The Case For Mines

[Lars]

Mine warfare ain't sexy, Navies ignore it even today. But it's cheap and dang effective. Ever wonder why the Germans built those submarine pens in France? It wasn't because they wanted to. And it wasn't because they really needed to add a little range for the U-boats. It was because of the constant losses to mines running the gauntlet to the Atlantic through the chokepoints. Here's some relevant snippets from a 1943 German naval briefing, to give a better idea of what was going on.

Position in the individual theatres of war

Baltic: Naval supremacy completely in our hands. Importance of Baltic for ore-traffic from Sweden. Lively own supply traffic to Finland, Finnish Gulf via Baltic entrances. Interference by British air mine warfare especially in the Kattegat, the Sound and the Belts and in the Western Baltic. Own loss up to the present very low thanks to active mine clearing. Russians confined to inner part of Gulf of Finland by dense minefields. Attempts to break out so far always thwarted. In the inner Gulf of Finland recently several affrays with Russian trawler formations, all in our favor.

North Sea: Deutsche Bucht (German Bight) and Skagerrak blocked by strong mine-wall. Own task: protection of lively coastal traffic, continuous patrol of shipping lanes, intensive mine detection, trawling and outpost activities. By means of continuous energetic air activity combined with mine-laying and raids by enemy speed-boats the enemy is endeavoring to stop our communications by sea. Up to the present we have always succeeded in maintaining communications without undue loss on our side. Good results in particular against enemy speed-boats.

Norway: Very busy own rations and supply traffic along the long stretch of coast under the protection of screening forces and numerous strong coastal batteries. Routes in the skerries protected by their natural position and mine-blocks. Our own escort movements interfered with by enemy air arms and speed-boats which hide in the skerries. Successes obtained by the enemy in attack so far very slight. In the Polar region attacks by Russian aircraft and submarine. Our own losses slight but enemy losses high.

Channel: In spite of strong enemy superiority in the air and the lively activity of his light naval tactical forces combined with intensified mine-laying, German supplying and rationing traffic continues to be carried on practically on schedule. At the same time full employment of our own screening tactical units (mine detector, outpost, trawling and escort boats). Lively and successful offensive employment of our own speed-boats against British convoyed traffic and for mine-laying. Conditions difficult owing to British superiority on sea and in the air. Warfare in the Channel area shows increasing signs of enemy threat of landing operation. Strong coastal defense on one side.

Biscay Atlantic Coast: Air raids on our own ports have left U-boat defense unaffected. Main task for Navy: Keeping the seaways open and maintenance of escort for U-boats coming in and going out. In addition, countermeasures against British mine laying, against strong British air observation and the appearance of light enemy naval tactical forces.

On the Allied side, you have the problem of a German sub or plane laying a few mines in a harbor entrance, sinking a ship or two, but more important is the psychological effect. Nobody's going out until the Navy clears the entrance. Which is even better than sinking a ship. If you bottle up 30 or 40, it's the same as sinking them. Remember, mines aren't so much for killing, they are a area denial weapon.

The German effort was quite minimal: only 327 mines were laid over the entire gulf and east coasts of the U.S. and Canada. Yet on average, each mine had a 3% chance of sinking or damaging a ship, and a 12% chance of shutting down a port for a day--making these mines exceptionally effective weapons.

So what does this mean for SC? Here's what I think would be a pretty simple addition that would add a lot of game depth to the naval side.

Add a option to the pop-up action menu for Subs, Cruisers, Air Fleets, and Bombers to lay one mine marker in a tile per turn.

Subs – 15 MPP cost

Cruiser or Battleship – 10 MPP cost

Air – 20 MPP Cost

These mines would of course be hidden for the other side until hit by something or spotted. Damage done will be random.

Cruisers will be the minesweeper, having the spotting ability and clearing a mine hex by moving adjacent, with a one or two turn delay (again random) to clear the field.

Costs of laying a mine need to be kept arbitrarily high to keep the map from becoming littered with the things. Also, a minefield degrades over time. So, after one year from placement, mine marker disappears, reflecting the need to keep seeding a field.

For game play, I think this would add a lot.

Germans could mine Allied harbors entrances and hope to catch a ship coming in for repairs, or perhaps that Army in transport. Also could be used to bottle up that annoying Black Sea fleet by protecting your flank. Or lay a mine on a likely invasion point on the French coast, forcing the Allies to either clear it or invade elsewhere. Or try to lay a protected corridor for a Sealion attempt.

For the Allies, same thing. Try to get those subs as they come out of port. Or lay a strip to force them to come into air spotting and attack range. Or really screw up a German SeaLion attempt by mining the landing areas.

I'm sure you guys will think up a lot more dirty tricks. After all, that's what mines are for.

Thoughts?

[John C]

Personally, while I appreciate all the thought and effort, I'm not a fan of the idea. By making mines available and by making them both cheap and effective, both sides really need to use them. This just creates a burden on each player of having to do the very mundane task of assigning mine laying and clearing orders for units. Sure a few units will be damaged and a few convoys will be delayed a bit, but that is a lot of work for what essentially is a very small strategic impact. Since the naval war really is a raider conflict anyway, I'd personally much rather just leave this aspect of the war abstracted.

