First Impressions. Working on Turn 1 as Japan

[mogami]

Hi Air dropped mines sank or damaged more ships then any other type of mine. But actually the idea was to close a port. Since this is beyond the point of my question. I think I already know the answer. Mines are curtailed because hindsight allows player to use mines in stead of funky torpedos In the old game you would see minefields far beyond any actually employed. So we should also not allow players to train groups for ASW or Naval attack because they never were. We should not allow naval bombardment in places they were never used. We should script the game. (I'm just kidding) Give the players the tools they had, do not give any they did not have and let them decide. A USN sub could carry 12 mines. they were available the USN decided it was a waste of time. I agree it was a waste of time. Lets make the Japanese player worry about it any way. When the program decides what is reasonable instead of what is possible you script the war. I am a Japanese player all these restrictions help me. I am not a world conquest player. I am a "I got the SRA" come get me player. Ah crap I'm drunk and not making any sense

[RangerJoe]

If I remember correctly, this is just a game and we are doing a "What If This and That type of thing happened."

You are making sense. Sometimes, the Silent Service ran low on torpedoes and went to lay mines. That type of mission was not popular. If the enemy ship hit a mine, sometimes they considered it a torpedo attack and it may not have been properly considered after the way. Think if, when they had the sonar that could detect mines, the US subs were to lay a minefield in the cleared pathway for Japanese ships. That could have screwed them all up.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: mogami


In general the whole HQ problem all over exists. I have a hard time understanding who is charge of what where. It would have been far simpler rather then have HQ appear with units assigned and then try to reassign all the local units to have player purchase HQ where and when required.

Actually this is my biggest problem with the game too...

I employ a strict self rule regarding HQs.

for example for China units MUST remain close to the (army group) HQ they are assigned; no exceptions;

for all the other nations: wherever you wish to deploy a unit doesn't change air or land far from their assigned HQ, you must expend the PPs to assign it to the new HQ in charge of the new area;

more flexibility for support/construction units which are assigned to the theatre command; mainly the same for AA units;


cannot do nothing for ships;

I'd deliver bunches of flowers to the programmer (MichaelM?) who'll allow ships been tracked according to the TF they have been assigned after disbanding in port!!!

After every disbanding (or temporary reassignment) it's a huge mess can hardly remember or reconstruct to which Dest. squadron for example they were assigned for what mission/task etc.

I THINK that would not be too difficult to code/implement?

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: mogami
China is a nightmare for both sides. China cannot assigned units to HQ (they are fixed) I would pay the PP to fix the mess (disorder causes me stomach pain) The Japanese at least can spend a fortune fixing this. In general the whole HQ problem all over exists. I have a hard time understanding who is charge of what where. It would have been far simpler rather then have HQ appear with units assigned and then try to reassign all the local units to have player purchase HQ where and when required.

HQ structure plays absolutely no role for land units apart from restricted / unrestricted status. Any HQ/HQc/HQy unit can give AV bonus to any LCU in range. So you should not concern yourself with maintaining the chain of command through assignments. PPs are too valuable for the primary purpose - moving restricted units into unrestricted, and will remain too valuable until well into 44 I think.

Chain of command is mildly important for the airforce in later years since airgroups with the same HQ have slightly better coordination. So you want to align your strategic bomber force and escorts accordingly.

[adarbrauner]

I meant even if the game does not confer any importance to the hq/command structure for land units, and somehow limited for air units,

I personally still self limit their deployment to their local direct Hq..

a personal rule, but


if you do that, either alone or with another player, that'll make the game more challenging and, I think, more realistic and fun (pace is reduced, greater need for planning in advance etc.)

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mogami

Hi Air dropped mines sank or damaged more ships then any other type of mine. But actually the idea was to close a port. Since this is beyond the point of my question. I think I already know the answer. Mines are curtailed because hindsight allows player to use mines in stead of funky torpedos In the old game you would see minefields far beyond any actually employed. So we should also not allow players to train groups for ASW or Naval attack because they never were. We should not allow naval bombardment in places they were never used. We should script the game. (I'm just kidding) Give the players the tools they had, do not give any they did not have and let them decide. A USN sub could carry 12 mines. they were available the USN decided it was a waste of time. I agree it was a waste of time. Lets make the Japanese player worry about it any way. When the program decides what is reasonable instead of what is possible you script the war. I am a Japanese player all these restrictions help me. I am not a world conquest player. I am a "I got the SRA" come get me player. Ah crap I'm drunk and not making any sense

