Mine Warfare

[Snigbert]

Do you feel mine warfare is overpowered?

[BillBrown]

I think mines in your own large ports are right. I do not like the effectiveness of sub laid mines in enemy ports. Given the way that minesweeping works I feel they are too effective.

[Raverdave]

I think that mines are just fine as they now are........any body remeber what they were like when the game first came out !

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Raverdave
I think that mines are just fine as they now are........any body remeber what they were like when the game first came out !

I think that players do not use mines the way they were actually used. That is the problem.

Sub Captains didnt like laying mines. There is no promotion
track for such use.

Mines dont have a lobby

[Fred98]

I have no idea how effective were the mines laid by subs.

I use it in the game but sub laid mines are only a nusiance for my opponents.

But the fast moving mine layers are a different story. They can lay a large number in a small amount of time and get in and bug out quick.

They too are only a nusiance but seem to be more effective than the sub laid mines.

[CapAndGown]

I think the big problem is not is sweeping or laying them or even hitting them. I think the problem is there ARE JUST TOO D@MN MANY OF EM!

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
I think the big problem is not is sweeping or laying them or even hitting them. I think the problem is there ARE JUST TOO D@MN MANY OF EM!

IIRC off the coast of Queensland alone some 16,000 mines were laid!

[HannoMeier]

A huge problem is the lmited amount of MSW assets. If they are gone or nearly gone, mines will stay and interdict traffic too much.
I would vote for an automatic MSW reinforcement if the player runs out of them. (There should be some extra vesels availible in the USA or Japan if the front needs them)

Hanno

[Drongo]

Posted by Joe 98

I have no idea how effective were the mines laid by subs.

USN sub laid mines in the Pacific were extremely effective. For every 12 mines laid, one Japanese ship was sunk or damaged.

On the other had, the USN subs only actually laid 658 mines in the Pacific over the course of the war. The Argonaut in UV would exceed that total with ease.

Almost all of the sub minelaying operations were conducted well away from the operational areas (very few of them were conducted in the area of that UV covers) and they were mainly directed at the major coastal shipping routes and ports like Saigon, etc (IIRC).

[Mike_B20]

I just wish my minesweepers would stop docking to sneak an ale while I'm not looking.

[AmiralLaurent]

In my opinion mines should disappear with time. Every thunderstorm day should have a 2-3 % chance to sweep a mine away from its mooring. The mine may even finish in the next hex.

For the moment, minefields only disappear with time in open waters, they should also be reduced in base dots and coastal hexes, but far more slowly.

Another problem is the lack of MSW, especially for the IJN. Only 1 or 2 will arrive as reinforcements after June 1942 if I remeber well.

Regarding subs, outside Argonauts, I use them for one minelaying mission when they arrive in Truk/Noumea, then they fuel and load torpedoes and patrol from here until they have SYS > 10, then back to a main port (Truk/Noumea/Brisbane) for repairs to 0 SYS and they come back again with mines.

I use DM and ML for laying defensive minefields.

There should be more accidents with friendly mines. And in WWII, they were a major threat for submarines, not in UV AFAIK.

[Raverdave]

Agreed...I am yet to see a sub hit a mine.....and I have been playing for a long time.

[JohnK]

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Joe 98


USN sub laid mines in the Pacific were extremely effective. For every 12 mines laid, one Japanese ship was sunk or damaged.

I'm guessing most or quite likely all of these were laid in 44-45, correct?

[madflava13]

Actually most were laid earlier in the war when there were shortages of torpedos. They were fairly effective though. I don't know anything about offensive mine use by the IJN, but their defensive fields are believed to have claimed several US subs.

I think UV has it just right now (although I like Adm. Laurent's idea of degrading fields based on bad weather turns.) Don't know how hard it is to add that in, but that seems to be the most realistic answer.

[Drongo]

Posted by JohnK

I'm guessing most or quite likely all of these were laid in 44-45, correct?

IIRC, the majority were laid mid '42 to mid '43.

The submarine crews intensely disliked minelaying operations.

By '44, the aerial minelaying was coming into its own, leaving the USN subs to concentrate on torpedoeing Japanese ships.

[Nikademus]

perhaps a mine counter feature is needed, similar to the plane pool, with a monthly delivery rate (in UV), in WitP, add it as a production item

[crsutton]

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by JohnK


IIRC, the majority were laid mid '42 to mid '43.

