Not a Known ANW Issue? #08 - List Issue #117 Sonobuoy endurance display error

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I'd developed a mine system some years ago when it was possible to have facilities placed "underwater". It's in the HUD3 still (I don't delete much) in the following form:

All moot since this hasn't been possible since the release of 3.8.0 5/29/2007.

Fixed: Installations can no longer have components inserted over water

http://www.computerharpoon.com/wiki/mai ... inor_fixes

The PlayersDB simulates mines similar to the approach taken by HCE. Submarines firing explosive charge are made to simulate mines. There are lots of drawbacks to this implementation, but the ability to sweep mines by destroying the mine-subs was deemed more important than the associated short-comings. As with any work-around solution, it is rarely perfect.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Some possibilities include:

The individual "mine as a weapon" model - lots of entities for the GE to track

OR

The positioning of a minefield as a modification of the current Threat Poly code?

The second concept would allow for the creation of a large area minefield without the GE having to "keep track" of 1000's of mines/weapon entities.

For example a zone could be created using the threat poly feature or modification thereof and the ability to add values

I think that the 'individual weapon calculation' method would be far preferable to the more 'abstract (zone) minefield' method for a number of reasons.
[ol][*]I don't agree that there should be any type of initial/followup implementation.

There doesn't appear to be a desperate and urgent demand for this feature. i.e. Designers do not appear to be clamouring for it in order to write 30-40 scenarios. It is likely better to do it the best way once, than to do one type of implementation that is only going to be superseded by a second change.

Showing users one way to use a function and then expecting them to switch to another in the future is problematic as they may very well design things in expectation of the original behaviour. However, if both mine techniques were to be supported in the future, that would probably be okay even if it were a bit redundant.

[*]I agree that the incredible calculations required by the insertion of individual weapons is, indeed, a huge and major drawback for this type of implementation.

Harpoon does try to simulate individual weapons for the most part. At the same time, it is also able to simulate things like bursts of gunfire in lieu of individual bullet rounds. The mine situation might need such a (slight and understandable) abstraction.

Several PlayersDB scenarios already employ significant numbers (100+) of mines and the memory requirements are huge. Anyone who has fired 100 TLAM knows just how sluggishly a PC can run while they are in flight. Even though the number of mines are high, they are only meant to represent 1000s of mines that would actually be used.

The memory requirements were quite monstrous for many H2 scenarios, too. However, processors eventually caught up to them and those previously unplayable gigantic scenarios have run quite speedily for many years.

[*]Most weapons and combat results in H3 are quantifiable.

i.e. a specific number of weapons/units are used. Movement away from this standard in favour of generic zone calculations would be akin to removing the individual SAM/AAA units and just marking areas in enemy territory as 'dangerous zones' with XX% of planes being shot down if they enter an Air Threat zone. I do not believe that users would regard such a shift favourably.

[*]Mutation of a pre-existing function should probably be avoided.

The pre-existing NAV zone functions are pretty important. They mark and delineate areas that the user does not want crossed by certain units. Trying to place additional demands on the system is wrong because it is more than likely to compromise their current function.

The system was meant to mark areas for the navigator. If an area/zone mine system is selected (I hope not), then it might be better to set it up free and clear of the NAV system; which could then be used to mark it as the user sees fit. To physically link the current NAV zones to new behaviours would likely contaminate and dilute both old and new functions.

[*]Using an abstracted method of calculation for determining whether or not a ship has hit a mine

might already be adequately simulated under current H3/ANW conditions without the need for any additional code changes.[/ol]
Just so it's clear, I am neither asking nor advocating any new feature request or implementation. These comments are only offered on potential problems and implications if AGSI should decide to pursue creation of the mine warfare capability.

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I'd developed a mine system some years ago when it was possible to have facilities placed "underwater". It's in the HUD3 still (I don't delete much) in the following form:

All moot since this hasn't been possible since the release of 3.8.0 5/29/2007. - DJB Highlight.

