Mine Warefare needs serious attention !! (Full Version)

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



Message

Pawlock -> Mine Warefare needs serious attention !! (11/19/2002 12:21:42 AM)

Ok I have recently conceded a Pbem game against a well founded and overall deserved Jap opponent.

Why I conceded, well I think it boils down mainly to one thing in the end, Mines !!!

I'll give a brief rundown on my circumstances that lead me to think this.

I play Usn and basically need to retake Gili Gili back from the now well entrenched Japs. Now I know my opponent has been running minelaying ops to and from Gili so Im well armed with this info and take all this into consideration in my planning.

Suffice it to say everyone of my tf's that would be to enter the Gili Gili hex had either DMS or MSW capability. Not only that I had a seperate Minewarfare TF set to follow the invasion tf's in.

On day 1 I sustained 24 Hits by mines and detected and sweeped 32 times.

Day 2 23 Hits by mines and detected and sweeped 39 times

Day 3 Well all my MSw's and DMS are sunk ,,,,,,7 hits no sweeps.

Know forgive me if im wrong here, but surely having the MSW/Dms ships in numbers like I did surely they would have had enought capability to clear a reletivly safe passage? Oh and yes they were all set on Patrol/do not retire.

If people wanna talk unrealistic/unhistorical this is one aspect that needs serious looking at. IMO it has cut short my Pbem game, because due to the horrendous casualties I suffered a dominoe effect in regards to all other actions involved in my invasion.

I cant take any credit away from my opponent, he deserved to win overall. I just think I was cruelly hurt by the game mechanics more than my opponent!!!



mogami -> Mines (11/19/2002 12:52:30 AM)

Hi, While I think in large measure UV is becoming an excellent game, the mine aspect is one of the areas that need relooking into. I want mines to be part of the game. I also have found one of those "super" IJN minefields. I have been trying to clear it for months. I ran out of minesweepers and am waiting on the ones that did not sink outright (mines did tend to sink minesweepers and DD's if they hit one) To repair and futher minesweeps to arrive. I think one possible solution would be for minelayers to lay their mines one at a time but minesweepers should clear them at a faster rate. (clearing a mine does not require you to lift it out of water, just locate it, move to a safe distance and shoot it with a .50cal) In Gulf war I was on a ship assigned mineclearing. Our mineclearing method was to first use an M-14, if that did not work we went to the .50cal.)
Enemy mines placed in port-once discovered and minesweeps clear a path the remaining mine should be treated as "friendly"
mines and ships should use the "friendly" rate for hitting them.



Mike Wood -> Re: Mines (11/19/2002 1:15:15 AM)

Hello...

I will look at this. We may need to reduce the chance of a mie sweeper hitting a mine.

Thanks...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games



Pawlock -> New Mineclearing message ?? (11/19/2002 1:15:36 AM)

Thinking about it more now, I think the messages should be altered to:

Minefield detected,

Attempting to throw mines into path of ships following :-)

Thats certainly what it looked like to me.

Btw can anybody here match or beat those casualties?

Mogami, about treating them as friendly hit rates once detected seems like a sounder approach, or perhaps even a compromise between the 2 figures maybe?



pasternakski -> Re: Re: Mines (11/19/2002 2:36:31 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
[B]Hello...

I will look at this. We may need to reduce the chance of a mie sweeper hitting a mine.

Thanks...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games [/B][/QUOTE]

Please also take a look at bombardment task forces NEVER hitting your defensive minefields...



Paul Vebber -> (11/19/2002 3:32:29 AM)

The chance of a minstrike with a contact mine = (dangerous front /effective distance between mine)*reliability of mine* Chance mine is above keel depth of vessel)

FOr a stadard DM "dangerous front" assuming a small degree of "crab" is about 15m. Effective distance betwen mines is typically 200m/number of lines so for 4 lines that would be about 50m and the probability of a minestrike 15/50 = .3

WW2 mine reliability (proability it would detach from teh anchor and moor at preset depth was about 90% for japanese miines and 85% for "WWI holdovers" the US used unitl well into 43. The newer ones was probably 95%.

Just becasue you teh mine went ot the preset depth doesn;t mean that the bottom is as deep as you think. DDs were tough targets for mines becasue they typically drafted <15ft. The shallower the draft the higher teh chance that bottom topography would take the mine too deep.