[JerseyJohn]

Lars,

I'm all for it. In the actual war the English Channel and Denmark-Sweden passage were both heavily mined.

As SC2 will have a much greater variety of units, I'd recommend having a combination escort/minesweeper/destroyer unit to clear them instead of assigning the task to cruisers, which in SC1 took in heavy cruisers and battle cruisers, neither of which would have been good at this kind of task.

I'm sure many people will feel as John C. does, so why not have this as a toggle option?

[Lars]

@JohnC

I didn't make them cheap, on purpose. Also, you'd only have to relay a marker once a year, hardly an onerous task. And you only need to clear a mine if it's really in your way.

Some would find them useful, some would ignore them for other options. Sort of like fortifications on land. Or do you feel the same way about those?

[Lars]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Lars,

I'm all for it. In the actual war the English Channel and Denmark-Sweden passage were both heavily mined.

As SC2 will have a much greater variety of units, I'd recommend having a combination escort/minesweeper/destroyer unit to clear them instead of assigning the task to cruisers, which in SC1 took in heavy cruisers and battle cruisers, neither of which would have been good at this kind of task.

I'm sure many people will feel as John C. does, so why not have this as a toggle option?

If Hubert wants to add a mindsweeper unit, sure. They only built about a million of the things in WWII.

I was just working off SC1 design as those were the only parameters I really got nailed down. I always felt it was Cruiser/Destroyer in SC1, plus it's simpler to implement that way.

[Lars]

Regarding mine price.

Look at it this way, John. Say the Brits want to mine the exit for the Baltic. They can run up and mine two hexes for 20 mpp, and risk getting hammered by the German airfleets, cruisers, and sub.

Or they mine further out. Less risky, but much more costly. Mining the exits for both the North Sea and Channel would cost about 120 mpp.

And the Brits just never seem to have an extra 120 mmp laying around. And the mine goes away in a year. Still seem cheap?

[John C]

@Lars -

Nope, your example shows where there can be some real strategy and significant investment involved (and it goes even deeper as one questions whether Germany really left tactical bombers in position to protect the coasts so that they could pound those ships). I'm still not convinced that I want to play at that level of depth, but I can certainly understand why some might find it appealing. I might even try it for a couple of games to see if I liked it. This obviously isn't high on my list of priorities, but I wouldn't oppose the idea so long as there was a toggle.

As to your point regarding forts, I do think that is different as WWII in Europe was primarily a land based conflict and therefore I believe land warfare deserves more depth than the naval conflict. And my top priority for development would therefore be on the ground conflict, especially in terms of ensuring there is fluidity to the battles. (I still love the Clash of Steel model and would love to see something more like that old combined combat/movement action point system) Again though, that's all just my own opinions.

[Lars]

Well, I sort of see it as just an extension of the land warfare onto the sea. Why is everybody pressing for a larger map if we're not going to do anything with about half of it?

btw, did you figure out the cost of mining those two Baltic hexes by air? 40 mpp plus possible interception of the airfleets, costing about 80-160 mpp to rebuild them. And if the Germans never had any intention of making a sortie, boy, did you ever just make a bad decision.

But the real fun is, for the Germans, did he or didn't he...?

[ June 14, 2005, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[Lars]

Anybody else? Edwin?

[Edwin P.]

I have been thinking about this, since I first saw this post. At the Army, Corps level of SC I don't seeing it being practical mine fields were quickly brushed aside by these larger units; however, at the operational level - as in the D-Day Scenario screenshot posted elsehere by HC - it would be a welcome addition.

Basically, at the start of an operational level scenario I would like to see a player have the opportunity to deploy mines on tiles of his choice. Purchase 5 mines mine for 100MPP and then select 5 tiles to place them on. You would see them during your turn and your opponenet would not. Once an enemy unit moves onto a mined tile they take damage and the mine is destroyed.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Basically, at the start of an operational level scenario ...

I don't understand this part. Why not make them a regular weapon like anything else?

The only controling factor I'd have is each country would have a limit set for the number of minefields (water -- no land equivalent at this level) it can have in existence. This is because fields had to be maintained as the other side would have been sending small craft in from time to time to remove some and those needed to be periodically replaced.

[rleete]

I think it's a nice idea. One of the most original, at least. I would, however, not like to see any more delay to implement it. But, it looks like the perfect add-on for a patch.

[Lars]

I was toying with the idea of giving each country a starting number of mines to place (after all, it was the very first thing both sides did), so I wouldn't throw that idea out. And maybe placing them at the beginning and just forgetting about it for the rest of the game is the way to go. Certainly would be simpler.

But what I'm looking for is to add some real depth to the naval side of the game. You never know (or at least shouldn't know, if the game is any good) where the important theater is going to be at the start of a game. A guy is going to need to adjust based on circumstance.