No. The player-oriented reasons are the lesser ones; the game engine-oriented reason is the major one. IIRC they said mines were simply overwhelming the game, it was too hard to model mines well enough and they had to tone them down.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mogami

Hi Air dropped mines sank or damaged more ships then any other type of mine. But actually the idea was to close a port. Since this is beyond the point of my question. I think I already know the answer. Mines are curtailed because hindsight allows player to use mines in stead of funky torpedos In the old game you would see minefields far beyond any actually employed. So we should also not allow players to train groups for ASW or Naval attack because they never were. We should not allow naval bombardment in places they were never used. We should script the game. (I'm just kidding) Give the players the tools they had, do not give any they did not have and let them decide. A USN sub could carry 12 mines. they were available the USN decided it was a waste of time. I agree it was a waste of time. Lets make the Japanese player worry about it any way. When the program decides what is reasonable instead of what is possible you script the war. I am a Japanese player all these restrictions help me. I am not a world conquest player. I am a "I got the SRA" come get me player. Ah crap I'm drunk and not making any sense

No. The player-oriented reasons are the lesser ones; the game engine-oriented reason is the major one. IIRC they said mines were simply overwhelming the game, it was too hard to model mines well enough and they had to tone them down.

+1

Pretty much how I remember it as well.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mogami

Hi Air dropped mines sank or damaged more ships then any other type of mine. But actually the idea was to close a port. Since this is beyond the point of my question. I think I already know the answer. Mines are curtailed because hindsight allows player to use mines in stead of funky torpedos In the old game you would see minefields far beyond any actually employed. So we should also not allow players to train groups for ASW or Naval attack because they never were. We should not allow naval bombardment in places they were never used. We should script the game. (I'm just kidding) Give the players the tools they had, do not give any they did not have and let them decide. A USN sub could carry 12 mines. they were available the USN decided it was a waste of time. I agree it was a waste of time. Lets make the Japanese player worry about it any way. When the program decides what is reasonable instead of what is possible you script the war. I am a Japanese player all these restrictions help me. I am not a world conquest player. I am a "I got the SRA" come get me player. Ah crap I'm drunk and not making any sense

No. The player-oriented reasons are the lesser ones; the game engine-oriented reason is the major one. IIRC they said mines were simply overwhelming the game, it was too hard to model mines well enough and they had to tone them down.

Do you really think the game would be overwhelmed?

I think, if we were going to give a try and allow the different sides possessing that number of mines Mogami pointed out through Editor

together with greater minesweeping capacity to ships as IRL I think - for example enabling certain destroyers and adding small shipping like trawlers with mine sweeping capabilities, do you think we would get sensibly unrealistic results?

My feeling is not but worth a trial;


BTW: does anyone know Japanese's mines production and availability?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mogami

Hi Air dropped mines sank or damaged more ships then any other type of mine. But actually the idea was to close a port. Since this is beyond the point of my question. I think I already know the answer. Mines are curtailed because hindsight allows player to use mines in stead of funky torpedos In the old game you would see minefields far beyond any actually employed. So we should also not allow players to train groups for ASW or Naval attack because they never were. We should not allow naval bombardment in places they were never used. We should script the game. (I'm just kidding) Give the players the tools they had, do not give any they did not have and let them decide. A USN sub could carry 12 mines. they were available the USN decided it was a waste of time. I agree it was a waste of time. Lets make the Japanese player worry about it any way. When the program decides what is reasonable instead of what is possible you script the war. I am a Japanese player all these restrictions help me. I am not a world conquest player. I am a "I got the SRA" come get me player. Ah crap I'm drunk and not making any sense

No. The player-oriented reasons are the lesser ones; the game engine-oriented reason is the major one. IIRC they said mines were simply overwhelming the game, it was too hard to model mines well enough and they had to tone them down.

Do you really think the game would be overwhelmed?

I think, if we were going to give a try and allow the different sides possessing that number of mines Mogami pointed out through Editor

together with greater minesweeping capacity to ships as IRL I think - for example enabling certain destroyers and adding small shipping like trawlers with mine sweeping capabilities, do you think we would get sensibly unrealistic results?

My feeling is not but worth a trial;


BTW: does anyone know Japanese's mines production and availability?

I just took their word for it, never gave it much thought or tried it out.

[PaxMondo]

I don't think you can 'test' this. RE-read what he wrote. As I recall it, and hopefully Alfred will confirm, the devs determined that they could NOT get mines to work correctly within the timeframe they had. There were a number of reasons, I only recall them acknowledging one reason. They then 'fixed' the engine by limiting the mine production. Simply increasing mine production will not test anything, it will simply use a section of code that the devs already acknowledged gives an inaccurate result if you exceed the boundary that they created.

