Originally posted by Paul Vebber
One can keep claiming that it was, but that is wrong plain and simple. If people who know better can't tell people who mistate facts in no uncertain terms they are wrong then I guess there is no point in developers engaging the public on these forums, as there is no basis with which to defend any design decision other than "the designer by definition is right becasue its his game".
Any other response can be shot down by anyone with enough time on their hands to keep saying the game is wrong.
The line a game designer draws when it comes to what doctrinal and strategic decision making issues they deal with probably cause more arguments than any other decision, because every player has their own take on what "they would have done if they were king". Yet Patton, an operational commander if ever there was one, often couldn't even pick the roads he got to use...something any gamer would throw there hands up in disgust at if forced on him by "arbitrary" rules.
So I guess the bottom line is that this point represents one of those philosophical arguments beyond the "jist" of whether mine assemble depots should be "mobile" or not. To what extent game developers should be "taken to task" for their game design decisions.
Paul & the Group : excellent post in most respects.
During the course of this debate I refreshed my familiarity with the history of mining, going all the way back to WWI (where the basic doctrines of the major fleets regarding this aspect of warfare were formed), by checking out the sites of the major navies (These sites have excellent information on this history), and the various associations of veterans (such as the Minemen's association, etc). There, you can see the debate about the viability of mine warfare is still going on, 80+ years after it started (as I stated briefly in one of my posts).
edit note : this was by no means the full extent of my research 
There is no question that mines involved tremendous "political-tactical" debates in the services. There weren't many aspects of warfare that haven't gone through this debate : Even the idea of carriers and using air power to dominate the seas went through horrendous difficulties for acceptance, as evidenced by the tribulations of Billy Mitchell.
Most of the major navies in the world were then and are today biased strongly against aggressive use of mines, viewing this type of warfare as "defensive" rather than offensive, and concomittantly viewing any defensive approach to naval warfare as essentially doomed to defeat in the long run. So, yes, mine warfare had more than physical limitations to overcome, and yes it is a very difficult call to decide whether or not in a simulation of a campaign of limited scope how much of these limitations should force players into "historical idiocy" to paraphrase your term.
I am in almost complete agreement with you about the quandary this places game designers in, at least the good ones like Gary.
I hope we can at last agree that
1) it is / was a difficult decision about whether or not to make these facilities mobile.
2) that it was a difficult decision because the facilities can be mobile if certain conditions obtain
3) that the conditions needed to render these facilities mobile are really outside the scope of the campaign simulated by UV
and
4) that when it comes to WitP its more likely that these facilities will have *some* conditional (at least) mobility factors because the scope of that game is much more immense
and
5) notwithstanding 4, mine warfare still should have some artificial limitations representing the traditional political-tactical problems mine warfare has had, but with the caveat that the history of mine warfare in the Pacific in WW2 still showed a significant degree of efficacy, particularly as the strategic situation lended itself to the capabilities of mines (i.e. after Japan's effective control of the seas was limited to narrow areas around Japan), and mine-laying technology itself underwent improvement.
Anyway, even if you don't agree with all of the above, the debate was stimulating for me and I commend your great passion for this game and for accuracy : these are the qualities you share with others on the dev team that has made this a game worth arguing over in the first place.
edit note : Please note that in this entire post I assiduously avoided using the term "operational flexibility" 
