Mine Type Query - Reluctant Admiral 3.4

[bk19@mweb.co.za]

I am currently in the early part of a PBEM of RA 3.4

In the past couple of days I sailed a wolf pack into the Pearl Harbour hex in an attempt to deck a CV fleet languishing there. As I quickly learned, that was not a smart idea as I had a number of close encounters of the unpleasant kind with the minefield.

As part of our discussion on this issue my opponent then ran a test vs the AI and sailed 5 subs into Tokyo harbour with similar results.

From this we can conclude...

1. US mines don't behave like US torpedoes of the same era.
2. US and Japanese mines equally dangerous.

This 'discovery' induced me to have a look see at the weapon type definition in Tracker. I did not expect to find duplicate definitions of what according to the device description are the same thing, yet have dramatically different load and 'Pen' costs.

Is there somebody who could explain what was getting modeled here. It looks odd to me. I believe there is a rational reason for this. I would just like to understand it.

Thanks in advance!

[JWE]

Devices 001 – 088, and 103 – 145, are vestigial duplicate holdovers from the original WiTP game. They are not used by anything so it’s safe to ignore them.

They show up in Tracker because they have a valid date entry in the Available field. The other duplicate holdovers at device slots 256 – 517, 529 – 697 do not show up because they have a 9999 entry in the Available field.

Believe devices 001 – 088, and 103 – 145 were retained as valid because some of the early small scenarios mistakenly used a couple of these for ship or LCU armament. Should cause no current issues if ignored.

[bk19@mweb.co.za]

Aha... this was a bit wider scope than I imagined.

Thanks JWE...

07