You are free to run what you wish, but do not think that any result you get is accurate. I can tell you one thing for sure, the IJ could NOT have increased mine production significantly. Mines consume inordinate amounts of explosive and the IJ had little additional capacity.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I can tell you one thing for sure, the IJ could NOT have increased mine production significantly. Mines consume inordinate amounts of explosive and the IJ had little additional capacity.

I'm afraid this is even too much true;

But Mogami cited 1000 mines - for the Allies or US - a day, indeed?!?

[PaxMondo]

Well, if he is looking at production in game, that would be per month which is probably about right for the allies.

[MakeeLearn]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMJAP_Mines.php

"Almost all Japanese mines were of Hertz Horn construction. No magnetic (influence) mines were developed although a number of British A Mark I - IV mines captured at Singapore were laid off Balikapan in 1945. A shore-controlled mine with an acoustic detector was developed late in 1944 and 144 of these were laid across the entrance to Tokyo Bay."

"Prior to World War II, the Imperial Japanese Navy did not spend much energy on mines. Mines were considered to be an defensive weapon; Japanese Navy doctrine was almost exclusively offensive."

http://www.capeblancoheritagesociety.co ... val-mines/

[mogami]

Hi, The Japanese bought thousands of mines from Britain and USA after WWI. Like the Allies they placed most of them defensively. (mostly anti submarine) My main concern is not with running around placing mines but rather the late war Allied mine barrage. Nearly 300 Japanese ships were sunk by these ariel mines placed by B29 at a cost of 15 B-29. My question was is this possible in game? The peak output by US mine factories was 1500 in a single day. The navy built their own facility to produce the explosive.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mogami

Hi, The Japanese bought thousands of mines from Britain and USA after WWI. Like the Allies they placed most of them defensively. (mostly anti submarine) My main concern is not with running around placing mines but rather the late war Allied mine barrage. Nearly 300 Japanese ships were sunk by these ariel mines placed by B29 at a cost of 15 B-29. My question was is this possible in game? The peak output by US mine factories was 1500 in a single day. The navy built their own facility to produce the explosive.

I gave you my best take on the answer to this: probably not, because the best they could manage had mines being too powerful so they felt they had to limit them.

But really, try out some strategies with what is there and see how they can be used to make a substantive difference.

[mogami]

The mine barrage was a major contributor to the defeat of Japan. It cut the Home Islands off from the mainland where most of the food stuffs were imported from. Aside from the ships sunk and damaged it closed ports. Of course in the game the Allies have an extra year to win with more conventional means. Just put a sub in every hex you would otherwise have mined.

[adarbrauner]

Just take the occasion to wish a very good and happy beginning of the new year to everyone here and the respective families!

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I don't think you can 'test' this. RE-read what he wrote. As I recall it, and hopefully Alfred will confirm, the devs determined that they could NOT get mines to work correctly within the timeframe they had. There were a number of reasons, I only recall them acknowledging one reason. They then 'fixed' the engine by limiting the mine production. Simply increasing mine production will not test anything, it will simply use a section of code that the devs already acknowledged gives an inaccurate result if you exceed the boundary that they created.

You are free to run what you wish, but do not think that any result you get is accurate. I can tell you one thing for sure, the IJ could NOT have increased mine production significantly. Mines consume inordinate amounts of explosive and the IJ had little additional capacity.

Both PaxMondo and witpqs are correct in their recollection.

Early in it's life cycle, both before and after release of AE, minewarfare was one of the most hotly argued topics. Often a very sterile discussion as the devs often explained that the choices made by them were done, within the context of the game design/code, in order to get outcomes consistent with the historical record. On the other side of the divide were the many player protagonists, who disregarding the game engine and historical context, vociferously demanded the "pretty" figures floating on the internet simply had to be reproduced verbatim in the game. Needless to say the pointlessness of explaining often drove JWE/Symon to exasperation, one of my favourite quotes of his on the subject being this one of 7 September 2009:

[center]"Modding to IRL production figures would result in game effects that are ... interesting."[/center]

That was JWE/Symon at his most diplomatic when dealing with a poster who had no idea what he (the poster himself and JWE) was saying.

The game engine was the major consideration as it allowed some very cheesy player exploits. The relevant factors which the devs took into account were as follows.

1. Three months before AE was released, JWE quite categorically stated on 22 April 2009 that:

[center]"Rewriting the code was deemed to be not cost/time effective."[/center]

This meant that the code from classical WITP was retained and the devs could only tweak AE to prevent players from employing the same questionable tactics in AE. These tactics are listed in points 2 and 3 and their elimination was a major and driving force behind the new AE design.

