A problem with defensive structures as tank-traps, mines and razor-wires is that it is often simple to move around. Tank-traps and mines seldom have a big impact on the game. Razor wire often comes in larger numbers, and thus are generally more usefull I would say. In some situation you also have lots of mines, and thus give some value for the defender. But often, its no big thing. And if there exicst mines, they are extremly seldom steped into. That would be extremly stupid. You dont want to enter a mine field, regardless. Cuz they kill both squads and vehicles. That is fair and square, but this also makes them difficult to use in scenarios I guess, cuz if mines actually block something, well, then they might be overpowered. Maybe unless the enemy has engineers and 'remove minefield'. If thats not the caze, forcing an enemy through a minefield is simply to devestating.

Therefore I have one suggestion how one can improve mines: you make real and fake mine tokens, which looks identical on one side. Then you place both fake and real mine tokens on the map. The real one could for example be place 'at' random among the available locations, and are only revieled by the attacker when a unit enters the hex. If for example one out of three is a real mine, you could place a lot more minefields, and the attacker would never realy know where the real one are. This would do a few things:

1) mine fields would not be as simple to avoid, cuz you dont know exactly where they are

2) since 2 out of 3 fields are safe, an attacker would eventually risk steping on one. Or, you might make scenarios such they are forced to do so, without completly wrecking the game.

For tank-traps to be efficient, wise placement is imortant. A random tank-trap along a random road would do next to nothing. Maybe except for slowing down trucks, which they actually might be preaty good at when I think of it.

Interesting suggestions.

I'm not sure I expect minefields and tanktraps to take a major role in a scenario. I expect them to perform one of two tasks: (a) divert the enemy axis of advance in a manner that is beneficial to me as defender and (b) delaying the approach of enemies to permit my heavy weapons to inflicit damage on the enemy while they are dealing with the obstacle.

I would not like to see these potential benefits lessened by the attacker thinking the obstacle may well be a dud and I would not like to base my defence of approaches to my position to have obstacles that could potentially yield no benefit to my defence in either time of fire corridor.

Ok. Lets say there is a 50/50 probability that minefield is a dud. A mine field is deadly, both towards vehicles and squads. Would you realy risk loosing your panzer, halftrack, or your squad to check if it is a dud or not? Personaly I think that not, atleast not in most cases. Under this assumption, you could cover twice the number of regions and cover a larger area, having the same effect as now: discouraging the enemy to enter that spesiffic hex.

If you are still worried, you could also allow the defender to place the dud and the real, such that the defender knows, but not the attacker.

You can disagree with the ide, but regardless, all in all, this ide would make mines more powerfull and far more useful.

I think this is a good idea ... attacker gets the potential that a minefield is a dud, defender gets wider coverage. I'd certainly be willing to try it out.

If an attacker is unwilling to take the risk of identifying a dud it may contrict axis of approach too far. The Desert would be a good place to test it out. If you do (or have) tried it, can you post here on it actually works out?

I like how memoir has done the minefields with the token on the board and a number face down ranging 0 - 4. Could be done with ToI but with the hidden numbers have an anti tank/ vehicle value and an anti personal value ranging 0 - 4 for both which would represent the make up of the minefeild and the desity of it.

i haven't played memoir - does the player get a number of points at the beginning of the scenario and the ability to distribute them as densely (or not) as he wishes?

in memoir scenarios dictate if mines are use and where they are placed like ToI but the mine tokens all look the same on one side and on the under side they have a number ranging 1 - 4 so when a unit lands on it they flip the token and roll the amount of dice on the other side. I think this is a good idea as it takes into account dummy minefeilds and with real minefeild how dense they are. I think ToI iron could take it one step further and have the minefeilds represent anti tank mines and anti personel or minefeild that are a combination. But as an attcker you dont know what the make up of them are until you step into them

Ya, I play both games & like the way Memoir 44 does it. Its a risk for the attacker, just like it was realistically, but also a gamble for the defender hoping the mine is actually hit & detonates. I was also thinking of putting a twist on it. Normally mine fields were not marked, if you wanted to catch the enemy by surprize, which is usually the case. So therefore why not allow the defender to make a hidden map beforehand of the spaces he will lay mines on a separate sheet of paper & only reveal that a minefield space has been entered when the attacker actually enters the space. Then it could play out w/a roll of the dice 1-6, whether the mine actually goes off & how much damage is done. I'm still working on the details to make it fair, yet realistic. But I'm going to try it like that.