Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 6/18/2002 8:03:27 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]Minings not to bad for the IJN, you get all those ML's to use, takes about 3 days to get from Truk down to the Rabaul area. Mining for the Allies has pretty much been eliminated as a viable option, especially in the Oz/PM/GG areas.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Bit ironic considering that the Allies seem to have gained the most benefit from mines in the real campaign.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 91

Mine mines mines - 6/18/2002 8:39:13 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Well AAR from me indicates that IJN mining can make
Lunga all but immpossible to reach easily.
The AI is apparently totally helpless to deal with it.

I was able to mine and maintain a barrier that inflicted
enourmous damage on the nightly pounding of Lunga.
In addition it damaged quite a few SS that try to sneak
thru.

This is POST PATCH AAR btw.

However I have found the AI to be incredibly tenacious
and it refuses to retreat.

Right now it has three full strength divisions including
the first marines sitting in Gili Gili
more or less isolated.

I ran out of ships to send against the fleet the AI maintains there
(including the North Carolina)
I am waiting for carrier planes replacements so that I can
hopefully sink that BB.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 92

- 6/18/2002 9:18:53 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

I promised myself I would not keep this going...but there are still too many misconceptions out there that need to be set right...

the "developers have abandoned the discussion" because there is little point to continuing to say the same things over and over.

It amazes me that despite repeatedly saying effectively that the "operational flexibility" issue will be taken up in WITP, there has continued to be a "discussion" at all.

1) The bottom line is that in the period of the campaign, some 6000 mines were laid by the US, half ineffectively by air (many landing on land or water far too deep and many simply didn't survive impact with the water...) the other half as described in my summary.

2) Australian mining was done mostly defensively. A strategic decision in the context of the campaign, but I have no problem with adding Brisbane as an Allied mine center and giving the Aussies the HMAS Bungaree. She laid 250 mines at PM from what I can find, and possible reseeded it several times. Its conceivable you may see that in a future patch. But the vast majority of Aussie mines were laid defensively in her home waters.

3) Offensive mining IS AND WAS a very different animal than defensive mining. No "safe passages" are left in an offensive minefield. The field is laid with speed as the utmost goal and precision navigation techniques that allow a ship at 10 knots in daylight with known navaids to "know where the mines are" are not available when mining offensively at 25+ knots in un-familiar waters at night. Whole fields were routinely off by 1000's of yards let alone knowing where individual mines are....

4) hardly a knee-jerk, the restrictions of 1.1 DON'T GO NERLY FAR ENOUGH to reflect the constraints the miners were under!!

5) Deep water mines are an "equal opportunity" threat because they are basically floating on the surface, tethered typically for a short time until the flimsy mooring broke (if it had one). The weight of the mooring cable must be borne by the buoyancy of the mine and the deeper the mooring the more mechanical forces the ocean exerts on it. This produced a "triple whammy" on deep water mines since: they typically were visible on the surface, but at times would submerge, since there was no way to predict the ocean current forces to get them to remain between keel depth and the surface. The mooring cable weight had to be minimized and so was a weak point, and the weaker cables were subject to more stresses than shorter cables and so broke after a short time. So deep water mines were of limited value because they quickly (or started out as) floating mines that drifted into whomever happened by, not knowing friend from foe. That is why "deep water" mines are so dangerous to both sides. And also why their use was soon abandoned by the Japanese and never employed by the US.

6) The US never lost a ship to enemy mining in the campaign (except Minesweepers�and losing several to OUR OWN minefields demonstrating amply that defensive minefields can indeed be a two-edged sword!) because the Japanese chose not to offensively mine very extensively. Mine sweepers removed the defensive mine threat as necessary, in a few cases being damaged or sunk doing so.

Mines were used most successfully as part of strategic mining campaigns ans were of limited effectiveness operationally. The game currently gives considerable "benefit of the doubt" to operational mining, in a way that shows both the strengths and weaknesses pretty well in operational terms.

WITP, with its need to reflect strategic mining, WILL BE DIFFERENT, but for the purposes of this campaign the 1.1 rules reflect reality pretty well, with the possible exception of adding Brisbane as a mine loading facility and the Aussie minelayer, an asset that had little effect on the historical campaign because of strategic priorities.

Hopefully that helps people understand the realities of the situation and that far form a "knee jerk" reaction, the mods made were the subject of considerable discussion and research and portray the operational limitations the two sides were under. If you want to change these strategic decisions, as has been said ad nauseum, you'll have to wait for WITP�

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 93

Re: Mine mines mines - 6/19/2002 1:31:52 AM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Well AAR from me indicates that IJN mining can make
Lunga all but immpossible to reach easily.
The AI is apparently totally helpless to deal with it.

I was able to mine and maintain a barrier that inflicted
enourmous damage on the nightly pounding of Lunga.
In addition it damaged quite a few SS that try to sneak
thru.

This is POST PATCH AAR btw. [/B][/QUOTE]

This seems reasonable to me if the nightly pounding you refer to was a Bombardment TF it would have been steaming through your minefield with little effort at watching for mines. On the other hand why it kept repeating its mistake is harder to explain.

