Mine Info

[JWE]

Ok, this is not a call for comments; this is just an explanation as to how mines were implemented in-game, and how they are implemented in DaBigBabes. The information might be useful for modders because it sets a mathematical baseline, against which mod numerics can be adjusted.

Individual mines have 10x (up to 100x) the in-game effectivity than they ever had irl. That is why they are limited. The game loads mines on ships in accord with the Ship file Weapon definition. If Ships have too many mines in their Weapon slot, they can exhaust the pool with a single reload.

In DBBB, we use a sliding scale for mine armament; we start with the irl number of mines, and divide by a function, that starts at 1/3 (for big loadouts) and goes down to ½. This allows ships to mine and then reload and mine again.

If you are more interested in having your oob precise than having your weapons, and results, conform to the game system, then that’s why God invented the editor, and more power to you. But if you are looking for practical solutions to the game algorithm, so as to have things happen in a sorta rl manner, you may wish to ignore all the little Internet sources, and think in terms of the game paradigm.

Will provide our calc function to legitimate modders, upon request.

[witpqs]

This is a curiosity question (not argument or complaint!): I take it the 10x to 100x was from inside the engine and was an issue "out of scope" for AE ('cause you can't do everything with limited resources), hence necessitating getting the results right by adjusting number of mines as you described?

BTW, it really helps when you make these topical explanations like this thread. So many things in WITP/AE are shrouded in the mists of time that important context is often lacking and makes it seem as if this or that doesn't make sense, when in reality there are good reasons behind them.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
This is a curiosity question (not argument or complaint!): I take it the 10x to 100x was from inside the engine and was an issue "out of scope" for AE ('cause you can't do everything with limited resources), hence necessitating getting the results right by adjusting number of mines as you described?

BTW, it really helps when you make these topical explanations like this thread. So many things in WITP/AE are shrouded in the mists of time that important context is often lacking and makes it seem as if this or that doesn't make sense, when in reality there are good reasons behind them.

The entire mine warfare routine is a gigantic abstraction - always was. Because of the nature of the weapon, there is absolutely no hard data whatsoever as to material effectivity as a function of density. It was a material weapon but also a psychological one.

The data available (from UV, WiTP, and AE) indicates that, generally, 2x to 5x the number of ships were materially impacted by mines in fields 10x to 100x smaller than those that were actually laid. But, of course, the historical data is sparse, and usually apocryphal, so the 10x to 100x figure is a gut feel coming right out of the brown place. There were three choices: nerf the crap out of mines (change the die roll), rewrite the entire routine, or use what we got and make 'adjustments'.

Rewriting was not possible because there is no data (not even today) that would allow construction of a suitable algorithm. Nerfing was not possible because it would reduce the material impact to the point where the psychological impact is obviated (mines? pffft, a mere piff poff). So if one can't stand still, and can't retreat, the only alternative is to advance.

Adjustments kept the effectivity, but limited the total number of mines, so that a reasonable number of "fields" can be laid. Individual mine effectivity is not changed, so that even a moderate sized field must be respected and appropriate action taken (either avoid it or sweep it), i.e., utilizing the psychological aspect of mine warfare. So we retained the original paradigm, and made it work in the context of our philosophy.

The only disconnect we have seen so far is the mine weapon loadout on minelayers as a function of what is in the pools. Since pool values are down, the loadout values should go down as well - so that one single ship doesn't exhaust the pool. DBBB has increased the pools "somewhat', and increased production 'somewhat' (no more than 50%, and that for very specific devices), and determines the historical loadout and cuts them in half (sometimes more). This is to allow more "fields" to be laid, but those fields will be game size (effective, but small). Basically, a mathemetical abstraction within the game abstraction.

Understand that some people want to have irl mine production, pools, and loadouts. That makes for a very pretty OOB and that is very important to some people, can't argue with that. It won't break the game, but it will break the paradigm.

[witpqs]

Very nicely done.

[Blackhorse]

Great info, and glad to see you are adjusting the mine carrying capacity to conform to the 1 AE mine = multiple RL mines paradigm.

