Why do S mines have signs?

And riflegrande is not able to destroy demo often . WTF ?

That states a question: why would you waste a riflenade on demo if you can blow it up? I mean going around or waiting for the sweepers to come to light it up is 99% of time worth 30 muni. Especially as most granades are not guaranteed to blow up the demo.

...

nice language there "senior strategist"

S-Mines are fine, the signs compensate for their potential effectiveness nicely. If they suffer comparably to the generalist mines, nerf the generalist mines, S-Mines are at a good power level. If I wanted anything for S-Mines, it would be:
1) The ability to set up segments one at a time to cut off longer areas - players are currently capable of doing so any by creating some segments and then canceling the rest of the order to start again, but that's cumbersome and unintuitive. I would gladly take this for a cost increase of 5 per segments.
2) Being able to set up the sign posts for free without the mines. MIND GAEMSSSS. And then you can plant a Teller mine in it for the expected vehicle that run over and destroy the "minefield".

Just make them invisible? Pffffff, where's the fun in that?

nice language there "senior strategist"

I was under the belief seniors are the kind of person to get away with swearing profusely because no one will tell a senior off

nice language there "senior strategist"

ur right. I edited my post. Uncalled for!

I shouldn't be so mean to the likes of suiking. He's the nicest person on coh2.org and has never trolled,or had bad manners with anyone, ever.

We should be able to set up sign posts for free -i like that idea very much.It would compensate well for the s-mine signposts and add tactical depth.

Generally though s-mines serve a specific purpose.They aren't great,but they are a niche tool.

S-Mines are fine, the signs compensate for their potential effectiveness nicely. If they suffer comparably to the generalist mines, nerf the generalist mines, S-Mines are at a good power level. If I wanted anything for S-Mines, it would be:
1) The ability to set up segments one at a time to cut off longer areas - players are currently capable of doing so any by creating some segments and then canceling the rest of the order to start again, but that's cumbersome and unintuitive. I would gladly take this for a cost increase of 5 per segments.
2) Being able to set up the sign posts for free without the mines. MIND GAEMSSSS. And then you can plant a Teller mine in it for the expected vehicle that run over and destroy the "minefield".

Just make them invisible? Pffffff, where's the fun in that?

I was under the belief seniors are the kind of person to get away with swearing profusely because no one will tell a senior off

It is a great idea but I have some cut for them.
1. It would be great to build only one sector but on the other hand 5 more means they cost same as soviet light mines while still having signs and being randomly dropped. Maybe one sector for 20 as aditional ability pios and volks have while keeping old one where it is with 60 muni cost? That way you would use the new one if you dont have 60 muni credit or dont want to micro manage construction, but you could also use old one if you want it cheap.
2. Signs are great idea but they should also have some slight muni cost, like 5, maybe even 10 muni and noticable build time. Otherwise high level ost games would change into sign spamfest and playing allies would change into roulette. It would be also good if they were locked under BP1 or even further, signs, not mines ofc. Why? Because before that, allied player may not even have 30 muni for the sweeper, not to mention brits need to tech to even get their sappers.

It is a great idea but I have some cut for them.
1. It would be great to build only one sector but on the other hand 5 more means they cost same as soviet light mines while still having signs and being randomly dropped. Maybe one sector for 20 as aditional ability pios and volks have while keeping old one where it is with 60 muni cost? That way you would use the new one if you dont have 60 muni credit or dont want to micro manage construction, but you could also use old one if you want it cheap.
2. Signs are great idea but they should also have some slight muni cost, like 5, maybe even 10 muni and noticable build time. Otherwise high level ost games would change into sign spamfest and playing allies would change into roulette. It would be also good if they were locked under BP1 or even further, signs, not mines ofc. Why? Because before that, allied player may not even have 30 muni for the sweeper, not to mention brits need to tech to even get their sappers.

I dunno if that'd be a problem myself, Soviet light mines are pretty small. Last I recalled, they definitely will cover less of an area than the light mines...but why not both? indeed.

