Matrix Games Forums

I perfectly understand your point, but I don't have that much problems accepting the fact that a DD escort following behind 3 minesweepers can come upon uncleared mines and eventually strike one.

How effective were the minesweepers of 1942? Did they clear everything without leaving any mines after a couple of sweeps?

As to magnetic mines, the Allies had degaussed almots all of their warships by 42 - so a DD shouldn't detonate any of those. Not sure the Japs had magnetic mines either...that was a german invention.

Hi Well I don't think the program/AI is advanced enough to know that you don't want a ship in a TF to actually do what the TF is assigned to do (DD not look for mines but escort MSW)
I've seen lots of AP hit mines in hexes were I had cleared a path.
Just take the freaking DD out of the TF. (The program will think you want it to hunt mines) Make a surface TF with the DD and have it follow the minesweepers (it still might clear mines, and it still might hit mines but at least you'll know it was looking for subs)

degaussing only lasts so long. (basiclly it shorts out the electric charge the ship builds up through passing it's steel hull through salt water (making it attractive to magnetic mines) I think degaussing might be something to add to WITP if there are magnetic mines to worry about.

Thank you for all your insightful comments, especially MOgomi.

I will no longer be playing UV, nor will I be buying WitP.

Good bye all

Technology in warfare is always a battle between offensive measures and defensive countermeasures. Some smart *** designs a mine which can be detonated while moored underwater by the magnetic field of a passing ship....so some other smart *** decides to make wood-hulled minsweepers with outrigger cables to sever the mine cables. Maybe the DD set off one of these bad boys. As I recall, even with 1990's technology a US warship hit a mine off Kuwait..right before the land attack.

Originally posted by Nomad
Thank you for all your insightful comments, especially MOgomi.

I will no longer be playing UV, nor will I be buying WitP.

Good bye all

I would wait until the Matrix or the 2 by 3 staff weigh in on this one before getting your panties in a wad.

The fact that Kid is asking for player input seems to be appropriate, as he can take a look at the frequency of these kind of events in the WitP testing.

Hi, Sorry I didn't think I was being mean. And I was honestly trying to sort out his problem (If DD's in minesweeping TF's hit mines, take them out)

Ah, let him go. If he's that anal about ONE small issue runing his enjoyment of a great game, then we don't need him.

Hmm? Not playing UV? Impossible thought.

I like to use mines in area denial weapon, when I'm playing IJN you can walk from Guadalcanal to Bougainville.

Laws of combat, § 45; Mines are equal opportunity weapons.

Hi, Well I don't like to hurt another persons feelings. And I don't do it on purpose. But I can't see why he got up set. And if he was upset at me he should have said
"Pack Sand MOgomi, keep your ideas to your self"

Good grief.

Nomad is acting like a child. Don't apologize to him for something you didn't do.

Originally posted by denisonh
I do not think that mines are the issue, as much as thier use. Offensive minefields are a pain in the a$$, and can cause you more trouble than the enemy. It is the absolute worst thing for your own ships to hit a mine.

Yes, laying mines fields willy-nilly around the Solomons (USN or IJN) makes for a less than enjoyable experience. But it is a decision a player has to make, and can have bad consequences.

The fact is they are not a "silver bullet" at stopping the enemy, but a major league nuisance. And they can create a major problem for your own operations in the area, sometimes more so than the enemy for which they are intended.

Not their use but who they affect. You got APs invading - fine blow the hell out of them with mines. You got a bombardment group offshore then they should not hit mines - neither should surface combat TFs.

Not an expet on the South Pacific (or anything else for that matter) but I don't really know of any bombardments thwarted by mines or surface engagements won by mines.

And in WitP with 50 mile hexes...

Originally posted by Sonny
Not their use but who they affect. You got APs invading - fine blow the hell out of them with mines. You got a bombardment group offshore then they should not hit mines - neither should surface combat TFs.

Not an expet on the South Pacific (or anything else for that matter) but I don't really know of any bombardments thwarted by mines or surface engagements won by mines.

And in WitP with 50 mile hexes...

Agreed

I've got bombarment fleets hitting mines on my list of things to work on.

I've got bombarment fleets hitting mines on my list of things to work on.

Why?

It invalidates the concept of mining a port when the guy can stand off outside of the minefield and completely destroy your base!

We are talking about a 30 mile hex ... It is not like the ships sat 29.9 miles away and lobbed shells at a specific target.

The average night naval combat occurs in the 2000-5000 yard range. That should be WELL within the range of a minefield protecting a large port.

I think there should still be a chance but my experience is that Bombardment TF hit more than their fair share of mines since the last patch.

Also, just because its on the list does not mean it will be worked on.

Rick

See attached.

I think there should still be a chance but my experience is that Bombardment TF hit more than their fair share of mines since the last patch.

Looking at the logic, a Bombardment TF with Retire option has more pressing concerns about getting into position, shooting and fleeing before the sun comes up. Spotting mines in the darkness is not realistic at all, so the higher chance to hit them certainly makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps this reduction should only apply to TF's set not to retire (plans to cruise to the DH and stick around for a while and hammer the target over the course of a few days).

No one has mentioned the number of mines as a factor? Perhaps the hexes the TF is entering and subsequently repeatedly having DD's hit mines in... was a VERY heavily mined hex.

Perhaps, as well, it was even re-mined by the enemy between occurance one and occurance two.

Not that my opinion counts more than anyone else but I think MINES work perfectley as they should and are much more bug free than other more critical areas of the game.

So I for one say leave Mines as they are.

The only enhancement I'd like to see is a current mine count per hex (even if only approx or perhaps with the same color coding as bases, light, medium, dark based on level of mining)....

Sigh......Poor Nomad, we shall miss him greatly.

I do like the idea of color coding a hex for mine density. I really have a hard time keeping track of where and how many mines that I have laid. Of course this coding would only be seen for your mines.

Basically, I agree. Mines seem to work pretty well now. They don't seem to be overly dangerous and add a nice element to the game.

Hi, I was both surprised and sorry to see Nomad depart. We have been posting to the same forums for well over a year. (We used to post quite often in the Pac War forum)

Nomad, Don't take the game so hard. I have experienced both triumph and disaster in UV and really they are both the same. If one game goes the wrong way. Take the experience into the next. And if someone posts something you feel is offensive just let them know.

(and I know some turns, in games where you have devoted a great deal of time and effort are heartbreaking)