The Mine Warfare Morass in UV

[U2]

Originally posted by dgaad


This discussion has not been, from the very beginning, about letting people lay the number of mines that were laid pre-patch. I've said this a dozen times, I will say it again this time a little differently : implement a scheme which gives the players OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY on the location of mine loading facilities, then layer on limits to the numbers that can be laid (by limiting numbers available, increasing the cost of mines, etc, any one of a dozen ways).

Yes, I know that dgaad but that was just my thought on mines. My problem was the amount of mines that could be laid and you are talking about OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY. My post was not meant to continue your topic. Eventhough I agree with Matrix on your discussion one has to admire a man that sticks to his beliefs.
Dan

[dgaad]

Originally posted by U2


Yes, I know that dgaad but that was just my thought on mines. My problem was the amount of mines that could be laid and you are talking about OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY. My post was not meant to continue your topic. Eventhough I agree with Matrix on your discussion one has to admire a man that sticks to his beliefs.
Dan

I lack many qualities, but persistence is not one of them. Assuming that's a quality. Some might disagree.

Anyway, yes I was happy with the patch as well, except of course for my now well known issue with the mine loading thing.

[U2]

Originally posted by dgaad



Anyway, yes I was happy with the patch as well, except of course for my now well known issue with the mine loading thing.

Well known to say the least:) Hockeytown=Detroit? If that is it congrats for winning the Stanley Cup and for having three great swedes.
Dan

[Didz]

I won't pretend to have fully understood all of Paul's posting mainly because I don't have a very good map of the area and so could not place some of the locations.

However, what comes across quite clearly is that the US Mining operations during the period and area covered by UV were quite extensive.

There is mention of offensive mining between Aug42 through to Feb43 around the Solomon Islands, Guadacanal, Shortland and Bouganville. In fact it appears for a short time that minefields were the only defence provided for the Marines on Guandacanal.

So, that being the case at least I don't feel as bad about using mines around the Slot during game play.

What is not clear from Paul's post is whether the minelayers laying these mines were making the long trip back the Noumea to reload with mines after each mission which seems to be the crux of this debate.

Later in the post there is the mention of SS James Macpherson being used to ferry mines to the minelayers in May 43 and that by Nov43 there was a forward Mine Assembly depot on Guadacanal.

But it is not clear whether these options were available and could have been used earlier and if so why they were not. Neither is it clear, if they were not used, whether it was because the CinC did not consider them necessary or because the operational commander never requested them.

There is also dgaad's information regarding the Austrailian mining operations to consider which don't seem to figure in the game at all.

So overall the impression I get is that:

1. There is no real issue over the extent of offensive mining in UV.
2. The effectiveness of mines needed to be reviewed in particular where the water depth was greater than 120ft.
3. There might be some additional capability required to represent the Aussie mining capability.
4. The issue of operational flexibility still needs to be clarified, at least from my point of view.
   [/list=a]
   
   I would just add that I am as keen to avoid a 'gamey' exploitation of mines as anyone but at the same time don't want to artificially restrict the use of mines where they were used historically.
   
   Also from a purely player viewpoint I would prefer not to add even more micro-management to the game by making the control of Mining Missions more fiddly than it needs to be. Under the new fixed load system I suspect that Mining TF's will need to be loaded and then refuelled en-route to the Slot which is probably going to be a real pain.

[mogami]

Hi, I am running mine layers out of Truk in a PBEM game with no problems. I lay 275 mines per week (2 minelayers)

[Avenger]

Can minelayers lay mines in the same hex that they have mined previously? Will the mines in that hex become thicker? Will ships hit those mines if I increase the density of the minefield? I ask because the Japs are constantly going thru my minefields and never hit them!

--Avenger

[mogami]

Originally posted by Avenger
Can minelayers lay mines in the same hex that they have mined previously? Will the mines in that hex become thicker? Will ships hit those mines if I increase the density of the minefield? I ask because the Japs are constantly going thru my minefields and never hit them!

--Avenger

Hi, Yes you can lay mines in hex you already laid mines. (increasing number in hex)
Are they running through shallow water hexs you have mines in? deep water?

[dgaad]

Originally posted by U2


Well known to say the least:) Hockeytown=Detroit? If that is it congrats for winning the Stanley Cup and for having three great swedes.
Dan

All the Swedes on the team have been great contributors. I for one was very glad to see Lidstrom get the recognition he deserved. Steve Yzerman, the Captain, called Lidstrom "The best Red Wing to ever wear the uniform since I've been on the team." That's 19 years if my memory serves, and no mean praise coming from him.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I am running mine layers out of Truk in a PBEM game with no problems. I lay 275 mines per week (2 minelayers)

Kinda scotches the whole notion of fixed bases in order to restrict mine use. Back to the drawing board. By the way, the drawing board already contains a sketched out scheme involving operational flexibility (as in Mine Warfare Engineer Units), but with a cost of approximately 200 per mine. Now, that would restrict their use, but give the player more flexibility as to where the mine loading occurs. There are other methods suggested by players : a mine "hub" like a barge hub, etc.



Don't bother telling me to shut up.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Avenger
Can minelayers lay mines in the same hex that they have mined previously? Will the mines in that hex become thicker? Will ships hit those mines if I increase the density of the minefield? I ask because the Japs are constantly going thru my minefields and never hit them!

--Avenger

Answer is yes. "Thicken" the minefield. Be advised, this can get progressively risky to your own minelayers with the new rules (which I don't object to -- except for the fixed location of mine centers, but you knew that already).

