Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Why id my DD searching for mines?

 
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 >> Why id my DD searching for mines? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Why id my DD searching for mines? - 1/30/2003 12:26:14 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		As the allies I send a transport TF to Ognat. The MSW included in the TF detects an enemy minefield and clears a path. I then send another TF with 3 MSWs and one DD as an escort. The next turn I get the messages: MSW widens path through minefield X 3, DD detects mine and explodes it, DD hits mine. My question is: What is my DD doing wandering around in the minefield? Why doesn't it let the specialized MSW ships clear it? It is there to help protect against enemy Subs, not to use its small ability to clear mines.
Post #: 1
- 1/30/2003 12:38:52 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		Your DD did not go off searching for mines. The code allows for some ships to discover mines as they are transiting through the hex and defend themselves by exploding the mines. Your DD just got unlucky and did not see the second mine.

Hope this helps,
Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 2
- 1/30/2003 1:39:13 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		I love mines :D

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 3
- 1/30/2003 2:06:27 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		I understand that Kid. It is just with a TF made up of 1 DD and 3 MSWs, I do not understand why that DD decides to go hunting mines. It just doesn't seem right. If the DD had been escorting a TF without any type of minesweeper, then it would make sense.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 4
- 1/30/2003 2:25:12 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		I think what Kid meant was that the DD didn't go hunt for mines... As you asked it to protect minesweepers sweeping a minefield :rolleyes: it kinda needed to be protected itself....

When it spoted a mine it was heading for, it detonated it and then hit another one that it didn't spot...

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 5
It is in a mine field - 1/30/2003 2:46:46 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, The DD might not have been looking for mines (but it appears it should have) You sent it into a mine field and then wonder why it hit a mine?

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 6
- 1/30/2003 2:47:57 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		So the solution is to send in MSWs on minesweeper missions without sending DDs with them for extra ASW? That seems real good.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 7
- 1/30/2003 2:55:25 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by PzB
[B]I love mines :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I hate mines. They ruin the game.

Logically nomad has a point - let the DD trail along behind the MSWs and stay out of trouble. The problem is the code was changed last patch to let DDs destroy some mines so that they were not totally at the mercy of them when not escorted by a sweeper. So the code lets the DD look for mines whether it is escorted by sweepers or not.:)

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 8
- 1/30/2003 3:10:38 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by PzB
[B]I think what Kid meant was that the DD didn't go hunt for mines... As you asked it to protect minesweepers sweeping a minefield :rolleyes: it kinda needed to be protected itself....

When it spoted a mine it was heading for, it detonated it and then hit another one that it didn't spot... [/B][/QUOTE]

You are correct!:D

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 9
- 1/30/2003 3:13:52 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]I hate mines. They ruin the game.

Logically nomad has a point - let the DD trail along behind the MSWs and stay out of trouble. The problem is the code was changed last patch to let DDs destroy some mines so that they were not totally at the mercy of them when not escorted by a sweeper. So the code lets the DD look for mines whether it is escorted by sweepers or not.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

Without the change in the code the DD would have hit the first mine instead of blowing it up. If the DD had not hit the second mine, would there have been a complaint? I don't think so.

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 10
- 1/30/2003 3:16:07 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		So then I am correct. Never send a DD with a MSW or DMS. That does seem real historical.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 11
- 1/30/2003 3:31:21 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]I hate mines. They ruin the game.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I love mines. They allow me to have a small chance to sink a ship without any risk to myself ( except for laying the mines and any risk I incurr if I go in the mined hex myself ).

The first thing I do in scenario 17 is send the minelayers down to mine the two hexes East of Lunga. The Japanese have minelayers that can lay 600 mines at a time.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 12
- 1/30/2003 4:05:13 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]I hate mines. They ruin the game.

