The Mine Warfare Morass in UV

[kaleun]

I have played both the original and the patch. I agree the mine warfare in the original was too lenient. Nobody to blame, I'm syre the developers did not imagine the problem.
I have played only against the AI, and only the US side.
After the patch, I have placed defensive minefields, around Lunga, Tulagi and Noumea, shallow water hexes, and had some success in Tulagi and Lunga, with some APs running into mines. To date, not one of my ships encountered them.

I have placed offensive minefields around Shortland and the Slot, again, only in shallow water. I have hit an AG,a minesweeper and a carrier, the Soho if I remember correctly. The AG and the MSW sunk.

I don't see that the present patch rules limit the allies that much. It may be different for the japanese, but it looks like it could be handled without too much of a problem.

I do think it would be good to add Brisbane as a second site for loading mines, since it is likely and reasonable that the Brits would have some minelaying ability in Australia. (whether they actually did or not is not really relevant, we are rehashing the war, and not just repeating the same manouvers) IMHO.
K

[dgaad]

Originally posted by kaleun
I have played both the original and the patch. I agree the mine warfare in the original was too lenient. Nobody to blame, I'm syre the developers did not imagine the problem.
I have played only against the AI, and only the US side.
After the patch, I have placed defensive minefields, around Lunga, Tulagi and Noumea, shallow water hexes, and had some success in Tulagi and Lunga, with some APs running into mines. To date, not one of my ships encountered them.

I have placed offensive minefields around Shortland and the Slot, again, only in shallow water. I have hit an AG,a minesweeper and a carrier, the Soho if I remember correctly. The AG and the MSW sunk.

I don't see that the present patch rules limit the allies that much. It may be different for the japanese, but it looks like it could be handled without too much of a problem.

I do think it would be good to add Brisbane as a second site for loading mines, since it is likely and reasonable that the Brits would have some minelaying ability in Australia. (whether they actually did or not is not really relevant, we are rehashing the war, and not just repeating the same manouvers) IMHO.
K

Solid info about the impact of minefield efficacy.

[Paul Vebber]

I have said my main concern is doing what I can to prevent a fixed location approach in WitP.

And I continue to try to tell you there won't be...:rolleyes:

Disagree. The constraints in 1.1 are artificial and ahistorical.

I can't understand why anyone would seriously argue that this type of facility can't be moved. We didn't have such a facility in Noumea when the war started, yet by May 1 it was magically there. It got moved there.

You're wrong and need to read up a bit on the subject. Sorry to be blunt but you simple don't know what you are talking about. By uyour logic you should be able to pack up and move the facilities at Pearl wherever you want. "fixed infrastructure" is called "fixed" for a reason. If you can't figure that out, then read J7B's post again. He has a good grasp on the issues.

If your point is to "make sure fixed loactiaons are not in WITP" why has this gone on past the part 30 posts ago when it was said they wouldn't?

If you don;t want to try to understand the problems involved in mining in 1942 and wish all the limitations away, you are good company. Its how teh navy has always handled mine warfare...simply wish away the "hard parts" becasues its inconvenient...:rolleyes:

My energy on the topic is spent. Mine warefare will be realistically portrayed in an historically sound context in WITP (as it has been here). I think Gary has a good handle on it and will deal with it appropriately to the scale of the simulation.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber


And I continue to try to tell you there won't be...:rolleyes:

You're wrong and need to read up a bit on the subject. Sorry to be blunt but you simple don't know what you are talking about. By uyour logic you should be able to pack up and move the facilities at Pearl wherever you want. "fixed infrastructure" is called "fixed" for a reason. If you can't figure that out, then read J7B's post again. He has a good grasp on the issues.

Shame on you Mr. Vebber. In all of your responses to me, you have made personal attacks mixed in with obfuscations, and little emoticons.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID in a POST that you are now either ignoring or didn't read that "the only type of facilities you can't move are ship construction facilities". You now say that by my logic I am suggesting just that. This is obfuscation, and in diametric opposition to things I have specifically said are not possible.

If your point is to "make sure fixed loactiaons are not in WITP" why has this gone on past the part 30 posts ago when it was said they wouldn't?

You have never said the fixed approach would NOT be used in WitP. You said things would be "different" and the WitP would be a "different" game. Well, I'd like to know how different, because frankly if this fixed location approach is used it will be a disservice to the game, which is among the best wargames ever made, and has the ability to give operational flexibility in this area that most games don't even consider.

If you don;t want to try to understand the problems involved in mining in 1942 and wish all the limitations away, you are good company. Its how teh navy has always handled mine warfare...simply wish away the "hard parts" becasues its inconvenient...:rolleyes:

My energy on the topic is spent. Mine warefare will be realistically portrayed in an historically sound context in WITP (as it has been here). I think Gary has a good handle on it and will deal with it appropriately to the scale of the simulation.

More emoticon ad hominum eh? That's useful.

Nowhere and never have you or anyone else given ANY information here which refutes the basic notion that THESE facilities, just like the far more complex, expensive and cumbersome facilities needed to support strategic bombing, ship resupply, economic activity, and so forth, could be moved and were moved. This is why this has gone on so long.

