 |
|
Should the engineers be able to build obstacles? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Should the engineers be able to build obstacles? (/showthread.php?tid=55252) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: Should the engineers be able to build obstacles? - Volcano Man - 04-04-2010 Well, a single tank typically carried about 4 to 6 rolls of concertina wire on the rear, mounted on two metal poles we attached to the rear of the M1. We had a picket pounder and when set up a defensive position we would usually go out and combine the wire and stakes of one platoon, and with four people pounding pickets into the ground we could throw up a 1km obstacle in no time at all. If an entire company did this then, well, you get the idea. Some may not think that wire alone is a good obstacle, but we had a method where we would put the picket into the ground and the pole was quite long, and we would stick a role of wire through the middle of it, then do the same at he next picket and so on. Then we would go back and put a second roll of wire *on top* of the first, and then we would put a third roll on top of the 2nd. The result was a wall of wire about 4 feet high, which would stop infantry of course, but it would also stop tanks and PCs. Anyone who doubts that, I can explain to them the time when my tank pulled in a roll of wire into the sprocket and into the track. It completely immobilized the tank and it took a whole day to cut it all out -- it was a nightmare. An obstacle is an obstacle, whether it be wire, an abatis, an AT ditch, or moat of flaming oil. So anyway, I was describing a tank company and not an engineer company (tank and infantry units shouldn't be able to build obstacles though, that would be too destructive), but yes, engineers should (in theory) be able to create obstacles -- it is one of their most basic tasks. However... I don't think the problem is not the lack of want, the problem is that someone has to propose a damn good idea on how to implement it so that it doesn't break the other games by turning it into obstacle city. The obvious choice would be PDT values that specify if, and how quickly each side can create obstacles. It has been brought up before that the US engineers in the Battle of the Bulge were blowing down trees in front of the German advance to slow them down, something you cannot do in PzC, so maybe the obstacle creation would be allowed in B44 PDT file, who knows. I guess my point is, what would be better than a poll is an idea on how the stuff would work which would have to follow the guideline of being simple to implement, elegantly thought out and non destructive to other titles. RE: Should the engineers be able to build obstacles? - P.Ako - 04-04-2010 (04-04-2010, 05:25 AM)Volcano Man Wrote: I guess my point is, what would be better than a poll is an idea on how the stuff would work which would have to follow the guideline of being simple to implement, elegantly thought out and non destructive to other titles. As i said before i think that limiting the number of obstacles that you can lay and making it layable only by some type of engineers would do the trick. Don't you think? RE: Should the engineers be able to build obstacles? - Glenn Saunders - 04-04-2010 Such a artificial limit would be hard to justify on a game and scn basis. During the Bulge development we discussed the idea of allowing road movement to be negated in forest hexes by engineers dropping trees but such a rule would make it even harder fo the Axis and that just wasn't seen as necessary. It was again considered in France 40 but instead we just used a higher MP cost to streams and wired many of the bridges to control and slow the German advance without letting the Allied player be able to pull so stunt to do the impossible. One has to consider not only how to implement a bright idea, and not only what affect it would have on many of the titles, but also how some one will take and use a rule in a manner which hadn't been considered. Glenn RE: Should the engineers be able to build obstacles? - Aaron - 04-04-2010 (04-04-2010, 10:20 AM)Glenn Saunders Wrote: Such a artificial limit would be hard to justify on a game and scn basis. Congrats Gunslinger you've gone over 1000 posts. RE: Should the engineers be able to build obstacles? - Glenn Saunders - 04-06-2010 (04-04-2010, 06:33 PM)tazaaron Wrote: Congrats Gunslinger you've gone over 1000 posts.  Ya -0 no idea who it is or how his profile has gotten crossed with mine on my Laptop at home - oh well - maybe the guys in admin can sort it out.Glenn RE: Should the engineers be able to build obstacles? - Dog Soldier - 04-07-2010 (04-04-2010, 12:37 AM)P.Ako Wrote: Because entering a minefield does not require 100% of movement troops for that turn. Neither does Obstacles. OBSTACLES do. All one has to do to negate an OBSTACLE hex is move an single, small unit into the hex with the OBSTACLE. Then the hex is considered penetrated and reduced to Obstacle. All units moving through the hex after that pay a minimal movement penalty. I see very little to gain. I can see OBSTACLES appearing all over the place, far more than ever were there to affect the historical battle. VM makes real good points about how this will need more thought. Dog Soldier |
){kind=link}