- units already get a -30% speed penalty in foreign terrain
- damage over time is just a stupid concept; especially if it's just from a building

Remember, this is modern war. Old, static defenses are useless and outdated in the new environment of quick strikes and constantly evolving battlefields. The days of trench warfare and the Maginot lime are over.

not if u think in tearms of mine fields

bluewarrior 6 wrote:

not if u think in tearms of mine fields

I was going to write something about barricades, but I like this idea so much I could see it realistically being implemented. I was writing a whole idea on it and how you could have minesweeping units, but it got too long so I will make a separate post.

Ah. The one exception.

However it would have to be akin to WMDs due to the horrific civilian casualties caused and the fact that you’d be violating international law.
Edit: And therefore have the morale penalties of them.

I have written an outline suggestion with my initial thoughts on mines. I think if this game has chemical weapons mines won't be an issue.

not true. only a few countries signed onto that treaty. many more didnt, US for example didnt, and we still use them.

I wouldnt do a moral penelty but a manpower penelty

The general populace would still be disgusted by them, and that’s what counts. And yes, the U.S didn’t sign the treaty, but the U.N abhors them so what would end up being reported is (blank) violates international law.

The pointed-stick traps of Vietnam got banned and the war itself got ended due to the morale of the general populace. It is not the technicalities that count, but the spirit.

We use millions of landmines along the DMZ in korea, both the american public and south korean public could care less. If mine fields are used for defensive nature to protect you from the bad guys the public would not care, they only care about being safe. Punji pits had zero effect on our involvement in the vietnam war (they also are not band under the hauge, geniva, or common laws of war). The american public didnt like the war and lost public support becouse the nation as going through a time of social change that was happaning due to factors outside the vietnam war. If u asked the average protester at the time if they herd of punji pits they would of said no and then make some comment about american soldier shooting kids or something.

Reporters would show the bloodied bodies of children and other civilians. On the comment on soldiers shooting kids, that’s what I meant; the general populace rejected war crimes.

They don’t care about the mines now, but they would if they saw civilians dying to them.

Contradictions and specifications on emotion don’t count. It’s emotion, not logic, and you prove my point with the protesters. The fact that they were there proves my point, morale was lowered due to the war and culminated in unrest.


Very good point on defensive use, though. Maybe the morale penalities could be lower on homeland soil.

Finally,

unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(http…3E/$file/APLC+English.pdf

The way i would work minefields in game

-Province construction
Cost- 4 Conventional war heads

effect- 1 hp damage per hour for soft targets
.5 hp damage per hour for hard targets
speed is reduced to .10

Penelty- reduction of manpower and money from providence by 50%

counter- Once territory is taken is taken after 12 hours speed is returned to normal, but damage remains (simulates creating paths through mine fields, but people do wonder off). after 24 hours mines are removed.

Mine detectors or antimine vehicles can be used to negate mine damage, but not speed restrictions (they detect mines, but still takes time to clear them and make safe passages). if a mine vehicle is stationed in the province it cuts the clearing of fields time in half

I like the concept, but I would have it use less warheads. And perhaps buff the damage.

Kids realy were not being gunned down, it was just a missconception and irrational thought they had.

I spent many years all over the world in countries with huge landmine problems. And honestly it didnt effect the locals all that much. it was a part of life. they knew where they were and stayed away. Mine fields are defensive in nature and are marked or put in locations the locals know. It no diffrent then having a peace of land, lets say a lake that is very poluted and you know if you swim in it, you will get sick and die. You know where it is, everyone knows its bad, everyone stays away. it bothers nothing else. So ur moral is not realy affected, becouse it doesnt realy affect you. Once in while someone decides to go swimming in the lake and dies, is your moral shot? No, u just say, the guy was a dumb ass, he should of known better.

also that UN link, US among Russia and most other major powers refused to sign that.

bluewarrior 6 wrote:

Pafufu wrote:

Reporters would show the bloodied bodies of children and other civilians. On the comment on soldiers shooting kids, that’s what I meant; the general populace rejected war crimes.

They don’t care about the mines now, but they would if they saw civilians dying to them.

Contradictions and specifications on emotion don’t count. It’s emotion, not logic, and you prove my point with the protesters. The fact that they were there proves my point, morale was lowered due to the war and culminated in unrest.


Very good point on defensive use, though. Maybe the morale penalities could be lower on homeland soil.

Finally,

unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(http…3E/$file/APLC+English.pdf

Kids realy were not being gunned down, it was just a missconception and irrational thought they had.


It doesn’t matter. Emotion not logic.

bluewarrior 6 wrote:

Pafufu wrote:

Reporters would show the bloodied bodies of children and other civilians. On the comment on soldiers shooting kids, that’s what I meant; the general populace rejected war crimes.

They don’t care about the mines now, but they would if they saw civilians dying to them.

Contradictions and specifications on emotion don’t count. It’s emotion, not logic, and you prove my point with the protesters. The fact that they were there proves my point, morale was lowered due to the war and culminated in unrest.


Very good point on defensive use, though. Maybe the morale penalities could be lower on homeland soil.

Finally,

unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(http…3E/$file/APLC+English.pdf

Kids realy were not being gunned down, it was just a missconception and irrational thought they had.

I spent many years all over the world in countries with huge landmine problems. And honestly it didnt effect the locals all that much. it was a part of life. they knew where they were and stayed away. Mine fields are defensive in nature and are marked or put in locations the locals know. It no diffrent then having a peace of land, lets say a lake that is very poluted and you know if you swim in it, you will get sick and die. You know where it is, everyone knows its bad, everyone stays away. it bothers nothing else. So ur moral is not realy affected, becouse it doesnt realy affect you. Once in while someone decides to go swimming in the lake and dies, is your moral shot? No, u just say, the guy was a dumb ass, he should of known better.

There still are casualties, so perhaps just a small morale penalty.

You bring up a good point, but there should still be some penalty.

bluewarrior 6 wrote:

The way i would work minefields in game

-Province construction
Cost- 4 Conventional war heads

effect- 1 hp damage per hour for soft targets
.5 hp damage per hour for hard targets
speed is reduced to .10

Penelty- reduction of manpower and money from providence by 50%

counter- Once territory is taken is taken after 12 hours speed is returned to normal, but damage remains (simulates creating paths through mine fields, but people do wonder off). after 24 hours mines are removed.

Mine detectors or antimine vehicles can be used to negate mine damage, but not speed restrictions (they detect mines, but still takes time to clear them and make safe passages). if a mine vehicle is stationed in the province it cuts the clearing of fields time in half

Maybe also add naval mines?

bluewarrior 6 wrote:

also that UN link, US among Russia and most other major powers refused to sign that.

Yeah, the coward generals are ready to cause collateral damage for the sake of reducing casualties without realizing about the long-term devastating effects on them and their men. Their doctrines if I remember, revolved around less casualties but I am not sure about Russia.