I think a key matter to balancing it would be build time - enough such that sign spam will lead to Allies realizing "Ok I'm pretty sure they're all just signs." Additionally, spamming them hard enough could also lead players to call the bluff by reasoning that it's impossible for you to have that many munitions anyway. But regardless, I would be quite open to a minimal munition cost to apply a bit more thought to their application (still think an appropriate build time could do the trick as well though, time is resources!).

I dunno if that'd be a problem myself, Soviet light mines are pretty small. Last I recalled, they definitely will cover less of an area than the light mines...but why not both? indeed.

I think a key matter to balancing it would be build time - enough such that sign spam will lead to Allies realizing "Ok I'm pretty sure they're all just signs." Additionally, spamming them hard enough could also lead players to call the bluff by reasoning that it's impossible for you to have that many munitions anyway. But regardless, I would be quite open to a minimal munition cost to apply a bit more thought to their application (still think an appropriate build time could do the trick as well though, time is resources!).

Time is a resource but the problem is not that you dont realise minefields are fake but that ostheer player would be able to put 4 sign fields and one additional minefield. That way he forces you to go sweeper or step into what sometimes my even lead to loosing squad if its weak and you try to soft retreat it. Same goes for retreating. You think passage is clear, these are only signs as who would make 10 minefields. But the one that retreat path is crossing is real. That is in my opinion situation worth at least demo cost for whole line, as it has huge wipe potential.

Another thing is that minefields itself build in notime. How strange would it be if pios needed more time to place only signs than to place mines and signs?

Time is a resource but the problem is not that you dont realise minefields are fake but that ostheer player would be able to put 4 sign fields and one additional minefield. That way he forces you to go sweeper or step into what sometimes my even lead to loosing squad if its weak and you try to soft retreat it. Same goes for retreating. You think passage is clear, these are only signs as who would make 10 minefields. But the one that retreat path is crossing is real. That is in my opinion situation worth at least demo cost for whole line, as it has huge wipe potential.

Another thing is that minefields itself build in notime. How strange would it be if pios needed more time to place only signs than to place mines and signs?

Ain't that the point of putting it in at all, though? Guessing which one's real, unless you get a sweeper to find out for sure? Reasoning out "The one along my probable retreat path is probably the real one"? I may be misinterpreting though, could you change your wording if so?

They spend more time writing and drawing nicely now they don't have to place mines

Oh shoe-king.
I'm just gonna not be offended personally by waht half of what you said because It isnt coherent to me.
You're a jerk. Type better. Stop trolling.

And s mines are 15 muni. You're the massive axis cumlord player that you are and you didn't know you could cancel the rest of the minefield and build only one patch? Ugh. Siuking!

lol poop-creem. You can't do any better than throwing uncreative nicknames on people's faces or putting words in someone's mouth?

You're funny, when you make a very biased statement, you throw half the facts out of the windows. And when people make a proper logical counter-argument you start insulting people like a retarded 5 year old?
You're a jerk, a fanboy and an idiot. My typing is better than your proficiency in English grammar, illiterate.

I know it's 15 muni when you only get 1/4 of the area denial. And I'm not even gonna quote what other people's counter arguments and supporting facts because they are all over the previous posts.

First of all, I play both Allies and Axis to a top 20 rank, in which I can obviously see you aren't even close, so Axis cumlord? oh come on, you US cumlord please stop with the troll.

Secondly, I didn't know? Now that's putting word in my mouth. oh please dont assume people are on the same level of ignorance and idiocy as you are. Thank you.

Sigh. Poop-creem! Please take off the Senior Strategist title because apparently you are such a noobish fanboy you dont deserve it.

Ain't that the point of putting it in at all, though? Guessing which one's real, unless you get a sweeper to find out for sure? Reasoning out "The one along my probable retreat path is probably the real one"? I may be misinterpreting though, could you change your wording if so?

They spend more time writing and drawing nicely now they don't have to place mines

What I ment there is that retreat is a binary decision and players probably will be wise enough to put the real minefield so that it crosses most used retreat path. That means you have 50/50 chance to go wrong and no way to go back after detonating one cluster. If you go wrong its a wipe. And I just not feel a wipe is worth 15 or even 20 munitions, even if it is a 50/50 situation.