2. Classical WITP suffered greatly from exaggerated player mine laying. Amphibious landings on tiny atolls often found 10k - 30k of mines had been laid. These were atolls where just a few yards from the lagoon, the sea floor dropped dramatically. IOW mines were being dropped where physically they could not be laid, a deficiency of the game engine. Nor could the game engine distinguish between Japanese and Allied mine laying efforts. Terminus often pointed out just how few mines were laid by Japan during the entire war, yet Japanese players were not just matching Allied mine laying efforts, they were exceeding them by quite a substantial margin.

3. The other ill advised classical WITP praxis actually unbalanced the game completely in favour of one player over the other. Classical WITP had space for only 4,000 minefields in total, both the size of the minefield and which side sowed it being irrelevant. Once this total was reached, no further minefields could be laid. Some enterprising players quickly sowed minefields to reach the maximum and this prevented their opponents from laying their own minefields. To prevent this praxis, the devs did three things:

(a) increase the total number of minefields which AE could accommodate (this was a relatively easy and time/cost effective coding exercise)
(b) allocate separate maximum minefield totals for the Japanese and Allied player
(c) reduce the number of available mines so that players really had to determine where the better ROI lay

4. Another relevant consideration for the devs, and one always overlooked by the player protagonists, was neatly summed up by this quote from JWE of 29 July 2009:

[center]"Way over 70% of all the mines laid in the Pacific were laid in areas where game engine does not allow mines to be laid."[/center]

All those figures sprouted by players were therefore largely irrelevant for they took no account of the context of the game engine. Wdolson on 29 July 2009 pointed out that IRL most mines were laid in defensive minefields very far back from the frontlines and not offensively or to defend forward bases. Taking into account the historical praxis, AE provided approximately the equivalent number of mines to undertake the historical praxis. The historical rear area defensive minefields is met by the approximately 18k mines auto sown on turn 1, all of which can be maintained with no decay by the new AE ship type, the ACM.

If the classical WITP mine production numbers had merely been transferred over to AE without any adjustment, the game engine would not prevent players from dropping that surplus 70% into the game, as per point (2) above.

5. A very significant point always overlooked by the complainers is the abstraction aspect of AE. The entire game is built on abstractions and minewarfare is no different. IRL battleships would have, on average, 900-1200 rounds of main gun shells in their magazines. In AE this abstracted down to less than 200 shells. No one complains about that abstraction. So why do they about mines in AE? The AE naval design team came to the conclusion that the game code gave mines an effectivity of 10x the nominal. Bearing in mind recoding was out of the question, the best solution to bring the effectivity back to the nominal was to abstractly view each AE mine as representing 10 mines. Conceptually the same treatment as accorded to battleship main gun shells.


The net result was that the devs were determined to avoid the game turning into Mines in the Pacific. The difficulties encountered by Allied players in setting up an economic blockade of Japan are not the result of the dev decisions made regarding mines. There are several other factors which play a significant role in stymieing this blockade, mines is not one of them.


Alfred

[mogami]

Hi, Thanks for all the input on the mines. I recall the old days when I had to penetrate a mine complex 5 hexs wide and 3 deep. Now a new problem I have two air combat TF that seem to be stuck. One has orders to move and the other to follow. For at least 3 days they have refused to move. Also how do transport subs load troops? They have space allocated to this mission (The USN subs that have been converted to transport subs) Subs have same base, same HQ, troops are not restricted HQ and I have tried both combat and strategic modes to no avail. Troops are pure infantry.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: mogami

Hi, Thanks for all the input on the mines. I recall the old days when I had to penetrate a mine complex 5 hexs wide and 3 deep. Now a new problem I have two air combat TF that seem to be stuck. One has orders to move and the other to follow. For at least 3 days they have refused to move. Also how do transport subs load troops? They have space allocated to this mission (The USN subs that have been converted to transport subs) Subs have same base, same HQ, troops are not restricted HQ and I have tried both combat and strategic modes to no avail. Troops are pure infantry.

Beware the "daisy chain follow". If you have a series of TFs following each other the game engine can lose track of which is following which. Set all the TFs that are "following" to follow one lead TF. If you want, for example, an ASW and SCTF to precede your CV TFs, set the ASW TF to go to the target hex where the CVs intend to end their movement, then set the SCTF to go there without a follow command and set the CV TFs to follow the SCTF.

I am not sure that the follow command will stay in effect when CVTFs are reacting, so setting one CVTF to follow the other may not prevent separation during a reaction towards the enemy.