In my own game (still pre-patch) I have caught a few IJN ships with offensive minefields (though not actually sunk any). The normal reaction from the AI has been pretty rapid deployment of an MSW to the hex in question and I have never managed to catch a ship in the same minefield twice.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 94

- 6/19/2002 1:36:49 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Paul

I think mining was too effective in 1.00 because mines did not decay and mine sweeping didn't work very well.

In version 1.10 mining it seems to be to much trouble for too little benifit.

All I ask is to allow us to create/move mine depots with the editor. I think this would resolve most of the issues, and lets us play the game the way we want.

Thanks

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 95

Re: Re: mining in PBEM - 6/19/2002 2:14:14 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
[B]

The Anti-Mine debate seems to have exploded amongst the observers reading the thread rather then the players and is based as expected on the fact that supposedly the US never lost a single ship to an enemy mine during the actual campaign.

Apart from this being a non-argument it doesn't give any clue as to why the US ships led such a charmed life or whether the situation would have been different if Yamamoto had followed Crocky's strategy.

Incidently Kid made the point that he had not lost a single US capital ship to mines either, only transports, but that point seemed to get lost in the Anti-mine histeria.

[/B][/QUOTE]

There are two basic reasons US losses to mines were minimal : Japanese mine warfare policy and practice was highly defensive rather than offensive, and the US essentially spared no expense in their mine detection, mapping and sweeping. By the end of the war the US had the largest minesweeping fleet in history (I have a post on that also).

As I stated in a previous post, the Japanese doctrine related to mine warfare was strictly defensive. Their minefields were generally laid only around harbors or other points of defense. They did not mine channels, for example, unless it was relatively near to the port. If you compare the Japanese and US mine warfare doctrines, you will find that the US policy was much more aggressive.

Another reason Japanese doctrine and practice was very defensive : US airpower. Every minute the Minelayer was more than a few minutes sailing time outside of a safe/camoflaged berth was increased risk for strafing by a chance enemy patrol. However, its also true that in areas where there was no risk of enemy air patrols, the Japanese limited themselves strictly to defensive minefields around ports and landing beaches.

Having said and hopefully being understood on this doctrine point, its always debateable how much of a "doctrine" you incorporate into special rules that limit player options. There do seem to me to be two camps on this issue : one that is essentially anti-mine and would be satisfied with any change the further reduces the ability to use mines to any effect, and the pro mine camp which generally would like to see as much flexibility on the mine warfare issue as possible. I like to think I come down in the middle.

I wouldn't want, for example, the Japanese to be able to lay dozens of minefields all around the Island of Guadalcanal because that was simply not something the Japanese had the training for. Ironically, the Japanese has the infrastructure to support a very aggressive mine warfare doctine (specialized subs, for example, a deep water mine) they just never used it aggressively.

So, as I have oft-repeated, I think the solution is not to have fixed ports, but to simply have a few conditions met before mines can be loaded at a port, and increase their cost.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 96

- 6/19/2002 2:40:35 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]I promised myself I would not keep this going...but there are still too many misconceptions out there that need to be set right...

[/QUOTE][/B]

We appreciate your continued engagement in this discussion. Please note that this discussion is no longer just about UV, at least not for me, because as I have said my main concern is doing what I can to prevent a fixed location approach in WitP.

[QUOTE][B]

the "developers have abandoned the discussion" because there is little point to continuing to say the same things over and over.

It amazes me that despite repeatedly saying effectively that the "operational flexibility" issue will be taken up in WITP, there has continued to be a "discussion" at all.

[/QUOTE][/B]

Anyone who gets involved in a forum discussion will have to repeat himself. Ask anyone. Ask me ;)

I would like "Operational Flexibilty" in UV. If I can't get it here, I want it in WitP. Saying that it will be taken up there is and ambiguous half of a loaf, but I want the whole shebang.

Please note that my comment "the devs have abandoned the discussion" was made because I didn't see any response from the dev team to the comments being made by other players on the new mine rules. I have essentially given up on convincing the dev team to drop the fixed port scheme, so you can ignore anything I say, something which should give you some small, insigificant or momentary joy.

[QUOTE][B]

1) The bottom line is that in the period of the campaign, some 6000 mines were laid by the US, half ineffectively by air (many landing on land or water far too deep and many simply didn't survive impact with the water...) the other half as described in my summary.

[/QUOTE][/B]

I'm personally in support of all of the changes made with respect to mineFIELD efficacy. I agree with you that offensive minefields are problematic from the standpoint of danger to friendly ships.

[QUOTE][B]

2) Australian mining was done mostly defensively. A strategic decision in the context of the campaign, but I have no problem with adding Brisbane as an Allied mine center and giving the Aussies the HMAS Bungaree. She laid 250 mines at PM from what I can find, and possible reseeded it several times. Its conceivable you may see that in a future patch. But the vast majority of Aussie mines were laid defensively in her home waters.

