MINES: Nevermind

MINES: Nevermind (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Didz -> MINES: Nevermind (5/22/2002 9:18:20 PM)
Ok! Rowlf and I have been discussing mined hexes in another thread but I think I have detected a real problem that deserves seperate attention here. In my #17 game I have been making heavy use of mines as per some advice given in another thread. However, if the game map is to be believed I have been largely wasting my time. Because despite the almost total dedication of my SS and MSW units since the first day of the campaign only 7 hexes display the dreaded mine marker. Nor does there seem to be any pattern to the hexes that have been successfully mined and those which haven't. For example 4 x MSW ships have been busily mining the Jomard Passage and entrance to Gilli Gilli harbour for over a month and yet not a single hex shows a mine symbol. Conclusion MSW ships can't lay mines even though they say they will do so when you set the destination. But for some reason the entrances to Brisbane and Cairns harbour have both been mined and I used MSW ships to do that. By contrast I have completed at least 6 x SS minelaying missions to mine the area around Tulagi but only one hex has a mine marker. I have also heavily mined the gap between New Guinea and New Britain with SS units but no mine markers appear. All the ports and beaches in the New Hebrides have been mined but not a single mine marker appears. The entrance to Rabaul harbour has been mined but no mine marker exists although I did get messages telling me that an IJN minesweeper was clearing them. The entrances to Lae, Salamaua, Hopei and Finschhafen all mined but only Lae and Salamaua show a marker. An IJN CL & DD hit the mines at Salamaua and an IJN MSW subsequently arrived and cleared them but the marker still appears. One point of interest is that I can't see a single mine marker in a hex that doesn't contain a base or a beach even though I have laid a lots of mines in hexes that don't. So questions: 1. Can MSW ships lay mines and if not why does the program say they will? 2. If MSW ships can't lay mines how did Brisbane and Cairns get a minefield on their doorstep? 3. Why do mine markers only appear in base/beach hexes and if only base or beach hexes can be mined why does the program say otherwise and the manual make this clear? 4. If my minefields are being cleared as fast as I lay them why am only being told of occassional minesweeping events and how would the IJN know I've laid mines in an area anyway? 5. What happens when the point in a hex where the mine marker ought to appear is already taken by another symbol. (e.g. Ships in port symbol)?

osros -> (5/22/2002 9:37:39 PM)
One mistake I did was I set a Sub on a Mine mission that was already at sea on a Patrol Mission. I realized later that a sub on patrol HAS NO MINES. :rolleyes: So make sure you CREATE a new TF at port for Mine laying then they will load up mines.. 1. Can MSW ships lay mines and if not why does the program say they will? * Its my understanding they are MineSweepers. I have not used them yet but I would say no. 2. If MSW ships can't lay mines how did Brisbane and Cairns get a minefield on their doorstep? * Pre-done Mine laying by ML or Subs perhaps ;) 3. Why do mine markers only appear in base/beach hexes and if only base or beach hexes can be mined why does the program say otherwise and the manual make this clear? * Not the case I placed mines in the middle of the ocean. 4. If my minefields are being cleared as fast as I lay them why am only being told of occassional minesweeping events and how would the IJN know I've laid mines in an area anyway? * Thats there job, If they get hit or see a mine the MSW's come out. Also it may be standard practice to patrol with MSW around ports. 5. What happens when the point in a hex where the mine marker ought to appear is already taken by another symbol. (e.g. Ships in port symbol)? * The mine symbol takes up one corner of a hex there is room for lots more on a hex.It all gets moved around. Dont count on mines only, Get in there & FIGHT! :D Good Luck!

Didz -> (5/22/2002 10:00:34 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by osros [B]1. Can MSW ships lay mines and if not why does the program say they will? * Its my understanding they are MineSweepers. I have not used them yet but I would say no. [/B][/QUOTE] So! Why does the program say that they will lay mines in the hex they are sent to?? [QUOTE][B] 2. If MSW ships can't lay mines how did Brisbane and Cairns get a minefield on their doorstep? * Pre-done Mine laying by ML or Subs perhaps ;) [/B][/QUOTE] Just checked and you are right they were pre-laid. So it appears MSW's don't lay mines which begs the question why the program doesn't know this. [QUOTE][B] 3. Why do mine markers only appear in base/beach hexes and if only base or beach hexes can be mined why does the program say otherwise and the manual make this clear? * Not the case I placed mines in the middle of the ocean. [/B][/QUOTE] So does the program have gliches when working with certain graphic's cards I have an NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti200 and I am definately not getting mid-ocean mine symbols. [QUOTE][B] 4. If my minefields are being cleared as fast as I lay them why am only being told of occassional minesweeping events and how would the IJN know I've laid mines in an area anyway? * Thats there job, If they get hit or see a mine the MSW's come out. Also it may be standard practice to patrol with MSW around ports. [/B][/QUOTE] That doesn't explain the inconsistency with mines apparently being cleared by phantom MSW's whilst reported mineclearing operations seem not to have worked. [QUOTE][B] 5. What happens when the point in a hex where the mine marker ought to appear is already taken by another symbol. (e.g. Ships in port symbol)? * The mine symbol takes up one corner of a hex there is room for lots more on a hex.It all gets moved around. [/B][/QUOTE] You must have a pretty amazing graphic's card the hexes on my map the hexes on my screen are only about 8mm across and you can barely get one symbol to a corner never mind two. [QUOTE][B] Dont count on mines only, Get in there & FIGHT! :D [/B][/QUOTE] Hmmm! Let me guess your American, right;)

