Mine Warefare needs serious attention !!

[EricLarsen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
Hello...

I will look at this. We may need to reduce the chance of a mie sweeper hitting a mine.

Thanks...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games

Mike,
Good idea. I too had experienced some excessive losses for my Allied MSW and DMS ships. I particularly noticed that DMS ships were almost worthless for mineclearing as it seemed they ran into mines too quickly, usually the first or second turn of clearing. Maybe their high speed is causing the program to have them hit mines too easily. The MSW's seemed to do better at clearing mines and it took a few more turns before they would hit a mine. I started abusing barges to run into mine fields and clear them out that way because the losses to my MSW's and DMS's were so excessive.
Eric Larsen

[XPav]

My suggestions:

1) Remove minelaying capability from Argonaut. She didn't have it. Its got to go.

2) Add "implicit" minesweepers that clear friendly ports hexes. If I'm Allies, and mine Rabaul, assume that there's some piddly japanese little boats that come out and remove a percentage of mines every day. Bigger ports = more implicit minesweepers.

This saves the existing MSW and DMS ships for offensive operations and while not completely dealing with their irreplaceability, does allow a player to continue playing if they're all gone.

[Von_Frag]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker


All USN fleet subs, Porpoise Class, Salmon Class, Tambor Class, as well as Gatos had Mk 14 torpedoes so all should be experiencing duds.

Has the Mk 14's performance actually been programmed into the game to improve in early 43?

Von Frag

[mogami]

Originally posted by XPav
My suggestions:

1) Remove minelaying capability from Argonaut. She didn't have it. Its got to go.


Well she should have the same as other subs rather then the 30X2 she has in game. (I think other subs use tubes x 2 for mines)(And they use an other mine. Argo has the Mk-12) Argonaut should not have both the 100+ cap and the 30x2 mines. Since her conversion was prior to UV she should be the troop transport not the minelayer. (In WITP I will keep her as a mine layer if given the choice). Argo lays no where near the number of mines the IJN ML do. But!!! she lays them in much more harmfull locations. I do feel the IJN players will be distressed to discover the lack of Argonaut does not prevent the allied player from still placing mines in these locations. Also I have came to believe many players do not realize all subs can lay mines.

2) Add "implicit" minesweepers that clear friendly ports hexes. If I'm Allies, and mine Rabaul, assume that there's some piddly japanese little boats that come out and remove a percentage of mines every day. Bigger ports = more implicit minesweepers.

I like this idea. It could simply be "decay rate" of mines on enemy port (based on port size-size 6 port decays faster then size 2 port) I would even suggest "decay" not commence untill field "discovered"

This saves the existing MSW and DMS ships for offensive operations and while not completely dealing with their irreplaceability, does allow a player to continue playing if they're all gone.

[XPav]

Originally posted by Mogami

Well she should have the same as other subs rather then the 30X2 she has in game.

Of course.

Also I have came to believe many players do not realize all subs can lay mines.

Thats because reloading them is annoying.

I like this idea. It could simply be "decay rate" of mines on enemy port (based on port size-size 6 port decays faster then size 2 port) I would even suggest "decay" not commence untill field "discovered"

What counts as discovered?

[mogami]

Hi, dicovered is when you become aware of their presence, By hitting one or Minesweepers clearing a path. (I have "Port patrols" Of ASW and Mine craft on patrol.) I would even like to see aircraft report like "PBY ( or Mavis blah blah) Spots enemy sub laying mines" Discovered means simply .....you run into them and say "ha enemy mines" Air/ship is does not matter. Mines would be found sooner or later and once found they have lost much of there use (except to close restricted routes) If there is more then one path mines are not important once found.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Mogami
.................

once found they have lost much of there use (except to close restricted routes)....................

Like your port hex?;)

[JohnK]

Originally posted by Mogami
Originally posted by XPav
My suggestions:

Well she should have the same as other subs rather then the 30X2 she has in game. (I think other subs use tubes x 2 for mines)(And they use an other mine. Argo has the Mk-12) Argonaut should not have both the 100+ cap and the 30x2 mines. Since her conversion was prior to UV she should be the troop transport not the minelayer. (In WITP I will keep her as a mine layer if given the choice).

Well, given that Argonaut never laid a SINGLE mine in anger in the war, and that Argonaut had her own special type of mines, and there's no evidence that this production line was in operation during the war, I'd not have Argonaut with ANY mine capability in WITP, either.

The Argonaut was considered a "White Elephant" in reality.

Having Argonaut as a minelayer in WITP will end up with people laying 10,000 mines with her during the war, when in reality there probably were at most a couple hundred mines that she could lay and the production line was never restarted.

[Yamamoto]

I really like mines. After sinking a ship with planes, seeing an enemy hit one of my mines is the most enjoyable combat feedback I get in this game.

I hope they don't make any changes to it at all. If you feel like you need more minesweepers they can be added with the editor. Even with a PBEM game you could agree to add X minesweepers to each side.

Yamamoto

[mogami]

Originally posted by Sonny


Like your port hex?;)

Hi, Yes like a Port hex. However once the mines have been discovered and minesweepers have cleared a passage, the mines should now be treated like friendly mines as far as another ship hitting one goes (We know where they are and we have cleared a path. No more 25 ships a turn running into them)
The turn mines are first encountered and the TF has no minesweepers I have no problem with multiple ships hitting them.
But when a TF of minesweepers has been sweeping for several weeks and a friendly TF enters the hex they aught not to go blundering into the mines. In PBEM game with U2 I have a base at Irau. He mined it before I arrived and I believe he has laid more since. (If enemy lays mines in "discovered" hex then I would say ok it has been "undiscovered" till the next sweep)
But at Irau I have been clearing mines for over a month. I had to cease operations because all the minesweepers were sunk or disabled and I had to wait for more. Every TF that has entered hex has struck mines.
I don't really give a hoot about Argonault one way or the other. She was a minelaying sub, All her minelaying operations took place before the war began (but till modified for Makin raid as troop transport she was a minelaying sub.) Production lines in the United States are not an issue. If she had needed mines they would have been provided. But since she was altered prior to UV she should be restricted to the same type and number of mines as other subs. Lots of subs never laid a mine but have that capabilty in game. (many subs never carried a troop but can in game) I don't think mine laying is the problem. I do think mine sweeping is too difficult. The hard part of mine clearing is finding them. Once you know where to look the rest is easy.
The main reason mines are employed is to cause the enemy to spend time and resources looking for them. If they just run about with out regard for mines they should get hurt. But if they have regular patrols looking for and clearing mines then the mines don't damage ships but they still consume enemy supply/fuel and time.

[angus]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
I hope they don't make any changes to it at all. If you feel like you need more minesweepers they can be added with the editor. Even with a PBEM game you could agree to add X minesweepers to each side.

Yabbut in reality both sides had boats that could sweep mines near harbours. DMS and MSW type ships are fairly big and for sweeping distant minefields not for tootling around near a base. The IJN used wooden fishing boats and the like for that and the USN and RAN had YMS/MMS type minesweepers.

Mogami's suggestion on v. rapid decay of minefields near larger ports is a good one I think and saves adding any ships. A bigger deal in WitP I think. There are going to be quite enough ships without adding all the hundreds and hundreds of motor minesweeping boats.

Cheers,

Angus

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

In thread "Mines No Longer Effective in 2.0?"

showthread.php?s=&threadid=28632


Mike Wood explaind how mines work in UV.

Now we have answer why mines have no impact on submarines
and bombardement TFs...


Leo "Apollo11"