[/QUOTE][/B]

Aussie home waters are part of the map, therefore Bungaree and her efforts are fair game for inclusion, along with a Brisbane mine center if we are talking about fixed locations.

[QUOTE][B]

3) Offensive mining IS AND WAS a very different animal than defensive mining. No "safe passages" are left in an offensive minefield. The field is laid with speed as the utmost goal and precision navigation techniques that allow a ship at 10 knots in daylight with known navaids to "know where the mines are" are not available when mining offensively at 25+ knots in un-familiar waters at night. Whole fields were routinely off by 1000's of yards let alone knowing where individual mines are....

[/QUOTE][/B]

Agree, generally, but lets not go overboard and make offensive minefields SO dangerous to friendly ships that they aren't laid at all even by players that know what they're doing. In some cases, due to the map configuration, some hexes that would be considered "offensive" minefields by the game, would in reality be a defensive minefield.

[QUOTE][B]

4) hardly a knee-jerk, the restrictions of 1.1 DON'T GO NERLY FAR ENOUGH to reflect the constraints the miners were under!!

[/QUOTE][/B]

Disagree. The constraints in 1.1 are artificial and ahistorical. The minefield efficacy is from what little I have seen okay, but the artificial fixed port mine loading scheme is not supported by logic or historical data. To say that if something wasn't moved in the theater between 1 May 42 and 31 Dec 43 is evidence that a rule should be implemented so that it cannot be moved flys in the face of common sense to me, especially when I know that facilities of FAR GREATER size, cost, complexity, etc., were moved during WW2 (tank and aircraft factories, strategic bombing bases, ship resupply facilities, etc).

[QUOTE][B]

5) Deep water mines are an "equal opportunity" threat because they are basically floating on the surface, tethered typically for a short time until the flimsy mooring broke (if it had one). The weight of the mooring cable must be borne by the buoyancy of the mine and the deeper the mooring the more mechanical forces the ocean exerts on it. This produced a "triple whammy" on deep water mines since: they typically were visible on the surface, but at times would submerge, since there was no way to predict the ocean current forces to get them to remain between keel depth and the surface. The mooring cable weight had to be minimized and so was a weak point, and the weaker cables were subject to more stresses than shorter cables and so broke after a short time. So deep water mines were of limited value because they quickly (or started out as) floating mines that drifted into whomever happened by, not knowing friend from foe. That is why "deep water" mines are so dangerous to both sides. And also why their use was soon abandoned by the Japanese and never employed by the US.

[/QUOTE][/B]

Agree.

[QUOTE][B]

6) The US never lost a ship to enemy mining in the campaign (except Minesweepers�and losing several to OUR OWN minefields demonstrating amply that defensive minefields can indeed be a two-edged sword!) because the Japanese chose not to offensively mine very extensively. Mine sweepers removed the defensive mine threat as necessary, in a few cases being damaged or sunk doing so.

[/QUOTE][/B]

Agree, but I don't necessarily feel that this means special rules should be implemented to constrain use. A solution to limit Japanese mine use, for example, should give a Japanese player some (but not total) flexibility to depart from the history of Japanese mine warfare doctrine, and become more offensive than they were historically. Naturally, this should come at some increase cost to the Japanese player (such as by increasing the supply point cost of mines).

[QUOTE][B]

Mines were used most successfully as part of strategic mining campaigns ans were of limited effectiveness operationally. The game currently gives considerable "benefit of the doubt" to operational mining, in a way that shows both the strengths and weaknesses pretty well in operational terms.

WITP, with its need to reflect strategic mining, WILL BE DIFFERENT, but for the purposes of this campaign the 1.1 rules reflect reality pretty well, with the possible exception of adding Brisbane as a mine loading facility and the Aussie minelayer, an asset that had little effect on the historical campaign because of strategic priorities.

Hopefully that helps people understand the realities of the situation and that far form a "knee jerk" reaction, the mods made were the subject of considerable discussion and research and portray the operational limitations the two sides were under. If you want to change these strategic decisions, as has been said ad nauseum, you'll have to wait for WITP� [/B][/QUOTE]

I want operational flexibility, along with the set of excellent rule implementations about minefield efficacy, in UV. I agree that the 1.1 rules reflect minefield efficacy very well, I disagree about the fixed port scheme, which as I said is illogical. I don't think it was a knee-jerk reaction, but to say that the fixed port scheme is based on history is either just a misunderstanding of historical facts, or disingenuous.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 97

Re: Re: Re: mining in PBEM - 6/19/2002 3:22:34 AM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

The IJN mine doctrine was VERY offensive in nature*, and revolved around offensive mining as part of their "Decisive Battle" doctrine. Note that even midget subs were evolved as part of this doctrine and were viewed as "mobile mines"...kinda like mobile early low-tech versions of USN RAPTORs. This is why they built so many fast, well armed, high capacity minelayers...to mine in advance of the enemy fleet/area denial weapons. The BIGGEST reason the IJN didn't do more offensive mining in the waters they were operating in was because their minesweeping capability stank...badly. Against the advanced mines the USN deployed by subs/aircraft later in the war, they were virtually helpless.

