Ship mines too rare?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by EUBanana »

Wikipedia actually has an interesting article on naval mines...
Finally, in March 1945, Operation Starvation began in earnest, using 160 of LeMay's B-29 Superfortress bombers to attack Japan's inner zone. Almost half of the mines were the US-built Mark 25 model, carrying 1250 lbs of explosives and weighing about 2,000 lbs. Other mines used included the smaller 1,000 lb Mark 26.[21] 15 B-29s were lost while 293 enemy merchant ships were sunk or damaged.[22] 12,000 aerial mines were laid, a significant barrier to Japan's access to outside resources. Prince Fumimaro Konoe said after the war that the aerial mining by B-29s had been "equally as effective as the B-29 attacks on Japanese industry at the closing stages of the war when all food supplies and critical material were prevented from reaching the Japanese home islands."[23] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War) concluded that it would have been more efficient to combine the United States's effective anti-shipping submarine effort with land- and carrier-based air power to strike harder against merchant shipping and begin a more extensive aerial mining campaign earlier in the war. Survey analysts projected that this would have starved Japan, forcing an earlier end to the war.[24] After the war, Dr. Johnson looked at the Japan inner zone shipping results, comparing the total economic cost of submarine-delivered mines versus air-dropped mines and found that, though 1 in 12 submarine mines connected with the enemy as opposed to 1 in 21 for aircraft mines, the aerial mining operation was about ten times less expensive per enemy ton sunk.[25]

1 in 12 sub mines scored a hit?  thats far higher than I would have thought.


Image
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by Yamato hugger »

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

1 in 12 sub mines scored a hit?  thats far higher than I would have thought.

Not terribly surprising when you consider that the US ran less than 50 sub mine missions in the entire war (I dont know about Dutch and British boats) and therefore little to no effort would be wasted looking for them.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by JWE »

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.

The game attempts to be as historical as possible, in those areas IN WHICH IT CAN.

In those areas in which it cannot, due to engine limitations, it must rely on a more simplistic approach. It is all well and good to hop on a high historical horse, but if the game cannot replicate every single historical factor, especially the most significant ones, then all of the historicity arguments become fun, informative, humorous, but in the main, irrelevant.

Please also not that, in accord with engine driven mine warfare, you get over 18,000 'free' mines, that are auto-generated at turn start, that can be maintained by intelligently deployed ACMs.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: JWE

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.

I get the impression that the majority are air dropped.

And air dropped naval mines have no limit at the moment, no?
Image
User avatar
Cap Mandrake
Posts: 20737
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:37 am
Location: Southern California

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by Cap Mandrake »

ORIGINAL: JWE

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.

The game attempts to be as historical as possible, in those areas IN WHICH IT CAN.

In those areas in which it cannot, due to engine limitations, it must rely on a more simplistic approach. It is all well and good to hop on a high historical horse, but if the game cannot replicate every single historical factor, especially the most significant ones, then all of the historicity arguments become fun, informative, humorous, but in the main, irrelevant.

Please also not that, in accord with engine driven mine warfare, you get over 18,000 'free' mines, that are auto-generated at turn start, that can be maintained by intelligently deployed ACMs.

That is a good point. There is no doubt that something needed to be done re. "Mines in the Pacific". How many times have you seen 10,000 mines protecting a 1/2 mile wide coral atoll sitting on top of a seamount where the water drops off to 5,000 ft 200 yds offhsore?
Image
User avatar
Sheytan
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:53 pm

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by Sheytan »

Bit too early isnt it to see the long term impact this may have, after all excluding the playtesters, does anyone know how reduced mines will play out over the duration of the campaign? Also it has been noted the Japanese didnt exactally seed the length and breadth of the Pacific with minefields.
User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by wworld7 »

Trusting Wiki is foolhardy.
Flipper
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: JWE

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.

The game attempts to be as historical as possible, in those areas IN WHICH IT CAN.

In those areas in which it cannot, due to engine limitations, it must rely on a more simplistic approach. It is all well and good to hop on a high historical horse, but if the game cannot replicate every single historical factor, especially the most significant ones, then all of the historicity arguments become fun, informative, humorous, but in the main, irrelevant.

Please also not that, in accord with engine driven mine warfare, you get over 18,000 'free' mines, that are auto-generated at turn start, that can be maintained by intelligently deployed ACMs.

That is a good point. There is no doubt that something needed to be done re. "Mines in the Pacific". How many times have you seen 10,000 mines protecting a 1/2 mile wide coral atoll sitting on top of a seamount where the water drops off to 5,000 ft 200 yds offhsore?