Logically nomad has a point - let the DD trail along behind the MSWs and stay out of trouble. The problem is the code was changed last patch to let DDs destroy some mines so that they were not totally at the mercy of them when not escorted by a sweeper. So the code lets the DD look for mines whether it is escorted by sweepers or not.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

I do not think that mines are the issue, as much as thier use. Offensive minefields are a pain in the a$$, and can cause you more trouble than the enemy. It is the absolute worst thing for your own ships to hit a mine.

Yes, laying mines fields willy-nilly around the Solomons (USN or IJN) makes for a less than enjoyable experience. But it is a decision a player has to make, and can have bad consequences.

The fact is they are not a "silver bullet" at stopping the enemy, but a major league nuisance. And they can create a major problem for your own operations in the area, sometimes more so than the enemy for which they are intended.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 13
- 1/30/2003 4:14:41 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Apparently I am the one in left field. Just about everyone else( except Sonny) thinks this is ok. I do not and it is not the first time this has happened to me. So I guess I'll take my complaint and leave.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 14
- 1/30/2003 5:05:28 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad
[B]So then I am correct. Never send a DD with a MSW or DMS. That does seem real historical. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think you are totally missing the point. Let me try and explain my view.

Having mine sweepers in a TF does not guarantee that the other ships in the TF will not hit a mine. For example, if you put some mine sweepers in an invasion TF, there is still a good chance that some of the transports will hit a mine on the way into the beach. If you put mine sweepers in a bombardment TF, there is still a chance some of the combatants will hit a mine. So, why should it be different if you put a combatant in a mine sweeping TF? The nice thing is that now at least some of the small boys have a better chance of getting through a minefield because they have self-protection. If the code was written so that surface ships in a minesweeping TF were invulnerable to hitting mines, it could be abused?

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 15
- 1/30/2003 5:18:28 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		I really think my problem is that out of three times I have sent DDs with minesweepers on minesweeping operations, I have had a DD hit a mine every time. This does not seem to be 'unlucky', it seems like the DDs are actively seeking out mines( and detonating them with their hull).

I would agree that having ships in minesweeper TF not be subject to hitting a mine could result in a problem. Something like CAs and above should be in danger, even in a minesweeper TF.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 16
- 1/30/2003 5:36:56 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad
[B]I really think my problem is that out of three times I have sent DDs with minesweepers on minesweeping operations, I have had a DD hit a mine every time. This does not seem to be 'unlucky', it seems like the DDs are actively seeking out mines( and detonating them with their hull).

I would agree that having ships in minesweeper TF not be subject to hitting a mine could result in a problem. Something like CAs and above should be in danger, even in a minesweeper TF. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree it should not be happening every time. It should be random. Has anyone else experienced this?

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 17
- 1/30/2003 6:05:13 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Not really...Nomad is just an unlucky sonofa...)
Had he played me more often, he'd known that I'm usually a lucky sonofa ;)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 18
DD's and Minesweepers - 1/30/2003 6:06:39 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, OK I'm just guessing. But a steel hulled ship in with the wooden hulled minesweepers and there might be magnetic mines? (wonder which one will trigger the mine?)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 19
- 1/30/2003 6:31:38 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Let me try to explain this fully and maybe someone else will see what I think I see.

1. A minesweeper TF with 1 DD and 2 MSW enter a hex with an undetected enemy minefield. The DD hits a mine. This is something that can and should happen sometimes, not a problem.

2. A minesweeper TF with 1 DD and 1 MSW and 2 DMS enter a hex with an undetected enemy minefield. The DD hits a mine. Ok, unlucky is the most likely cause.( I think DMS have metal hulls)

3. A Transport TF with 2 DD, 1 MSW, 1 AK and 7 AP enter a hex with an undetected enemy minefield. The MSW clears a path through the minefield and the TF docks with no mine hits. The next turn a minesweeping TF with 1 DD and 3 MSW enters the hex with a DETECTED enemy minefield. The path is widened 3 times( 3 messages ), the DD detects a mine, then the DD hits a mine. There is a path through the miinefield. I still think that the DD is actively trying to clear the minefield. I do not think that this is the proper behavior for this ship in this TF. AS I understand, the addition of having DDs able to clear mines is for when there is NO minesweeping type of ship in the TF. Am I wrong about this? Would a minesweeper TF commander send in a DD to clear a minefield when he has 3 MSWs available to him? Note, I do not remember any messages from the transport TF DDs about detecting and detonating mines.

