my pzc feature wish list

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

As far as minefields go, could there be something added saying if a unit spends x amount of turns in or adjacent to a minefield or minefields, they would become charted like surveying land? Somebody had to know about most of them for people to have cleaned them up after the war. I know some still happen today, but most were cleared, so somebody knew about them. I don't think all units should be aware of them until so much time goes by for a unit to basically make a map and it goes to higher HQs and eventually distributed to other units in the area. Same should be for those your engineers make. But it does take time. Just a thought.

[JDR Dragoon]

Well, IRL:

If you lay a minefield, a sketch will be made of the extent, coordinates and composition (how many AT mines, how many AP, how are they laid in relation to ach other) of the minefield. The sketch is kept by the (engineer)unit itself and facsimiles are sent to the HQ of the unit the engineer is attached to/working on behalf of. This HQ is then responsible for further dissemination based on requests or perceived need of subordinate units.

So as you can see, there is plenty of scope for friendly units not knowing about friendly mines (not to mention artillery deliered minefields, whose extent and density might be wholly unknown)

[76mm]

So as you can see, there is plenty of scope for friendly units not knowing about friendly mines (

Of course there are. But units approaching the front line should be expected to coordinate with defending units to find out about things such as enemy units and/or minefields in the area.

While I'm sure the system was not foolproof, I'm sure it worked better than how it works in game, which is that no one knows about any minefield unless they have LOS to it. At the very least units which had a minefield to its front at dusk should not expected to forget about it overnight.

[Liquid_Sky]

These thoughts are mine mine thoughts :)

After playing many, many games of Panzer Campaigns, I have kind of gotten used to the mine fields. I tend to clear them as much as possible... even ones that may not even be in the way.

An engineer (with full movement) sitting in a minefield hex will allow travel mode units to move into the hex without being hit by mines.

When I played the Stalingrad campaign (as the Russians), I would use a single unit (usually a penal troop) to 'clear' the minefield (turn it from MINE to mine), so the follow up troops pay less movement and take less damage.

Sometimes if I have enough visibility/recon, I will notice the enemy relying on minefields as a defence. So I will happily push units into them. It can unhinge his plans.

If you are sitting in a minefield, don't change too/from travel mode (unless you have an engineer with full movement in the hex)

I never use auto movement around minefields. The game ignores the existence of the mines when calculating the fastest path. I will move carefully, one hex at a time with a 'throwaway' unit to pick a path.

[Mr Grumpy]

These thoughts are mine mine thoughts :)

After playing many, many games of Panzer Campaigns, I have kind of gotten used to the mine fields. I tend to clear them as much as possible... even ones that may not even be in the way.

An engineer (with full movement) sitting in a minefield hex will allow travel mode units to move into the hex without being hit by mines.

When I played the Stalingrad campaign (as the Russians), I would use a single unit (usually a penal troop) to 'clear' the minefield (turn it from MINE to mine), so the follow up troops pay less movement and take less damage.

Sometimes if I have enough visibility/recon, I will notice the enemy relying on minefields as a defence. So I will happily push units into them. It can unhinge his plans.

If you are sitting in a minefield, don't change too/from travel mode (unless you have an engineer with full movement in the hex)

I never use auto movement around minefields. The game ignores the existence of the mines when calculating the fastest path. I will move carefully, one hex at a time with a 'throwaway' unit to pick a path.

All very sensible thoughts!

[Fhil]

Would like to join the debate.

About the engineers and mines, I´m on the side of the guys arguing for not having the constant intel on all mines placed by the player. What are my arguments? One comes from the game´s engine, for example - imagine you have every minefield´s position displayed on the map. Now imagine a minefield from which you already withdrew 100 kms away from, you still see it on the map, then it suddenly disappears, or is going down on strenght - you now know for 100% that there is an enemy present, even more - that there is an engineer unit present clearing the minefield!

Now for example, if you play without Limited Air Recon rule, and have a good air support in the particular scenario, you can now send an air recon to see the unit (if such a change in the system that would allow one to see all his minefields on the map already wouldn´t reveal the enemy engineer unit itself), and than after spotting the engineer unit send some bombers to disrupt it´s job.

So, there are some ways of gamey tactics possible now - I can imagine some players placing the minefield on the important bridge crossing, and then, even if far away from it, using the tactic I´ve explained in the above paragraph, constantly disrupt enemy´s attempts to clear the minefield. Or another case - if such a change would also reveal units that take a step on the minefield, you would find yourself with having very good intel on the enemy unit in T-mode some 100 kms away from the front. Air guys would do the job again here very well. I must say this is far from reality to have such an intel.

Such an intel itself could be the reason for placing the minefields in first place, causing cassualties to the enemy less important.

That´s just what came into my mind when thinking about this change for a while, maybe I´m completely wrong.

One more point, if the guys in the division shouldn´t forget during the night about the minefield that they knew about turn before at 3 hex visibility for example two kms away from them, well I say - you shouldn´t too

I mean, they should remember - you should remember, you´re their commander, they can report only what they can see at the moment, that is 1km away at night, I think it´s commander´s job to keep the track on the minefields spotted before and plan accordingly.

I would change this suggestion of having the ´´friendly´´ minefields on the battlefield for engineers being able to create obstacles. I mean, they can now creat IPs, Trenches, now even Bunkers, minefields as always, but not the relatively simple thing as placing some barbed wire, choping down some trees and put them on the road and everything else that the Obstacles in the game represent.

