Does the game engine model "friendly fire"?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Does the game engine model "friendly fire"?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Does the game engine model "friendly fire"?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 8/31/2010 2:55:54 PM

henry1611

Posts: 66
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline

For purposes of my question, assume that a US submarine and a US combat surface task force are operating in the same open water hex.

Having a "top down" view, the player knows that both the submarine and the surface task force are on the same side. The "on-scene" commander of the surface task force may, however, be unaware that a friendly submarine is about (especially if it is submerged).

Is there a chance that one will attack the other? For example, is it possible that the surface task force would attack a submerged submarine even if the two are on the same side? If so, does it matter what mission each of the two are on?

Post #: 1

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 8/31/2010 3:33:03 PM

sprior

Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline

I've seen aircraft attack friendly submarines

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.

(in reply to henry1611)

Post #: 2

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 8/31/2010 4:51:40 PM

Misconduct

Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

I've seen friendly ships ram each other in combat, friendly aircraft trying to depth charge friendly subs. However I have yet to see a friendly ASW group attack a friendly Sub.
Now I'm not sure why, because it should of been a possibility. There are instances where "mines" regardless of what side will blow up some ships.

So be quite careful when using Naval mines, I found out the hard way when a tanker full of oil struck one at Palembang (I placed them for defensive purposes).

_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to sprior)

Post #: 3

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 8/31/2010 5:21:47 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

As any old timer will tell you, there ain't no such thing! If it's coming at you, then it's definately unfriendly , no matter who fired it!

_____________________________

(in reply to Misconduct)

Post #: 4

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 8/31/2010 5:29:44 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

I've seen friendly ships ram each other in combat, friendly aircraft trying to depth charge friendly subs. However I have yet to see a friendly ASW group attack a friendly Sub.
Now I'm not sure why, because it should of been a possibility. There are instances where "mines" regardless of what side will blow up some ships.

So be quite careful when using Naval mines, I found out the hard way when a tanker full of oil struck one at Palembang (I placed them for defensive purposes).

It may be my imagination, but I've only seen mine fratricide from sub- and air-laid mine fields. This would be historical. Surface-laid moored mines would be well charted, and safe-transit lanes promulgated to the fleet and convoy leaders. Sub- and air-laid fields are a lot more random and undocumented, plus, at least for modern mines of these types, normally not moored.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Misconduct)

Post #: 5

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 8/31/2010 9:45:53 PM

Rainer

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline

I mined Tulagi with minelayers to prevent the Japanese from using that port and building it further.
When I send a bombardment TF a couple of weeks later to shoot the place up I lost a DD running into a mine.

However, I am not sure it was a friendly mine. It could very well be a Japanese mine. I just don't know (there were no enemy mines shown on the screen. My own mines could be seen of course).
Before assaulting the place I send mine sweepers and they did sweep the place. I still don't know if the mines swept were my own.

< Message edited by Rainer -- 8/31/2010 9:46:36 PM >

_____________________________

WitP/AE
1.7.11.26b
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

WitW / Torch
1.01.37 - 1.01.44 beta

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 6

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 8/31/2010 10:55:54 PM

henry1611

Posts: 66
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

I've seen aircraft attack friendly submarines

I had not thought of this scenario. It is an example of what I am asking about and completely reasonable. I am glad to see that it is modeled.

< Message edited by henry1611 -- 8/31/2010 11:01:50 PM >

(in reply to sprior)

Post #: 7

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 8/31/2010 11:01:25 PM

henry1611

Posts: 66
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline

I can completely understand a ship being lost to an unmoored mine laid by the ship's own side. Such mines are "dumb" and if you run into one, well...

I am still interested to hear about the submarine vs. combat surface task force scenario. I want to know whether I should have submarines operating in areas patrolled by a friendly combat surface task force or if I should set up "exclusion zones" for my subs so as to avoid a blue-on-blue incident.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 8

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 3:24:38 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: henry1611

I can completely understand a ship being lost to an unmoored mine laid by the ship's own side. Such mines are "dumb" and if you run into one, well...

I am still interested to hear about the submarine vs. combat surface task force scenario. I want to know whether I should have submarines operating in areas patrolled by a friendly combat surface task force or if I should set up "exclusion zones" for my subs so as to avoid a blue-on-blue incident.

I can only add my voice to what others have said. I've seen (infrequent) friendly air ASW attacks on own forces, but never surface ship ASW attacks. I think you're OK operating subs and surface TFs together.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to henry1611)

Post #: 9

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 3:33:53 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

I mined Tulagi with minelayers to prevent the Japanese from using that port and building it further.
When I send a bombardment TF a couple of weeks later to shoot the place up I lost a DD running into a mine.