I guess my feeling is that this needs to have a look at. I am in the position of having to send my MSWs to look/clear enemy minefields without sending any ASW support with them.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 20
- 1/30/2003 6:38:02 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		I perfectly understand your point, but I don't have that much problems accepting the fact that a DD escort following behind 3 minesweepers can come upon uncleared mines and eventually strike one.

How effective were the minesweepers of 1942? Did they clear everything without leaving any mines after a couple of sweeps?

As to magnetic mines, the Allies had degaussed almots all of their warships by 42 - so a DD shouldn't detonate any of those. Not sure the Japs had magnetic mines either...that was a german invention.

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 21
Ok - 1/30/2003 6:51:29 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi Well I don't think the program/AI is advanced enough to know that you don't want a ship in a TF to actually do what the TF is assigned to do (DD not look for mines but escort MSW)
I've seen lots of AP hit mines in hexes were I had cleared a path.
Just take the freaking DD out of the TF. (The program will think you want it to hunt mines) Make a surface TF with the DD and have it follow the minesweepers (it still might clear mines, and it still might hit mines but at least you'll know it was looking for subs)

degaussing only lasts so long. (basiclly it shorts out the electric charge the ship builds up through passing it's steel hull through salt water (making it attractive to magnetic mines) I think degaussing might be something to add to WITP if there are magnetic mines to worry about.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 22
- 1/30/2003 8:26:29 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Thank you for all your insightful comments, especially MOgomi.

I will no longer be playing UV, nor will I be buying WitP.

Good bye all

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 23
- 1/30/2003 8:32:47 AM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Technology in warfare is always a battle between offensive measures and defensive countermeasures. Some smart *** designs a mine which can be detonated while moored underwater by the magnetic field of a passing ship....so some other smart *** decides to make wood-hulled minsweepers with outrigger cables to sever the mine cables. Maybe the DD set off one of these bad boys. As I recall, even with 1990's technology a US warship hit a mine off Kuwait..right before the land attack.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 24
- 1/30/2003 8:40:57 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad
[B]Thank you for all your insightful comments, especially MOgomi.

I will no longer be playing UV, nor will I be buying WitP.

Good bye all [/B][/QUOTE]

I would wait until the Matrix or the 2 by 3 staff weigh in on this one before getting your panties in a wad.

The fact that Kid is asking for player input seems to be appropriate, as he can take a look at the frequency of these kind of events in the WitP testing.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 25
Yike - 1/30/2003 9:24:50 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Sorry I didn't think I was being mean. And I was honestly trying to sort out his problem (If DD's in minesweeping TF's hit mines, take them out)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 26
- 1/30/2003 9:28:04 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		Ah, let him go. If he's that anal about ONE small issue runing his enjoyment of a great game, then we don't need him.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 27
- 1/30/2003 9:44:22 AM   
GunRange

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/26/2002
Status: offline 		Hmm? Not playing UV? Impossible thought.

I like to use mines in area denial weapon, when I'm playing IJN you can walk from Guadalcanal to Bougainville.

Laws of combat, § 45; Mines are equal opportunity weapons.

_____________________________

-"Delete everything after crazy!"

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 28
Scratching my head - 1/30/2003 9:45:23 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Well I don't like to hurt another persons feelings. And I don't do it on purpose. But I can't see why he got up set. And if he was upset at me he should have said
"Pack Sand MOgomi, keep your ideas to your self"

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 29
To quote the inimitable Charlie Brown - 1/30/2003 10:32:00 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		Good grief.

Nomad is acting like a child. Don't apologize to him for something you didn't do.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Why id my DD searching for mines? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703