Fuchida -> (5/22/2002 10:07:37 PM)
Just a guess, but the reason the MSW were allowed on the minelaying mission may have been as escorts. Check if something like a destroyer or cruiser is allowed on the minelaying mission. I sometimes use MSW as escorts for convoys.

Fuchida -> (5/22/2002 10:09:21 PM)
Another thought. You might only get messages about enemy mine clearing operations if one of your scout planes or subs sees them doing it. Unless you see them, how would you know they were clearing mines?

dgaad -> (5/22/2002 10:14:54 PM)
Only DM or Subs can lay mines. DSM or MSW ships cannot. Enemy minefields can exist without being detected. Its a good idea to send DSM or MSW ships to areas that are or going to be heavily used by your fleet, even if there is no mine symbol there. This is especially true in PBEM games against human opponents.

osros -> (5/22/2002 10:23:57 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz [B] So! Why does the program say that they will lay mines in the hex they are sent to?? * Hmmm Maybe I should read the manual already ;) Just checked and you are right they were pre-laid. So it appears MSW's don't lay mines which begs the question why the program doesn't know this. ??? As Fuchida said maybe they are on under the minelaying catagory to be used as escorts. So does the program have gliches when working with certain graphic's cards I have an NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti200 and I am definately not getting mid-ocean mine symbols. I dont think is a graphic card issue, let me load up my saved game at see how far my mines are and verify my middle of the ocean comment, I do know that its not at a port or near a beach, at least a good 5 hexes away. That doesn't explain the inconsistency with mines apparently being cleared by phantom MSW's whilst reported mineclearing operations seem not to have worked. Just because a hex is mined does not garantee a hit, there is alot of water out there, the mine is so big and a ship is so big. Your standard Sub carries 2 mines, place that in a hex, Sure ships can get by, if your lucky one or two get nailed. You must have a pretty amazing graphic's card the hexes on my map the hexes on my screen are only about 8mm across and you can barely get one symbol to a corner never mind two. Dont think its the card Try the Zoom map function see if that helps. besides that I do have a amazing graphics card :D Geforce 4 4400 me likes :) Hmmm! Let me guess your American, right;) *You got that right smokey!! :) One Day Ill figure out how to use the quote thing :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

Didz -> (5/22/2002 11:12:32 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fuchida [B]Just a guess, but the reason the MSW were allowed on the minelaying mission may have been as escorts. Check if something like a destroyer or cruiser is allowed on the minelaying mission. I sometimes use MSW as escorts for convoys. [/B][/QUOTE] Good theory. But doesn't hold water (s'cuse the pun). I've been sending individual MSW's out to mine specific hexes the program has always reported that the TF will Mine the hex on arrival.

ratster -> (5/22/2002 11:17:14 PM)
I think the point is that TF's containing only MSW ships can be assigned minelaying missions, which they then appear to carry out (they move to the target hex, etc), the program shouldn't allow this, but it does.

Fuchida -> (5/22/2002 11:17:38 PM)
As an experiment I created two mine warfare task forces, one with a single MSW and one with a single CA. Both were created no problem. I ordered both to the same hex and got the same "TFxxx will move to Lunga" message. The program doesn't seem to mind if the ships if the minelaying task force can actually lay mines. Besides, as the option is mine warfare, how do you specify if you are laying or sweeping mines?

Didz -> (5/22/2002 11:19:00 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fuchida [B]Another thought. You might only get messages about enemy mine clearing operations if one of your scout planes or subs sees them doing it. Unless you see them, how would you know they were clearing mines? [/B][/QUOTE] Again good theory but hard to see how this would be true. Normally sighting reports are pretty specific with the target and binocular symbol stating who saw what and where. These reports just flash up in the information area at the bottom right of the screen stating that such an such an MSW has cleared a lane through your mine field in hex x:x. In my case the mine fields were sown outside the Rabual naval base and I don't think any of my search planes were operating that far out. But you are right how would I know if my mines had been cleared or indeed whether an IJN ship has struck one but when it happened I got a lovely 'Bang' sound followed by a report telling me the name of the ship and everything. I guess good news travels fast.

