Ship mines too rare? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Jim D Burns -> Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 8:52:07 AM)

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



Terminus -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 9:28:18 AM)

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...



Speedysteve -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 9:33:01 AM)

Do we have historcial production figures available for mines?



Terminus -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 9:35:55 AM)

Some, but they are rather sparse, AFAIK.



Speedysteve -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 9:37:55 AM)

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



tigercub -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 11:09:25 AM)

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!



RAM -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 11:20:51 AM)

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



Jim D Burns -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 11:40:16 AM)


quote:

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



Kereguelen -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 11:56:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

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).



Yamato hugger -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 1:37:53 PM)

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.



Dili -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 1:52:50 PM)

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.




tigercub -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 2:36:08 PM)

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!



Don Bowen -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 3:08:12 PM)


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.



Terminus -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 3:20:50 PM)


quote:

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?



Feltan -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 3:22:33 PM)

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



JWE -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 3:24:14 PM)

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



Mike Solli -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 3:57:37 PM)

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



Kumppi -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 4:01:00 PM)

That would be 150 mines.



Mike Solli -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 4:03:07 PM)

Thank you!



Dili -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 5:01:50 PM)

quote:

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/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare2.htm




EUBanana -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 5:10:32 PM)

Wikipedia actually has an interesting article on naval mines...

quote:


Finally, in March 1945, Operation Starvation began in earnest, using 160 of LeMay's B-29 Superfortress bombers to attack Japan's inner zone. Almost half of the mines were the US-built Mark 25 model, carrying 1250 lbs of explosives and weighing about 2,000 lbs. Other mines used included the smaller 1,000 lb Mark 26.[21] 15 B-29s were lost while 293 enemy merchant ships were sunk or damaged.[22] 12,000 aerial mines were laid, a significant barrier to Japan's access to outside resources. Prince Fumimaro Konoe said after the war that the aerial mining by B-29s had been "equally as effective as the B-29 attacks on Japanese industry at the closing stages of the war when all food supplies and critical material were prevented from reaching the Japanese home islands."[23] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War) concluded that it would have been more efficient to combine the United States's effective anti-shipping submarine effort with land- and carrier-based air power to strike harder against merchant shipping and begin a more extensive aerial mining campaign earlier in the war. Survey analysts projected that this would have starved Japan, forcing an earlier end to the war.[24] After the war, Dr. Johnson looked at the Japan inner zone shipping results, comparing the total economic cost of submarine-delivered mines versus air-dropped mines and found that, though 1 in 12 submarine mines connected with the enemy as opposed to 1 in 21 for aircraft mines, the aerial mining operation was about ten times less expensive per enemy ton sunk.[25]


1 in 12 sub mines scored a hit?  thats far higher than I would have thought.





Yamato hugger -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 5:14:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

1 in 12 sub mines scored a hit?  thats far higher than I would have thought.



Not terribly surprising when you consider that the US ran less than 50 sub mine missions in the entire war (I dont know about Dutch and British boats) and therefore little to no effort would be wasted looking for them.



JWE -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 5:51:16 PM)

Way over 70% of all the mines laid in the Pacific were laid in areas where game engine does not allow mines to be laid.

The game attempts to be as historical as possible, in those areas IN WHICH IT CAN.

In those areas in which it cannot, due to engine limitations, it must rely on a more simplistic approach. It is all well and good to hop on a high historical horse, but if the game cannot replicate every single historical factor, especially the most significant ones, then all of the historicity arguments become fun, informative, humorous, but in the main, irrelevant.

Please also not that, in accord with engine driven mine warfare, you get over 18,000 'free' mines, that are auto-generated at turn start, that can be maintained by intelligently deployed ACMs.



EUBanana -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 5:54:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Way over 70% of all the mines laid in the Pacific were laid in areas where game engine does not allow mines to be laid.



I get the impression that the majority are air dropped.

And air dropped naval mines have no limit at the moment, no?



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 7:17:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Way over 70% of all the mines laid in the Pacific were laid in areas where game engine does not allow mines to be laid.

The game attempts to be as historical as possible, in those areas IN WHICH IT CAN.

In those areas in which it cannot, due to engine limitations, it must rely on a more simplistic approach. It is all well and good to hop on a high historical horse, but if the game cannot replicate every single historical factor, especially the most significant ones, then all of the historicity arguments become fun, informative, humorous, but in the main, irrelevant.

Please also not that, in accord with engine driven mine warfare, you get over 18,000 'free' mines, that are auto-generated at turn start, that can be maintained by intelligently deployed ACMs.


That is a good point. There is no doubt that something needed to be done re. "Mines in the Pacific". How many times have you seen 10,000 mines protecting a 1/2 mile wide coral atoll sitting on top of a seamount where the water drops off to 5,000 ft 200 yds offhsore?



Sheytan -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 7:25:12 PM)

Bit too early isnt it to see the long term impact this may have, after all excluding the playtesters, does anyone know how reduced mines will play out over the duration of the campaign? Also it has been noted the Japanese didnt exactally seed the length and breadth of the Pacific with minefields.



wworld7 -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 8:26:19 PM)

Trusting Wiki is foolhardy.



Terminus -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 8:28:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Way over 70% of all the mines laid in the Pacific were laid in areas where game engine does not allow mines to be laid.

The game attempts to be as historical as possible, in those areas IN WHICH IT CAN.

In those areas in which it cannot, due to engine limitations, it must rely on a more simplistic approach. It is all well and good to hop on a high historical horse, but if the game cannot replicate every single historical factor, especially the most significant ones, then all of the historicity arguments become fun, informative, humorous, but in the main, irrelevant.

Please also not that, in accord with engine driven mine warfare, you get over 18,000 'free' mines, that are auto-generated at turn start, that can be maintained by intelligently deployed ACMs.


That is a good point. There is no doubt that something needed to be done re. "Mines in the Pacific". How many times have you seen 10,000 mines protecting a 1/2 mile wide coral atoll sitting on top of a seamount where the water drops off to 5,000 ft 200 yds offhsore?



Plenty of times over the past 4 or 5 years, which is why we did what we did. It's not realistic.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 8:48:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

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.



That production was part of the idea to close the North Sea w/ a giant mine barrage (100-150k mines?). Wasn't one of the brightest or most economical ideas of the war. I know you're just using the figure as an example and I'm not saying that such production couldn't have been replicated or even approached in WW2 but there would have to have been a good reason to do so.



Terminus -> RE: Ship mines too rare? (7/29/2009 8:59:06 PM)

And there was none in WWII. WWI figures hardly apply in this case.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6367188