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.

[Triped]

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.

[Sava]

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...

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.

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.

[Triped]

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.

[Adm.Naismith]

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...

[Triped]

SMAC didn't have mines...they did have gluefields (I think), but they were removed pre-release.

[DonJoel]

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.

[Patriqvium]

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.

[Earthling7]

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...

[DonJoel]

Nope.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

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.

[Urban Ranger]

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.

[izmircali]

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.

[Shiva]

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."

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.

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.

[izmircali]

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.

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.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally 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.

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.