Three questions:

1. Are there options to convert non-US allied ships to ACMs in DaBabes? It seems odd that many of the mines (and most of the need for mining) lies in Australian, British and Dutch waters, but they have no capacity to tend the minefields.

2. Nomenclature. From what little I -- a landlubber -- could discern from a quick online search, the US vessels were classified "MP" (Mine Planter) when tending mines, and were later reclassified (refitted as?) auxillary mine layers (ACM) with a different mission.

3. Availability of British Mk XVII mines. The mines are not available until 4212. But two CMs start/arrive with the mines, then can not reload. Also, 5 British DDs can carry Mk XVIIs at first, but they upgrade before the mines are available. After upgrading, the DDs can not carry the mines. Should the Mk XVIIs be available earlier?

[Bradley7735]

Hi JWE,

I like your explanations here. I was wondering if there is anything that can be done about the "at start" mine fields. Most of them are many hundreds of mines large. If your intent is to have more, smaller mine fields, it would be nice to have the "at start" fields reduced in size, greatly. This is particuarly important for Japan because she needs to sail into them before they have time to degrade on their own (assuming no tenders to keep them full size.)

Since I play the AI exclusively, I greatly reduce the effect on mines. This is mostly so that I don't break the AI with too many sunk ships at Manila and Singapore.

But, as you said, it basically makes me ignore them as an aspect of the game (pish posh....) I would rather reduce those starting fields from 400 mines to 100 or less.

I'm assuming that the initial fields are not modifiable in the editor. (I couldn't find anything in there)

Thanks, Brad

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
1. Are there options to convert non-US allied ships to ACMs in DaBabes? It seems odd that many of the mines (and most of the need for mining) lies in Australian, British and Dutch waters, but they have no capacity to tend the minefields.

The ubiquitous Castle Class of converted trawlers interconvert between AMc, AG and ACMs. OZ has the Kangaroo class of net tenders designated ACMs. Good point, though, we may want to revisit Kiwi, Basset, Isles trawlers and some Dutch CMc for conversion bind into ACM.

2. Nomenclature. From what little I -- a landlubber -- could discern from a quick online search, the US vessels were classified "MP" (Mine Planter) when tending mines, and were later reclassified (refitted as?) auxillary mine layers (ACM) with a different mission.

Not exactly. ACM is not really a "technical" class, so we had to fudge it from Net Tenders, AMc, CMc, and other stuff that could realistically do the deed. ACMs, frankly, come out of the brown place, but it's close and what the hey. The Army mine planters were technically CMc types, but although we gave them some mines to play with, operationally, they are better suited to the ACM task (same with all the fishing trawler derivatives).

3. Availability of British Mk XVII mines. The mines are not available until 4212. But two CMs start/arrive with the mines, then can not reload. Also, 5 British DDs can carry Mk XVIIs at first, but they upgrade before the mines are available. After upgrading, the DDs can not carry the mines. Should the Mk XVIIs be available earlier?

Don't know. Don't think so, but will look. Probably database excitement leading to premature mine emission. Please let me know which ships/classes have sticky weapon issues - will fix.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
I was wondering if there is anything that can be done about the "at start" mine fields.

Hard coded Bradley, so answer must be - no.

[Blackhorse]

Don't know. Don't think so, but will look. Probably database excitement leading to premature mine emission. Please let me know which ships/classes have sticky weapon issues - will fix.

-- in AE
CM Kung Wo, Singapore, has 150 MK XVII mines, can't reload until 4212.
CM Abdiel arrives Trincomalee in 33 days; 150 MK XVII mines, ditto
British have 5 DDs each capable of carrying 15x Mk XVII mine; but they upgrade before the mines become available
Scout, Stronghold, Tenedos, Thanet, Thracian

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi JWE,

I like your explanations here. I was wondering if there is anything that can be done about the "at start" mine fields. Most of them are many hundreds of mines large. If your intent is to have more, smaller mine fields, it would be nice to have the "at start" fields reduced in size, greatly. This is particuarly important for Japan because she needs to sail into them before they have time to degrade on their own (assuming no tenders to keep them full size.)

