New research: Landmines

I like that idea. And maybe minesweeper units. You could level up both. That would make a great defensive deterrent and possibly slow attack speed of some players.

CD-Rav wrote:

1. Landmines are already exist on ww2 or earlier. Specifically, on 1800's were it said it is first been used on The American Civil War. So this comes to mind!

Landmines: U can only produce landmines and put to the provinces or points on what u want. Landmines is a trap, it is not visible on enemies, but only u and your allies.

Landmines on resources: Very cheap/cheap or right cost.

Landmines on battle field: Plant landmines. Can only be put on specific provinces.

Landmines advantages: I think landmines are most effective against unarmored targets. Advantage on mountains, forest, and hills.

Where do landmines belong on research tree? I think landmines belong to secret research tree.

Landmines are quietly factored into the game already, as well as sea mines. It's the reason why there are fixed routes and you can't just send armies galavanting across the countryside. If we brought mines into the game directly, the amount of turtling would make the game just about unplayable. This is not only coming from me, but has been said multiple times by more experienced members of the forum like BMfox.

Edit: not sure if BMfox has actually said this, but other members of the forum of his caliber have.

Donk2.0 wrote:

Interesting idea, but how exactly would they work? Do you just "lock" them into a certain location? I'd be cool to see.

newbgamer101 wrote:

Landmines are quietly factored into the game already, as well as sea mines. It's the reason why there are fixed routes and you can't just send armies galavanting across the countryside. If we brought mines into the game directly, the amount of turtling would make the game just about unplayable. This is not only coming from me, but has been said multiple times by more experienced members of the forum like BMfox.

Edit: not sure if BMfox has actually said this, but other members of the forum of his caliber have.

Let's make it balance to make both offensive and defensive players playable.

[Option 1]-Easy Balance: Landmines are only affected, not the entire game. Landmines are very cheap, and quick to produce. Let's say 10mins or under 10mins production.

[Option 2]-Medium Balance: Add new units- minesweepers. Mines and minesweepers. It will change the game.

[Option 3]-Hard Balance: Landmines will affect the entire game, especially the units.

This balance will give the units to have an ability to counter, defuse, and ignore landmines. For example u have 10stacks of landmines on specific provinces, and enemy captures that province; lets say the enemy have 10stacks to with 100hp, the stack will be 5 landmines now, but that landmines are defused or ignored. So it is now balance for offensive and defensive players.

I prefer to option 1 with an advantage of very cheap weapon, but the disadvantage of lower the damage to the enemies. So it will not change the entire game, only landmines.

submarine is seamine, it's stressfull and depressing try to clear them, it's moving and stealth, i prefer not to add this land submarine, it will change the entire game tactic

10 Min? no, highcommand player will have hundred of that thing

i fight someone and pacific are dominated by we both, my enemy got 30+ submarine spreaded in the entire ocean, and its annoying and almost kill me, sorry but i didn't like this idea

Tolol_aja wrote:

submarine is seamine, it's stressfull and depressing try to clear them, it's moving and stealth, i prefer not to add this land submarine, it will change the entire game tactic

10 Min? no, highcommand player will have hundred of that thing

i fight someone and pacific are dominated by we both, my enemy got 25+ submarine spreaded in entire ocean, and its annoying and almost kill me, sorry but i didn't like this idea

As I said so, it will change the entire game. But landmines are widely used earlier and on ww2.

No, submarine is way little more different from landmines. Yes, they are both stealth, but landmines are self destruct if triggered, and it is on land.

So I guess the production of landmines is 30mins, it is the minimum production time for it.

To be balance for both normal and high conmand players, the landmines are just cheap, but very lower damage. Landmines can be ignored by any chance. So landmines is not much dangerous at all.

Good Thought and Post CD-Rav,

Historically, landmines were widely used. I try to also think of the effect and the time and cost to add in programming.

Many good thoughts on your idea. Programming exists that gives a "chance" perhaps the spy programming could be modified and used. There would need to be a factor involved - a chance that you would not hit them.

Land mines - while effective against a charging army, IE: for defensive purposes - were and are basically worthless unless defended. If landmines are used, then infantry needs to be able to clear them. If it takes 1 day to install 1 day to remove ( realistically 1.5 ) also Artillery of equal strength (or higher) should clear mines Unit for Unit / per 2 Barrages (1 Hour)

This will take some time and effort on the part of the staff if they decide to go with it.

I would rather see a "panic/rout" function installed. if 1-2 Infantry see 4-6 tanks coming - they should flee - or be routed and run after the first hit. That is realistic. I have used the "glitch" where I simply put 2 worn down units in front of an army to slow them down. Give me time to reorient. It works - however unrealistic.

Regards,

275RGR

CD-Rav wrote:

Tolol_aja wrote:

submarine is seamine, it's stressfull and depressing try to clear them, it's moving and stealth, i prefer not to add this land submarine, it will change the entire game tactic

10 Min? no, highcommand player will have hundred of that thing

i fight someone and pacific are dominated by we both, my enemy got 25+ submarine spreaded in entire ocean, and its annoying and almost kill me, sorry but i didn't like this idea

Land submarine? xd

As I said so, it will change the entire game. But landmines are widely used earlier and on ww2.

No, submarine is way little more different from landmines. Yes, they are both stealth, but landmines are self destruct if triggered, and it is on land.

So I guess the production of landmines is 30mins, it is the minimum production time for it.

To be balance for both normal and high conmand players, the landmines are just cheap, but very lower damage. Landmines can be ignored by any chance. So landmines is not much dangerous at all.

Unquestionably accurate and a good use of Sub's - CD, submarines were insanely stressful in WWI and WWII - While effective, in a limited way, They are killable. I respectfully disagree and feel they should remain as are. Perhaps less strength, and they should be slower in my opinion, but should remain a valid and valuable part of the game.

An exception to the less strength thought is that they should slaughter unescorted convoys. If your going to sail, you had best invest in protection - or your ships should die.

Building massive sub fleets takes away from land forces - which take land. Thus they are a detriment to land warfare. Studies show that had Germany NOT put so much into submarines - They could have stepped up Aircraft and Armor production, no one knows, but the consensus is Germany may just have beat Russia - and the war would have lasted longer without the insane waste from 42- on building subs.

Read a book called Black May - detailing the swing in the Battle of the Atlantic.

newbgamer101 wrote:

Landmines are quietly factored into the game already, as well as sea mines. It's the reason why there are fixed routes and you can't just send armies galavanting across the countryside. If we brought mines into the game directly, the amount of turtling would make the game just about unplayable. This is not only coming from me, but has been said multiple times by more experienced members of the forum like BMfox.

Edit: not sure if BMfox has actually said this, but other members of the forum of his caliber have.

CD-Rav wrote:

Landmines advantages: I think landmines are most effective against unarmored targets. Advantage on mountains, forest, and hills.

BMfox wrote:

CD-Rav wrote:

Landmines advantages: I think landmines are most effective against unarmored targets. Advantage on mountains, forest, and hills.

That doesn't make any sense: troops have more cover in the forest and hills so the landmines would be less effective there. They would be most effective on plains as they are flat and there is no cover. Also in the mountains there's little cover to be found.