Matrix Games Forums

Whatever, pal. Can't help ya. The little text things that show up in the little reports are just little text things that show up in the little reports. Understand people will go about their business and do what they do regardless of what the designers say. Design says this is how it is. You may, of course do whatever you please.[;)]

how weird, I've thought all this time that destroyers were minesweeper capable because of the swarm fleeing manilla through the sub laid minefield at bataan gets swept by the destroyers passing through. Did some testing and got this report consistently:

TF 219 encounters mine field at Bataan (78,77)

Allied Ships
DD Pope
DD Pillsbury
DD Peary
DD John D. Ford



6 mines cleared

I got 4-6 mines "swept" each day, I wonder if that's FOW where the game just tells you a small number of mines were swept even if none are just because a minesweeping TF is in the hex. I don't think it would correspond with natural decay, mostly cause I don't think the minefield placed at bataan by the japanese subs could have very many mines, not enough to rate 6 lost to attrition per day. But that's just a guess.

Does 4 ships sweeping 4-6 mines sound about right? Would 4 AM's sweep many more... I'll test that I guess.

Edit: Tested with 4 AM's from manilla instead of 4 DD's, swept way more. 17 when they entered the hex, and then 24. After which they were promptly torpedoed by some betties to put an end to that test heh. But the hex showed as cleared after that first day. If I wanted to test whether the DD's would clear the hex I'd have to leave them there a week to get the same number "cleared" and alas I don't think the betties and nells would leave them alive that long.


But I also discovered that destroyers can't form a minesweeper TF if there are no minesweepers in the hex. Put some destroyers in a hex by themselves and you can't make a minesweeper TF with them. Add an AM to the port and you can form a minesweeper TF and just leave the AM in port. So that says to me that DD's arn't supposed to be all by their lonesome in a minesweeper TF.

So now after this thread I find myself wondering if we're gaming the system by making DD minesweeping TF's, do a certain number of mines get swept automatically just cause a TF is in the hex, or are the reports we see fog of war?

But, none minesweepers have a higher chance to hit by mine.

I feel it's rather simple.

1. What JWE told us (what ships can sweep mines).
2. What the manual told us (what ships can exist in a Mine Sweeping TF).
3. What witpq and sredni told us (Destroyers - and certain other smaller warships - when they locate a mine, will destroy the mine if possible - but that is NOT Mine Sweeping).

So what's that noise all about?

ORIGINAL: Nessaja

But, none minesweepers have a higher chance to hit by mine.

My experience with including DD's in minesweeping TF's has not been good. In an effort to protect the valuable minesweepers from submarine threat I started including DD's as escort, my efforts were rewarded more often than not with a sunk DD due to hitting a mine. It didn't matter if the minefield consisted of 10 or 300 mines, the DD's almost always hit one. IMHO...avoid using DD's or any other valuable escorts that can't sweep mines themselves.

ORIGINAL: Rainer

I feel it's rather simple.

1. What JWE told us (what ships can sweep mines).
2. What the manual told us (what ships can exist in a Mine Sweeping TF).
3. What witpq and sredni told us (Destroyers - and certain other smaller warships - when they locate a mine, will destroy the mine if possible - but that is NOT Mine Sweeping).

So what's that noise all about?

Stop trying to bring logic to a thread [;)]

Stop trying to bring logic to a thread

I'm sorry. Forgot for a moment where I am [;)]

I think there is different report when non-minesweeper "destroys" mine, and minesweeper "sweeps", or "widen channel through minefield" (actually I think, that non-minesweepers can not "widen channel"). It would be worth testing, if non-sweepers actually use any ammo during operation.

That is how it worked since WITP, but what were you guys expecting from "developers" who had not played the game, since its release?

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
My experience with including DD's in minesweeping TF's has not been good. In an effort to protect the valuable minesweepers from submarine threat I started including DD's as escort, my efforts were rewarded more often than not with a sunk DD due to hitting a mine. It didn't matter if the minefield consisted of 10 or 300 mines, the DD's almost always hit one. IMHO...avoid using DD's or any other valuable escorts that can't sweep mines themselves.