Since I play the AI exclusively, I greatly reduce the effect on mines. This is mostly so that I don't break the AI with too many sunk ships at Manila and Singapore.

But, as you said, it basically makes me ignore them as an aspect of the game (pish posh....) I would rather reduce those starting fields from 400 mines to 100 or less.

I'm assuming that the initial fields are not modifiable in the editor. (I couldn't find anything in there)

Thanks, Brad

I hope I'm not hijacking the thread, because I really like this project, but if it's any consolation about the hard coded minefields at game start... The US was using remote controlled mines alongside contact mines, and I suspect that other countries were too. So maybe those hard coded minefields should be a pain in the neck till they can be swept at leisure after the base is taken from the land side.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

British have 5 DDs each capable of carrying 15x Mk XVII mine; but they upgrade before the mines become available
Scout, Stronghold, Tenedos, Thanet, Thracian

In RL, these ships were quickly convertible (2-3 days) from DD armament (3x4in, 2x2-21in TT) to DM armament (1x4in, mines) and back. When the war began, only Thracian was configured as DM and laid mines in Hong Kong; all the others were DD-configured. As all those ships, at some time or other before begin of hostilities in the Far East, operated as DMs, they should ideally be convertible in the same manner in AE.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

Don't know. Don't think so, but will look. Probably database excitement leading to premature mine emission. Please let me know which ships/classes have sticky weapon issues - will fix.

-- in AE
CM Kung Wo, Singapore, has 150 MK XVII mines, can't reload until 4212.
CM Abdiel arrives Trincomalee in 33 days; 150 MK XVII mines, ditto
British have 5 DDs each capable of carrying 15x Mk XVII mine; but they upgrade before the mines become available
Scout, Stronghold, Tenedos, Thanet, Thracian

Sure looks like premature emission to me. I think we got the right mines for the DDs in DBBB. and will make sure that's the case for Abdiel and Kund Wo.

[witpqs]

Only mentioning this as you are talking about some ships that arrive at ports on Ceylon:

In scenario 1, etc. people have seen British CV's and a CVL that arrive at Colombo and Trincomalee in later years come up as "Destroyed While Building" when the Japanese player captures those bases.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Only mentioning this as you are talking about some ships that arrive at ports on Ceylon:

In scenario 1, etc. people have seen British CV's and a CVL that arrive at Colombo and Trincomalee in later years come up as "Destroyed While Building" when the Japanese player captures those bases.

Maybe a teensy bit OT, but OK. Reported 11/09 in Tech forum. An excellent workaround fix developed by Don Bowen for stock scenarios and included in Patch-3. Latest versions of Babes Lite have database changes making this 'not an issue'. Ciao.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: mikemike
In RL, these ships were quickly convertible (2-3 days) from DD armament (3x4in, 2x2-21in TT) to DM armament (1x4in, mines) and back. When the war began, only Thracian was configured as DM and laid mines in Hong Kong; all the others were DD-configured. As all those ships, at some time or other before begin of hostilities in the Far East, operated as DMs, they should ideally be convertible in the same manner in AE.

Thay already are, and have been so from the beginning, in all stock and Babes scenarios. Please look at Manual 6.6.1.3.2 Special Minelayers. Then look at Wpn 7 for these vessels.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: mikemike
In RL, these ships were quickly convertible (2-3 days) from DD armament (3x4in, 2x2-21in TT) to DM armament (1x4in, mines) and back. When the war began, only Thracian was configured as DM and laid mines in Hong Kong; all the others were DD-configured. As all those ships, at some time or other before begin of hostilities in the Far East, operated as DMs, they should ideally be convertible in the same manner in AE.

Thay already are, and have been so from the beginning, in all stock and Babes scenarios. Please look at Manual 6.6.1.3.2 Special Minelayers. Then look at Wpn 7 for these vessels.