Draft generic proabability (various - just a "rule of thumb")
>50 ft 90%
>40Ft 80%
>30ft 65%
>20ft 45%
>15ft 30%
>10ft 20%
<10ft 15%

So the total chnace for a DM with <15ft draft would be .3*.9*.2 =~5%

Note magnetic mines add a different dynamic - magnetic sweeps detonate mines outside the dangerous front so that can be left as a pretty constant 15% chance of "far strike" that would do some systme and floation damage maybe 2d10 worth of each. 7% chance of "near strike" doing maybe 4d10 worth and a 3% chance of a "Catastrophic hit" while magnetic minsweeping.



Pawlock -> (11/19/2002 5:27:56 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]The chance of a minstrike with a contact mine = (dangerous front /effective distance between mine)*reliability of mine* Chance mine is above keel depth of vessel)

FOr a stadard DM "dangerous front" assuming a small degree of "crab" is about 15m. Effective distance betwen mines is typically 200m/number of lines so for 4 lines that would be about 50m and the probability of a minestrike 15/50 = .3

WW2 mine reliability (proability it would detach from teh anchor and moor at preset depth was about 90% for japanese miines and 85% for "WWI holdovers" the US used unitl well into 43. The newer ones was probably 95%.

Just becasue you teh mine went ot the preset depth doesn;t mean that the bottom is as deep as you think. DDs were tough targets for mines becasue they typically drafted <15ft. The shallower the draft the higher teh chance that bottom topography would take the mine too deep.

Draft generic proabability (various - just a "rule of thumb")
>50 ft 90%
>40Ft 80%
>30ft 65%
>20ft 45%
>15ft 30%
>10ft 20%
<10ft 15%

So the total chnace for a DM with <15ft draft would be .3*.9*.2 =~5%

Note magnetic mines add a different dynamic - magnetic sweeps detonate mines outside the dangerous front so that can be left as a pretty constant 15% chance of "far strike" that would do some systme and floation damage maybe 2d10 worth of each. 7% chance of "near strike" doing maybe 4d10 worth and a 3% chance of a "Catastrophic hit" while magnetic minsweeping. [/B][/QUOTE]

Paul, thanks for the info, but I'll admit to not knowing enought on the subject to even counter your input in regards to statistics. All Im interested in game terms is results .

That said my main beef was the innefectiveness of the Mine warfare ships at clearing a path for the transports. Again EVERY one of my forward tf's had either MSW or DMS attached ,plus a seperate Minewarfare TF with 4 MSW/DMS plus DD's set to follow.

Now my argument here is although they all were sweeping the hex and detecting minefields and widening paths, I would estimate over 95 percent of ships (approx about 25-30 including DD's and a couple of Cl's ) that went in the invasion Tf's were struck by mines in one form or another.

Do those figures sound plausable give the circumstances? if so I would love to see some examples of this. I would'ent have minded the odd 1 or 2 getting hit, you will always miss some, but my example was bordering on the ridiculas.

And if this is'nt enought I have in the past seen many examples of Tf's go in without MSw/DMS into heavily mined hexes and come out virtually unscathed.



pasternakski -> (11/19/2002 7:00:03 AM)

I still think that ships assigned to bombardment TFs are issued "angel wings" with which to fly over intervening minefields.

To be specific, I have played three games in which the Allies have mined the Santa Isabel-Guadalcanal "gap" (two shallow water hexes) and have seen myriad IJN bombardment TFs blow right on through to blast Lunga as though the mines were nothing more than pomegranates (and even less harmful ones than the one used as an excuse for creating winter...)



CapAndGown -> (11/19/2002 7:31:25 AM)

I think that mines are simply too numerous in the game.

Also, there appears to be a tendency for the last mine in a hex to hit an MSW. I mined a bunch of hexes in a game against the AI. And every time it cleared the last mine, I would get a message: MSW X hits mine.



Von Rom -> (11/19/2002 8:14:45 AM)

I also think there are way too many mine sweepers and mine layers in UV.

When I played as the Japanese, in the first two months, I laid so many mines, my own ships were happily running into them MORE than the enemy was :(

In fact, in the first few months, my own mines were the worst hazard I had to face. . .

After a few more months, I was getting "mine happy": so many mines, but not enough ports to lay them in. . .