Fixed: Installations can no longer have components inserted over water

http://www.computerharpoon.com/wiki/mai ... inor_fixes

<<EDIT>>

... As with any work-around solution, it is rarely perfect.

Herman,

I attempt to conduct a serious discussion that interested players can take part in, and again you turn this into an opportunity to criticise me, along with my previous work in relation to the game. I'm sorry you feel it's all moot... I was just hoping that, by looking at previous attempts we might find a possible happy solution for everyone.

Your response was uncalled for, and when I thought about it later kind of funny. I'd already stated they no longer work and was nothing more than my approach to overcoming the lack of mine warfare in H2AE. So the Installation is maybe 10 years old and yes the change whenever it was implemented killed it.

I have this really nice screen capture program, anyway I suppose the point is moot afterall... So moot you included the unit in the PDB.

Oh and you raised the whole mine warfare issue when you started us down this path and mentioning ANW Pro. As you kept saying, people will make up their own minds. Then later in the thread come back with this response:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I don't agree that there should be any type of initial/followup implementation.

There doesn't appear to be a desperate and urgent demand for this feature. i.e. Designers do not appear to be clamouring for it in order to write 30-40 scenarios.

Then why raise it initially as you did, and when I attempt to guage the attitude of anyone with any level of interest you get negative. I'll post again shortly in regard to an abstracted model for mine warfare and some reasons why.

Cheers

Darren Buckley

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I attempt to conduct a serious discussion that interested players can take part in, and again you turn this into an opportunity to criticise me, along with my previous work in relation to the game. I'm sorry you feel it's all moot... I was just hoping that, by looking at previous attempts we might find a possible happy solution for everyone.

Your response was uncalled for, and when I thought about it later kind of funny. I'd already stated they no longer work and was nothing more than my approach to overcoming the lack of mine warfare in H2AE. So the Installation is maybe 10 years old and yes the change whenever it was implemented killed it.

I have this really nice screen capture program, anyway I suppose the point is moot afterall... So moot you included the unit in the PDB.

Oh and you raised the whole mine warfare issue when you started us down this path and mentioning ANW Pro. As you kept saying, people will make up their own minds. Then later in the thread come back with this response:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I don't agree that there should be any type of initial/followup implementation.

There doesn't appear to be a desperate and urgent demand for this feature. i.e. Designers do not appear to be clamouring for it in order to write 30-40 scenarios.

Then why raise it initially as you did, and when I attempt to guage the attitude of anyone with any level of interest you get negative. I'll post again shortly in regard to an abstracted model for mine warfare and some reasons why.

Cheers

Darren Buckley

All that was said was that the implementation of mines as underwater ground facilties is no longer functional. As usual, you can try and imply that that the PlayersDB has somehow wrongly used the HUD-II without permission. Sorry, that argument has already been resolved.
[blockquote]This is your own license and has been followed to the letter.

You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the HUD3 and all or parts of it's underlying models. You may also edit or adapt the HUD3 database to your own needs. By doing so you are agreeing to fully attribute Darren Buckley as the Editor of the HUD-II and HUD3 databases and you agree to include this information with your own Database's XML file as used in the Harpoon 3 ANW Launcher. This Database may not be used for any commercial purpose without the express permission and agreement of Darren Buckley.

[/quote]
fb.asp?m=2077992

Mine warfare was accidentally mentioned in passing by Freek Schepers. He misunderstood that how the mines were implemented in the PlayersDB.

ORIGINAL: FreekS

PDB in the past modeled mines as torpedoes, which worked fairly well, except you had to find a way to insert them into a scenario as the designer which proved to have more disadvantages than advantages.

fb.asp?m=2144066

The HUD-II mine launcher setup was left in the current version of the PlayersDB because it is a legacy unit/function. We only add and never delete (even if the old functions are obsolete and no longer in use). Instead, we might label them as 'obsolete units' in case anyone has already built something with them. That way, old scenarios always function with the PlayersDB.

The prime directive of the PlayersDB is "Primum non nocere" which means, 'First, do no harm'.

