Aerial Mining - A question for the Devs ?

[Andy Mac]

A lot of my games are entering 43 now and most of my opponents have basically said I cannot air mine where CAP is present because it is broken at present.

Now I have and will continue to go along with this as I will not break faith with any of my current PBEM opponents.

But I have a question.

Is Aerial Mining and not intercepting CAP actually broken or is it working and intended but some players dont agree with how its been modelled.

It really does affect how i respond to my next opponents request for a house rule in this area as the paper on the other thread indicates that c 1000 ships were sank by mines that is pretty dammed effective and with Allied subs being neutered by air ASW at present a lack of air mining seems to be quite grim for Allied commerce warfare.

Thanks you

Andy

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

A lot of my games are entering 43 now and most of my opponents have basically said I cannot air mine where CAP is present because it is broken at present.

Now I have and will continue to go along with this as I will not break faith with any of my current PBEM opponents.

But I have a question.

Is Aerial Mining and not intercepting CAP actually broken or is it working and intended but some players dont agree with how its been modelled.

It really does affect how i respond to my next opponents request for a house rule in this area as the paper on the other thread indicates that c 1000 ships were sank by mines that is pretty dammed effective and with Allied subs being neutered by air ASW at present a lack of air mining seems to be quite grim for Allied commerce warfare.

Thanks you

Andy

I can send you a HISTORICAL B-29 mission log of all missions they flew from the Marianas. You'll find out that during their many mining missions they lost very few planes to ANY causes.

Your opponent is just pulling typical Jap-fanboy whining in my opinion to hamstring you and deprive you of a historical advantage the Americans did have and you should too. American aerial mining was very effective in real life. I think Feinder posted a link to URL about American aerial mining which showed just how much.

[castor troy]

Uhh, it´s not just Japanese fanboy whining. Same goes for Allied "fanboy whining". When I send 200 Betties 15 hexes to your base in daylight at 6000 feet then it would be just as weird if they wouldn´t be intercepted by CAP. We´re not talking about those couple of planes in one attack missions that were flown in real life, we are talking about 200, 300, 400+ bombers in one strike at one target laying mines at 6000 feet and not being intercepted.

To all those who are Allied or Japanese fanboys: OPEN YOU EYES PLZ! IT ISN´T THAT HARD. Or show me the articles where hundreds of bombers mined the same target at the same time! From 1/43 until 5/45. Every day, not suffering from flak or CAP. If that would have been like I can do it in the game the Japs would have lost in 6/43!

Just play head to head and try it. Every day you send 300 4E bombers mining Truk, Rabaul or another major base. I don´t know how many mines a 4E bomber can load but I think more than one. 2? 3? Let´s say 3. That would make 900 mines every day and you´re out of operational ships in less than half a year.

[castor troy]

Or are you seriously thinking that if any (don´t care about the number) fighters on CAP at 15000 feet would look at those 200 4E bombers at 6000 feet and would say: Hey, we don´t attack those 200 bombers because they are only mining!

[8|]

[Dereck]

I stand by what I said. It seems it's mostly the Japanese players who cry about historical accuracy ONLY if it benefits them but if there is ANYTHING that even slightly benefits the Allied player then suddenly there is something major wrong with the game and it needs to be corrected to suit your ideas.

This is one reason why I only play the AI. Neither it OR I play off the chart and do stuff ahistoric. When I mined with my B-29s I only used one squadron because I had the rest evenly split between bombing the Jap cities.

There is nothing wrong with the game itself. Just both you AND your opponent stop being ahistoric and tone things down.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: dereck

I stand by what I said. It seems it's mostly the Japanese players who cry about historical accuracy ONLY if it benefits them but if there is ANYTHING that even slightly benefits the Allied player then suddenly there is something major wrong with the game and it needs to be corrected to suit your ideas.

This is one reason why I only play the AI. Neither it OR I play off the chart and do stuff ahistoric. When I mined with my B-29s I only used one squadron because I had the rest evenly split between bombing the Jap cities.

There is nothing wrong with the game itself. Just both you AND your opponent stop being ahistoric and tone things down.

As long as you´re just playing the AI and not seeing what happens here I don´t think you should comment this discussion with: Oh the Japanese fanboy whining!

It´s for both sides as I said. Wonder what you would say if Japanese AI sends 300 Betties from Lunga to Noumea, where you have 150 F4F or better fighters on CAP and the Betties wouldn´t be intercepted.

I agree with your words about history, but what we have in the game isn´t history. Would that have happened in history what I wrote so far? For sure would formations of 200 bombers not being attacked? Even the small formations would have been attacked if there were fighters around to attack them or if they would have been spotted.

Perhaps people should say good bye to fanboyism of any side and open their eyes what would be realistical. Not historical, realistical. And that goes for many of those, "hey you´re a xy-fanboy discussions".