AM ships tend to have some DCs, also some AMc's are sometimes armed with them. You can safely make Minesweeping TF with only minesweepers. Just find appropriate ships.

That is how it worked since WITP, but what were you guys expecting from "developers" who had not played the game, since its release?

Green button, well deserved.

In the USN, all warships have a "mine detail" and it is stationed when in a suspected mine area. This is NOT to sweep, as you need special gear to do that (thus in the game only certain ships are designated mine "sweepers") but to clear mines. How is this done? Simple, a spotter and a rifleman are stationed on the bow and shoot floating mines. I'm not kidding about this, we had such a detail on both the DLG (later CG) and DDG I was stationed on. Thus I think the fact that DDs in the game "sweep" one or two mines is a reflection of the fact that any ship can station spotters and detonate mines, hopefully at a safe distance!

Yes. And that’s just how it works (kinda, sorta). There’s hundreds of lines to the minefield thing, but it all boils down pretty simply: open ocean/ shallow water, your base/enemy base, the TF type (amphib, surfcom, minewarfare), the TF mission and how long might it linger in the hex (i.e., is it looking for mines, patrolling for something, or just an amphib TF looking to anchor).

And once a minefield is detected, what would the TF do? An amphib/surfcom TF would attempt to avoid and exit the minefield. A minesweep TF would enter the minefield and try to do some bidness.

One detects a minefield in various ways. The most obvious is getting blown up, but that’s not the most desirable method. Another is spotting a mine. Lots of different class types can spot mines. Mine warfare classes (layers and sweepers) and good escort types, in appropriate (mine warfare) TFs have the best shot. But even good escorts in an amphib TF have a “chance” (that’s one way amphib TFs “detect” minefields).

So what does one do when they detect a mine? They get a “chance” to destroy (shoot) it. Depending on the TF type, the combat report message will be a bit different. A lucky tuna boat in an amphib TF might get to “destroy” a mine. The same lucky tuna boat in a minesweeping TF might get to “clear” a mine. It’s all loops within loops with the minesweep TF components looping to the “clear mines” text messages, and others looping to the “destroy mines” text messages, because the mine TFs are wanting to “clear”, while the others are wanting to “avoid/exit”.

So, yes, those escort types in a Sweep TF can detect mines (that’s what the TF is there for), and shoot at the ones they find (called “clearing” if they are successful). But shooting (‘clearing’, ‘destroying’, whatever), a mine doesn’t help much. If the TF must remain in a hex with a 200 minefield, it just means the next ship has 199 chance to get whacked instead of 200 (99.9% instead of 100%, base chance).

The only way to keep your ships from getting blown up is sweep a channel through the minefield. And the only class types that can sweep a channel are the ones listed above somewhere. Somewhere down in the dark nitty gritty there’s this check for Amphib TFs where a minefield is detected:
If Path = Exists, Then Go On.
If Not, Go To Sequential Death Roll
Sweeping a channel is utterly different from spotting and potting at individual mines.

Thanks for clearing this up JWE, I'm glad that an assumption of mine has been busted heh.

Actually, you should thank Witpqs. He pushed it and sent a pm saying .. what the hey ..

Tho original posts are all still valid, but I didn't recognize the possibilities for confusion. Brother Witpqs made that quite clear. So thus this more extended discussion. Witpqs is one of those folks I will always go the extra mile for. And it seems it's worthwhile in this instance.

I'm not glad I busted your assumption, but am glad I could help you put things in context.

Ciao. John

Thanks for the detailed explanation, John. You have cleared up misconceptions on my part as well.

ORIGINAL: Sredni

Thanks for clearing this up JWE, I'm glad that an assumption of mine has been busted heh.

Assumption busters ! that sounds like an idea for a TV show [;)]