What To Expect in the Patch

[dgaad]

The proposed limitation of allowing mines to be loaded at only pre-designated, hardcoded locations is a bad idea. The assumption that the Japanese or Americans would have ceased mine laying if Truk or Noumea was lost is completely without foundation.

I agree that mine warfare can be exploited now (having playtested it), and minelaying is far too extensive in the game than is justified by historical uses, what we know about the supply of mines, etc.

Instead of a fixed, unchangeable point, perhaps consider the following, in addition to what matrix has already forwarded in the upcoming patch :

1. Mines can only be loaded at Ports of size 4 or greater.

2. Mines can only be loaded at Ports which have at least 20,000 supplies on hand.

3. Each mine loaded requires 200 supply points per individual mine. For some minelaying ships, this means thousands of points must be expended for a single minelaying run.

This set of changes, in addition to what Matrix is already putting together in the patch, will I think add more justified historical restrictions on the use of mines BUT, will also allow the player some flexibility in the scope of his mine warfare operations.

[strollen]

3. Each mine loaded requires 200 supply points per individual mine. For some minelaying ships, this means thousands of points must be expended for a single minelaying run.

Well 200 is huge amount for a single mine. Let's see that is equivalent to all the av gas, spare parts etc needed by 600 sorties of a PBY or Mavis. It is also enough to supply one of my smaller bases for almost a month. All this for one mine!

It seems to me that historical data shows that mines played a very small role in the war in the south pacific. The new change allows you to lay defensive minefields around your bases, or use your subs to lay them offensively in your enemies terrorities.

You can also lay a small amount in contested waters, but you'll be limited by the transist time of your mine layers. All of this seems pretty historical.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by strollen


It seems to me that historical data shows that mines played a very small role in the war in the south pacific. The new change allows you to lay defensive minefields around your bases, or use your subs to lay them offensively in your enemies terrorities.

Historical data shows that very few ships were lost to mines (about 1.5 % of all ship losses). It also shows that there were enormous resources expended on minelaying, minesweeping and so forth. "Operation Starvation", a USAAC operation in 1945, involved the laying of mines in Japanese home waters, and virtually shut down whatever was left of Japanese merchant shipping operations. View in a context that takes account of more than mere ship losses, mines played a very important and NOT insignificant role in the Pacific.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by strollen


Well 200 is huge amount for a single mine. Let's see that is equivalent to all the av gas, spare parts etc needed by 600 sorties of a PBY or Mavis. It is also enough to supply one of my smaller bases for almost a month. All this for one mine!

You are comparing apples to oranges. Supply points, as you well know, are an abstraction. The purpose of increasing the expenditure of supply points to load a mine is to represent many things that are peculiar to the nature of mines and mine warfare operations, including the following : the personnel expertise it takes to construct, transport and get mines ready for operational use, the relative amount of economic resources that must be used to construct mines, and so forth.

[Paul Vebber]

I thinnk the current rules reflect pretty well the capabilities. The max loadout of mines is part of the class definitions, only Minelayers had the training to do it, (and even a few of them got sunk in the process) so its not the sort of thing any ship should be able to just go do.

For the purposes of this campaign teh theater commander had to work withthe mine facitlities he had, and was not really at liberty to rearrange them, as their scarcity was a "big navy" problem. The game assumes that subtenders make there rounds to assist subs with torps as needed (someting explicted included in WITP) there was a single US mine layer tender, and it will likely appear in WITP, with some more mining options (like Aerial mining). BUt believe it or not it was 1944 before a replacemetn to the WWI mk16 was available in significant numbers!

For the scope of this campaign the new rules do a good job for balancing historical capability against what the player might like to do.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber
I thinnk the current rules reflect pretty well the capabilities. The max loadout of mines is part of the class definitions, only Minelayers had the training to do it, (and even a few of them got sunk in the process) so its not the sort of thing any ship should be able to just go do.

For the purposes of this campaign teh theater commander had to work withthe mine facitlities he had, and was not really at liberty to rearrange them, as their scarcity was a "big navy" problem. The game assumes that subtenders make there rounds to assist subs with torps as needed (someting explicted included in WITP) there was a single US mine layer tender, and it will likely appear in WITP, with some more mining options (like Aerial mining). BUt believe it or not it was 1944 before a replacemetn to the WWI mk16 was available in significant numbers!

For the scope of this campaign the new rules do a good job for balancing historical capability against what the player might like to do.

Well, Paul, while I would tend to agree with your arbitrary rule for the limited purposes of UV implementation, I would have to strongly disagree if this approach is going to be used for WitP as well. Eventually, if you are planning to give the player the flexibility the historical commanders (Nimitz, Yammamoto et al.) had, you are going to have to come up with a set of rules that reflect historical limitations, but which allow some degree of flexibility if the player is willing to commit the time, effort and resources to depart from the strictly historical basing and use. Why not develop the rule now, and implement it in UV, instead of having one arbitrary rule for UV and a more flexible "conditional" approach for WitP?