*Note...this doctrine obviously went to crap, along with the IJN's fortunes once they got the crap kicked out of their little heinies.

The IJN also embarked on the most ambitious mining project in history*...roughly 15 times the size of the North Sea Mine Barrier of WW1. This involved mining the channels/choke points leading into the Japanese controlled waters, primarily against submarines. We're talking minefields throughout Indonesia and the P.I. for example. This project went on through the entire war in fits and starts...never completed, primarily due to a lack of mines and the facilities (radars, shore batteries) to protect the mine fields. The ASW minefields laid in the channels leading into the Sea of Japan for example, kept out subs until the development of sensitive mine detecting sonar.

*Note...ever wonder why when perusing an IJN ship listing or OOB you see so many coastal class/auxiliary minelayers and minesweepers listed? This is why.

The USN used "offensive" or "tactical" mining (outside of enemy ports, approaches, shipping lanes) in VERY limited numbers. They could paralyze shipping in a Japanese port just by dropping a few mines, as they had little way of clearing them (other than the obvious). The later mining, primarily conducted by aircraft doesn't even pertain to this discussion as this was largely done in Japanese home waters, where the USN was obviously not operating surface ships, and was conducted with technology that was NOT in existence during the period covered by UV.

The US success against IJN mines was almost entirely due to "reading the mail", ie breaking the IJN codes. In particular the IJN merchant marine codes which outlined minefield locations/composition...this was successful to the point that postwar corrections to existing USN maps of IJN minefields was "zero".

Moving "Mine Centers" wouldn't be as easily accomplished as you think either. And why would a commander move the facility? Closer to the front? Given the scarcity of both mines and trained mine techs during this period, that would hardly be likely. The USN had just lost a large amount of mines and mine techs when Subic Bay was overrun. Moving it would entail building new bunkers (sizable ones at that, mines in shipping containers are pretty bulky), cargo unloading facilities at the new port to handle bulk cargo, transportation facilites, quarters, mess facilites ect. All this to position scarce resources closer to one part of your operational area, while moving it further away from the rest. This during a period where the logistics capability at Noumea itself was described as a "national disgrace". Just getting "beans and bullets" to the front was a headache...let alone mines. Imagine what the IJN was like? Create a major headache/strain on exisiting resources just to save a few days steaming time?

The way mines are handled are pretty "abstracted" already. Think about the "logistics" of busting hundreds/thousands of mines out of the the bunkers, stripping them out of the shipping containers/dunnage, prepping them for service, inserting the booster charges, arming them with the detonators, and loading them on board the minelayers...and doing this day after day, month after month. Currently, this is done with the click of the mouse. If we want to start digging to deeply into "operational flexibility", instead of spending a few days in transit each way, our ML's will be spending a week or 2 tied up in dock while the splinter mine detachment we moved forward struggles to get the mines prepped and loaded. I'd imagine LTC Vebber there can happily tell us about how long it would take to prep and load 2500 mines (rough total capacity of the IJN ML's in a single lift)...or even how long it would take parked in a hex to lay 600 mines. This definitely wouldn't occur overnight. Be careful what you wish for, as you might get it.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 98

- 6/19/2002 3:42:21 AM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

Paul; I think overall the changes in v1.10 are excellent in general. The defensive/offensive mine diferential works okay, the minesweeping works okay, the deep water mining works okay. All of these changes have went far toward making the use of mines in UV much more realistic.

The "intent" of making fixed mine resupply locations was to introduce a limit on the number of mines in game, or at least as I understood it. This works well for the IJN as they get 11 minelayers, each with decent speed, fuel capacity, and mine capacity. It works well for the Allies in the eastern portion of the area of operations, even given their 4 minelayers with mediocre legs and comparatively low carrying capacity. Mining ops in the GC area are still feasible and useful.

Where it doesn't work, is the western (Australia and PNG) half. The transit times/distance from Noumea has turned out to be prohibitive in practice.

In real life, within a few months or so of scenario start date, the need for defensive minefields in Oz and PNG had pretty much evaporated. In "UV", the first 6 months the outcome can still be in doubt, you may (WILL!) still have to worry about IJN ships in the Coral Sea, and against a human, you may be fighting for survival off the shores of Oz, or even trying to repel an IJN landing.

Historically, mining wasn't widely used to it's full capability, there was NO NEED for it. In UV gameplay, there could very well be a DESPERATE NEED to use every weapon you have, and would have had historically available. In UV, the idea isn't to just relive history, it's to replay/re-game it. As such, there may very be a valid and pressing need to use mines in PM or Oz. Under v1.10, this capability has been rendered pretty much non-existant.