In every situation other than retreat its fine as you have multiple ways to go so the chance is for example 25% to go wrong.

As for the cost thing I dont want a situation when wehrmacht player is hiding behind pak43, mg42s, command tanks or whatever and covering whole place with fake signs just because he has plenty of time. That would not only look stupid but if he sneaks, for example 4 to 6 15 muni sectors in it there is no way of counterplay unless you blob with sweeper. And that is lame.

In my opinion the cost should be big enough to make players build signs and mines in same amounts for maximum effectivness or maybe twice as much mines as signs. It can be 5 muni for a fake that is the size of one sector and 10 muni for fake of 4 sector size for example.

lol poop-creem. You can't do any better than throwing uncreative nicknames on people's faces or putting words in someone's mouth?

Ill admit Poopcream made me laugh.

You're funny,

Im flattered.

when you make a very biased statement, you throw half the facts out of the windows.(Window*) And when people make a proper logical(?) counter-argument you start insulting people like a retarded 5 year old?

but Shoe-King, Ive stated nothing but facts,straight from the game files and from experience. When I join balance discussions I arm myself with facts. Its fact that riflemen,RE,LT,Captain,ETC dont say SHIT when running over s-mines,which is ironic because thats what makes s-mines powerful despite the signs...its the surprise/I didnt hear it/see it factor. Not the "Punish someone who didnt buy sweeper" factor. You not knowing that or caring to acknowledge that shows YOUR bias,not mine. Its also fact that a giant ass s-mine field has more denial than any other comparable mine.

You're a jerk, a fanboy and an idiot. My typing is better than your proficiency in English grammar, illiterate.

Case in point

I know it's 15 muni when you only get 1/4 of the area denial. And I'm not even gonna quote what other people's counter arguments and supporting facts because they are all over the previous posts.

And its a fact that one patch of these mines has more area denial than any other comparable anti infantry mine,including demos..thats fact. A whole field is the biggest mine-style area denial in COH2. For 60 munitions. Do you want me to draw you a picture?

First of all, I play both Allies and Axis to a top 20 rank, in which I can obviously see you aren't even close, so Axis cumlord? oh come on, you US cumlord please stop with the troll.

Well as long as we're swinging our e-dicks together, I got top 5 randumb with USF when they were at their worst,been top 50 with ostheer,top 100 with okw.. which takes some degree of skill I like to think, and i've proven I can compete and win against top players many times. Thats as far as i'll go with the E-dickery. Pls stop calling me a noob,it hurts my feelings.

Sigh. Poop-creem! Please take off the Senior Strategist title because apparently you are such a noobish fanboy you dont deserve it.

I only bothered to post in this thread this much because I couldnt sleep last night. And because watching all the axis........(dont say it cookiez dont say it..)...players come out and call me a newb is amusing,as always. I really dont care if you want Goliaths,S-mines to be invisible, KT with 1000 range, whatever. Its irrelevant to me now. Please go back on topic,or we can start an argument thread in the scrap yard,because arguing with you is fun. Have a nice evening shoe-king.

666 420 blaze it always.

What I ment there is that retreat is a binary decision and players probably will be wise enough to put the real minefield so that it crosses most used retreat path. That means you have 50/50 chance to go wrong and no way to go back after detonating one cluster. If you go wrong its a wipe. And I just not feel a wipe is worth 15 or even 20 munitions, even if it is a 50/50 situation.

In every situation other than retreat its fine as you have multiple ways to go so the chance is for example 25% to go wrong.

As for the cost thing I dont want a situation when wehrmacht player is hiding behind pak43, mg42s, command tanks or whatever and covering whole place with fake signs just because he has plenty of time. That would not only look stupid but if he sneaks, for example 4 to 6 15 muni sectors in it there is no way of counterplay unless you blob with sweeper. And that is lame.