[Paul Vebber]

Because if we don't work on WIPT it will never be done?

I don't think imposing historical limitations is arbitray any more than not letting the Japanese player decide he wants more level bombers and fewer Zeroes? At the UV level some decisions aren't in the payers hands? Noumea was the only place ship laid mines were configured for offensive use by the US. I believe truk was teh Japanese counterpart, though they may have had a depot at Rabaul later, I can't confirm or date that. Defensive mining was not very effective.

The scale of WITP allows for more "big picture" resource allocation decisions (that is my impression anyway...it is still in the development stage)

The two games will not be identical and should not be, WIPT will add flexibility in some form (whether it be Mine laying tenders like sub tendes, or mine depot engineer land units, or just a "ports of size X can assemble mines" I don't know. Gary and 2by3 make those decisions as the game design is theirs. I don't think they will overlook aerial mining given its effect toward the end of the war either.

Mines really didn't play that big a role until late in the war and there was no way to change that ate SWPAC commander level.. The option to do that earlier at a cost elsewhere will likely be allowed in WITP.

We can't put all the changes we want in WITP in UV and THEN move them to WITP, the opposite will likely occur, a lot of the suggestions made here will be applied in WITP and the applicable eventually backfit into UV.

Have faith! Gary et, al, spays attention here - post away your ideas! I personally don't think supply points is the correct way to "tax" minelaying, but Gary may like the idea!

[mogami]

Hi, Prehaps for Witp. Mines can orginate from landbased Navy ground units (for ships amd Navy aircraft) Army (for Army aircraft) "Minewarfare unit" they will need to be at a base where ships capable of handling mines (both transporting and laying) are based. The size of the landunit will decide how many mines can be loaded onto Minelayers/aircraft per turn

[Chiteng]

Well, there is a simple solution for WITP if not for UV.
Just dont allow mines before say 7/1/43 or some such.
That is what alot of games do. However it IS a bit heavy handed.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by cyberwop
I would like to see ship classes listed in the TF or port display.
When I build AC TF's it would be nice to know which DD's are Clemsons and which are Bensons or Fletchers with out clicking on each individual ship to see the armourment.
Or maybe a collum for AAA values and ASW values [depth charges and sonar type]. Then you could see which ships need to go back to pearl for upgrade.

Very good idea, I second that one. You have to click back and forth between the screens in order to pick the right DD e.g. for ASW work - before I discovered that not all DDs have depth charges I just picked a few DDs for a hunter-killer group and then wondered why nothing happened during a sub hunt, until I realized that by chance I had picket four DDs without DCs...

Actually, the column for AAA/ASW values would be better than a class listing, since within a class individual ships may have different weaponry (due to upgrades).

LST

[RevRick]

Limiting the size of TF's for effective AAA to ten is not even paying attention to later TF size and tactics - and must be trying to force people to play with the failed USN doctrine of single carriers with split escorts. Most of the TG's in either TF38 or TF58 had many more than ten ships in them. But, you guys have had a bug in your ear about this from the beginning.

Now, to another problem - is there anyway to get the ASW forces to do something besides be a self sacrifice?!?!?!? So far the only chance I've seen for anything to actually sink a sub is if the blinkin' thing sinks over the sub with depth charges set and happens to land on top of it.:rolleyes:

[Spooky]

Originally posted by RevRick
Limiting the size of TF's for effective AAA to ten is not even paying attention to later TF size and tactics - and must be trying to force people to play with the failed USN doctrine of single carriers with split escorts. Most of the TG's in either TF38 or TF58 had many more than ten ships in them. But, you guys have had a bug in your ear about this from the beginning.

Yep, but in a huge TF, not all AA ships can fire at the attacking bombers ... so the "diminishing return penalty" seems logical.

Please read again Paul' post :
From what I understand the AA penalty was a "step function" that kicked in at 15 ships that made ships added to that total count less than "full value", so what happens now is a more level decrease from 10 to 15 in this penalty. As I under stand it the penalty is "total teh AA firepower of teh task force and if it has 10 or fewr ships its that total, if 11 ships its reduced a little, 12 ships reduced a little more - the penalty not being bigger than the addition f teh ship, but reflective of the fact that every ship could not engage every target as the task force got large. So yes, at some point adding ships to a very large task force added no real increase in total firepower because an attacking air group could not be engaged by it if it attacked from the opposite side of the formation . So in effect it "wasn't there". Trying to model the exact geometry of teh formationand what ships can bear would not yield a significantly different result than by not increasing the AA strength very much after you have lots of ships.

The diminishing returns was accepted, as the player can as the cost for massing force. But you should not get to just assume that every ship in the task force applies its full AA firepower against every attack, that is obviously impossible. This game doesn't allow for "simultaneous time on top multi-axis attakcs", that japanese Kamikazes tried to perform late in the war. WITP will likely have some accounting in its kamikaze rules.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by dgaad
The proposed limitation of allowing mines to be loaded at only pre-designated, hardcoded locations is a bad idea. The assumption that the Japanese or Americans would have ceased mine laying if Truk or Noumea was lost is completely without foundation.

