Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Submarine Mining Operations

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Submarine Mining Operations Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Submarine Mining Operations - 3/3/2020 5:19:51 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5305
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
There are no problems using US submarines to conduct mining operations in the early game however once the supply of Mark 10 mines runs out (after 1/43) none of the US submarines seem to be able to load the Mark 12 mine which is also a submarine laid mine that starts production on 1/43. This continues to occur even after the submarines undergo a refit after 1/43 - they remain capable of only using Mark 10 mines but the line on the sub armament screen is grayed out.

I suspect that this problem also occurs with all mines that start production after the beginning of the game.
Post #: 1
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/4/2020 12:53:44 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5305
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
I've done some research re this question and it seems that the Mark 12 Mine was produced prior to 7/12/41 with some 600 available. Some were even sent to the Philippines prior to 7/12/41 although it seems that none were deployed for unknown reasons.

Further, the Mark 12 was specifically designed to be launched from the 21" torpedo tube equipping all US submarines. It was later modified several times with Mod 1 being air-dropped and a later mod to the sub launched version.

I checked in the data base of the editor that the older types of subs are supposedly refitted to carry the Mark 12 but it seems that it doesn't occur in that the sub after refit still shows the Mark 10 mine and that line is grayed out.

The Gato and Balao class subs show no refit to the Mark 12 mine at all, each showing only the Mark 10 with that line grayed out on the ship screen.

Once US torpedoes start to work well it would be unusual to even want to deploy mines with US subs (I suspect the same applies to Allied subs although the variety of mine might be different) but does the same restriction also apply to the Japanese Player?



(in reply to spence)
Post #: 2
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/4/2020 2:29:37 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 8486
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online
There were also torpedo shortages at the beginning of the war so that is another reason for sub laid mines.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 3
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/4/2020 8:26:53 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4131
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Yes, up to 1943 there was a shortage of Mark 14 torpedoes. It was necessary to send some submarines on missions carrying a mixed load of torpedoes and mines.

However, minelaying by subs was never popular (and it seems that there was no systematic training program for minelaying by fleet submarines) - even USS Argonaut - the only dedicated minelaying sub of the USN - never laid a mine in anger!

Btw, the game is wrong concerning the mineload of Argonaut: She was equipped to lay specifically designed mines designated the Mark 11 - not the Mark 10 as in the game.

Spence is correct, the Mk12 mine was in production before 12/41 and some were even on hand in the PI - they were dumped in the deep waters of Manila Bay to prevent capture. No idea why they have not been used, probably the adversity against minelaying / lack of training played a role.

The Mk10 mine has been used on just three minelaying missions during the war, with only 82 mines laid - most missions used the Mark 12 of which 576 were laid.

So it looks like the game data is wrong and US subs should at least upgrade to Mark 12 or even start with them.

However, it would be difficult to implement an option to switch between Mark 10 and Mark 12.

Edit: Japan uses only one type of sub-laid mines so the same restriction does not apply.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 3/4/2020 8:29:21 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 4
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/4/2020 3:33:24 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5305
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
This was the only Coast Guardsman serving in the Philippines in 1941 and was the Coast Guard's premier expert on naval mining (st least in more modern times (the 1970s) the USCG has nothing to do with naval mines). Given the USNs general low regard for mining operations I sort of wonder if he might have been their principal mine expert in the Philippines. He was initially assigned to a mine recovery unit at Cavite. Subsequent to the Japanese attack he served in a variety of postings. I wonder if he had anything to do with the dumping of the Mark 12s in Manila Bay. His remains were recently identified and returned to the US.

https://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2010/01/history-lt-thomas-james-eugene-crotty-a-coast-guard-leader-hero-and-prisoner-of-war/

But back to the original posting the number of Mark 12 mines laid during WW2 was almost 7 times the number of Mark 10s laid.

< Message edited by spence -- 3/4/2020 3:34:53 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 5
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/4/2020 6:07:45 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6290
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

There are no problems using US submarines to conduct mining operations in the early game however once the supply of Mark 10 mines runs out (after 1/43) none of the US submarines seem to be able to load the Mark 12 mine which is also a submarine laid mine that starts production on 1/43. This continues to occur even after the submarines undergo a refit after 1/43 - they remain capable of only using Mark 10 mines but the line on the sub armament screen is grayed out.