:eek:



mogami -> mining own bases. (11/19/2002 9:11:58 AM)

Greetings, I never mine my own bases. I mine no mans land hexes and enemy choke points. I don't mine enemy bases I intend at some point to land on. (I'll mine hexes leading there on the enemy approach) IJN ML are some of the best ASW ships (low DC but high ratings and many have a float plane)



Admiral DadMan -> Re: mining own bases. (11/19/2002 9:58:39 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Greetings, I never mine my own bases. I mine no mans land hexes and enemy choke points. I don't mine enemy bases I intend at some point to land on. (I'll mine hexes leading there on the enemy approach) [/B][/QUOTE]So that would mean you're planning to bypass Gili Gili... :p



mogami -> Gili (11/19/2002 11:58:12 AM)

Hi, Dadman that means I plan on the Japanese clearing the mines long before i get there. ;)



Apollo11 -> My Japanese mine experience in UV (long and probably boring post)... (11/19/2002 3:25:31 PM)

Hi all,

The initial poster was playing for Allies and had trouble with Japanese mines.

But please don't forget the other side.

Playing as Japanese is much harder regarding mines especially since there is
"Argonaut" and because Allies have many more MSW ships (and DMS ships which
Japanese don't have at all).


In my last PBEM grand campaign I surrendered to my capable allied opponent
because of "degenerated" mine warfare.

I simply lost all MSW ships in first 3 months except 4 and there were no more
available as replacements/reinforcements (Japanese have 14 MSW ships for whole
grand campaign).

Since I started loosing 1 MSW ship a week I knew that the end is near and
although I had 3000 points lead there was nothing to be done in long run and
defeat was inevitable.


In short, my opinion is that with capable opponent the UV grand campaigns can
"degenerate" into mine warfare which totally "ruin" the game.


a)
The Japanese would gain bases at the start and then mine them heavily and thus
make allied invasion(s) later very hazardous.


b)
The Allies would use "Argonaut" and mine Japanese bases and choke points in
Japanese rear and this would effectively kill all ship movement once the
Japanese MSW ships are gone.



IMHO, something really needs s to be done here not to allow UV grand campaign
to become "mine slug festival".

Also, once all MSW (and DMS) ships are gone there is nothing in UV world that
can help you clear mines and the side which looses them first lost the game
regardless of how many points and other ships and aircraft troops has.

It's "game over" when you loose MSW (and DMS) ships.



My experience in UV with mine warfare (playing as Japanese)
-----------------------------------------------------------

#1
I laid mines with my ML ships:

a)
Defensive mine fields in my ports.

b)
Defensive mines fields in all shallow HEXes that I hold (ever single friendly
"dot").

c)
Offensive mine fields in all other (i.e. non occupied) shallow water HEX.

I did this in hope to stop enemy (Allied) submarine warfare and to stop his
submarine mine warfare.

In 3 months of this I never saw single hit of my mines on his submarines
although I laid hundreds of mine shoots with my MLS (this means that there
were thousands of mines in those HEXes).

Even in cases when my opponent's submarines had to cross several of HEXes with
my offensive/defensive mines there were never any hits.

Also his submarines never ever hit his own offensive mines (which he laid in
my rear) even they pass and/or stay in those HEXes all the time.

Note: I never ever hit my own mines so at least this was OK.


#2
I would loose MSW ships as they would attempt to clear mines. Their initial
inexperience would prove fatal and they would die trying to clear mine fields.


#3
If I tried to train my MSW ships to gain experience they died because of
"uber" Hudsons that would do their trick: sight/identify/attack/sink.

I even tried placing full Zero squadrons to protect them with LRCAP (1 HEX
away from home base for both) but "uber" Hudsons were unstoppable (nothing can
stop them in their trick: sight/identify/attack/sink).


#4
Even if I placed 2 of my MSW ships in "Mine Warfare" TF it would take several
turns for them to clear single "Argonaut" mine drop. This would, of course,
make any shipping impossible/dangerous during that time.


#5
My very skillful allied player staged "Argonaut" traps. This is tactics for
which there is simply no answer for Japanese player.

He would have "Argonaut" lay mines in my port/choke point and have several
submarines follow the "Argonaut". Then he would leave his submarines in those
newly mined hex to wait for my mine sweeping effort.

This of course resulted in MSW looses for my side.

Please note again that his submarines never hit my defensive mines nor his
newly laid offensive mines - they operated with impunity there.



So... what can be done to make UV better and not to allow grand campaigns to
"degenerate" into mine warfare which totally "ruin" the game?