I really think Hubert needs to model this somehow, and I think it would make SC2 really stand out. Can't think of too many other games that include naval mining.

btw, many times in SC1 did you just use your subs as the functional equivalent of minefield? You just set them up two hexes apart, and wait for the transports to die. In SC2 this isn't going to be possible, due to scale and cost of subs (not that I'm pressing for the same thing with mines, as I think the scale would prevent it).

[Lars]

btw, found a great quote on mines from the Korean War

"Mines are a very cheap and effective way of disrupting maritime operations and they can be laid by very unsophisticated vessels. The effectiveness of mine warfare was aptly demonstrated in the Korean War when the North Koreans mined the approaches to Wonsan using old Russian mines laid by fishing junks, thus preventing the landing of the U.N. amphibious force for many days. The commander of that operation, Admiral Smith of the United States Navy, reported: "I have lost command of the sea to a nation without a navy, using weapons which were obsolete at the time of World War 1, delivered by vessels which were obsolescent at the time of the birth of Christ".

That had to hurt.

[Stendhal]

I believe that individual mine-laying is out of scale for a strategic game. Airborne and naval mine deployment should be seen as part of bombers' and submarines' anti-shipping strikes.

But I do think that the Baltic Red Fleet is over-represented in SC, in view of the extensive mine fields sealing of the Gulf of Finland -- see here for a rather amusing photograph of a German ship pretending to be a Finnish forest.

[Lars]

Not at all.

Laying a minefield, in many ways, is one of the most strategic things you can do.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Lars:

Laying a minefield...

Wow, you're even worse off than Dorosh!

[Lars]

Originally posted by rleete:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lars:

Laying a minefield...

Wow, you're even worse off than Dorosh! </font>

[Lars]

Here's a good abstract for further reading. Not surprisingly, it's put out by the Air Force. Told you Navies don't like mines. No fun being the Admiral of a 120' minelayer.

Skip to chapter 2 for the European portion.

Mines Away!

Sorry, the pdf didn't load, so I posted the html version.

In brief,

Axis losses due to mines – 1,590

British losses due to mines– 576

And good ol' Goering screws it up again.

[John C]

Laying INDIVIDUAL mines is way out of bounds for a strategic game. I'm still not completely convinced of the need for this at a strategic level as it adds a good deal of tedium with minimal real impact. But if it is included in a grand strategy game, it definitely needs to be at a macro level where you indicate a general mining effort in a particular area or a very limited chokepoint and then all shipping passing through that area has a small percentage chance of being hit by a mine. Clearing mines hex by hex across large bodies of water is my idea of pure boredom. For it to work, there should be no more than 8 spots tops that would ever receive mines during a game. As was stated earlier the British, for example, could either try to mine the one hex that represents the entrance to the straights of Denmark or they could instead mine 4 hexes representing the passageways north and south of iceland. In either case, subs passing through a mined area might have a 5% of hitting a mine. That's the only way I see this having any chance of working.

[Lars]

Well, when each hex represents a large area, you're not laying just one. But good point, there should be a random chance you can drive right through the field without hitting anything, although I'd press for better than 5%.

Also John, I know you don't want the tedium of clearing mines hex by hex. That's why I think its key that they disappear after a certain amount of time. Or maybe have their effectiveness decrease turn by turn.

Look, if I lay a mine that might not be there when you get there, and you have no intention of going there anyway, and might not even know there's one there even if you do go there, where's the tedium?

But think of the excitement when you hit one

[Lars]

Look, this was THE most effective weapon used in WWII, excepting the Bomb. To not model it is a little like saying, "Yeah, tanks were great, but god are they boring. Who wants to waste the time chasing them down..."

If you're worried about the tedium of clearing mines, doesn't the bug hunt for U-boats amount to about the same thing?

[rleete]

I think it's a good idea. If it gets used, fine. Then I will have to find and use a counter for it, or suffer the consequences. If it isn't used (al la gun laying research), then I can just ignore it.

But it is another item to counter the "play by the book" strategies we see now. That, to me, is the number one killer of the fun factor of SC1.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Ditto what John C said.

[JerseyJohn]

No, actually, I don't see it that way.

We're talking about laying minefields where did that individual mines bit come from?

It even make sense to lay land mines, at the battles of Kursk and El Alamain there were vast fields of them miles deep and tens of miles long.

They're a weapong just like anything else and perfectly suited to games on this scale.

-- The only thing is you can't have too many of them. A few tiles or hexes at any given time per country (land or sea) would be perfect. The idea is they cause the attacking side to alter their approach.

At El Alemain a large part of the British attack was laying paths through Rommel's minefields. After doing so the idea was the attack was then directed through those, making the attacking troops greater targets than they would otherwise have been.

At Sea, the Germans had to remove scores of mines before the Scharnhorst, Gneisnau and Prinz Eugen made their famous Channel Dash. And even at that the Gneisnau hit a couple and wound up being scrapped without ever putting to sea again.