assumed to include the use of minefields.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, given the roads penalty for an attacker, we can already claim that minefields are in the game. Chemical weapons have never had a major impact on war, partly because of agreements, partly because of the fact that it causes as much difficulty for attacker as for attacked.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


May be I joked a bit too much with my reply, but do you ever read my previous post on the topic?

A minefield will never be layed down so dense packed: you could elsewere just shot a mine and everyone in the field will probably explode for "sympathy", or induced explosion.

Not to mention I already agreed with you about the use of mine as a way to slow enemy advance on the more easy road/pass/free fields. What's your problem about it?
But you need a minesweeper with your army to pass a minefield, so what's wrong with an engineer unit added to the army for that purpose? \

The point I was trying to make is just how big a square is and just how little mine is. A unit in this game is at least a division or bigger. In the grand scheme of things there is no way that any measure damage could be dont by them. Also most modern divisions have the organic ability to sweep mines so there really wouldnt be a need for a engineer. My problem is that in a 200km square you cannot lay a mine field that would block a unit from crossing said square and there would be little chance of a unit tripping over one in an area that size. And even if it managed to somehow trip over one, without someone sitting there overwatching, a division could easily breach it within hours. Even at the slowest the game is one year turns. Both the scale of the map and the scale of time make minefields beyond being useful at all in this game.

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
BTW, of course the whole mine problem is around civilian, but more because none is really amazed that military troops died in war

The point I was trying to make about the numbers is that they just dont kill very many soldiers. Even if a Civ unit is just a division sized unit a minefield wouldnt even do a hitpoints worth of damage to it if tripped over one.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Well, given the roads penalty for an attacker, we can already claim that minefields are in the game. Chemical weapons have never had a major impact on war, partly because of agreements, partly because of the fact that it causes as much difficulty for attacker as for attacked.

Yep.

[Rakki]

well, maybe something similiar would be the ability to "pillage" an area - but in this case it's not to destroy the improvements but to "blacklist" it.

We know that armies aren't going to be thwarted by one or two minefields. You've got a big minefield, but all they need is a lane through it. What a waste of resources.

Instead, a "blacklisted" quare would count as being "polluted". The troops poison water supply, booby trap resource mines, burn down the farm, steel all the chickens etc etc.

Then any unit that actually "sits" on a polluted square would lose hit points every turn. You will need to bring workers and engineers in to clean the mess up.

This would reflect the reality that it's the poor civilians who get to live with the mines until they are cleaned up.

[izmircali]

Originally posted by Shiva



As I said that was off the top of my head. First you say that warfare hasnt been like that then when I point out a few you say thats the only five The point is that that type of war still happens and your statement that "but hey if you haven't notice warfare in the last 50 years hasn't been that way" is false.

Ok, I'm sorry if I said "hasn't been that way." What I meant was that the predominantly war has been "low intensity"/guerrilla etc. Conventional Warfare has not been the dominant form, which is why I was arguing against your statement that minefields would ruin rolling tank and infantry units at an enemy.
Of course why conventional is not used as much is because it is a lot more expensive and Western powers are so dominant at it that 3rd world countries prefer to fight in a way where they have the advantage. I would like to see these options so if you are the weaker power you can actually hold off a superior power, or if you are the super power you can find yourself in a frustrating guerrilla war, to make late games more fun. (If they don't have it, I guess you can just make military units with the same graphic as settlers or workers)

That must be why the US has been training thier special forces for that since before 'nam. That must be why said said special forces have been fighting in unreported fights around the globe for the past 30 years.

Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) is only one of the jobs of special forces and you basicaly supported my other point. SF is trained to fight unconventional conflict which shows that conventional conflict is not the main way of fighting. But also SF is the bastard child on the armed forces because it threatens the conventional forces branches. The fact that SF didn't becme a separate Army branch until 1987 and that Special Operations Command didn't become a de facto separate branch of service until even later in 1989 and was forced on the military by congress is proof that military planners virtually ignore unconventional war. The military leadership does acknowledge the existance of SF, but they don't like them. Even Schwarzkopf didn't want to use them.