[Bucks]

Thanks,

I just wanted to be sure everyone knew exactly what it was Herman. I wouldn't want a moral concern or ethical, "moment of conscience" keeping you from anything.

Anyway back to mines...

Darren

[Bucks]

I considered mine warfare as a partly abstracted model rather than individual mines being placed on map by scenario designers and possibly by players if the laying process was modelled as well.

My primary concern is sheer numbers. The Mine weapon type is new, it would require coding to be a functiong Entity within the game and WOULD eat processor cycles; in some cases with minimal impact on actual play. I mean unless you run into one or start clearing them they don't exist, the threat of them is in your mind though.

To ask the GE and your PC to cycle through who knows how many added Entities that, as stated may not enter play is wasteful. Although many people may have computers capable of running ANW easily others may simply have older hardware.

The idea of an abstracted model may be more readily undertood once a resolution procedure or at least a framework of one is available for consideration. It could also be considered in terms of known history.

The following diagram is taken from, A Military Atlas of the First World War, Arthur Banks, Heinemann London 1975. Page 268. Simply considering the relatively small areas involved, the numbers of mines used in naval warfare is staggering.

Cheers

Darren

[Bucks]

G'day,

Here's my representation of the WW1 "Northern Barrage" as displayed on a map created with the latest ANW 3.10 Beta. I've added some calculations and we can see that in an historical context the individual mine model may only apply to small areas and maps. The abstracted model could be used across all scenario sizes and would allow easy modelling on larger areas as displayed in my example.






Cheers

Darren Buckley

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I just wanted to be sure everyone knew exactly what it was Herman. I wouldn't want a moral concern or ethical, "moment of conscience" keeping you from anything.

No problem. Those who follow the law need never fear it. Always happy to point out the facts.

ORIGINAL: Bucks

My primary concern is sheer numbers. The Mine weapon type is new, it would require coding to be a functiong Entity withing the game and WOULD eat processor cycles; in some cases with minimal impact on actual play. I mean unless you run into one or start clearing them they don't exist, the threat of them is in your mind though.

To ask the GE and your PC to cycle through who knows how many added Entities that, as stated may not enter play is wasteful. Although many people may have computers capable of running ANW easily others may simply have older hardware.

Technically, the Mine category for Weapons has been a category since H2 (although it wasn't functional.) Otherwise, this is very true. It is likely the biggest impediment to simulating individual mine weapons. [:(]

Potentially, thousands of units/weapons might have to be tracked. Also, they try to detect and one another and all the other units in the game. So, 1,000 units would probably mean over 1,000,000 detection calculations.

At this point, it's only discussion. However, I think it significant to note that someone using a "individual mine weapon representation" system can probably more easily accommodate the "area / zone calculation" system than vice-versa. He can always choose to insert fewer individual mines. I don't see how the zone calculation method can allow the user to implement any Individual weapons system, though.

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I just wanted to be sure everyone knew exactly what it was Herman. I wouldn't want a moral concern or ethical, "moment of conscience" keeping you from anything.

No problem. Those who follow the law need never fear it. Always happy to point out the facts.

Maybe, and maybe mindlessly following the law to the letter may not always save you from guilt. I'm sure adherence to laws in various States during the period 1933 - 1945 may have constituted "following the law". It was later shown to be of no value when defending oneself against charges brought when others and the majority at that, saw the behaviour as illegal. - DJB Comment

<<EDIT>>

At this point, it's only discussion. However, I think it significant to note that someone using a "individual mine weapon representation" system can probably more easily accommodate the "area / zone calculation" system than vice-versa. He can always choose to insert fewer individual mines. I don't see how the zone calculation method can allow the user to implement any Individual weapons system, though.

Sorry Herman, the logic has lost me somewhere...

Your suggesting you'd be happy to lay an almost 70,000 indvidual mine, minefield?

Being an Aussie and it should apply to Canadians, the area I've shown is not quite half the distance between Melbourne and Sydney down here, "as the crow flies" and is small in relation to the size of our countries. To Europeans it may seem some distance. I've driven the 230nm length and back several times here within a day. Never left Victoria... (smallest mainland state).