I suggest the following:

#1
Give more mine sweeping capability to UV player.

The whole grand campaign in UV can fall apart once you loose all MSW (and DMS)
ships. It's "game over" then.

I simply can't accept that there are just 14 MSW ships (example of all mine
sweeping capability for Japanese player) for whole 18 month of grand campaign.

As several other knowledgeable people suggested in other threads regarding
this subject - there were many more mine sweeping capable ships on both sides
in WWII.

There were dozens and dozens of auxiliary mine sweepers (even some small cargo
ships were converted for this purpose) and yet we don't have them in UV.

Thus the real WWII south Pacific mine warfare was never as severe as our grand
campaign UV can be and yet we have much much lesser mine sweeping capability.


#2
As one UV player in this forum observed the "Argonaut" in 1942-1943 was
stripped of it's mine laying capability. Therefore the whole "Argonaut" threat
in UV (which is, IMHO, the biggest ship threat to Japanese player) should be
non existent.


#3
The submarines passing and/or staying in enemy (and friendly)
offensive/defensive mine fields should hit those mines from time to time.


#4
The enemy bombardment TFs should also hit some enemy (and friendly)
offensive/defensive mines as well.



Leo "Apollo11"



mogami -> sub mine layers (11/19/2002 7:33:45 PM)

Hi, All submarines (both sides) can lay mines. Not just Argonalt (she does carry about 5 other subs worth. And she has her own mines) Getting rid of Argonalt will not stop allied sub minelaying.
The Gato class subs have a bad torpedo and I use them while this condition lasts as minelayers. (Rabaul north and South channel) Both players should have a lot more minesweepers.



Pawlock -> (11/19/2002 9:51:35 PM)

All this talk about mines ,you would think I was agianst them. Far from it, mines play an important part in a game.

Lets not turn this into a Jap/Allied has it worst thread as both sides are more than capable of laying quantities of mines. Also I hold absolutly no grudges to my opponent, as I would have done exactly the same given the chance.

Im against the idea of unlimited amounts of certain ships if you should fall short in certain catagories. It means you have to use them more conservativly perhaps but giving an unlimited number takes one element of strategy away from the game. By the same ideology you could go to a more extreme case and say , look I've lost all my CV's I need more to continue the game and have a chance.

What does need addressing is the inconsistancy and inneffectiveness of MSW operations. I really think once a minefield has been detected and swept if ships are following ,thier chance to hit mines should be greatly reduced. The message you get " soandso has detected minefield, soandso clears path through minefield" say's it all.



Admiral_Arctic -> Sometimes I think it is El Alamein (11/19/2002 10:16:27 PM)

I don't think mines were this numerous.

There is far too much minelaying. Maybe each side can have only one ship that is mine capable? That would cut down on the overload. Or keep the same ships as present, but they have to return to Japan or Pearl Harbour to reload.

Or there could be a ceiling for the number of mines for each side in a hex. Any laid in excess would not count towards the total and would be void. That way there would be a presence of mines without them dominating the game.

Surely mine warfare would have been quite low on both sides doctrine?



Apollo11 -> Re: sub mine layers (11/19/2002 10:20:34 PM)

Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, All submarines (both sides) can lay mines. Not just Argonalt (she does carry about 5 other subs worth. And she has her own mines) Getting rid of Argonalt will not stop allied sub minelaying.
The Gato class subs have a bad torpedo and I use them while this condition lasts as minelayers. (Rabaul north and South channel)[/B][/QUOTE]

I think that "Argonaut" carries much more.

It lists (I think) 60 combat shots of mines while ordinary submarines carry
just 2 combat shots.

Whether this is 30x more or less I have no idea but I think it certainly much
more that 5x...


[B][QUOTE]Both players should have a lot more minesweepers. [/B][/QUOTE]

I do agree with this wholeheartedly...


Leo "Apollo11"



Apollo11 -> MSWs are irreplaceable... (11/19/2002 10:23:34 PM)

Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pawlock
[B]All this talk about mines ,you would think I was agianst them. Far from it, mines play an important part in a game.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Mines are very important and I agree 100% that they should remain to play
important role in UV but something, IMHO, must be done in order not to
"degenerate" UV grand campaign into mine slug fest that last until one side
looses it's minesweeping capabilities and practicaly looses the game.