In my opinion the cost should be big enough to make players build signs and mines in same amounts for maximum effectivness or maybe twice as much mines as signs. It can be 5 muni for a fake that is the size of one sector and 10 muni for fake of 4 sector size for example.

Hmmmm, yeah, when I think on it more, all the signs really just could look plain stupid anyway - definitely something to avoid even if I'm imagining it as balanced. A small munition cost is probably the way to go for the signs.

If enemy blobs, they are a game changer when places around a shot blocker meaning enemy might stumble right into them, gap in centeral bushes on Langres is a good example.

Only thing I don't like about them is it promps enemy to get sweepers, which might give away a tellar you built. But you can always keep any tellars more defensive in this situation rather than far forward.

I thought the whole point of mines was to use surprise.

COH has created the idea that mines are supposed to be ambush weapons, but that's not generally how they were used.

You can use all other mines as ambush weapons, but that's because they possess a characteristic that RL mines didn't:

They have magical IFF that won't go off if a friendly triggers them.


Usually you employ mines around your own positions and you want them marked for a number of reasons:

1) You are going to be spending more time in close proximity to that minefield than the enemy are and when you are doing a night movement you don't want to make a mistake and blunder into your own unmarked field. And even if you know where you laid the mines and are comfortable with that if you get relieved by another unit they need to know where you put all the mines or they will be really upset with you.

2) The purpose of a minefield is not to inflict casualties but to channel movement and delay an enemy advance. Vielsalm demonstrates this principle beautifully, because everybody knows that there is a huge minefield in the middle and this channels early combat to either side. Marked minefield works better at that than an unmarked one and is further why mines are overlooked by enemy weapons so they can't be cleared easily.
An obstacle not covered by fire is not an obstacle

3) You might want to lift your own mines and relay them somewhere else after the front moves so it helps to know where you put them and the pattern you laid the field out with.


Now, blah, blah, realism/historical accuracy etc, but if one considers how mines were used IRL and accepts that this game is at least inspired by reality then decisions and game play make sense.

If anything one could equally argue that all mines should be marked, except possibly those laid by Soviet Partisans

In the current state, the 60 Muni S-Mine field is a defensive tool to deny a certain space. The allied player has two ways to dodge the minefield without losing a full squad:

1) Noticing the signs
2) Reacting fast enough after hitting the first minepatch, so that the squad won't walk too deep into the field.

Overall, I think the signed 60 Muni S-minefield is in a good spot to deny space.

The only problem is, that this kind of mine field works poorly in symbioses with Wehrmacht MG play. What Ostheer needs is a small anti-infantry mine (without signs) to cover MG flanks. This mine doesn't need a high damage output. BUT it needs a high suppression to slow flanking infantry down, giving the OST player some time to react by calling gren support etc.

Referring to vCoH, allied Core-Infantry got several different tools to counter MG play, while the "Wehr-allround-mine" was simply replaced by two specific mines. Neither of whom fills the role to effectively counter flanking allied blobs.

after some games with excessive s-minefields spam i must admit, they are fine.

self-

Cause they're S[ign] mines.

Ur right. We should remove the signs

S mines(even one 15 muni strip...)have the biggest AOE of any mine, arguably bigger than a demo explosion.

Unless you have instant reflexes, you can't react to an S Mine on the flanks for example. Your squad will just die.

That's why they have signs. So there's not massive fields of invisible squad wipin mines that only cost 15 mini and 3 seconds to place everywhere.

And before you say BabyRage Soviet mine only 30 muni... Well get over it. That's one little spot compared to a entire pathway that s mines can cover in comparison.

+1 Spot on

Creammmy, so instruct me, with your Magnificent Strategist Knowledge, why do Rifles, engi, Royal Engi laying mines that very likely to one shot squad due to Relic proudly presented "LETZ HUG TOGETDER AT C0VER" system, without a lovely SIGN, is fine.

While running at S-mine field with SIGN, plainly because the Allies player being BLIND, so removing the SIGN to have the same potential as OTHER NORMAL MINES, is not fine.


Being cheaper IS not a reason, because it cannot damage engine.