A mine center in Brisbane, and a single plodding 10 knot HMAS minelayer would be both historic and useful...without reverting back to "Common Mining". This isn't "carping". I'm all for the "new rules", and thought they'd work out well. They have...with the exception of losing a realistic capacity to mine in the Oz/PNG area due to the transit times.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 99

Re: Re: Re: Re: mining in PBEM - 6/19/2002 3:49:03 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]
Moving "Mine Centers" wouldn't be as easily accomplished as you think either. And why would a commander move the facility? Closer to the front? Given the scarcity of both mines and trained mine techs during this period, that would hardly be likely. The USN had just lost a large amount of mines and mine techs when Subic Bay was overrun. Moving it would entail building new bunkers (sizable ones at that, mines in shipping containers are pretty bulky), cargo unloading facilities at the new port to handle bulk cargo, transportation facilites, quarters, mess facilites ect. All this to position scarce resources closer to one part of your operational area, while moving it further away from the rest. This during a period where the logistics capability at Noumea itself was described as a "national disgrace". Just getting "beans and bullets" to the front was a headache...let alone mines. Imagine what the IJN was like? Create a major headache/strain on exisiting resources just to save a few days steaming time?

The way mines are handled are pretty "abstracted" already. Think about the "logistics" of busting hundreds/thousands of mines out of the the bunkers, stripping them out of the shipping containers/dunnage, prepping them for service, inserting the booster charges, arming them with the detonators, and loading them on board the minelayers...and doing this day after day, month after month. Currently, this is done with the click of the mouse. If we want to start digging to deeply into "operational flexibility", instead of spending a few days in transit each way, our ML's will be spending a week or 2 tied up in dock while the splinter mine detachment we moved forward struggles to get the mines prepped and loaded. I'd imagine LTC Vebber there can happily tell us about how long it would take to prep and load 2500 mines (rough total capacity of the IJN ML's in a single lift)...or even how long it would take parked in a hex to lay 600 mines. This definitely wouldn't occur overnight. Be careful what you wish for, as you might get it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Juliet : Thanks for participating and providing your information. I'll defer to your expertise on Japanese doctrine and use. Suffice to say that while they had the infrastructure and language in their manuals for offensive mine warfare, they lacked real capacity to do it for various reasons, and this was easily countered by Purple and the superior resources of the US.

I say again : facilities of FAR GREATER COMPLEXITY, COST and so forth, were MOVED in WW2, for OPERATIONAL REASONS. Saving a few days steaming time is an operational reason. So is saving a few hours flying time, or whatever. Iwo Jima was invaded for Operational Reasons having to do with the strategic bombing campaign. Military power is a function of mobility and firepower. Saving steaming, marching, driving or flying time is essential to increasing the amount of time units with destructive capability have to deliver that destructive capability into enemy capacity.

Everything in the game is an "abstract" to some extent. I was a tanker in the US Army, so I know how difficult it was to get our tanks loaded up (and we did alot of this work ourselves) and moved out, and how tedious it was to have to do it over and over again every time we ran out of fuel or ammo, or whatever. Everything you said about all the intricacies of mine center ops is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not this facility can be moved IF IT HAS TO BE or BECAUSE the OPERATIONAL COMMANDER wants it to be moved so the minelayers can spend more time mining, and less time sailing, just like our tank commanders wanted to spend less time driving to and from a supply point and more time on the tactical mission.

I can't understand why anyone would seriously argue that this type of facility can't be moved. We didn't have such a facility in Noumea when the war started, yet by May 1 it was magically there. It got moved there. We didn't have strategic bombing bases in Bari, Italy, when the war started but sometime after Salerno we DID have one there, because we moved it there from North Africa.

Facilities of almost any imaginable complexity and size can and were moved during the war, from economic infrastructure on down to ammo loading points for tanks, main supply harbors for the Allied forces in France, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it doesn't happen overnight. But it does happen. Why it happens is related to the operational situation. If you make a rule that disallows the movement of these types of facilities, you are constraining the operational commander to an unrealistic and illogical degree. Make it difficult to move, make it expensive, make it time consuming. But allow it.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 100

- 6/19/2002 4:47:47 AM

kaleun

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

I have played both the original and the patch. I agree the mine warfare in the original was too lenient. Nobody to blame, I'm syre the developers did not imagine the problem.
I have played only against the AI, and only the US side.
After the patch, I have placed defensive minefields, around Lunga, Tulagi and Noumea, shallow water hexes, and had some success in Tulagi and Lunga, with some APs running into mines. To date, not one of my ships encountered them.

I have placed offensive minefields around Shortland and the Slot, again, only in shallow water. I have hit an AG,a minesweeper and a carrier, the Soho if I remember correctly. The AG and the MSW sunk.

I don't see that the present patch rules limit the allies that much. It may be different for the japanese, but it looks like it could be handled without too much of a problem.

I do think it would be good to add Brisbane as a second site for loading mines, since it is likely and reasonable that the Brits would have some minelaying ability in Australia. (whether they actually did or not is not really relevant, we are rehashing the war, and not just repeating the same manouvers) IMHO.
K

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 101

- 6/19/2002 5:56:47 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kaleun
[B]I have played both the original and the patch. I agree the mine warfare in the original was too lenient. Nobody to blame, I'm syre the developers did not imagine the problem.
I have played only against the AI, and only the US side.
After the patch, I have placed defensive minefields, around Lunga, Tulagi and Noumea, shallow water hexes, and had some success in Tulagi and Lunga, with some APs running into mines. To date, not one of my ships encountered them.