[mogami]

Hi, It does limit mine use. Under 1.00 I could have laid 1925 mines per week with the 2 mine layers. But 275 still is a lot of operational flexabilty when it comes to mine laying. I will run out of good locations in 2 months (in a 19 month campaign)
This is not counting future mine layers or subs.

[Kitakami]

Originally posted by dgaad


Answer is yes. "Thicken" the minefield. Be advised, this can get progressively risky to your own minelayers with the new rules (which I don't object to -- except for the fixed location of mine centers, but you knew that already).

I can vouch for this.

PBEM Game, scenario 17, turn 13, both players switched to ver 1.10 patch.

First thing I see as the Japanese in the combat report is my 2 ML hitting a mine each... in a minefield they had been laying themselves.

Did not sink, but will be out of comission for a while. <sigh>

[Didz]

Originally posted by Kitakami


PBEM Game, scenario 17, turn 13, both players switched to ver 1.10 patch.

First thing I see as the Japanese in the combat report is my 2 ML hitting a mine each... in a minefield they had been laying themselves.

I am aware of this being an occupational hazard for minesweepers but not sure how common it was for minelayers to back over their own mines.

[Didz]

It suddenly occured to me that some of the issues with Mines might have been avoided if the Minefield was associated with passage through a hexside rather than passage through a hex.

This in effect would have restricted the minefield to a 30 mile strip of water rather than a 900 sq. mile patch. So to get the same universal interdiction effect one would need to make six trips.

More importantly it would have made it easier to lay mines whilst leaving a clear passage for your own vessels (say in and out of harbour) and in the case of The Slot the mines could have been restricted to the shallow hexsides with mining along the central channel being either prohibited due to water depth or subject to rapid degradation.

It would also have made the mining of beach hexsides much more specific in that only ships actually trying to land troops on that beach would risk a mine whereas bombardment TF's standing several miles offshore would be in the clear. To catch the bombardment group one would have to lay mines on the seaward hexside but that would not be a 100% certainty unless one also mined the two flanking hexsides to prevent to prevent the enemy avoiding the mines by moving along the coast. (in other words it would be a lot more expensive to lay an effective minefield in open water)

Mined hexsides could have been highlighted in red whilst laying them would have needed a two click destination procedure. E.g.

Start Laying in this hex > Finish laying in this hex.

Mined hexsides could then have been made impassible to both enemy and friendly ships with the onus on the player to make sure he kept the appropriate hexside clear.

Just a thought. Bit too late for UV I realise.

[Hartmann]

In the first couple of turns when switching to the patch, I lost about a dozen ships to my own old mines (plus a bunch of others damaged). Seems to me that the "offensive" minefields are more dangerous to me than to my enemy simply because my ships have to go through these regions far more often.
In the end, I sweeped them all except the shallow mines. There is one shallow hex just South of Rabaul which seems dangerous, nevertheless: every TF of mine going through that hex lost a ship until I removed that minefield.
All my MLs are at Truk now (where they probably will stay for the rest of the game).

Hartmann

[Nixuebrig]

Originally posted by Hartmann
In the first couple of turns when switching to the patch, I lost about a dozen ships to my own old mines (plus a bunch of others damaged). Seems to me that the "offensive" minefields are more dangerous to me than to my enemy simply because my ships have to go through these regions far more often.
In the end, I sweeped them all except the shallow mines. There is one shallow hex just South of Rabaul which seems dangerous, nevertheless: every TF of mine going through that hex lost a ship until I removed that minefield.
All my MLs are at Truk now (where they probably will stay for the rest of the game).

Hartmann

Yes, noticed the same, best is to throw away old saves and send all MLs in future games back to Japan. I even lost 3 of 4 MSWs of a Task Force in my own Minefield, guess it is hard to remeber that you mined a area two days ago.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Prince


Yes, noticed the same, best is to throw away old saves and send all MLs in future games back to Japan. I even lost 3 of 4 MSWs of a Task Force in my own Minefield, guess it is hard to remeber that you mined a area two days ago.

Sounds like the desire to limit the benefits of mines has gone a bit too far in the other direction.

I haven't upgraded my game yet. I may wait and see if its a good idea I want to finish my current campaign anyway.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Didz


Sounds like the desire to limit the benefits of mines has gone a bit too far in the other direction.

I haven't upgraded my game yet. I may wait and see if its a good idea I want to finish my current campaign anyway.

I would like to know if the chances of hitting my own mines are now equal to the chances of the enemy hitting them or if the enemy still has a greater chance. I really enjoy using mines and I would hate to see that use eliminated. I NEVER used 'defensive' mines.

Yamamoto

[Avenger]

I for one was quite happy with the change. I had mines all over the slot, extending a good ways out into the Ocean. It was real trouble for my own groups to navigate the lanes that I had created, causing many lost hours of movement. The Japs would freely cruise right through my mines and, as far as I know, were never hit by any. After the patch, within 10 days, 99% of my mines had drifted away. Now I could just concentrate on mining the shallow waters.

If the change has been taken too far then I think that mining should be able to be done from any base, but only ever in shallow water. The shallow water hexes are few and far between.

--Avenger

[Nixuebrig]

my minefields were laid around Rabaul, i would call them defensive minefields, but i guess someone had another opinion of that. A DD on his way back to Truk was the next victim, looks like I locked myself in Rabaul.