[B][QUOTE]
Lets not turn this into a Jap/Allied has it worst thread as both sides are more than capable of laying quantities of mines. Also I hold absolutly no grudges to my opponent, as I would have done exactly the same given the chance.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes of course... there is nothing bad in our opponents tactic - on contrary it was very good.

[B][QUOTE]
Im against the idea of unlimited amounts of certain ships if you should fall short in certain catagories. It means you have to use them more conservativly perhaps but giving an unlimited number takes one element of strategy away from the game. By the same ideology you could go to a more extreme case and say , look I've lost all my CV's I need more to continue the game and have a chance.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The analogy of minesweeping ships with CVs is not OK. Every asset in UV (and
therefore carriers) can be substituted with somethig else.

But nothing, absolutely nothing can replace minesweeping ships. Once they are
gone you lost and it's "game over".


Leo "Apollo11"



Ron Saueracker -> Re: sub mine layers (11/19/2002 10:31:59 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, All submarines (both sides) can lay mines. Not just Argonalt (she does carry about 5 other subs worth. And she has her own mines) Getting rid of Argonalt will not stop allied sub minelaying.
The Gato class subs have a bad torpedo and I use them while this condition lasts as minelayers. (Rabaul north and South channel) Both players should have a lot more minesweepers. [/B][/QUOTE]

All USN fleet subs, Porpoise Class, Salmon Class, Tambor Class, as well as Gatos had Mk 14 torpedoes so all should be experiencing duds.



EricLarsen -> Re: Mines (11/19/2002 10:46:19 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
[B]Hello...

I will look at this. We may need to reduce the chance of a mie sweeper hitting a mine.

Thanks...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games [/B]

Mike,
Good idea. I too had experienced some excessive losses for my Allied MSW and DMS ships. I particularly noticed that DMS ships were almost worthless for mineclearing as it seemed they ran into mines too quickly, usually the first or second turn of clearing. Maybe their high speed is causing the program to have them hit mines too easily. The MSW's seemed to do better at clearing mines and it took a few more turns before they would hit a mine. I started abusing barges to run into mine fields and clear them out that way because the losses to my MSW's and DMS's were so excessive.
Eric Larsen



XPav -> (11/20/2002 1:23:07 AM)

My suggestions:

1) Remove minelaying capability from Argonaut. She didn't have it. Its got to go.

2) Add "implicit" minesweepers that clear friendly ports hexes. If I'm Allies, and mine Rabaul, assume that there's some piddly japanese little boats that come out and remove a percentage of mines every day. Bigger ports = more implicit minesweepers.

This saves the existing MSW and DMS ships for offensive operations and while not completely dealing with their irreplaceability, does allow a player to continue playing if they're all gone.



Von_Frag -> Re: Re: sub mine layers (11/20/2002 3:35:01 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]

All USN fleet subs, Porpoise Class, Salmon Class, Tambor Class, as well as Gatos had Mk 14 torpedoes so all should be experiencing duds. [/B][/QUOTE]

Has the Mk 14's performance actually been programmed into the game to improve in early 43?

Von Frag



mogami -> Argonaut (11/20/2002 4:20:47 AM)

Originally posted by XPav
My suggestions:

1) Remove minelaying capability from Argonaut. She didn't have it. Its got to go.


Well she should have the same as other subs rather then the 30X2 she has in game. (I think other subs use tubes x 2 for mines)(And they use an other mine. Argo has the Mk-12) Argonaut should not have both the 100+ cap and the 30x2 mines. Since her conversion was prior to UV she should be the troop transport not the minelayer. (In WITP I will keep her as a mine layer if given the choice). Argo lays no where near the number of mines the IJN ML do. But!!! she lays them in much more harmfull locations. I do feel the IJN players will be distressed to discover the lack of Argonaut does not prevent the allied player from still placing mines in these locations. Also I have came to believe many players do not realize all subs can lay mines.

2) Add "implicit" minesweepers that clear friendly ports hexes. If I'm Allies, and mine Rabaul, assume that there's some piddly japanese little boats that come out and remove a percentage of mines every day. Bigger ports = more implicit minesweepers.

I like this idea. It could simply be "decay rate" of mines on enemy port (based on port size-size 6 port decays faster then size 2 port) I would even suggest "decay" not commence untill field "discovered"

This saves the existing MSW and DMS ships for offensive operations and while not completely dealing with their irreplaceability, does allow a player to continue playing if they're all gone.