I see what you mean. So, OK, those destroyers can lay mines. But they keep their normal destroyer armament when they do so, instead of being reduced to a single 4in gun as in RL. This makes quite a difference if they get caught by a SC TF while on a mine laying mission. The ships can use their guns and torpedoes freely, and they are under no additional risk from their mine load (or is there an increased risk of catastrophic explosion if a ship is carrying mines?). In RL, destroyers on mine laying missions that might bring them into contact with enemy SC forces would have to be escorted because they would be essentially defenceless while carrying mines. As things are defined now, you could send Scout, Thracian, and Thanet off to mine the Pescadores, all carrying mines, and on the way they might sink the odd Japanese ship with their torpedoes. That is why I think they should have to be converted to lay mines, and have to be converted back before they could be used as regular destroyers.

[JWE]

I do understand. What you must understand is that a certain degree of abstraction is required for the game to work. I realize these types are close to your heart, but what about all the other gazillion types close to other people's hearts - there ain't that many Class slots. Think it best to leave it as is for generally playable scenarios. So what you see is what you get.

The editor is your friend, however. There are many open bind convert numerics and available slots for conversion types, so please feel free to smile and dial as you see fit.

[Blackhorse]

As things are defined now, you could send Scout, Thracian, and Thanet off to mine the Pescadores, all carrying mines, and on the way they might sink the odd Japanese ship with their torpedoes. That is why I think they should have to be converted to lay mines, and have to be converted back before they could be used as regular destroyers.

They can't do any mining for at least a year in AE. They are configured to carry MK XVII mines, but have zero on-board at start. There are no MK XVII's in the pool, and the mines don't become available until Dec-42.

Curiously, if you accept the 6/42 upgrades for the DDs, they lose the ability to mine, before the mines arrive. So they can only carry Mk XVIIs when there are no Mk XVIIs to carry [:D]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

As things are defined now, you could send Scout, Thracian, and Thanet off to mine the Pescadores, all carrying mines, and on the way they might sink the odd Japanese ship with their torpedoes. That is why I think they should have to be converted to lay mines, and have to be converted back before they could be used as regular destroyers.

They can't do any mining for at least a year in AE. They are configured to carry MK XVII mines, but have zero on-board at start. There are no MK XVII's in the pool, and the mines don't become available until Dec-42.

Curiously, if you accept the 6/42 upgrades for the DDs, they lose the ability to mine, before the mines arrive. So they can only carry Mk XVIIs when there are no Mk XVIIs to carry [:D]

Fixed in Da latest Babes. Won't see it till the next rev comes out however. [;)][;)]

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: JWE

The editor is your friend, however. There are many open bind convert numerics and available slots for conversion types, so please feel free to smile and dial as you see fit.

Did that already. And those old crocks aren't close to my heart, either. In RL these ships were clapped-out relics armed with guns already deemed third-rate before WWI was out, and they were only useful for high-speed laying of very small minefields, for local patrols, and for conversion to what the Japanese called patrol boats (ASW vessels). The way they are defined in the official scenarios, with 1944 guns, vastly overstates their combat effectiveness. I'd just like to see them presented as they really were, when they formed the majority of the RN Far East destroyer force.

I understand that you can't put every conceivable ship into the database, but there is a bit of free space to make modifications (I've, for instance, redone the US AOs, based on the documents on HyperWar, especially "Gray Steel and Black Oil"). There is, however, an acute shortage of slots for LCUs. I wish the developers had put in another 1000 of them when they were at it. Can this be corrected in a future patch without too much trouble?

[akdreemer]

Fond this on the naval Weapons site. On 7 December 1941 the total supply of mines in stock was approximately as follows:

Army Controlled Mine for Harbor Defense - Moored: 5,000
Navy Mark 5 - Moored Hertz Horn: 2,000
Navy Mark 6 - Moored Antenna: 59,000
Navy Mark 10 - Moored Hertz Horn (planted from 21-inch torpedo tube): 1,200
Navy Mark 11 - Moored Antenna (planted from 40-inch tube - USS Argonaut): 200
Navy Mark 12 - Ground Magnetic (planted from 21-inch tube): 600
Navy Mark 12 - Ground Magnetic (planted by aircraft): 200

As far as is known, no enemy ship was sunk by the approximately 20,000 mines used in defensive minefields placed in US waters.