I suspect that this problem also occurs with all mines that start production after the beginning of the game.


There is no problem here. USN subs can and do load the Mk 12 mines if they are configured to do so, are assigned to a sub minelaying TF at a suitable sized port and the mines are not stockpiled.

Alfred

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 6
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/4/2020 7:08:20 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4131
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Just checked the editor - in stock scen1, the following USN submarine classes upgrade to Mk 12 mines:

Dolphin 6/43
Cachalot 6/43
Porpoise 12/42
Shark 6/43
Perch 6/43
Salmon 12/42
Gar 6/43 - reverts to Mk10 9/43

The limitation of Mk 12 to these classes seems odd, since historically classes like Tambor and Gato were also used to lay Mk 12 mines.

The only subs to actually lay Mk 10 mines were: Whale, Drum, Scorpion and Silversides (all Gato class).

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 7
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/9/2020 9:10:42 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9132
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Just checked the editor - in stock scen1, the following USN submarine classes upgrade to Mk 12 mines:

Dolphin 6/43
Cachalot 6/43
Porpoise 12/42
Shark 6/43
Perch 6/43
Salmon 12/42
Gar 6/43 - reverts to Mk10 9/43

The limitation of Mk 12 to these classes seems odd, since historically classes like Tambor and Gato were also used to lay Mk 12 mines.

The only subs to actually lay Mk 10 mines were: Whale, Drum, Scorpion and Silversides (all Gato class).


Yeah, this has always felt a bit like a database error/oversight to me as from the few sources I've found, it seems that the USN "fleet boats" should have all or nearly all been capable of laying both/either.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 8
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/11/2020 4:31:51 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6290
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Just checked the editor - in stock scen1, the following USN submarine classes upgrade to Mk 12 mines:

Dolphin 6/43
Cachalot 6/43
Porpoise 12/42
Shark 6/43
Perch 6/43
Salmon 12/42
Gar 6/43 - reverts to Mk10 9/43

The limitation of Mk 12 to these classes seems odd, since historically classes like Tambor and Gato were also used to lay Mk 12 mines.

The only subs to actually lay Mk 10 mines were: Whale, Drum, Scorpion and Silversides (all Gato class).


Yeah, this has always felt a bit like a database error/oversight to me as from the few sources I've found, it seems that the USN "fleet boats" should have all or nearly all been capable of laying both/either.


Not a "database error/oversight", but a game engine limitation. Except for a dedicated minelaying sub, and historically the USN only ever had one, the mines "replace" torpedoes only when the sub is assigned to a sub minelaying TF. The engine allows for only one type of mine to occupy the special "mine slot".

Alfred

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 9
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/11/2020 4:46:09 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7339
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Just checked the editor - in stock scen1, the following USN submarine classes upgrade to Mk 12 mines:

Dolphin 6/43
Cachalot 6/43
Porpoise 12/42
Shark 6/43
Perch 6/43
Salmon 12/42
Gar 6/43 - reverts to Mk10 9/43

The limitation of Mk 12 to these classes seems odd, since historically classes like Tambor and Gato were also used to lay Mk 12 mines.

The only subs to actually lay Mk 10 mines were: Whale, Drum, Scorpion and Silversides (all Gato class).


Yeah, this has always felt a bit like a database error/oversight to me as from the few sources I've found, it seems that the USN "fleet boats" should have all or nearly all been capable of laying both/either.


Not a "database error/oversight", but a game engine limitation. Except for a dedicated minelaying sub, and historically the USN only ever had one, the mines "replace" torpedoes only when the sub is assigned to a sub minelaying TF. The engine allows for only one type of mine to occupy the special "mine slot".