I have placed offensive minefields around Shortland and the Slot, again, only in shallow water. I have hit an AG,a minesweeper and a carrier, the Soho if I remember correctly. The AG and the MSW sunk.

I don't see that the present patch rules limit the allies that much. It may be different for the japanese, but it looks like it could be handled without too much of a problem.

I do think it would be good to add Brisbane as a second site for loading mines, since it is likely and reasonable that the Brits would have some minelaying ability in Australia. (whether they actually did or not is not really relevant, we are rehashing the war, and not just repeating the same manouvers) IMHO.
K [/B][/QUOTE]

Solid info about the impact of minefield efficacy.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 102

- 6/19/2002 6:18:57 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

[QUOTE]I have said my main concern is doing what I can to prevent a fixed location approach in WitP. [/QUOTE]

And I continue to try to tell you there won't be...:rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Disagree. The constraints in 1.1 are artificial and ahistorical. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I can't understand why anyone would seriously argue that this type of facility can't be moved. We didn't have such a facility in Noumea when the war started, yet by May 1 it was magically there. It got moved there.[/QUOTE]

You're wrong and need to read up a bit on the subject. Sorry to be blunt but you simple don't know what you are talking about. By uyour logic you should be able to pack up and move the facilities at Pearl wherever you want. "fixed infrastructure" is called "fixed" for a reason. If you can't figure that out, then read J7B's post again. He has a good grasp on the issues.

If your point is to "make sure fixed loactiaons are not in WITP" why has this gone on past the part 30 posts ago when it was said they wouldn't?

If you don;t want to try to understand the problems involved in mining in 1942 and wish all the limitations away, you are good company. Its how teh navy has always handled mine warfare...simply wish away the "hard parts" becasues its inconvenient...:rolleyes:

My energy on the topic is spent. Mine warefare will be realistically portrayed in an historically sound context in WITP (as it has been here). I think Gary has a good handle on it and will deal with it appropriately to the scale of the simulation.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 103

- 6/19/2002 6:34:24 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]

And I continue to try to tell you there won't be...:rolleyes:

You're wrong and need to read up a bit on the subject. Sorry to be blunt but you simple don't know what you are talking about. By uyour logic you should be able to pack up and move the facilities at Pearl wherever you want. "fixed infrastructure" is called "fixed" for a reason. If you can't figure that out, then read J7B's post again. He has a good grasp on the issues.

[/QUOTE][/B]

Shame on you Mr. Vebber. In all of your responses to me, you have made personal attacks mixed in with obfuscations, and little emoticons.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID in a POST that you are now either ignoring or didn't read that "the only type of facilities you can't move are ship construction facilities". You now say that by my logic I am suggesting just that. This is obfuscation, and in diametric opposition to things I have specifically said are not possible.

[QUOTE][B]

If your point is to "make sure fixed loactiaons are not in WITP" why has this gone on past the part 30 posts ago when it was said they wouldn't?

[/QUOTE][/B]

You have never said the fixed approach would NOT be used in WitP. You said things would be "different" and the WitP would be a "different" game. Well, I'd like to know how different, because frankly if this fixed location approach is used it will be a disservice to the game, which is among the best wargames ever made, and has the ability to give operational flexibility in this area that most games don't even consider.

[QUOTE][B]

If you don;t want to try to understand the problems involved in mining in 1942 and wish all the limitations away, you are good company. Its how teh navy has always handled mine warfare...simply wish away the "hard parts" becasues its inconvenient...:rolleyes:

My energy on the topic is spent. Mine warefare will be realistically portrayed in an historically sound context in WITP (as it has been here). I think Gary has a good handle on it and will deal with it appropriately to the scale of the simulation. [/B][/QUOTE]

More emoticon ad hominum eh? That's useful.

Nowhere and never have you or anyone else given ANY information here which refutes the basic notion that THESE facilities, just like the far more complex, expensive and cumbersome facilities needed to support strategic bombing, ship resupply, economic activity, and so forth, could be moved and were moved. This is why this has gone on so long.

Your premise that the rule for fixed locations is valid because the Noumea facility wasn't moved between 1 MAY 42 and 31 DEC 43 is not logical, since it had to have been moved and constructed to be there in the first place, and facilities of much greater complexity were moved and reconstructed around the Pacific during the war.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 104

- 6/19/2002 6:55:01 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

[QUOTE]You have never said the fixed approach would NOT be used in WitP. You said things would be "different"...[/QUOTE]

You have got to be kidding me...last time I looked, different meant NOT THE SAME...based on this, any further attempt at reason is obviously pointless...

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 105

Allright... - 6/19/2002 7:04:56 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

This discussion is quickly going nowhere. I don't want to lock this thread, but I think we need some of the old "agree to disagree" here. As far as I know from the development team, here's what mine warfare's future looks like:

- Much more flexibility in WitP, but with the feature list still somewhat in flux, we can't be specific yet.