Didz -> (5/22/2002 11:33:45 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fuchida [B]As an experiment I created two mine warfare task forces, one with a single MSW and one with a single CA. Both were created no problem. I ordered both to the same hex and got the same "TFxxx will move to Lunga" message. The program doesn't seem to mind if the ships if the minelaying task force can actually lay mines. Besides, as the option is mine warfare, how do you specify if you are laying or sweeping mines? [/B][/QUOTE] Can you do the same test again. Only this time don't send them to a beach or base hex send them to an open sea hex. If my guess is right they both should flash up two messages. Firstly [TFXXX will move to Hex xx:xx] quickly followed by second message says [TFxxx will MINE hex xx:xx] The second message never appears when the destination hex is a beach or base which led me to beleive that you couldn't mine a beach or base hex when iroinically it appears that they are the hexes you can mine in my copy of the game. So, it seems the inconsistency lies in the use of the second flash message [TFxxx will MINE hex xx:xx]. It appears when it shouldn't and doesn't appear when it should.

Fuchida -> (5/23/2002 12:00:29 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz [B] Can you do the same test again. Only this time don't send them to a beach or base hex send them to an open sea hex. If my guess is right they both should flash up two messages. Firstly [TFXXX will move to Hex xx:xx] quickly followed by second message says [TFxxx will MINE hex xx:xx] [/B][/QUOTE] I created a mine warfare task force with just a CA and sent it to an open sea hex. I got the 'Move to' and 'will mine' messages. I think this indicates your MSW were being treated as escorts and cannot lay mines. The program is not checking to see if at least one of the ships you include in the task force can lay mines. I don't think this can be regarded as a bug. It's up to the player to ensure they put the right types of ships in their task forces.

Joel Billings -> (5/23/2002 12:10:34 AM)
Only DM's and ML's and subs can lay mines. Check the ship detail screen for a MSW and you won't see any mines listed. Check it for a ML and you will see a line of data for mines. Just because you can put the ship in a mine TF does not mean it has mines to lay. Hope this clears up some confusion. The text message saying the TF will mine is generic and does not look to see if the TF actually has mines on board.

sbond -> (5/23/2002 12:44:38 AM)
I think the message you get when you send an MSW out is ment to be sweeping for mines, maybe it is just a typo? Check the weapons MSW have no mines loaded.

Supervisor -> (5/23/2002 3:40:12 AM)
[QUOTE] The second message never appears when the destination hex is a beach or base which led me to beleive that you couldn't mine a beach or base hex when iroinically it appears that they are the hexes you can mine in my copy of the game.[/QUOTE] I haven't yet played a scenario where a US minelayer has shown up. All they have had is MSW's. The Japanese have had ML's and they have successfully laid mines (coastal or sea hexes, it doesn't matter). The mine symbol is always there (if it is yours or you've detected it), but sometimes it's hard to see in a cluttered hex. But it is there. Now, I haven't yet had a mined hex that I've swept a lot, so I don't know if they will go away eventually. That's yet to be seen. :D

madflava13 -> (5/23/2002 3:45:12 AM)
The US gets a couple DMs around July I believe of 1942... I know they start in one of the long campaigns.

Didz -> (5/23/2002 6:44:09 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fuchida [B] The program is not checking to see if at least one of the ships you include in the task force can lay mines. I don't think this can be regarded as a bug. It's up to the player to ensure they put the right types of ships in their task forces. [/B][/QUOTE] :D Lol! Its been a long time since I've heard that excuse. Takes me back to my system design days. [Its not a bug, its a feature];) There used to be two rules for any system generated messages. 1. It has to be appropriate to the situation. 2. It has to be meaningful to the person who will read it. I added a third 3. It has to be polite. When one of my programming team got bored and started adding messages like "Invalid input you stupid cow." In this instance the message "TFxxx will MINE hex XX:XX" is being generated in an inappropriate situation. In effect it is stating that an action will occur that clearly isn't going to happen. In my book thats a bug.

madflava13 -> (5/23/2002 7:12:13 AM)
Regardless of the definition, now that we know what it means, we can disregard it - I'm sure it'll be in the patch, if not, its certainly not a game killer...