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: dereck

I stand by what I said. It seems it's mostly the Japanese players who cry about historical accuracy ONLY if it benefits them but if there is ANYTHING that even slightly benefits the Allied player then suddenly there is something major wrong with the game and it needs to be corrected to suit your ideas.

This is one reason why I only play the AI. Neither it OR I play off the chart and do stuff ahistoric. When I mined with my B-29s I only used one squadron because I had the rest evenly split between bombing the Jap cities.

There is nothing wrong with the game itself. Just both you AND your opponent stop being ahistoric and tone things down.

As long as you´re just playing the AI and not seeing what happens here I don´t think you should comment this discussion with: Oh the Japanese fanboy whining!
It´s for both sides as I said. Wonder what you would say if Japanese AI sends 300 Betties from Lunga to Noumea, where you have 150 F4F or better fighters on CAP and the Betties wouldn´t be intercepted.

I agree with your words about history, but what we have in the game isn´t history. Would that have happened in history what I wrote so far? For sure would formations of 200 bombers not being attacked? Even the small formations would have been attacked if there were fighters around to attack them or if they would have been spotted.

Perhaps people should say good bye to fanboyism of any side and open their eyes what would be realistical. Not historical, realistical. And that goes for many of those, "hey you´re a xy-fanboy discussions".

I own this game and since the changes that get made mostly because of such whining affects me over things I don't do I have EVERY right to comment on stuff I think is whining.

Both sides do crap that is ahistorical and whine until the developers make changes and then force ahistorical play just to get the same results as before with normal play. And as far as bomber formations not being attacked in history - YES!

Near the final months of the war bomber raids of 300-400+ B-29s ranged over Japan at will without ANY fighter opposition.

[spence]

From reading the article about aerial mining it seems that the biggest obstacle to it's effectiveness was "an institutional or cultural lack of interest/enthusiasm" amongst senior American officers.

Said cultural/institutional lack of interest pervaded the IJA/IJN as well (especially notable for things defensive) and effected:
1) Japanese radar development/effective radar employment - never did develope a shipboard fighter direction center
2) Japanese fleet defense doctrine - ringing a CV with flak support ships was just an EXPERIMENTAL concept in 1943 and even then they didn't want to tie down cruisers or battleships in a defensive role - only destroyers were employed initially
3) Japanese ASW efforts
4) Japanese damage control doctrine and systems
5) Japanese anti-mining efforts
6) IJA doctrine for repelling amphibious assaults (until very late in war)

I am more of an Allied Fanboy more than not but I did enjoy playing Japan in UV. I think there are some things that the Japanese Fanboys just have to accept: principally that they are fighting with the JAPANESE armed forces of the 1940s and that some Japanese cultural factors limited what the leaders of the IJA/IJN could do or in fact even conceive of. Even with 21st century hindsight a brilliant Japanese commander would have faced probably insurmountable institutionalized difficulties in correcting many of the deficiencies of the IJN/IJA.

I am not particularly interesting in exploring the battle between an initially big USN that gets few reinforcements and an initially small USN that gets overwhelming reinforcements.

[Andy Mac]

Thanks Guys I understand the issues on both sides my question is really simple for the devs is it working as intended not whether we all completely agree with it or not !!!

If it is modelled as intended then the argument is can we get it changed perhaps such that a proportion of the CAP intercepts these missions or that air mining is only done at altitude or at night.

If it is a bug then can it be fixed please.

My issue is that even if I send in fighters to escort I am not mining because my opponents cannot intercept the bombers.

I dont care if I have to fight through CAP I want to be able to send my bombers in to mine but at present I am limited as my opponents are unhappy with not being able to intercept the mission unlike any other city attack.

Andy

[Andy Mac]

I really just want mining to be interceptable by fighters so that I can choose whether or not to do it. It seems to me that the arguments over whether or not to allow it would be easier if the mine laying bombers were interceptable as with any other City Attack

(Tactically its a double edged sword as my ships tend to hit my own mines if I am not carefull so I am not an advocate of unrestricted mine laying)

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I really just want mining to be interceptable by fighters so that I can choose whether or not to do it. It seems to me that the arguments over whether or not to allow it would be easier if the mine laying bombers were interceptable as with any other City Attack

(Tactically its a double edged sword as my ships tend to hit my own mines if I am not carefull so I am not an advocate of unrestricted mine laying)

From my historic mission log the B-29s sent on mining missions weren't intercepted for the most part. Do aerial mining but only with one squadron or bomber group. I believe that all the B-29 mining was performed by one squadron over and over so it may have required some special type of flying they got good at.

That way you won't be plastering the seas with mines but still mining and hurting the Jap shipping. Historically the Americans did stuff like that that the Japanese simply couldn't stop us from doing at all.

[Andy Mac]

Dereck I understand where you are coming from as a non PBEM er and I dont want to ruin your experience of the game by changing things unnescesarily but I do understand the Japanese PBEM players view that mining in broad daylight risk free Truk port with 200 Tonies on CAP with lets say 50 B24's at 6000 feet is a tad unrealistic.