However, I am not sure it was a friendly mine. It could very well be a Japanese mine. I just don't know (there were no enemy mines shown on the screen. My own mines could be seen of course).
Before assaulting the place I send mine sweepers and they did sweep the place. I still don't know if the mines swept were my own.

The USN mine community calls mines "the weapons that wait." I was stationed in Charleston, SC when the Mine Command was there, and I knew a mine warfare planning officer a bit. (We took scuba lessons together.) She told me a bit about modern mining. Then, when I was on shore duty in Pearl, I got to spend about six weeks on Guam working with a Mobile Mine Assembly Group (MOMAG) that worked in concert with Anderson AFB and the B-52s there. I saw a LOT of modern, air-dropped mines and saw a few war plan overviews. Mining is all about the psychology of the effort. If the other guy thinks you've mined, then you have, even when you haven't. B-52s had all sorts of dropping postures, countermeasures, fake-outs, etc. to execute the war plans. And modern mines themselves are very smart too. Lots of programming possible.

Anyway, WWII mining was similar in some ways. The old spiked-horn moored mine you see in the movies existed, but submarine-laid mines weren't those so far as I know. (Torpedo-tube diameters were the limiting factor.) Most sub and air-laid mines lie in the mud in shallow water and wait for the target to go overhead. Or the fifth target. Or the seventeenth. Tricky little buggers.

As far as fratricide, remember too that truism of all military forces in all places and times: somebody always doesn't get the word. Even with safe-transit charts, some knucklehead is going to drive where he likes and get a boomski.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Rainer)

Post #: 10

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 5:31:54 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

I mined Tulagi with minelayers to prevent the Japanese from using that port and building it further.
When I send a bombardment TF a couple of weeks later to shoot the place up I lost a DD running into a mine.

My recall of the rule book is:
A. If you lay a mine field in a friendly port then your ships will know the locations of the minefield.
B. If you lay mines in an enemy port then the minefield is defined as "not friendly" so you can hit your own laid mines later.
C. If you capture a port hex then all mines in the hex become friendly to you and unfriendly to the previous owner.

On a side note, it is interesting the comments about the three types of laid mines(surface, sub, air). It would seem that the above rule would only apply to surface laid mines in AE. Air and sub laid mines should be unfriendly to all sides.

Probably dont need any exclusion zones for subs.

< Message edited by bigred -- 9/1/2010 5:38:39 AM >

(in reply to Rainer)

Post #: 11

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 5:53:25 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Ships colliding and friendly mine hits are the only things as far as I know.

I have not experienced ASW attacking friendly subs and TBH I doubt its modelled.
False sighting reports, yes, actual attacks, no.

_____________________________

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 12

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 2:27:26 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

When did the US develop a magnetic mine that could be placed by subs? ISTM that if there were problems with magnetic detonators on torpedoes that the same problems would exist on the mines as well. Contact mines could be placed by subs but they didn't look like the round ones with the detonator horns sticking out; they were more cylindrical IIRC.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 13

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 2:45:52 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

When did the US develop a magnetic mine that could be placed by subs?� ISTM that if there were problems with magnetic detonators on torpedoes that the same problems would exist on the mines as well.� Contact mines could be placed by subs but they didn't look like the round ones with the detonator horns sticking out; they were more cylindrical IIRC.

Not completely on-topic, but this site has photos and drawings of Dutch externally-carried submarine mines. It's pretty clear they wouldn't work in torpedo tubes.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/specials/special_torpedoes_mines.htm

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 14

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 3:09:30 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

The Dutch subs had special mine storage capabilities, though. IIRC only a few US subs had seperate mine storage compartments (Nautilus, Narwhal?) and the others used their torpedo tubes for mine laying.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 15

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 3:30:05 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The Dutch subs had special mine storage capabilities, though.� IIRC only a few US subs had seperate mine storage compartments (Nautilus, Narwhal?) and the others used their torpedo tubes for mine laying.

Right, I just thought it interesting how the externals were shaped. There's a link in my link that takes you too a bunch of other pix and engineering drawings.

Tube-launched mines would have had to have been torpedo-like, although they could be shorter I suppose since they didn't need propulsion mechanisms. They'd need to fit overhead loading gear in the room, etc. Modern sub mines look very much like torpedoes with flat noses.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/1/2010 8:10:05 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 16

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 4:55:48 PM

cverbrug

Posts: 233
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Belgium
Status: offline

So if C is really true, there is not point in minesweeping a conquered enemy port? on the contrary...
(i was cleaning out conquered ports and then putting new mines in it all the time...)