Didz -> (5/23/2002 1:38:46 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13 [B]Regardless of the definition, now that we know what it means, we can disregard it - I'm sure it'll be in the patch, if not, its certainly not a game killer... [/B][/QUOTE] Absolutely! Not sure if the crews of HMAS Lauceton, Toowoomba, Ipswich and Wollongong would be so forgiving as that message led them to be sent on a pointless mission to lay mines in the Jomard Passage where they were surpised by an IJN air strike. Fortunately its only a game;)

Fuchida -> (5/23/2002 8:27:40 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz [B] :D Lol! Its been a long time since I've heard that excuse. Takes me back to my system design days. [Its not a bug, its a feature];) [/B][/QUOTE] I don't think expecting the player to check he has minelaying ships in his minelaying task force is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the programmer. Maybe I should point out you need carriers in your Air Combat tasks forces and transports in your Transport task forces because the program doesn't appear to check that either.

Didz -> (5/23/2002 10:14:56 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fuchida [B] I don't think expecting the player to check he has minelaying ships in his minelaying task force is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the programmer. Maybe I should point out you need carriers in your Air Combat tasks forces and transports in your Transport task forces because the program doesn't appear to check that either. [/B][/QUOTE] Sorry! I obviously didn't explain the point I was making very clearly. I'm not expecting to be able to lay mines with ships that don't have the capability to lay mines. Any more than I expect to be able to fly torpedo bombers off the deck of PT boat. However, I also don't expect the program to tell me that an MSW TF is going to Mine a hex when it doesn't have the capability to do so. This is misleading and its bad programming. And I wouldnt' expect it to allow me to set up an Air Strike from a TF containing nothing but PT boats either and I wouldn't expect a ship list containing PT boats to appear when I tried to transfer planes from a land base to a ship even though I ought to know that PT boats can't receive aircraft. Its not about whether MSW's should be able to lay mines its about whether the program should generate inaccurate messages. Incidently, in my expereince nothing is an 'unreasonable expectation on the part of the programmer'. I once had a guy who honestly considered it unnecessary to label the data fields on a system input screen because 'they are defined in the input data record format in the appendix at the back of the technical manual'.:D

Mark W Carver -> (5/24/2002 12:45:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fuchida [B] I don't think expecting the player to check he has minelaying ships in his minelaying task force is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the programmer. [/B][/QUOTE] Here, here.. I agree.

Fuchida -> (5/24/2002 1:00:42 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz [B] However, I also don't expect the program to tell me that an MSW TF is going to Mine a hex when it doesn't have the capability to do so. [/B][/QUOTE] I understand what you mean about this. The program is obviously checking the task force type before outputing the message rather than the ships. However, I have done more than a little programming myself and I would guess the reason is that checking each ship in a task force to see if it has mines or not is extra processing. Not much you might say, but once you go down that road of assuming an ever-increasing need to hand hold the user and double checking everything the user does to check if it is sensible, you slow the game down. So you have to decide on what is a reasonable level of common sense of the part of the user. In this case, assuming the user will put the right sort of ships in his task force is reasonable. The simplest solution would be to simply remove the 'will mine' message. That way there is no misleading information and no extra processing. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz [B]Incidently, in my expereince nothing is an 'unreasonable expectation on the part of the programmer'. I once had a guy who honestly considered it unnecessary to label the data fields on a system input screen because 'they are defined in the input data record format in the appendix at the back of the technical manual'.:D [/B][/QUOTE] If you think the above compares to expecting the user to put minelaying ships in a minelaying task force, then I think we will have to agree to disagree.

siRkid -> (5/24/2002 1:02:16 AM)
One thing I noticed and reported as a bug is subs given the mine mission will not pick up new mines when they are refueled at port. You have to disband them and then create a new TF. It is then that you see the message loading mines. I've only played US so I don't know if the same is true for the Japs.

Supervisor -> (5/24/2002 1:39:08 AM)
[QUOTE] I understand what you mean about this. The program is obviously checking the task force type before outputing the message rather than the ships. However, I have done more than a little programming myself and I would guess the reason is that checking each ship in a task force to see if it has mines or not is extra processing. Not much you might say, but once you go down that road of assuming an ever-increasing need to hand hold the user and double checking everything the user does to check if it is sensible, you slow the game down. So you have to decide on what is a reasonable level of common sense of the part of the user. In this case, assuming the user will put the right sort of ships in his task force is reasonable. [/QUOTE] You could set up a check-bit that is set to either true/false (minelay/no-minelay) depending on whether there is a minelay-capable ship in the TF. Thereafter, you would only have to check the TF when it is created or changed (due to transfer, damage, etc.). Then the message displayed would check the flag and print (or not print) the "will MINE" message. This will use a little processing time, so they will have to evaluate whether the extra processing is worth it. Now that I know what is happening, I can live with it either way. In a related vein, does the "will MINE" message show up if the minelayer is out of mines? If not, then they must be checking ammo status before printing/not-printing the message. Also, I have found that if you change the destination of a minelayer after it has left port, it will apparently NOT lay mines until it has returned to port and refueled/replenished (Japanese ML out of Shortland).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.015625