Given CAP density at least some of the fighters in my view would have been in a position to intercept even if they are laying mines outside of the port now a flight coming in at 30,000 feet I may change my view but can you drop mines from that altitude.

Anyone know what the normal attitude for minelaying was ?

Andy

[Andy Mac]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I really just want mining to be interceptable by fighters so that I can choose whether or not to do it. It seems to me that the arguments over whether or not to allow it would be easier if the mine laying bombers were interceptable as with any other City Attack

(Tactically its a double edged sword as my ships tend to hit my own mines if I am not carefull so I am not an advocate of unrestricted mine laying)

From my historic mission log the B-29s sent on mining missions weren't intercepted for the most part. Do aerial mining but only with one squadron or bomber group. I believe that all the B-29 mining was performed by one squadron over and over so it may have required some special type of flying they got good at.

That way you won't be plastering the seas with mines but still mining and hurting the Jap shipping. Historically the Americans did stuff like that that the Japanese simply couldn't stop us from doing at all.

Yup thats the house rule I have in most games no more than 1 Group doing MLing at a time as I said I am not doing it that much anyway after Mass hit my own mine at kavieng costing me 42 sys damage !!!!!

Andy

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Dereck I understand where you are coming from as a non PBEM er and I dont want to ruin your experience of the game by changing things unnescesarily but I do understand the Japanese PBEM players view that mining in broad daylight risk free Truk port with 200 Tonies on CAP with lets say 50 B24's at 6000 feet is a tad unrealistic.

Given CAP density at least some of the fighters in my view would have been in a position to intercept even if they are laying mines outside of the port now a flight coming in at 30,000 feet I may change my view but can you drop mines from that altitude.

Anyone know what the normal attitude for minelaying was ?

Andy

1. PBEM changes already HAVE ruined this game for me to be honest. I tried staying at 1.3 but the pilot replacement bug and now missing leader bug have forced me to upgrade so I'm stuck with your changes.

2. B-29 aerial mining was usually from 1,000 to 12,000 feet and were by planes of the 313th Bomber Wing and were usually around 30 planes.

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Dereck I understand where you are coming from as a non PBEM er and I dont want to ruin your experience of the game by changing things unnescesarily but I do understand the Japanese PBEM players view that mining in broad daylight risk free Truk port with 200 Tonies on CAP with lets say 50 B24's at 6000 feet is a tad unrealistic.

Given CAP density at least some of the fighters in my view would have been in a position to intercept even if they are laying mines outside of the port now a flight coming in at 30,000 feet I may change my view but can you drop mines from that altitude.

Anyone know what the normal attitude for minelaying was ?

Andy

How about a limitation that air groups can fly mining missions only from a base with a certain port level, just like ML? I guess it would be difficult to model MLE for airfields for a patch, so it might be a compromise to limit those to say a Lv 6 port just for aerial missions. Nevertheless I agree entirely that this kind of mission should be interceptable.

Limiting to one airgroup still might be _very_ effective if combined with regular naval/port attacks to get rid of the MSW's but I assume its asked too much to get it into a patch so this might be a good houserule.

[Dereck]

This information can be confirmed along with other B-29 missions at the following web site:

http://www.xmission.com/~tmathews/b29/5 ... -4411.html

[moses]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know this:

When they did airial minning did they lay the mines right in or very near the ports or did they mine further out in the sea lanes??

If they dropped the mines right in the harbors then I would think interception by CAP is reasonable.

If they dropped the mines a distance off I would think it would be much less likely that CAP could intervene to a significant extent. I mean the bombers head out like they are going to bomb some point target then just vear off and drop the mines into some area of the ocean. Hard to intercept effectively I think.

[spence]

Since aerial mining has not as yet even appeared on the radar scope I have paid it little attention as yet insofar as the game is concerned. According to the article posted all variants/derivatives of B-24s, B-29s, PBY-5s of the RAAF, B-25s of the RAF, and even TBFs conducted aerial mining.
I don't have the game/editor handy. What kinds of Allied (any Japanese?) a/c can conduct the mission in the game?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: spence

Since aerial mining has not as yet even appeared on the radar scope I have paid it little attention as yet insofar as the game is concerned. According to the article posted all variants/derivatives of B-24s, B-29s, PBY-5s of the RAAF, B-25s of the RAF, and even TBFs conducted aerial mining.
I don't have the game/editor handy. What kinds of Allied (any Japanese?) a/c can conduct the mission in the game?

supposedly any 2E bomber

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: spence

Since aerial mining has not as yet even appeared on the radar scope I have paid it little attention as yet insofar as the game is concerned. According to the article posted all variants/derivatives of B-24s, B-29s, PBY-5s of the RAAF, B-25s of the RAF, and even TBFs conducted aerial mining.
I don't have the game/editor handy. What kinds of Allied (any Japanese?) a/c can conduct the mission in the game?

supposedly any 2E bomber

Isnt there a starting date or does it work right of Dec/7/41?