- UV's bug/feature request list is very long and thus it will be a while before we can revisit mine warfare in any major way, barring the discovery of a bug. Right now, 1.10's system may not be perfect, but it works very well and does represent a historical, albeit not flexible, model of 1942-43 mine warfare in this area.

With the above two points in mind, I think the best thing would be for everyone to shake, let bygones be bygones and move on to other discussions. Personally, despite the perhaps inhuman longevity of this thread, I've found a lot of good info and ideas here from all points of view. Remember that all of us read these forums and everything posted here is at least considered by the full design team. That's really all we can promise on any issue.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 106

Why Such A Hot Button Issue? - 6/19/2002 7:20:13 AM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

Erik,

I understand why you want calm things down here. Apparently this has been gone over for a long time.

However, the new mine rules are just that, new. I would assume you would want feedback from your customers.

The rules may work historically but they sure don't allow me to deal adequately with the ahistorical threat to PM by constant bombardment groups.

If it is what it is, then fine. Subject closed. Had mines not even been included in the game I for one would not have even thought about it. Although I'm sure there would have been some that would have asked for that feature.

Thanks for your support and quality games.

mjk428

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 107

Re: Why Such A Hot Button Issue? - 6/19/2002 7:28:27 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

MJK,

Ahh... I feel myself getting sucked into the arch-thread...

[QUOTE][B]However, the new mine rules are just that, new. I would assume you would want feedback from your customers.[/B][/QUOTE]

Absolutely. However, Paul and Dgaad clearly disagree. I'd like to see that particular dead horse stay dead, no offense to horses.

[QUOTE][B]The rules may work historically but they sure don't allow me to deal adequately with the ahistorical threat to PM by constant bombardment groups.[/B][/QUOTE]

Don't understand this point, largely because of the following:

- I've hit bombardment groups with mines

- I've intercepted them and punished them with surface groups, LBA, and carrier air to the point that the exercise wasn't repeated.

- The historical night bombardments really only had trouble when they were damaged before they could retire and thus were still somewhere within effective air range by morning. Given a full unobstructed run, you shouldn't expect to catch them any other way. I stepped out of that discussion (although I am still reading and keeping up) because I had stated more than enough times that I felt the 1.00 rules worked well and historically, much more so than any of the suggested modifications (or the 1.10 bug) would.

[QUOTE][B]Thanks for your support and quality games.[/B][/QUOTE]

Our pleasure, thank you for [B]your[/B] support!

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 108

- 6/19/2002 7:41:36 AM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

"Ahh... I feel myself getting sucked into the arch-thread..."

Please check yourself for open sores or bleeding wounds prior to entering the water...

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 109

- 6/19/2002 7:47:09 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]

You have got to be kidding me...last time I looked, different meant NOT THE SAME...based on this, any further attempt at reason is obviously pointless... [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not purposely trying to banter here, Mr. Vebber, but no, "different" could mean that we have more than one fixed base, or a pre-game player-selectable fixed base, etc. in WitP. Again, I'm looking for definitive statements that there will NOT be a fixed base approach. Its the design mentality that is at issue here, imho.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 110

- 6/19/2002 7:48:05 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]"Ahh... I feel myself getting sucked into the arch-thread..."

Please check yourself for open sores or bleeding wounds prior to entering the water... [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL !!! the "arch-thread". This thread has become a minefield in and of itself. Hopefully, its more defensive than offensive.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 111

What I Meant - 6/19/2002 7:48:28 AM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

Erik,

Not trying to suck you in, I just don't think the gap is as wide as the debate between Paul & Dgaad suggests.

To give some perspective I keep playing the first few months as the Allies where I don't have much in the way of resources compared to the IJN. Since they were able to come in and out of PM with impunity. I used the strategy of subs and mines around PM in the hopes of hitting something and slowing it down.
This worked to a degree.

With the new rules it takes quite a bit of work to get a TF with mines to PM. I wouldn't mind it the first time but if I want to mine say 3 hexes it will take several weeks.

It's my belief that if it had been determined that PM is going to be battered down to nothing and that mines were needed, the Allies would have found a way to get some mines to say, Cairns where they could be deployed from there. Maybe 2 weeks to get 240 mines in place. I have no facts to back this up other than the incredible things that we accomplished when it was necessary. I freely admit I may be completely wrong and it was just not possible.

I'm not trying to keep this alive, just to explain what I meant.

All The Best,
Marty

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 112

argh - 6/19/2002 8:03:03 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

The true argument is as old as wargamming.
Get out the banners of realism vs playability.

Pragmatism vs idealism

For now I suggest we live with it, and hope for better another day.

Not wishing to demean anyones argument.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 113

- 6/19/2002 8:29:44 AM

Mark W Carver

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: South-central PA
Status: offline

Hmmmm.... :rolleyes:

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 114

- 6/19/2002 12:37:32 PM

Hartmann

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/28/2000
Status: offline

"Realism vs. playability" is probably right on target. While the old rules seem to have been a bit off with respect to realism (historically), the new rules seem quite a bit harsh on playability now.