My abstraction model allows a minefield to be placed anywhere and of ANY size. The variables for laying time (if not, "in place" - by scen designer during construction), clearance times, density etc etc are simply added during construction of the scenario. Player inserted minefields would obviously have to be of limited size with a laying time component and variables to the normal "pre-scen" minefields.

Surely drawing a Polygon and then providing it with a set of values representing the chance of a ship detonating a mine, the effort required to clear a channel of X nm width across Y nm of a field of given density etc; at the same time minimising the extra calculations each individual mine would require. My approach simply runs checks against existing Entity classes (ships/subs) and by that very decision reduces the number of possible opportunities for the code to fail. Any reasonable sized minefield using the individual weapon model system exposes the code to needless cycles and must have a detrimental effect on the use of the Time Compression feature.

In fact by using time compression there's a good chance some mines may become ineffective as the level of accuracy is reduced in an effort to keep the game moving at real time when under compression. All starting to become self-defeating me thinks. By the way I never claimed my system could model an individual weapon model. I stated it could,

ORIGINAL: Bucks
*** In response to Herman's misrepresentation of my statements

... The abstracted model could be used across all scenario sizes and would allow easy modelling on larger areas as displayed in my example.

You simply create a polygon of say 10nm length and 5nm width, 50nm Sq.
Density is measured by:

# of mines / Square NM - Using WW1 Example Density of 3.88/nm Sq. from above

194 to be placed in the polyon area using individual weapon representation model

OR

Draw Polygon, click property node and enter Density of 3.88 or 4 depending on underlying calculations being used to determine detonation chances, clearance times, mine type... Click ok. How many have you got left to add Herman? The method I've just outlined works for areas as large as the WW1 "Northern Barrage" I used as an example right down to single square NM areas for example.

Cheers

Darren Buckley

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I just wanted to be sure everyone knew exactly what it was Herman. I wouldn't want a moral concern or ethical, "moment of conscience" keeping you from anything.

No problem. Those who follow the law need never fear it. Always happy to point out the facts.

Maybe, and maybe mindlessly following the law to the letter may not always save you from guilt. I'm sure adherence to laws in various States during the period 1933 - 1945 may have constituted "following the law". It was later shown to be of no value when defending oneself against charges brought when others and the majority at that, saw the behaviour as illegal. - DJB Comment

And the shoe would have been on the other foot had the war gone the other way, too. As usual, another worthless argument.

A long time ago, a wise man once told me that the first side desperate enough to resort to a Nazi reference in a flame war was the loser. I can see his wisdom, now.

ORIGINAL: Bucks

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

<<EDIT>>

At this point, it's only discussion. However, I think it significant to note that someone using a "individual mine weapon representation" system can probably more easily accommodate the "area / zone calculation" system than vice-versa. He can always choose to insert fewer individual mines. I don't see how the zone calculation method can allow the user to implement any Individual weapons system, though.

Your suggesting you'd be happy to lay an almost 70,000 indvidual mine, minefield?

[/quote]
The point is that I can lay 70,000 individual mines if I so choose. I can also lay any number < 70,000, too. That's my decision and not one imposed upon me.

IMO, it is far preferable to simply marking out a 'dangerous mine area' and leaving it up to the "random proximity generator" to tell me if I've hit a mine or not.

[FreekS]

Ehhh,

To bring this discussion to a more practical level:

I'm interested to use mines in a new scenario. It would be in numbers sufficient to block fairly narrow bodies of water or harbours (Falkland Sound for example)

Requirement would be the mines could be swept by dedicated minesweepers and would not be accidentally discovered and attacked by ASW helicopters or Submarines (unless using realistic anti mine operations using dedicated helicopters or divers)

Is this possible WITH CURRENT 3.6, 3.94 GE?