Am I the only one who thinks that worrying about the loss of mine laying ability if Truk or Noumea fall is well up there with stacking the deck chairs on the Titanic? If Truk falls YOU HAVE LOST! (or were you going to fuel your ships with the deck chairs?:D)
I think the limited ports idea is a quick simple one (that will be done in more detail for WitP as already said).
Having to escort ML from Truk with DD or something is a pain tho - how's about just preventing ML from unloading mines at any ports other than Truk (or in the target hex) - simple, and simulates the lack of gear etc (and anyway, why would you want to?)

[brisd]

Normally I let stupid comments slide, but I agree that if you let your main base fall to the other side (Truk, Noumea, Brisbane) you have alot of other issues beside a few mines. In the context of WITP, it is the equivalent of losing Tokyo or San Diego to the enemy. I am looking forward to these new mine rules, the current ones are pure fantasy IMO after having a month's gaming experience.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite

Am I the only one who thinks that worrying about the loss of mine laying ability if Truk or Noumea fall is well up there with stacking the deck chairs on the Titanic? If Truk falls YOU HAVE LOST! (or were you going to fuel your ships with the deck chairs?:D)
I think the limited ports idea is a quick simple one (that will be done in more detail for WitP as already said).
Having to escort ML from Truk with DD or something is a pain tho - how's about just preventing ML from unloading mines at any ports other than Truk (or in the target hex) - simple, and simulates the lack of gear etc (and anyway, why would you want to?)

Please read my entire comment on this matter in this thread and don't take my comments out of context. If you have lost Truk in UV, you have lost according to the victory conditions of the game. Its the concept of allowing mine loading at only pre-designated, hardcoded locations that is a bad idea, because the game engine here is the basis/core of what is going to be in WitP. I already said that I agreed with the limitation for UV, but in the context of the development of WitP this concept must be changed.

If you lose Truk in WitP as the Japanese, you are nowhere near "losing". Truk was neutralized as a base by the time the Americans took Hollandia / Bougainville, but the war continued for another one and a half years, and was only ended by the atomic bomb.

By the same token, if the Allied player loses Noumea in WitP, the game is far from over.

By this logic, lets just go ahead and make Truk and Noumea the be all and end all hexes. If you lose them in WitP, game over. Not a good way to do things.

[Yamamoto]

Why not just allow each player to have a “mine hub” the same way we have barge hubs? I really could care less about which base they come from or the other limitations being discussed. My only concern is hitting my own mines when I invade an enemy base. I think it’s going to be very hard for me to spend a couple of days sweeping my own mines from the enemy base while his airplanes and shore guns take pop shots at me. If my opponent is smart he’ll wait until I finish sweeping my mines away and THEN kick the crap out of my. He’ll probably even say, “thank you” for sweeping the mines for him. I like the current situation where you are ALMOST immune to your own mines. I really wish we could keep this part.

Yamamoto

[Chiteng]

Hate to point out that other than the Warspite,
most german destroyers lost during WW2 were lost to
running into their own minefields. There IS risk.

[Paul Vebber]

I've said several times that EVERY rule in UV will not be slavishly followed in WITP...Many aspects of the game (including MIW, will be different.

A lot will be the same, but, please DON'T assume that WITP will *EXACTLY* the same as UV just with a different map and bigger OOB...

[Matto]

... what more add to the game. It is not so importend, but can make game more interesting and funny. What about statistics for pilots with hitting (Fl.Lt. XXX - 2x 500lb bombs CV Zuikaku), for submarines with sucesfull attacks (SS I-29, 06/02/42 AK Athenia) ... or some history for ships (CV Zuikaku, 06/02/42 hit by 500lb bomb). What more, what about some medals for succesfull TF commander or pilots ??? What about exact list of shutdowns for each ace ??? Think about it, it can make your great game more fun for all ...
Matto

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
Why not just allow each player to have a “mine hub” the same way we have barge hubs? I really could care less about which base they come from or the other limitations being discussed. My only concern is hitting my own mines when I invade an enemy base. I think it’s going to be very hard for me to spend a couple of days sweeping my own mines from the enemy base while his airplanes and shore guns take pop shots at me. If my opponent is smart he’ll wait until I finish sweeping my mines away and THEN kick the crap out of my. He’ll probably even say, “thank you” for sweeping the mines for him. I like the current situation where you are ALMOST immune to your own mines. I really wish we could keep this part.

Yamamoto

I like the idea of a mine hub, or some type of moveable base(s) for mines, so long at it is in addition to the other kinds of restrictions that would tend to make mine laying more restrictive than it is today -- its a veritable mine feast now. A moveable mine warfare land unit has also been proposed, this is also a good idea. I think this, more than the hub concept, represents the specialized nature of the personnel and basing resources required to actually use mines.