From: Denver Colorado
When this game was being developed, we purposely undertook to limit the possibility of "mines in the Pacific". The game algorithm for mine warfare is the most abstract. There was absolutely no desire, whatever, on the part of anyone, to redo it: tons of work for a minimalist reward?
There are scads of historical minefield types; controlled mines, laid mines, air-dropped mines, and they all have different stuff and we just didn't care. A minefield is a minefield. And they all decay according to the game code, even though some types of them didn't irl.
The game engine populates certain places with minefields at game start, but did those all places actually have minefields? No. So complaining about the lack of LCMs at places where there weren't any mines anyway is a bit strained. This is a strategic/tactical model of the flow of the Pacific war. You need to put mines into their proper perspective.
[ed] I truly think Don's editor tweak is the way for you to go. Will the main game ever do this? No. Will Babes ever do this? No. You want to do this, the editor flexibility is there for you.
Thank You for the insight; I did wonder why mine tenders were far and few between on the Allied side of the pond. Your thoughts and comments have cleared that up. I do understand and respect the design intent of the Babes Team. If a player should choose otherwise, there is always the awesome editor.
Don - very much appreciate your input. Babes sticks with the reality, and this is a good thing.
< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 3/26/2012 11:05:09 PM >