XPav -> Re: Argonaut (11/20/2002 5:29:37 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]
Well she should have the same as other subs rather then the 30X2 she has in game.[/B][/QUOTE]

Of course.

quote:

Also I have came to believe many players do not realize all subs can lay mines.

Thats because reloading them is annoying. :-)

quote:

I like this idea. It could simply be "decay rate" of mines on enemy port (based on port size-size 6 port decays faster then size 2 port) I would even suggest "decay" not commence untill field "discovered"


What counts as discovered?



mogami -> "discovered mines" (11/20/2002 5:44:55 AM)

Hi, dicovered is when you become aware of their presence, By hitting one or Minesweepers clearing a path. (I have "Port patrols" Of ASW and Mine craft on patrol.) I would even like to see aircraft report like "PBY ( or Mavis blah blah) Spots enemy sub laying mines" Discovered means simply .....you run into them and say "ha enemy mines" Air/ship is does not matter. Mines would be found sooner or later and once found they have lost much of there use (except to close restricted routes) If there is more then one path mines are not important once found.



Sonny -> Re: "discovered mines" (11/20/2002 10:30:03 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B].................

once found they have lost much of there use (except to close restricted routes)....................[/B][/QUOTE]

Like your port hex?;)



JohnK -> Re: Argonaut (11/21/2002 12:19:17 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Originally posted by XPav
My suggestions:

Well she should have the same as other subs rather then the 30X2 she has in game. (I think other subs use tubes x 2 for mines)(And they use an other mine. Argo has the Mk-12) Argonaut should not have both the 100+ cap and the 30x2 mines. Since her conversion was prior to UV she should be the troop transport not the minelayer. (In WITP I will keep her as a mine layer if given the choice). [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, given that Argonaut never laid a SINGLE mine in anger in the war, and that Argonaut had her own special type of mines, and there's no evidence that this production line was in operation during the war, I'd not have Argonaut with ANY mine capability in WITP, either.

The Argonaut was considered a "White Elephant" in reality.

Having Argonaut as a minelayer in WITP will end up with people laying 10,000 mines with her during the war, when in reality there probably were at most a couple hundred mines that she could lay and the production line was never restarted.



Yamamoto -> (11/21/2002 1:21:41 AM)

I really like mines. After sinking a ship with planes, seeing an enemy hit one of my mines is the most enjoyable combat feedback I get in this game.

I hope they don't make any changes to it at all. If you feel like you need more minesweepers they can be added with the editor. Even with a PBEM game you could agree to add X minesweepers to each side.

Yamamoto



mogami -> Re: Re: "discovered mines" (11/21/2002 2:41:35 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]

Like your port hex?;) [/B][/QUOTE]


Hi, Yes like a Port hex. However once the mines have been discovered and minesweepers have cleared a passage, the mines should now be treated like friendly mines as far as another ship hitting one goes (We know where they are and we have cleared a path. No more 25 ships a turn running into them)
The turn mines are first encountered and the TF has no minesweepers I have no problem with multiple ships hitting them.
But when a TF of minesweepers has been sweeping for several weeks and a friendly TF enters the hex they aught not to go blundering into the mines. In PBEM game with U2 I have a base at Irau. He mined it before I arrived and I believe he has laid more since. (If enemy lays mines in "discovered" hex then I would say ok it has been "undiscovered" till the next sweep)
But at Irau I have been clearing mines for over a month. I had to cease operations because all the minesweepers were sunk or disabled and I had to wait for more. Every TF that has entered hex has struck mines.
I don't really give a hoot about Argonault one way or the other. She was a minelaying sub, All her minelaying operations took place before the war began (but till modified for Makin raid as troop transport she was a minelaying sub.) Production lines in the United States are not an issue. If she had needed mines they would have been provided. But since she was altered prior to UV she should be restricted to the same type and number of mines as other subs. Lots of subs never laid a mine but have that capabilty in game. (many subs never carried a troop but can in game) I don't think mine laying is the problem. I do think mine sweeping is too difficult. The hard part of mine clearing is finding them. Once you know where to look the rest is easy.
The main reason mines are employed is to cause the enemy to spend time and resources looking for them. If they just run about with out regard for mines they should get hurt. But if they have regular patrols looking for and clearing mines then the mines don't damage ships but they still consume enemy supply/fuel and time.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.265869