Should the engineers be able to build obstacles?

[P.Ako]

Title says it all.

Now vote.

[Dog Soldier]

While it makes sense that engineers could do this, it was never really that crucial to the outcome of the battles represented in the series.

On the other hand, it could be abused. Imagine twenty or more km of blocked road hexes created in a CG, all along the main axis of advance. Since these are easily penetrated and cleared, one could argue it is just cluttering up the game for no real military value.

Dog Soldier

[Volcano Man]

Yeah, I agree with DS. It would be nice to have but it would have to be carefully implemented lest one side squirts out an obstacle on every road hex. It is very tricky to be sure.

[bwv]

perhaps only where the raw material exists for obstacles and there is a road hex. putting obstacles on a square kilometer of flat terrain vs. knocking a few trees down to block a road are two very different propositions

[DaveK]

It makes no sense that they can't, IMO, especially in Modern Campaigns. To a modern engineer unit, a minefield is to obstacles is to an anti-tank ditch. A game engineer can lay a minefield and dig in units up to 40% fortification, but can't dig a simple anti-tank ditch?

(BTW, if anything-- the mine-laying ability/per-turn probability of engineers has always struck me as far too low in the HPS series, again especially in Modern Campaigns. We're only talking a level 1 minefield, after all-- a speedbump for all practical purposes. Yet I can order an engineer unit to lay a minefield and watch them take two days to do it. Fog of war and all that jazz, but also bizarre).

[P.Ako]

While it makes sense that engineers could do this, it was never really that crucial to the outcome of the battles represented in the series.

On the other hand, it could be abused. Imagine twenty or more km of blocked road hexes created in a CG, all along the main axis of advance. Since these are easily penetrated and cleared, one could argue it is just cluttering up the game for no real military value.

Dog Soldier

Yes, but the number of "layable" obstacles would be limited like the artillery mines in MC. And, furthermore, it would take some time to build them and not every engineer unit would be able to build them.

[Aaron]

(BTW, if anything-- the mine-laying ability/per-turn probability of engineers has always struck me as far too low in the HPS series, again especially in Modern Campaigns. We're only talking a level 1 minefield, after all-- a speedbump for all practical purposes. Yet I can order an engineer unit to lay a minefield and watch them take two days to do it. Fog of war and all that jazz, but also bizarre).

Yes, would be nice to have a separate value in the .pdt

As for building obstacles i dont think its that important for them to do so, it would take more than a couple trees to block up a road from a armored Bn.

Aaron

[Al]

I voted no. I guess my thinking was why build an obstacle when you can lay a minefield? Although, bwv's suggestion about allowing them where the raw materials are readily available, such as in a forest, is interesting. Not sure if something like could be implemented, however.

[P.Ako]

Yes, would be nice to have a separate value in the .pdt

As for building obstacles i dont think its that important for them to do so, it would take more than a couple trees to block up a road from a armored Bn.

Aaron

The obstacle laying would be more than a pair of trunks in the road, would be the deployment of caltrops, wire fences, Czech hedgehogs... layable only by heavy engineers (engineers with the specific ability to build that)

I voted no. I guess my thinking was why build an obstacle when you can lay a minefield? Although, bwv's suggestion about allowing them where the raw materials are readily available, such as in a forest, is interesting. Not sure if something like could be implemented, however.

Because entering a minefield does not require 100% of movement troops for that turn.

[Aaron]

Yes, would be nice to have a separate value in the .pdt

As for building obstacles i dont think its that important for them to do so, it would take more than a couple trees to block up a road from a armored Bn.

Aaron

The obstacle laying would be more than a pair of trunks in the road, would be the deployment of caltrops, wire fences, Czech hedgehogs... layable only by heavy engineers (engineers with the specific ability to build that)

I voted no. I guess my thinking was why build an obstacle when you can lay a minefield? Although, bwv's suggestion about allowing them where the raw materials are readily available, such as in a forest, is interesting. Not sure if something like could be implemented, however.

Because entering a minefield does not require 100% of movement troops for that turn.

I still dont see any reason why, in modern warfare obstacles dont have the effect they had in the past especially in a setting as West Germany with lots of roads and good tank country. Even fighting positions and trench's are limited in their effects anymore unless they were pre-built, fire and movement is key. It might be better to find out from some ex tankers around here about obstacles being built during exercises in Central Europe but in my experience in light infantry never seen any built, the ones that were built were for base protection and took many a days to complete.

Aaron