Your premise that the rule for fixed locations is valid because the Noumea facility wasn't moved between 1 MAY 42 and 31 DEC 43 is not logical, since it had to have been moved and constructed to be there in the first place, and facilities of much greater complexity were moved and reconstructed around the Pacific during the war.

[Paul Vebber]

You have never said the fixed approach would NOT be used in WitP. You said things would be "different"...

You have got to be kidding me...last time I looked, different meant NOT THE SAME...based on this, any further attempt at reason is obviously pointless...

[Erik Rutins]

This discussion is quickly going nowhere. I don't want to lock this thread, but I think we need some of the old "agree to disagree" here. As far as I know from the development team, here's what mine warfare's future looks like:

- Much more flexibility in WitP, but with the feature list still somewhat in flux, we can't be specific yet.

- UV's bug/feature request list is very long and thus it will be a while before we can revisit mine warfare in any major way, barring the discovery of a bug. Right now, 1.10's system may not be perfect, but it works very well and does represent a historical, albeit not flexible, model of 1942-43 mine warfare in this area.

With the above two points in mind, I think the best thing would be for everyone to shake, let bygones be bygones and move on to other discussions. Personally, despite the perhaps inhuman longevity of this thread, I've found a lot of good info and ideas here from all points of view. Remember that all of us read these forums and everything posted here is at least considered by the full design team. That's really all we can promise on any issue.

Regards,

- Erik

[mjk428]

Erik,

I understand why you want calm things down here. Apparently this has been gone over for a long time.

However, the new mine rules are just that, new. I would assume you would want feedback from your customers.

The rules may work historically but they sure don't allow me to deal adequately with the ahistorical threat to PM by constant bombardment groups.

If it is what it is, then fine. Subject closed. Had mines not even been included in the game I for one would not have even thought about it. Although I'm sure there would have been some that would have asked for that feature.

Thanks for your support and quality games.

mjk428

[Erik Rutins]

MJK,

Ahh... I feel myself getting sucked into the arch-thread...

However, the new mine rules are just that, new. I would assume you would want feedback from your customers.

Absolutely. However, Paul and Dgaad clearly disagree. I'd like to see that particular dead horse stay dead, no offense to horses.

The rules may work historically but they sure don't allow me to deal adequately with the ahistorical threat to PM by constant bombardment groups.

Don't understand this point, largely because of the following:

- I've hit bombardment groups with mines

- I've intercepted them and punished them with surface groups, LBA, and carrier air to the point that the exercise wasn't repeated.

- The historical night bombardments really only had trouble when they were damaged before they could retire and thus were still somewhere within effective air range by morning. Given a full unobstructed run, you shouldn't expect to catch them any other way. I stepped out of that discussion (although I am still reading and keeping up) because I had stated more than enough times that I felt the 1.00 rules worked well and historically, much more so than any of the suggested modifications (or the 1.10 bug) would.

Thanks for your support and quality games.

Our pleasure, thank you for your support!

Regards,

- Erik

[juliet7bravo]

"Ahh... I feel myself getting sucked into the arch-thread..."

Please check yourself for open sores or bleeding wounds prior to entering the water...

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber


You have got to be kidding me...last time I looked, different meant NOT THE SAME...based on this, any further attempt at reason is obviously pointless...

I'm not purposely trying to banter here, Mr. Vebber, but no, "different" could mean that we have more than one fixed base, or a pre-game player-selectable fixed base, etc. in WitP. Again, I'm looking for definitive statements that there will NOT be a fixed base approach. Its the design mentality that is at issue here, imho.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by juliet7bravo
"Ahh... I feel myself getting sucked into the arch-thread..."

Please check yourself for open sores or bleeding wounds prior to entering the water...

LOL !!! the "arch-thread". This thread has become a minefield in and of itself. Hopefully, its more defensive than offensive.

[mjk428]

Erik,

Not trying to suck you in, I just don't think the gap is as wide as the debate between Paul & Dgaad suggests.

To give some perspective I keep playing the first few months as the Allies where I don't have much in the way of resources compared to the IJN. Since they were able to come in and out of PM with impunity. I used the strategy of subs and mines around PM in the hopes of hitting something and slowing it down.
This worked to a degree.

With the new rules it takes quite a bit of work to get a TF with mines to PM. I wouldn't mind it the first time but if I want to mine say 3 hexes it will take several weeks.

It's my belief that if it had been determined that PM is going to be battered down to nothing and that mines were needed, the Allies would have found a way to get some mines to say, Cairns where they could be deployed from there. Maybe 2 weeks to get 240 mines in place. I have no facts to back this up other than the incredible things that we accomplished when it was necessary. I freely admit I may be completely wrong and it was just not possible.

I'm not trying to keep this alive, just to explain what I meant.

All The Best,
Marty

[Chiteng]

The true argument is as old as wargamming.
Get out the banners of realism vs playability.

Pragmatism vs idealism

For now I suggest we live with it, and hope for better another day.