Should be all from me for now, I´m going to hide behind me shield now, your turn guys!

[Strela]

Nothing like real world experience - from the book 'Kursk the vital 24 hours'. Note these are 'friendly' mines....!

[76mm]

...for example - imagine you have every minefield´s position displayed on the map. Now imagine a minefield from which you already withdrew 100 kms away from, you still see it on the map, then it suddenly disappears, or is going down on strenght - you now know for 100% that there is an enemy present, even more - that there is an engineer unit present clearing the minefield!

You're right about this, but it could be "easily" fixed by simply showing the last known mine icon, so you wouldn't know if it was decreased in strength or removed. I say "easily" because the concept is pretty simple but I don't presume to suggest that coding it would be simple in this game engine.

Now for example, if you play without Limited Air Recon rule, and have a good air support in the particular scenario, you can now send an air recon to see the unit (if such a change in the system that would allow one to see all his minefields on the map already wouldn´t reveal the enemy engineer unit itself), and than after spotting the engineer unit send some bombers to disrupt it´s job.

er, I don't see what is unrealistic about someone placing mines at a strategic position, and using air recon and air bombardment to make life more difficult for units trying to cross through it? You could do the same thing without the minefield; while the minefield might make this tactic more effective, isn't that what they're for?

One more point, if the guys in the division shouldn´t forget during the night about the minefield that they knew about turn before at 3 hex visibility for example two kms away from them, well I say - you shouldn´t too

I mean, they should remember - you should remember, you´re their commander, they can report only what they can see at the moment, that is 1km away at night, I think it´s commander´s job to keep the track on the minefields spotted before and plan accordingly.

I have to say that I think that this argument is, well, ridiculous. IRL a unit has a very limited piece of terrain in front of them (say two hexes) and their lives are at stake. I don't think it would be too taxing for them to remember the minefield to their front, they don't need their commander to remind them in the morning: "hey guys, don't forget the minefield in front of you from last night..."

Meanwhile, as player, I am "commanding" a few thousand units over many thousand hexes in a game in which there will generally be many hours, even days, between turns. You are seriously suggesting that I'm supposed to remember where every minefield is? If so, I'm afraid you're much more intelligent than me. And yes, of course, I could take the time to write down every minefield hex and then every time I move after that, manually cross-reference each hex to see whether it has a minefield; but I'd just quit playing before I did that, these games are supposed to be fun after all.

---

Strela, certainly an interesting post, but I don't think it proves very much, other than the fact that sometimes systems for reporting mines broke down, which I don't think anyone is arguing about. One could argue that we are reading about such instances precisely because they are rare (although I don't think that they were all too rare).

I think the question is whether, given units' situational awareness and the existence of imperfect mine-reporting systems/procedures, the game should act as if no unit ever knew about a minefield unless it could actually see it. In my view, this is rather illogical.

To cite an similar situation, procedures for reporting casualties and equipment losses were also not perfect, and sometimes commanders had incorrect ideas about the forces under the command. So does that mean that players should have NO IDEA about the strength of their units? Er, no, actually I can see exactly how many men every unit has, all the time.

While I perfectly understand if making these kinds of changes are not considered to be worth any coding effort required to make them, I'm not convinced so far by any arguments that complete lack of knowledge about all mines is "realistic".

[76mm]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes too little information is as unrealistic as too much information.

Maybe the best way to deal with issues like this would be to allow players to place markers (like bookmarks) on the map, sort of like IRL commanders have situation maps, etc. The devs could calibrate how much info could be communicated via these markers in many different ways: limiting the number of markers, allowing one color/shape or multiple colors/shapes, whether to allow text notes for each marker, etc. To mess with peoples' heads you could have some markers randomly disappear from time to time, etc.

This kind of feature would fully meet my request, which is to be able to somehow indicate map locations with enemy positions, minefields, objectives, etc., but would also not provide unrealistic info (the markers would be static) and would also allow for the kind of mistakes cited in this thread (players forget to mark a friendly minefield, forget what the marker was supposed to represent, maybe a marker disappears, etc.).

[Dog Soldier]

Maybe the best way to deal with issues like this would be to allow players to place markers (like bookmarks) on the map, sort of like IRL commanders have situation maps, etc.

I do not find it a problem at all. With over ten years of PzC play experience that hitting a friendly mine is the least of of what I focus on when playing PBEM. Meh.

For one thing you already have this functionality...and more. The game's top down view allows you to perfectly communicate instantly to all units what you know. I do not think WW2 communications were quite so good as what the player has in the game.
If you really have to have such maps, take a screen shot, dump it in an editor and add your own mine marker graphic every time to spot mines. To want the game to track such minor stuff is just being lazy, IMHO. One should be far more concerned with where the enemy units are moving to and their intentions than some static mines.

Funny how the mines always tell you exactly what strength they are. Now that is something that could be revealed only on the turn after a unit enters the minefield. In fact I doubt most minefields would be revealed anyway from units 'seeing' them.

Bottom line.
If one is that worried about hitting minefields in quiet areas, then just detail a single engineer unit to 'escort' your troops. Even in travel mode and engineer with mine lifting capability. Or use some of the techniques outlined by Liquid_Sky.

A good player does what a good historical commander did, he works with what he does have and adjusts to a changing situation.

For those who want to lose their mine-o-phobia, get a copy of Rzhev 42 and play the campaign game from the Russian side. I guarantee you will never worry about mines again after 200 turns of that brutal battle.

Dog Soldier