Freek

P.S. Still in the face of the enormous challenges mentioned by the two distinguished authors above, I'm modestly proud of the mine setup in Approach, where I mined the whole Western Appraches (nicknamed Winnies Welcome Mat). I'm sure a smart DB editor could have created an anti mine weapon that could have been used on a minesweeper. Some kind of anti torpedo weapon would have done the trick. Not a new request as the scen in question does not work in ANW anymore because satelites don;t reach functional altitudes on the Ferry mission anymore (that IS is feature request)

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

<<EDIT>>

The point is that I can lay 70,000 individual mines if I so choose. I can also lay any number < 70,000, too. That's my decision and not one imposed upon me.

IMO, it is far preferable to simply marking out a 'dangerous mine area' and leaving it up to the "random proximity generator" to tell me if I've hit a mine or not.

Be very careful of the "random proximity generator"; it might be like the "random number generator" that, determines if weapons hit or not... It's a game, a simulation the whole thing is abstracted.

Herman if you want 1 mine/nm Sq you can, you want say 500 you can in the system I've suggested. To me and I imagine a few people it's just the horrible thought that something I suggested might infect your game? Or you just can't kick the imagination into life? I mean we could still have the GE add the mine icons inside polygon so you get that visual cue if that helps. Nobody is making you do a thing, even if this was adopted, not like I'm have any control over you to make you do anything you simply don't wish to.

Later

Darren

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Be very careful of the "random proximity generator"; it might be like the "random number generator" that, determines if weapons hit or not... It's a game, a simulation the whole thing is abstracted.

Of course, the game is just one big random number generator. The difference is that the random numbers are generated by individual units/weapons trying to determine detection, hit, etc. I guess that the game could also just approximate aircraft strikes, too. i.e. 10 aircraft assigned to a mission with a historic 20% loss rate so the game just assumes that 8 planes get through. The PoK of the weapons is 50% so just assume that half the weapons hit. No need to actually launch the mission and move the aircraft across the map and execute the attack. No need to move them through the air and track pesky things like AAA and SAMs. Just roll the dice as soon at the planes become available. They won't even need to leave the hangar.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: FreekS

I'm interested to use mines in a new scenario. It would be in numbers sufficient to block fairly narrow bodies of water or harbours (Falkland Sound for example)

Requirement would be the mines could be swept by dedicated minesweepers and would not be accidentally discovered and attacked by ASW helicopters or Submarines (unless using realistic anti mine operations using dedicated helicopters or divers)

Is this possible WITH CURRENT 3.6, 3.94 GE?

I do not believe that this is currently possible with either H3 or ANW (not to the extent you request, at least). However, I think that the PlayersDB implementation will get you the closest to your goal.

The PlayersDB currently simulates mines as little submarines. Unfortunately, game limitations are also a factor.

The Pros of this implementation are:
[ol][*]Mines can be detected individually and destroyed
[*]Target speed is irrelevant since mines will 'detonate' when a target is within 1nm range[/ol]
The Cons of this implementation are:
[ol][*]Mines can be detected by MAD sensor.
Although mines can always be ordered to deeper depth, most mines are employed in Shallow water.
[*]Mines at -20m will reveal themselves to radar with their 'periscope'.
There is no way to not have a periscope on a sub.
[*]All anti-sub weapons will work against mine-subs, too.
I don't know if Mk 48 and Mk 46 torpedoes are capable against mines.
[*]Mines do not destroy themselves after they explode against the target even though they are no longer armed.
[*]H3 only - mines must have a firing range of 1nm since game does not allow a shorter weapon range.[/ol]
I recommend that you:
[ol][*]Insert the mines into your scenario.
Be careful to note which ones are capable against subs, ships, or both. Also, be careful not to place mines too closely to one another as they can destroy other mines.
[*]Create a delayed specific ship/sub strike mission against all potential targets.
For a 24 hr scenario, I use a 25 hr delay. The mines will still work against their intended targets. This prevents the mission from 'activating' and having the mines float to the surface.
[*]Set the mission sonar as Intermittent 2min, 50%, 10min, 50% or something like that. Other settings definitely possible.
[*]Order the mines to sit on the sea floor whenever possible[/ol]

ORIGINAL: FreekS

I'm sure a smart DB editor could have created an anti mine weapon that could have been used on a minesweeper. Some kind of anti torpedo weapon would have done the trick.

