From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Quick comments from work:
- Minelayers are the most underemployed ships in the game due to the sparsity of mines available. I will dutyfully search for the publicly explained rationale, but I wonder why I should not be allowed to tinker with the number of mines in my private mod to see how it works out?
Edit: Found this:
ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Isnt the point of the game to explore "what ifs"? I mean if all the game can do is do what was really done, then what is the point of the game? I have a bookshelf full of history books, I dont need a game to see it. The point is, the Japs had the stuff to use it and the cost of producing the mines was cheap. No reason to take the option out of players hands. IMHO anyways.
I agree completely, YH. But the choices made in developing a base scenario have to be adapted to a far larger player community than that represented here. Making one choice, necessarily means other (equally valid) choices were put aside. No matter which choice is made, there will be advocates of other choices that will be dissatisfied, clearly.
As Terminus mentioned, mine warfare was far, far more effective in WiTP than its physical counterpart. Rewriting the code was deemed to be not cost/time effective. So if (for example) mines had 10 times their effectivity, a rational choice would involve reducing the number of mines by the same factor (believe me, we did not go near that far).
However, threads like this are very important, in helping the forum community understand ‘why’ certain decisions were made. The base scenarios for a commercial product must, simply must, be devised for a general market. But understanding the rationale makes it so much easier to develop mods that satisfy those other proclivities and choices and allow for a deeper exploration of very extensive ‘what ifs’.
Clearly, a universally acceptable solution cannot be found by committee discussion. But adaptive modifications, by vested interests, once the game releases, might give the designers sufficient data to allow them to adjust the paradigm.
Think of this as a starting point.
- "Each AE mine roughly represents 10 real world WWII mines" - does that mean that when in AE a ships strikes one mine, it would have struck roughly ten mines in real life? So shouldn't any ship hitting even one mine in AE die instantly ?
- If each AE mine represents 10 real-life mines, are the mine-carrying capacities of the minelayers in AE divided by 10 compared to their real-life capacity? Doesn't seem to be the case.
- Since Japan gets less than 5000 mines in AE, even if each mine actually represents 10 real-life mines, that would translate to less than 50.000 mines IRL - when the initial chart shows that Japan deployed over 55.000 mines in the Home Islands area alone. So it looks like there still is a shortage in the game.
- There is nothing wrong with the decay function. However, I don't think any player will use ACMs to maintain *offensive* minefields - it would be a pointer saying "Here is a minefield" and would most likely result in an ACM sunk by an airstrike and a visit by enemy minesweepers.
< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/20/2019 3:39:53 PM >