My recall of the rule book is:
A. If you lay a mine field in a friendly port then your ships will know the locations of the minefield.
B. If you lay mines in an enemy port then the minefield is defined as "not friendly" so you can hit your own laid mines later.
C. If you capture a port hex then all mines in the hex become friendly to you and unfriendly to the previous owner.

Could someone confirm this?

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 17

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 4:59:03 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

AFAIK that is false. When you capture a port that has enemy mines you need to sweep them.

(in reply to cverbrug)

Post #: 18

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 8:14:40 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

AFAIK that is false. When you capture a port that has enemy mines you need to sweep them.

Right. How would you know the locations? The last CO burned the charts.

But is it everyone's understanding that the code flag is "friendly" or "unfriendly" and not "surface-laid" or "sub/air-laid" that determines fratricide? IOW, if I lay a sub-laid field in a port I own and always have owned, is there perfect knowledge of it to own ships? Because I've done that on occasion, since sub mines are more plentiful at the beginnning of the game.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/1/2010 8:15:14 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 19

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 8:36:54 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

But is it everyone's understanding that the code flag is "friendly" or "unfriendly" and not "surface-laid" or "sub/air-laid" that determines fratricide? IOW, if I lay a sub-laid field in a port I own and always have owned, is there perfect knowledge of it to own ships? Because I've done that on occasion, since sub mines are more plentiful at the beginnning of the game.

I can confidently report that your guys do not have perfect knowledge of minefields they place. Your other little (how else would they fit inside your PC?) electronic guys and even the very guys who emplaced the minefield stand every chance of running into it. Been there, done that.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 20

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 9:14:50 PM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

Pretty interesting info about mine warfare here, does anyone know how effective they actually were as far as sinkings or even putting things out of action for a while?

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 21

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/1/2010 10:53:12 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Some stuff in this:

http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/saas_Theses/SAASS_Out/Chilstrom/chilstrom.pdf

In eight missions, 209 aircraft laid 1,313 mines of disparate varieties, including a small number of "unsweepable" low frequency acoustic mines. The results in May 1945 showed, for the first time, mines sinking more ships per month than submarines--113 in the Shimonoseki Strait alone, which amounted to nine percent of Japan�s dwindling merchant fleet.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 9/1/2010 10:57:39 PM >

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 22

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/2/2010 1:33:38 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

But is it everyone's understanding that the code flag is "friendly" or "unfriendly" and not "surface-laid" or "sub/air-laid" that determines fratricide? IOW, if I lay a sub-laid field in a port I own and always have owned, is there perfect knowledge of it to own ships? Because I've done that on occasion, since sub mines are more plentiful at the beginnning of the game.

I can confidently report that your guys do not have perfect knowledge of minefields they place. Your other little (how else would they fit inside your PC?) electronic guys and even the very guys who emplaced the minefield stand every chance of running into it. Been there, done that.

That's good to know, in the game. There shouldn't be perfect knowledge, even of surface-laid. Mines drift, there are storms, there are crossed bearing errors at the time the field is laid, in open ocean the last fix was bad, etc. But sub-laid and air-laid in RL were just flung. A submerged sub might know within 1/4 mile where they dumped it, but most weren't moored, and currents acted before they came into the sediment (if the bottom had it; if it was hard the mine could walk for miles.) Air-laid were often sown at night, and they were lucky if they all hit water. No idea where they were after the pass.

I've eaten my words to crsutton about not doing early sub mining. I've done some at Kwaj, Batavia, Wake, Truk, and Rabaul. There's a fair haul in the sunk list, some confirmed. A CVL took one, a CL another, a PB sank, and I know several subs have been hit at Kwaj from the boomski sound effect. Tracker makes it easy to track them all, and there are enough of the various sub mine types to do something with in early 1942.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/2/2010 1:36:36 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 23

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/2/2010 1:36:34 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

Pretty interesting info about mine warfare here, does anyone know how effective they actually were as far as sinkings or even putting things out of action for a while?

USN bubbleheads were terrified of the things. They got their share of boats. A big late war push to develop high-freq active sonar (Hell's Bells project maybe?) in order to penetrate the big fields near the HI as targets got scarce.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 24

RE: Does the game engine model "friendly fire"? - 9/2/2010 3:29:41 AM

Sredni

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

I mostly use my bombers to pound lcu that I've got engaged by my own lcu. Bombing unengaged targets vs the AI seems largely worthless since they repair faster then you can damage them (so long as they have supplies I guess).

And I've always thought it was kinda odd that 150 heavy bombers hitting a hex with 15000 enemy troops and 30000 friendly troops locked in battle never hits any friendlies.

Perhaps a realism enhancement to be implemented in witp 2

(in reply to henry1611)

Post #: 25