As for minefields for what other people have been saying. Yes they do only cause on a few military casualties but thats because obstacles (covered by fire) are usually positioned in order to limit an enemy's courses of actions (i.e. channel his column through a route where you'll have an ambush or kill sack waiting) or slow his advance by disrupting his optemo.

As for mine sweeping, other options exists such as a MICLIC which is a rocket with a long tail of C4 packed detonation cord that detonates the mines and creates a path for armor or other vehicles to pass through. There are a lot of de-mining techniques during war, but as part of doctrine the US Army will not clear enemy minefields.


I like the black listed square. But like I said earlier, I only would like to see the asymmetrical/unconventional war as an option to create a frustrating situation for a stronger power, because in previous CIVs if you were ahead technologically, you could sweep right on through which is too easy, not really much fun (after awhile) and not realistic.

[Rakki]

I think if you want unconventional warfare with guerilla forces to be simulated, it could easily be done by making a unit "land stealth". That is, behave like a civ2 submarine, and exert no ZOC. Let's look at the chief beneficiary of the land stealth feature - the partisan.

The effect of stealth is two fold. It gives the unit greater survivability on the modern battlefield - after all, a small group of partisans isn't going to be as big a target as a whole division of armour, and they'd be stupid if they are sitting out in the open ready yelling "come and get us. "

The second benefit would be the ability to ambush enemy units. The partisan unit can quietly move up next to a road and then wait there until a weak unit - such as howitzer or worker - comes walking by, then launch a devastating attack.

The problem however is how to get away if you are a one movement unit (with alpine ability). This would be the weakness of the partisan unit - they need a turn to disappear into the wilderness again, but they can only move so far....


This way, conventional special forces (or unconventional) can be reproduced creating a unit with better attack rating, but has stealth and paradrop as well.

Then things get really interesting - who's going to ambush who ? And how come the railway has suddenly been cut HERE ? When was this done ? Who did it ? And where the hell are those guerillas ?

This is all much better and more "physical" than the nebulous "railway/road ineffective in enemy city's culture zone"

PS. I noticed that diplomats and spies apparently no longer exist. That sucks, because I've always loved sending spies through the enemy territory to find out as much as i can about how their cities are distributed and what units are home... but just imagine if you can use partisans and special forces to infiltrate the enemy borders - (and give special forces the old spy ability to target city improvements)

If your unit is detected (ie, someone walks over them) then it causes a diplomatic incident, but otherwise a player would remain unaware of the intrusion - (just like in real life !)

And if you don't want to cause a diplomatic incident *yet* you will have to somehow extract them....

[Shiva]

Originally posted by izmircali

Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) is only one of the jobs of special forces and you basicaly supported my other point. SF is trained to fight unconventional conflict which shows that conventional conflict is not the main way of fighting. But also SF is the bastard child on the armed forces because it threatens the conventional forces branches. The fact that SF didn't becme a separate Army branch until 1987 and that Special Operations Command didn't become a de facto separate branch of service until even later in 1989 and was forced on the military by congress is proof that military planners virtually ignore unconventional war. The military leadership does acknowledge the existance of SF, but they don't like them. Even Schwarzkopf didn't want to use them.

Thing is though SF still has been around since '54 and while not being called Special Forces before that its been around longer. SOC was formed to streamline command and intergate with others services special forces. It doesnt mean that that unconventional war was ignored it just ment that it took a back seat to a far far bigger threat, the Warsaw Pact.

Originally posted by izmircali
As for mine sweeping, other options exists such as a MICLIC which is a rocket with a long tail of C4 packed detonation cord that detonates the mines and creates a path for armor or other vehicles to pass through. There are a lot of de-mining techniques during war, but as part of doctrine the US Army will not clear enemy minefields.

Funny I have never heard of that doctrine. And anyone who has served knows just how fast doctrines can get tossed under certain situations