The Case For Mines

[SeaMonkey]

Well I'm kind of mixed on this issue, but can't refute the historical facts, mines saw widespread use and were indeed effective.

I'm going to venture third though Lars, behind that bomb you mentioned, but what about artillery shells. I'll also mention artillery is not represented as its own parameter in SC. Isn't this about an interdiction weapon, an area denial apparatus used in a passive role?

At most I would expect a movement penalty, perhaps a decreasing readiness for the effects on naval assets. Ok even a strength hit, time to time, but very minimal and randomized.

Let us not forget this scale, 2500(50X50) square mile tiles, one week minimum time periods, and the numerous naval vessels represented by a single unit.

I can picture the abstract effects, don't get me wrong, but 2500 square miles? Perhaps isolated to the aqueous choke points only. There definitely should be a maintenance cost and a deteriation effect. An interesting concept, never the less.

[Blashy]

Too much at the "micro managing level" for my taste.

If they were implemented, on/off switch please .

[Lars]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Well I'm kind of mixed on this issue, but can't refute the historical facts, mines saw widespread use and were indeed effective.

I'm going to venture third though Lars, behind that bomb you mentioned, but what about artillery shells. I'll also mention artillery is not represented as its own parameter in SC. Isn't this about an interdiction weapon, an area denial apparatus used in a passive role?

At most I would expect a movement penalty, perhaps a decreasing readiness for the effects on naval assets. Ok even a strength hit, time to time, but very minimal and randomized.

Let us not forget this scale, 2500(50X50) square mile tiles, one week minimum time periods, and the numerous naval vessels represented by a single unit.

I can picture the abstract effects, don't get me wrong, but 2500 square miles? Perhaps isolated to the aqueous choke points only. There definitely should be a maintenance cost and a deteriation effect. An interesting concept, never the less.

Well, the distance to the horizon standing on a sub's bridge is about 4.5 miles. Good ol' pie are square gives you an area of 63 miles covered (in perfect weather). One sub unit totally covers a tile of 2500 square miles (We'll not worry that a sub covers a circle, not a square ).

So does a sub unit really have 39 subs in it? If it does, Germany is starting with way too many, cuz that's about total U-boat strength for September, 1939. Or should subs be changed to let you run right through them too?

Look, don't let it bother you to much. The ocean is a big place, but things still run into each other out there. And all we're interested in modeling is the effect, not the nitty, gritty details.

[Edwin P.]

The ocean is a big place, but things still run into each other out there.

Not too long ago an American submarine ran into a mountain that was not on their charts.

And before that an American sub came to the surface under a Japanese Fishing Trawler, the trawler sank.

CNN Archived Report of Surfacing US Sub Sinking Japanese Trawler

[ June 16, 2005, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

To play devil's advocate for a bit here....

If you look at the development of the torpedo, they come from mines. Remember Admiral Farragut's famous quote?

All a torpedo really is, when you get right down to it, is a moveable mine to hurry the process up of sinking ships.

Put them on subs, you get a moveable minefield. With the added bonus of picking the exact target you want.

In game play terms however, there's really no difference between placing a string of subs out there to catch transports coming along and laying a minefield. You're only shooting a torpedo in your mind's eye.

So in effect, we already have mines. Just the extremely expensive version. So should we just make subs cheaper, call them sub/mine, and leave it at that?

[SeaMonkey]

Hey Lars,

I've always been an advocate for chance encounters on the high seas, as it was IRL.

Now later on, if you tech your intelligence and detecting capabilities then a greater percentage for engagement should occur.

But for WW2 scenarios where VSR (the originating tech of the time) conditions could be very minimal, especially N. Atlantic, for the spotting of each other's forces.

Hence the ole saying;

"Two ships passing in the night".

[Lars]

Sucks for the Brits though, there's no German/Italian convey routes in the game for them to attack. A oversight in the game. The Germans and Italians get a free ride.

The boats based on Malta, together with S and T class submarines, were able to dominate the enemy's supply lines to such an extent that the toll they took of men, fuel and supplies - over one million tons of shipping - was a decisive contribution to the Allied victory in North Africa. The ultimate accolade came from General Fritz Bayerlein, Rommel's Chief of Staff, who said: "we would have taken Alexandria and reached the Suez Canal if it had not been for the work of your submarines".

During the Second World War, British submarines proved, for the second time in twenty years, their value and importance as a supreme strategic weapon. 475 merchant ships, 105 warships and 36 submarines had been sunk, with many others damaged. The course of the North African campaign had been decisively altered. However, the cost was a heavy one. 74 of the 206 boats in the Submarine Service did not return, while 3,142 men (1 in 3 who served) were killed and 359 captured.

With a larger map, maybe we should have one added for Norway/Baltic and the Med?

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The ocean is a big place, but things still run into each other out there.

Not too long ago an American submarine ran into a mountain that was not on their charts.

And before that an American sub came to the surface under a Japanese Fishing Trawler, the trawler sank.

CNN Archived Report of Surfacing US Sub Sinking Japanese Trawler </font>

[Lars]

Bumping this now that the game is out and modified to reflect.

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

Subs – 15 MPP cost

Cruiser – 10 MPP cost

Bomber – 20 MPP Cost

These mines would be hidden until hit. Damage done and chance to hit will be same as Sub 1, with mine disappearing after being struck.

[dicedtomato]

Much like subs, mines are another wonder weapon that isn't. If you're going to have mines, are you going to have rules for minefield maintenance? Those little devils had a habit of drifting due to weather and tides - especially in open wates - and both sides had to spend a lot of time reseeding them. Offensive minelaying in European waters would be too small at SC2's scale.

Mines should be lumped together with light coastal forces (E-boats, Motor Torpedo Boats, etc) as coastal defense assets. Mines were more likely to be seeded around fixed locations such as ports. The game already addresses this by blocking movement into the Baltic and Mediterranean, and by inflicting losses on warships that bombard ports.

DT

[Guest Mike]

You hit a mine when your ships take a hit while bombarding an enemy port or city.....what's the problem?

[Lars]

Umm, a lot of British and American ports were mined by the Germans, dicedtomato.

And the Brits and Americans mined a lot of German ports (and rivers).

Please go back and read the Mines Away study that I linked.

Never seen a bottom laying mine drift. There's more types out there than just the old moored contact mines.

[ May 23, 2006, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[Exel]

I'm all for Lars' suggestion if it just is doable with the engine.

[Rolend]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Too much at the "micro managing level" for my taste.

If they were implemented, on/off switch please .

Yep I agree with Blashy on this one, if they add it please give us an option to disable it. I mean where does it end, there are lots of things left out and if we manage to add them all then it will take days to make one turn Micro managing every aspect of a war would not be much fun for me as 90% of your time would be spent in admin and only 10% on the battles. I prefer a game with 90% battles 10% admin.

[Lars]

Actually Rolend, I scaled back my original proposal, mostly due to the size of the map.

It would just be a one time event for the three units, sorta like building fortifications, only even easier.

Would make for some interesting choices, that's for sure.

[Rolend]

Lars I love choices, and this game with the editor you have lots of choices but mines might be a bit tricky to add with the editor so put them in the game, but please give us the option to turn them off