Matrix Games Forums

I spent some time looking over the mine warfare capabilities of the allies and was a bit shocked to see how scarce mines are. Basically these are the numbers I came up with for the different mines:


........................Ship capacity on map...............Produced.................months needed to replace
Mk 6 mine...........500........................................35.............................14.28
Mk 16 mine.........450 by end of 42......................25 starting 12/42........18
VH Mk II mine.....405.........................................20.............................20.25
Mk XVII mine......300 (+150 more in 33 days)......45 starting 12/42........10


So basically each ship can only afford to place 1 minefield each year to a year and a half. For some nationalities it takes almost two years to replace their mines. [X(]

I started to check Japan and saw similar numbers (about a year to replace) for the Type 4 mine, so stopped there.

I'd say something is wrong with this picture. Granted mines were heavily overused in WitP, but this seems like the opposite extreme to me. Ships that use the Mk 16 mine will probably only get to lay 2 or 3 minefields for the entire game.

Jim

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...

Do we have historcial production figures available for mines?

Some, but they are rather sparse, AFAIK.

Ok cool. I would rather have as is rather than like WiTP - Mines in the Pacific!

You guys when over board with the mine reduction thing! looking at the war there was a lot of ships lost or damage to mines!

Tiger!

indeed, a reduction of mines was needed...but this is overkill.
I'm sure, however, that the numbers will be tweaked in future patches

ORIGINAL: RAM
...but this is overkill.

I agree. I don't think 4 minefields a year per vessel would be too many (about quadruple the production we have currently). That would mean a vessel could place a minefield every three months on average. That does not seem too bad to me.

Especially because many of the fields near combat zones will degrade pretty fast because ships won't be able to remain on station to maintain them (due to air attack threats). Also, given the extra bases added to the game, minefields will be spread out a lot more as well.

Also don't forget, I only counted up the on map minelayers and those that arrived in 1942. there are more that arrive later and will eat even more into turnover times..

Jim

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: RAM
...but this is overkill.

I agree. I don't think 4 minefields a year per vessel would be too many (about quadruple the production we have currently). That would mean a vessel could place a minefield every three months on average. That does not seem too bad to me.

Just look at the TROMs of the IJN minelayers (http://www.combinedfleet.com/Fusetsukan.htm) and you'll notice that the minelayers placed far less minefields than that (some IJN minelayers did not place a single mine during the whole war but were only used as escort vessels).

And the US subs didnt venture into the sea of Japan until VERY late in the war because of what?

(hint: it floats, and it has little spinny things on it, and it goes BOOM when a sub hull gets too close)

Mines in WitP only served to slow down the allied pace of advance, if the allies made a careful advance, even the thickest fields only took a few weeks to clear. If anything its even easier in AE because the Japs dont have anywhere near the shore guns they have in WitP. Now anyone thinking this is excessive, look at how long they prepped for Iwo Jima landings before they actually landed.

This is easily corrected in a mod however. As for actual mine production, I would think in reality it would fall into the realm of "unlimited". 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.

It seems AE choosed the wrong way. If the values are true it is not even trying to balance it is silly bluntiness. If this was the ideology behind the game doesn't bodes well for other areas. If not unlimited like YH says it should be put at real levels. If the hit rate in hex is too much change the hit rate.

For example Germany employed 223000 mines in the Second World War against 263376 British, 54457(12000 from German stocks) Italian and 40000 Russian mines.

I for one an happy to see a big reduction from WITP,but now i feel its need a little up from here But wow she one Hot Game!

Tiger!

I believe we have hit the sweet spot on mines. About equal numbers of people on each side of the issue. If everyone on the forum ever agreed on anything the sun would implode.

ORIGINAL: Dili

It seems AE choosed the wrong way. If the values are true it is not even trying to balance it is silly bluntiness. If this was the ideology behind the game doesn't bodes well for other areas. If not unlimited like YH says it should be put at real levels. If the hit rate in hex is too much change the hit rate.

For example Germany employed 223000 mines in the Second World War against 263376 British, 54457(12000 from German stocks) Italian and 40000 Russian mines.

And how many Japanese?

Odd.

With all the attention to detail in other areas, it seems to me that the AE design team let their own distaste for mine warfare produce an imlementation that is ahistorical.

As previously stated in this thread, ask the U.S. submarine service if mines were rare. The Home Islands and the coast of China were heavily mined, thousands and thousands of them - and several subs ran afoul of them. Mostly, they just avoided the mined areas all together.

I think the real problem is that in WITP mines were used to make some atols and Pacific Islands difficult/impossible/expensive to invade -- whereas in real life this didn't happen because of ocean currents and sharp drop offs in ocean depth around these islands.

A better implementation would be to consider the water around atols and the Pacific Island chains "deep ocean" to make minelaying less efficient/a wast of time.

Regards,
Feltan

And unlike WiTP, minefields can be maintained by ACMs, thereby obviating the need for constant relaying.

Speaking of ACMs, how many mines can 1 ACM "maintain"?

That would be 150 mines.

Thank you!

And how many Japanese?

I don't have Japanese numbers.

But for allies Mines were the third cause of sinkings(in whole war) after submarines and airplanes. http://www.naval-history.net/WW2Campaig ... rfare2.htm