Plenty of times over the past 4 or 5 years, which is why we did what we did. It's not realistic.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I found some production figures once of Mk 6 mines, and in a 6 month period (in WW-I) they produced an average of 1500 mines a day.

That production was part of the idea to close the North Sea w/ a giant mine barrage (100-150k mines?). Wasn't one of the brightest or most economical ideas of the war. I know you're just using the figure as an example and I'm not saying that such production couldn't have been replicated or even approached in WW2 but there would have to have been a good reason to do so.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by Terminus »

And there was none in WWII. WWI figures hardly apply in this case.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Plenty of times over the past 4 or 5 years, which is why we did what we did. It's not realistic.
I think Termie's comment is extremely well taken, but it needs to be expanded: "It's not realistic" needs to be expressed as "it cannot be realistic".

I know many people won't like this, but none of them were on the team, and none of them knew what we would have had to do to make it so.

Mines in the Pacific ain't a player. And that's a fact, Jack. Don't like it, it's Editor city.
Speedysteve
Posts: 15974
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by Speedysteve »

FWIW I agree
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7669
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by wdolson »

The vast majority of mines laid in the real world were defensive mine fields in extreme rear areas.  Those minefields are laid automatically at the beginning of the game.  Most of the mine production that is "missing" was used maintaining these fields.

The numbers a player gets in game is about what was available to use for offensive minefields or forward base defensive minefields. 

As someone in this thread said, there is always the editor to change it if you don't like it.  That's one of the strengths of this game, IMO.  You get a powerful editor and the ability to change almost anything you want with devices and OOB.

Bill
SCW Development Team
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by pad152 »

That's what I did, I gave a production/replacement rate of 60 per month for each mine type. Thats only about two or three mine ops for each side each month.


lostsm
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:06 pm

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by lostsm »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The idea was to turn the game away from Mines in the Pacific, like we used to have.

Not saying it absolutely, positively won't be changed, there's always room for tweaking, but let's see...
sounds good. i haven't been playing as long as many of you have, but it sounds like i won't have to deal with the mine laying micromanagement thing anymore; which i'm very happy about
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by Feltan »

Well I won't say I am happy about this design decision.

I was hoping it would be toned down from WITP. Ideally, the Japanese player would be able to increase factory production of mines and take the HI hit -- essentially trading off mines for ships, planes, etc. I was hoping the remote Pacific Islands would be treated as deep water to prevent ubermining of areas that simply can't be effectively mined. However, I was assuming the design team would allow for the heavy defensive mining of the home islands and China/Formosa coast -- as actually happened.

I will withhold final judgement until I get a few years into the game, but I suspect the pendulum has swung too far into the anti-mine camp.

Regards,
Feltan
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by Yamato hugger »

Well, let me say 2 things here. First of all, I didnt say that because of the WW-I figures that the WW-II figures were anything near that. I pointed out that mine production was cheap and fast and therefore in effect "unlimited".

Secondly, and perhaps more important and the point you all seem to be missing so I will say it again - slowly.

The point of mines isnt to cause casualties, it is to slow the other guys advance.
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by Feltan »

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well, let me say 2 things here. First of all, I didnt say that because of the WW-I figures that the WW-II figures were anything near that...


They didn't have to be, the mines and mine laying systems got better in inter-war years.

How many U-boats tried to run the channel or hug the east coast of England during WWII?

Regards,
Feltan
jimh009
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 10:54 am
Contact:

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by jimh009 »

I'm glad "Mines in the Pacific" is gone...and I can understand why Matrix dialed mine warfare back so dramatically. Perhaps in the next patch mine production can be somewhat increased for both sides. But, before doing that, all of us players need to see the impact of the new mine warefare levels first.

Additionally, perhaps another solution to the "mine problem" might be to keep the limited mine production in the game now(thus allowing players to create a few minefields where they want) while having a "semi-permanent" mine field in those locations that had them during the war. By semi-permanent, I mean the minefield stays at one level throughout the war until the opposing side clears it out. Thus, all the big Jap bases could have these semi-permanent mine fields (making things a bit hairy for allied submarines).

Anyways, just a thought.
User avatar
BrucePowers
Posts: 12090
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 6:13 pm

RE: Ship mines too rare?

Post by BrucePowers »

Bill just told you you can use the editor to change mine production to whatever you want. You do not have to wait for a patch. Try it out, play with it, run a couple of test scenarios. You guys get to choose. The editor is there so you can do with your game whatever you want.
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful.

Lieutenant Bush - Captain Horatio Hornblower by C S Forester
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”