The submarine crews intensely disliked minelaying operations.

By '44, the aerial minelaying was coming into its own, leaving the USN subs to concentrate on torpedoeing Japanese ships.

In late 44 early 45 Allied mines (mostly air dropped) effectively closed off the sea of Japan, drastically cutting off shipments of food and raw material from Korea.

I am not sure how effective mining was by either side during the South Pacific time frame of UV. However, I don't feel like mines are skewing the game. They are only a moderate nuisance and it is always fun to watch your opponent get stung by one or two.

Subs working in restricted waters should most certainly be banging into them--and running aground for that matter.

[Mr.Frag]

The only issue here is the fact that some folks have learned the hard way the price tag for not protecting their Mine sweepers and loose them. As long as you have ships that can sweep them, they are no threat at all. I do truely understand the pain of not protecting your ships and not having any in the later stages of the game.

It would be nice if the game automatically donated 1 to your cause *if* and only *if* you loose them all, BUT there should be a high VP cost for this service to punish folks enough that they do not become careless (ie: bah, I'll go send my Japan MSW to Noumea, why not, i get them for free).

I also agree that mines due to the nature of the weather extremes in the area should have (a) a finite lifespan and (b) a greater possibility of friendly fire problems. You should be forced to use your own MSW guys to clear your own channels every now and then (perhaps after weather type thunderstorm). This may induce folks to not go into extremes with their use when they know they too could be subject to the 8,000 mines they dumped in the hex if not careful.

I would like to see any group that has a sweeper no matter what other ships are in the TF sweep as it goes without the silly DD's jumping out in front to help and eating mines. This is simply due to the fact that UV has no waypoints. Since mission routes are completely predictable without waypoints and there is nothing you can do to vary the path, it seems only right that inclusion of a sweeper should be a valid choice to offset this lack of pathing. (ie: a bombardment mission will always go directly from home port to target and back on the exact same route, since you know the exact route, it is easy to be able to over concentrate on this path)

[LargeSlowTarget]

... the issue I have with mines is that non-MSW ships of the escort variety are almost as good in detecting and destroying mines than the real minesweepers. If I lay an offensive minefield and there comes an unescorted AP or AK, it will hit a mine now and then. But if a DD/SC/PC/PG type enters a minefield, the sharp-sighted sailors spot mines as if these were carrying a sign saying 'Here I am'. And this works best during thunderstorms at night :rolleyes: Aren't mines supposed to float several feet below the surface? Then how comes that they are spotted so easily, especially at night? I've seen it so often that escorts detected and destroyed not one mine on occasion, but two, three and even four mines in a row - my minefields must look like swiss cheese after the enemies escorts went through. I always believed that non-MSW ships found a minefield the ordinary way - means BOOM. But this rarely happens in my games.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
The only issue here is the fact that some folks have learned the hard way the price tag for not protecting their Mine sweepers and loose them. As long as you have ships that can sweep them, they are no threat at all.

A-MEN, brother!!!

If you have MSWs and know how to use them, mine threat is greatly reduced.

I think mines are just right in 2.30. I'd hate to see their effectiveness lowered....

Good example is my ongoing game with Leo/Apollo. In our first PBEM, I (playing as USN) mined Leo's IJN harbors and sea lanes heavily, and he lost many ships (MSWs too, since they didn't have any bonus when entering mine hex prior to 2.30). Finally, mine warfare greatly influenced the outcome of our first game.

In our second PBEM (ongoing) we both pay VERY much attention to mine warfare (we both learned from our first PBEM), laying, detecting and sweeping mines, and, despite heavy (and I mean HEAVY) mining we lost only a DD, PG, and AP or two to mines (both of us, combined) in 5 months of campaign. I think this is very realistic!

I sweep everything. I suspect every hex to be mined before I send some valuable ships thru. I always send MSWs/DMSs in advance to sending BBs or CVs. You wouldn't know what shallow water hexes exist until you played Leo or me, and see them mined )

One thing though - I'd love to see mines more effective against subs. I have yet to see sub hit a mine.

As for sub commanders disliking of mine ops - who cares what they think? In UV they're being paid to do what we order them to do

O.