It�s sad that this thread has become a "minefield of its own". It shouldn�t be.
Let me try out another approach to the topic by not stating anything myself, but instead asking questions to the designers:

1) Is even shallow hex mining in the vicinity of one�s own bases more dangerous to one�s own ships now than it was before?
2) What exactly would speak against letting people load mines in any ports with a level equal or greater than 6?

I�m asking the first question because of my experience with mines at the shallow hex South of Rabaul. The second question is clearly playability related, for I think that - historical adequacy aside - the current system is just so tedious, or in other words: minelaying, despite all its shortcomings, used to be fun, but now it simply isn�t anymore. :(

Hartmann

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 115

- 6/19/2002 4:13:04 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

It is pretty clear that this debate is going nowhere and is slipping beyond the boundaries of trying to improve the game and into realms of personal one-upmanship.

However, I would like to make one more attempt to address what I think is the gist of the issue.

I think the only real concern that dgaad and I have about the 1.1 mine rules is the fixed loaded facility.

Now, the reason I am concerned about that is quite simply that I think it makes the management of Minelayers so much trouble that mining will simple dissappear from the game as a viable activity. (Some initial feedback from players already using 1.1 suggests that this concern is valid.)

The counter to this concern has been that within the scope of the game the mine assembly depots could not be moved which I am quite happy to accept for the sake of argument (even though it seems other major construction work like building ports is possible.)

However, what I don't understand is why the Minelayers themselves have to make the trip back to the Mine Assembly plants to reload.

Paul tells us in his post dated 15.6.2002 that by Nov43 there was a forward mine depot on Guadacanal which was supplying mines to units sowing the slot. He also states that from 4 May 1943 the US Minelayers were receiving mines on station which were being ferried out to them by the SS James McPherson (which I assume is not a submarine).

So it would appear that even before the end of the period covered by #17 the USN had established a method of replenshing their mining units without withdrawing them to Noumea.

All dgaad and I are really asking is that within the context of the game we be given the option to bring forward the schedule those arrangements.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of ferrying mines forward to Lunga or elsewhere using supply ships or having to expend supplies to construct a forward mine depot. I just don't want to be forced to micro-manage the movement of minelayers back and forth.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 116

- 6/19/2002 5:11:36 PM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

Didz : good summation. 100% agreement.

I'm dropping the issue for now. I can deal with the situation in UV, even though I don't like it. I'm fairly sure the fixed location approach will NOT be used in WitP.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 117

The Matrix Mistake - 6/19/2002 6:20:40 PM

Michael Peck

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/7/2000
Status: offline

Paul, you , Gary and Mike Wood are guilty of a major blunder. What you should have done is to have ZERO mines in the game until 1943.

You made the mistake of assuming that a minor rule would add a little flavor to the game and placate the fanatics. How could you possibly forget that a little taste of honey turns gamers into bears? Or that some players always oppose historical restrictions (i.e., rules that don't let them abuse the system)?

To be fair, it was probably just naivete on your part. You trustingly assumed that mines would be used with a modicum of realism. Instead they've transformed the game from "Uncommon Valor" to "Let's Mine Munda." Never mind that we're beginning "Mine Wars: The Empire Loses Its Tankers" at the time of Coral Sea, when logistical lifelines were so taut that shipping mines to Truk and Noumea would rank just behind toothpaste and shoelaces. Or that the massive Japanese fleet of two slow minelayers would really be scooting up to Lunga to drop mines in the face of lurking Allied ships and planes. I trust you won't make this mistake in WITP - kamikazes shouldn't appear until 1945.

Michael

_____________________________

http://www.themilitarybookreview.com

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 118

Re: The Matrix Mistake - 6/19/2002 6:28:34 PM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Peck
[B]Paul, you , Gary and Mike Wood are guilty of a major blunder. What you should have done is to have ZERO mines in the game until 1943.
l [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep, and the mine layers were used as cruise ships (Love Boat someone ?) in 1942 :D

Now, let's wait for the patch fix ... and we can begin a new discussion on mine warfare ... in the WITP Forum ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 119

Re: The Matrix Mistake - 6/19/2002 7:21:54 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Peck
[B]Paul, you , Gary and Mike Wood are guilty of a major blunder. What you should have done is to have ZERO mines in the game until 1943.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I assume this was intended to be a joke but in fact you are perfectly correct. If UV had been advertised as a simulation of Carrier Warfare (like CAW) then there would be no expectations beyond the use of carriers.

Unfortunately, the UV design team keep insisting that this is an operational level wargame and so there is a expectation that the options available will include every alternative that was potentially available to the historical commanders.

Paul has actually made things worse by detailing the extent to which offensive mining was used over this period. Which actually surprised me because I had assumed from discussions up to that point that little offensive mining had taken place.

In fact it appears that for a few days in Aug/Sept 42 mines were the only form of naval defence available to the Marines on Guadacanal. And so as you say the mistakes have already been made and expectations have been raised.

The good news however is that there is very little that needs to be changed to satisfy 'the fanatics' whereupon UV will gain yet another star for brilliance and all this acrymony will hopefully come to an end.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 120