If mines are made as torpedoes, all anti-torpedo weapons like decoys will also have an effect on them.

[TonyE]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

G'day,

Here's my representation of the WW1 "Northern Barrage" as displayed on a map created with the latest ANW 3.10 Beta. I've added some calculations and we can see that in an historical context the individual mine model may only apply to small areas and maps. The abstracted model could be used across all scenario sizes and would allow easy modelling on larger areas as displayed in my example.

Cheers

Darren Buckley

I can't think 70,000 individual mines would be a pleasant thing calculation-wise. A question for the abstracted model, how would you clear a channel? Granted this witdth of 80nm would be a monumental channel but the idea stands for smaller fields. I'd have no interest in clearing 70,000 mines but I might want to clear a 4nm channel (x 80nm x 4 mines/sqnm ~= 1280 mines) to have a navigable path. If my clearing is only reducing the average # of mines per sq nm then I'm not clearing a channel, I'm just barely picking away at the minefield as a whole. Would clearing a channel be instead be changing that polygon (eventually splitting it into two minefields in the entire channel approach)?

Thanks

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Be very careful of the "random proximity generator"; it might be like the "random number generator" that, determines if weapons hit or not... It's a game, a simulation the whole thing is abstracted.

Of course, the game is just one big random number generator. The difference is that the random numbers are generated by individual units/weapons trying to determine detection, hit, etc. I guess that the game could also just approximate aircraft strikes, too. i.e. 10 aircraft assigned to a mission with a historic 20% loss rate so the game just assumes that 8 planes get through. The PoK of the weapons is 50% so just assume that half the weapons hit. No need to actually launch the mission and move the aircraft across the map and execute the attack. No need to move them through the air and track pesky things like AAA and SAMs. Just roll the dice as soon at the planes become available. They won't even need to leave the hangar.

Wrong again...

To get the "individual aircraft" into the air in the first place... You had to use the abstracted handling of aircraft that exists in H2, H3, H3 ANW.

Surely you can see that mines, land or sea based are called, "area denial" weapons for a reason. In fact a mine never has to hit a target if you only wish to keep your opponent from being able to operate in a given area. I just can't see mines being directly "fired" at a target, with the exception of Captor types and therefore your argument immediately falls down.

If we follow your logic Herman, it won't be long before we're checking for bird strikes as well as ground crew getting sucked into a jet engine? You make it out that I want everything abstracted, and I have NEVER said that. Again you are misrepresenting me for your own ends (whatever they may be). You are negative about this game and your attitude does have a direct effect on the community (what remains after your series of hostile attitudes to other contributors).

I've put forward suggestions for DISCUSSSION, and no mater what I've said in this or any other thread here, you immediately take an opposing stance. I'm not sure, maybe I missed the update; You're the official Matrix "Devil's Advocate" now? I've presented ideas and even facts from history to back my argument.

I'd now like to invite you to:

- Explain your "model" as I have

- Show the effect of variable numbers of "individual weapon" mine Entities on game performance

- Your preliminary concept of resolving various mine type's attacks:
i.e. - Floating, Moored, Hydostatic Fuzed, Magnetic Fuzed, Delayed Activation (Initial Mining of Haiphong Harbour was commenced 72 hours before the mines "went active"). Not so good to catch neutrals in the port or kill 'em on the way out... Captor Mines, Laying Rates, platform or mine type dependent, Clearance rates?

That should get you started I'll be waiting to check out your ideas. That Latin you're quoting... It'll bite ya on the bum if you're not careful. Not changing stuff or keeping the DB up to spec with regard to the current game version will mean your list grows. I understand why you would copy the HUD3, afterall with Dale's help initially so I knew where we'd moved to and Russell being prepared to both explain and listen, the game is not what it was and is moving forward and the DB needs to as well.

