What Huib (and others maybe) don't like about PzC

[Dog Soldier]

1. Now one has to consider, was there effective DF to change the base probability of clearing the mines?
2. Was there sufficient bombardment of enemy positions that could fire on the engineers to reduce the first effect above?
3. Was there sufficient cover fire from a unit in a hex adjacent to the engineer.
4. Would the covering fire be more effective if the covering unit stacks with the engineer in the mine field hex?

Er .. why? All those things are already totally under the control of the two players. If I chose not to fire at and disrupt that damn engineer trying to breach my minefield, it's my own damn fault. The game shouldn't protect me from my own stupidity. Similarly, if I send the sappers in to clear a field without providing sufficient covering fire to suppress the defenders (i.e., soak up fire and/or disrupt defenders in the local area) again it's my own damn fault. It's my choice to try things that way, and the game shouldn't try to protect me from myself.

Seems you missed my point completely JonS1, so I will try to explain again. If one would consider a variable mine removal algorithm, then what factors would affect the basic calculation for the variable mine removal? I was not referring to the current state where minefield removal is a certainty unless you disrupt the engineers. Your discussion should not start from the premise that others are "stupid". Finally, there are far better tactics to stop engineers from clearing a minefield than direct fire on the engineers.

The fudging of minefield removal has a bad side effect, but so does a solution of requiring a certain size unit to do the job. With such a rule in place would it be gamey to attempt to place enough fire on the engineers to tip the unit's strength to 1-3 men below the "magic" number to prevent clearance?

Only if the player firing on the engineer knows how many men are in the sapper unit. Is there anyone that doesn't play with FOW?

Once again JonS1 you missed my point completely. I will try to elaborate for you so you do not draw the wrong conclusion again.
Any good player with experience does not need FOW turned off to estimate with reasonable accuracy the strength and condition of the enemy units which are in LOS.

Besides, why would you making the chance to clear dependant on unit size? Surely proportional to unit size is a better way to go. That way inflicting cas on the sappers reduces their chances, even if it doesn't disrupt them, but never completely stops them.

Thus, FOR EXAMPLE;
* Unit of strength 400+ = 100%, 300 = 75%, 200 = 50% [note 1]
* Qual A = 110%, B = 100%, C = 90%, D = 80%, E = 70%, F and lower = 60%
* Fatigue 0 = 100%, fatigue 100 = 80%, fatigue 200 = 60%, fatigue 300 = 40% [note 1]
* Clear terrain = 100%, Woods = 70%, broken = 90%, urban = 60%
* Obstacle = 100%, level 1 minefield = 90%, level 2 = 80%, level 3 = 70%

So, a unit of str 450, of qual A, no fatigue, in clear terrain, trying to remove an obstacle has a chance of:
1.0 * 1.1 * 1.0 * 1.0 * 1.0 = 1.1 = 100%
In other words, it will clear the obstacle.

On the other hand, a unit of str 180 (be it a single coy, or a heavily reduced bn), quality C, with 150 fatigue, clearing in woods, and a level 3 minefield has a chance of:
180/400 * 0.9 * 0.7 * 0.7 * 0.7 = 0.139 = 13.9% chance.
So a pretty low per-turn chance, due mainly to the small unit size (the players fault for sending a boy to do a mans job - a unit size 400+ in the same circumstances would have a 31% chance, while an unfatigued unit sized 400+ would have a 44% chance), but it should clear a single mine layer within 8 turns, and after that speed up since thinner mines are easier.

Imagine how much more attractive it'd be to lay minefields with those kinds of %s.

Penetrating fields and obstacles could/would/should still be automatic.

Regards
Jon

Note 1: could also be non-linear.

I would tend to believe that engineers sent to clear minefields prior to a main assault were small in size, probably no bigger than company size. Removing the mines was not a matter of getting all of them. Neither were the mines scattered through out the entire hex. Clearing lanes meant marking the safe route through the mines as much as actually lifting selected mines to create the path(s) for the assaults. Minefields channel attacks, they do not stop them cold. We both know this.
Thus needing to send in a 400+ man unit to do the "man's job" would be asking for a concentrated artillery barrage that would slaughter the dense pack of 400+ men. Larger units usually take larger casulaties in this game engine, all other things being equal.

In the end it just comes down to how much complexity is adding to the game or detracting from it.

Dog Soldier