Not wishing to demean anyones argument.

[Mark W Carver]

Hmmmm.... :rolleyes:

[Hartmann]

"Realism vs. playability" is probably right on target. While the old rules seem to have been a bit off with respect to realism (historically), the new rules seem quite a bit harsh on playability now.

It´s sad that this thread has become a "minefield of its own". It shouldn´t be.
Let me try out another approach to the topic by not stating anything myself, but instead asking questions to the designers:

1) Is even shallow hex mining in the vicinity of one´s own bases more dangerous to one´s own ships now than it was before?
2) What exactly would speak against letting people load mines in any ports with a level equal or greater than 6?

I´m asking the first question because of my experience with mines at the shallow hex South of Rabaul. The second question is clearly playability related, for I think that - historical adequacy aside - the current system is just so tedious, or in other words: minelaying, despite all its shortcomings, used to be fun, but now it simply isn´t anymore.

Hartmann

[Didz]

It is pretty clear that this debate is going nowhere and is slipping beyond the boundaries of trying to improve the game and into realms of personal one-upmanship.

However, I would like to make one more attempt to address what I think is the gist of the issue.

I think the only real concern that dgaad and I have about the 1.1 mine rules is the fixed loaded facility.

Now, the reason I am concerned about that is quite simply that I think it makes the management of Minelayers so much trouble that mining will simple dissappear from the game as a viable activity. (Some initial feedback from players already using 1.1 suggests that this concern is valid.)

The counter to this concern has been that within the scope of the game the mine assembly depots could not be moved which I am quite happy to accept for the sake of argument (even though it seems other major construction work like building ports is possible.)

However, what I don't understand is why the Minelayers themselves have to make the trip back to the Mine Assembly plants to reload.

Paul tells us in his post dated 15.6.2002 that by Nov43 there was a forward mine depot on Guadacanal which was supplying mines to units sowing the slot. He also states that from 4 May 1943 the US Minelayers were receiving mines on station which were being ferried out to them by the SS James McPherson (which I assume is not a submarine).

So it would appear that even before the end of the period covered by #17 the USN had established a method of replenshing their mining units without withdrawing them to Noumea.

All dgaad and I are really asking is that within the context of the game we be given the option to bring forward the schedule those arrangements.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of ferrying mines forward to Lunga or elsewhere using supply ships or having to expend supplies to construct a forward mine depot. I just don't want to be forced to micro-manage the movement of minelayers back and forth.

[dgaad]

Didz : good summation. 100% agreement.

I'm dropping the issue for now. I can deal with the situation in UV, even though I don't like it. I'm fairly sure the fixed location approach will NOT be used in WitP.

[Michael Peck]

Paul, you , Gary and Mike Wood are guilty of a major blunder. What you should have done is to have ZERO mines in the game until 1943.

You made the mistake of assuming that a minor rule would add a little flavor to the game and placate the fanatics. How could you possibly forget that a little taste of honey turns gamers into bears? Or that some players always oppose historical restrictions (i.e., rules that don't let them abuse the system)?

To be fair, it was probably just naivete on your part. You trustingly assumed that mines would be used with a modicum of realism. Instead they've transformed the game from "Uncommon Valor" to "Let's Mine Munda." Never mind that we're beginning "Mine Wars: The Empire Loses Its Tankers" at the time of Coral Sea, when logistical lifelines were so taut that shipping mines to Truk and Noumea would rank just behind toothpaste and shoelaces. Or that the massive Japanese fleet of two slow minelayers would really be scooting up to Lunga to drop mines in the face of lurking Allied ships and planes. I trust you won't make this mistake in WITP - kamikazes shouldn't appear until 1945.

Michael

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Michael Peck
Paul, you , Gary and Mike Wood are guilty of a major blunder. What you should have done is to have ZERO mines in the game until 1943.
l

Yep, and the mine layers were used as cruise ships (Love Boat someone ?) in 1942

Now, let's wait for the patch fix ... and we can begin a new discussion on mine warfare ... in the WITP Forum

[Didz]

Originally posted by Michael Peck
Paul, you , Gary and Mike Wood are guilty of a major blunder. What you should have done is to have ZERO mines in the game until 1943.

I assume this was intended to be a joke but in fact you are perfectly correct. If UV had been advertised as a simulation of Carrier Warfare (like CAW) then there would be no expectations beyond the use of carriers.

Unfortunately, the UV design team keep insisting that this is an operational level wargame and so there is a expectation that the options available will include every alternative that was potentially available to the historical commanders.

Paul has actually made things worse by detailing the extent to which offensive mining was used over this period. Which actually surprised me because I had assumed from discussions up to that point that little offensive mining had taken place.

In fact it appears that for a few days in Aug/Sept 42 mines were the only form of naval defence available to the Marines on Guadacanal. And so as you say the mistakes have already been made and expectations have been raised.

The good news however is that there is very little that needs to be changed to satisfy 'the fanatics' whereupon UV will gain yet another star for brilliance and all this acrymony will hopefully come to an end.