Anyway, I'll be making a link available shortly to a small video file showing a teaser of one of the upcoming features available to DB Editors in ANW 3.10. This is all thanks to Russell and his ability to listen and act on things from real life that make the game a better experience as well as maintain its place as the most accurate Naval Warfare simulation available to the public.

Cheers

Darren

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

To get the "individual aircraft" into the air in the first place... You had to use the abstracted handling of aircraft that exists in H2, H3, H3 ANW.

Surely you can see that mines, land or sea based are called, "area denial" weapons for a reason. In fact a mine never has to hit a target if you only wish to keep your opponent from being able to operate in a given area. I just can't see mines being directly "fired" at a target, with the exception of Captor types and therefore your argument immediately falls down.

As usual, try to attack someone who dares to voice a different opinion. You can scream all you like. A bad idea is still a bad idea regardless of the volume.

In that same sense, a SAM unit is just an 'area denial' weapon, too. As are diesel submarines. Since many believe that diesel-electric submarines are nothing more than mobile minefields. If minefields can be made into abstract zones, the same can be said for diesel-electric submarines. There are plenty of games that simulate operational level combat. Thankfully, Harpoon isn't one of them.

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: TonyE

I can't think 70,000 individual mines would be a pleasant thing calculation-wise. A question for the abstracted model, how would you clear a channel? Granted this witdth of 80nm would be a monumental channel but the idea stands for smaller fields. I'd have no interest in clearing 70,000 mines but I might want to clear a 4nm channel (x 80nm x 4 mines/sqnm ~= 1280 mines) to have a navigable path. If my clearing is only reducing the average # of mines per sq nm then I'm not clearing a channel, I'm just barely picking away at the minefield as a whole. Would clearing a channel be instead be changing that polygon (eventually splitting it into two minefields in the entire channel approach)?

Thanks

Thanks Tony,

My approach looked at your question as follows in the screen capture and notes. I would need to get some numbers posted so people can see how it would "interact" exactly.

The screenshot should expalin it without much detail at present. I'll get a reasonable write up done with examples and see what people think then.

Yes, either the original minefield Poly is now split with two "wings" of the original strength minefield and the player's new channel with the residual "random mine" chance in a recently cleared channel applicable. These polys could be represented using the mine icon applied along the boundaries of the "field" possibly. They don't keep ships out they simply designate where each type of detonation chance/minefield apply, modified by player operations.

Cheers

Darren Buckley

[Bucks]

Whatever Herman,

Please take up my invitation to explain your system then. It's so easy to sit back and criticise, maybe harder to counter an idea with another?

Again, with the exception of captor mines, they don't "fire" in a traditional sense. What's the range of a contact mine? 0nm... ok what's the GE going to do with a 0, crash maybe? Then again I wouldn't know so far if you'd excluded that by some means. GE minimum range is about 185m (409 DU), is that ok for you to say, "within 185m - BANG!" When in reality the weapon and ship really have to physically come into contact? Standard mine from aircraft today is a modified Mk 82 bomb, I bet there were plenty of pilots who dropped within 200m of friendlies with standard Mk82s; with much appreciation from those on the ground. You'll say in water of variable depth that 200m will cause damage or kills?

If you show everyone what you want with even a few details maybe we could incorporate some. Like this, it's just you sounding off against a discussion. Sorry I don't have an answer to build realistic mines now, I'd rather formulate an idea though and have a good chance of implementation in the near future if I can provide details of an intended model that Russell could use in the future.

Enjoy the evening,

Darren Buckley

[hermanhum]

It seems to me as though you now have "one polygon battling another polygon"; the abstract Mine polygon being swept by the abstract clearance channel polygon.

This game is about ships, subs, planes and land facilities. We don't need all the 3D and graphic glitz of most modern games, but a player probably wants to actually play the game; not just set up abstract/symbolic functions to cancel out one another.

This mine abstraction idea just gets worse and worse.