Alfred


But doesn't that provide sustenance for the argument that the one available slot should have been allocated to the more plentiful Mk12 than to the limited production Mk10?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 10
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/11/2020 5:09:46 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 8486
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online
I think that it could be changed by an upgrade. A player would have to modify it.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 11
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/11/2020 6:01:58 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9132
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Just checked the editor - in stock scen1, the following USN submarine classes upgrade to Mk 12 mines:

Dolphin 6/43
Cachalot 6/43
Porpoise 12/42
Shark 6/43
Perch 6/43
Salmon 12/42
Gar 6/43 - reverts to Mk10 9/43

The limitation of Mk 12 to these classes seems odd, since historically classes like Tambor and Gato were also used to lay Mk 12 mines.

The only subs to actually lay Mk 10 mines were: Whale, Drum, Scorpion and Silversides (all Gato class).


Yeah, this has always felt a bit like a database error/oversight to me as from the few sources I've found, it seems that the USN "fleet boats" should have all or nearly all been capable of laying both/either.


Not a "database error/oversight", but a game engine limitation. Except for a dedicated minelaying sub, and historically the USN only ever had one, the mines "replace" torpedoes only when the sub is assigned to a sub minelaying TF. The engine allows for only one type of mine to occupy the special "mine slot".

Alfred


Right - what I meant by database error/oversight is that submarines which, in real life, had the option of laying Mk-10 and Mk-12 mines only get to use the Mk-10. The Mk-10 stops production in the game at the end of 1942, IIRC.

The subs should have switched to Mk-12 for the mine carried by them in the database, in an upgrade around the time the Mk-10 stops production. Or be given the option for each class to convert between Mk-10 and Mk-12 via a short timescale conversion. Instead, we're stuck with subs that can't lay the mines that are actually produced in the game when in reality they could and did lay those mines.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 12
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/11/2020 7:44:59 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15648
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Just checked the editor - in stock scen1, the following USN submarine classes upgrade to Mk 12 mines:

Dolphin 6/43
Cachalot 6/43
Porpoise 12/42
Shark 6/43
Perch 6/43
Salmon 12/42
Gar 6/43 - reverts to Mk10 9/43

The limitation of Mk 12 to these classes seems odd, since historically classes like Tambor and Gato were also used to lay Mk 12 mines.

The only subs to actually lay Mk 10 mines were: Whale, Drum, Scorpion and Silversides (all Gato class).


Yeah, this has always felt a bit like a database error/oversight to me as from the few sources I've found, it seems that the USN "fleet boats" should have all or nearly all been capable of laying both/either.


Not a "database error/oversight", but a game engine limitation. Except for a dedicated minelaying sub, and historically the USN only ever had one, the mines "replace" torpedoes only when the sub is assigned to a sub minelaying TF. The engine allows for only one type of mine to occupy the special "mine slot".

Alfred


Right - what I meant by database error/oversight is that submarines which, in real life, had the option of laying Mk-10 and Mk-12 mines only get to use the Mk-10. The Mk-10 stops production in the game at the end of 1942, IIRC.

The subs should have switched to Mk-12 for the mine carried by them in the database, in an upgrade around the time the Mk-10 stops production. Or be given the option for each class to convert between Mk-10 and Mk-12 via a short timescale conversion. Instead, we're stuck with subs that can't lay the mines that are actually produced in the game when in reality they could and did lay those mines.

Looks like this is one of the many loose threads left over when the programmers ran out of time to finish what the designers intended because the game had a completion deadline. Just something we have to accept as "not going to happen now".

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 13
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/11/2020 8:11:30 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2178
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Not a "database error/oversight", but a game engine limitation. Except for a dedicated minelaying sub, and historically the USN only ever had one, the mines "replace" torpedoes only when the sub is assigned to a sub minelaying TF. The engine allows for only one type of mine to occupy the special "mine slot".

Alfred


Thanks for the insight Alfred! Rather than hurling rocks at old design decisions, the important thing is to understand what the code is doing, so that people know how to account for them via modding.

And in this case, that appears to be something which is extremely easy to do. Let's look at the Mark 10 and Mark 12 devices in the editor. At a minimum the availability of Mark 10's could be extended through the end of the war, and the upgrade to Mark 12 eliminated (see the first screen shot). More complicated (because "rule of unintended side effects") would be changes to the Mark 10 data to make them emulate the effects of the Mark 12, although there's any number of adjustments one could make (see the second screen shot).





Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 14
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/11/2020 8:54:47 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5305
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Since many more Mk12s were in fact used than Mk10s why not eliminate the Mk10, change the availability of the Mk12 to 12/41 and adjust the production somewhat. Since the Mk12 has about double the penetration of the Mk10 why not just change the production to 25 or thereabouts and reduce the accuracy to the same as the Mk10 (not sure I can grasp accuracy of a mine). Put a few in the pool at start but otherwise that's only slightly over 1 sub full of mines per month (we then don't end up with "mines in the Pacific")

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 15
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 1:40:36 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4131
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
I'm afraid that tinkering with the devices in the device tab alone won't change anything.

As long as the special mines weapons slot - slot no. 9 - in the ship classes tab remains set to the Mk 10 device, the subs should load Mk 10 only.

As I have stated above, only a few sub classes benefit from the switch to the Mk 12 mine in this weapons slot.

To enable the other classes to carry Mk 12, you need to change the device in the weapons slot 9 to the Mk 12 mine at the upgrade date of your choice.

Those who use my mod may have noticed that the Mk 12 is set for the 04/1942 upgrades of all USN sub classes, so the subs will use Mk 10 up to their first upgrade, then switch to Mk 12. I have also modified the availability and end dates of the Mk 10 and 12 mines, and I have added Mk 11 mines for Argonaut!

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 16
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 2:39:22 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2178
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I'm afraid that tinkering with the devices in the device tab alone won't change anything.

As long as the special mines weapons slot - slot no. 9 - in the ship classes tab remains set to the Mk 10 device, the subs should load Mk 10 only.


Are you sure the code is based on weapons slots? Admittedly we're looking at a sample size of ONE (all other US subs classes appear to use slot 9), but the Argonaut uses Slot 7 for it's mines, and I just loaded up a full set of 10's:




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 17
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 3:11:40 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6290
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I'm afraid that tinkering with the devices in the device tab alone won't change anything.

As long as the special mines weapons slot - slot no. 9 - in the ship classes tab remains set to the Mk 10 device, the subs should load Mk 10 only.


Are you sure the code is based on weapons slots? Admittedly we're looking at a sample size of ONE (all other US subs classes appear to use slot 9), but the Argonaut uses Slot 7 for it's mines, and I just loaded up a full set of 10's:



Yes.

If you dedicate a "normal" weapon slot in a submarine to carry a mine, that submarine will always have available, and consequently will always replenish that weapon slot whenever it rearms its entire weapons suite. This would have a significant impact on the mine pools. Plus it would be contrary to the historical doctrine/praxis. Imagine the howls of protest then from the nit pickers.

The point about slot 9 is that for submarines, it is a "ghost" slot which is hardwired to substitute mines for torpedoes from other slots, but only when the sub is in a sub minelaying TF. Until then the sub is not carrying any mines at all.

Alfred

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 18
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 3:36:47 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6290
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Just checked the editor - in stock scen1, the following USN submarine classes upgrade to Mk 12 mines:

Dolphin 6/43
Cachalot 6/43
Porpoise 12/42
Shark 6/43
Perch 6/43
Salmon 12/42
Gar 6/43 - reverts to Mk10 9/43

The limitation of Mk 12 to these classes seems odd, since historically classes like Tambor and Gato were also used to lay Mk 12 mines.

The only subs to actually lay Mk 10 mines were: Whale, Drum, Scorpion and Silversides (all Gato class).


Yeah, this has always felt a bit like a database error/oversight to me as from the few sources I've found, it seems that the USN "fleet boats" should have all or nearly all been capable of laying both/either.


Not a "database error/oversight", but a game engine limitation. Except for a dedicated minelaying sub, and historically the USN only ever had one, the mines "replace" torpedoes only when the sub is assigned to a sub minelaying TF. The engine allows for only one type of mine to occupy the special "mine slot".

Alfred


Right - what I meant by database error/oversight is that submarines which, in real life, had the option of laying Mk-10 and Mk-12 mines only get to use the Mk-10. The Mk-10 stops production in the game at the end of 1942, IIRC.

The subs should have switched to Mk-12 for the mine carried by them in the database, in an upgrade around the time the Mk-10 stops production. Or be given the option for each class to convert between Mk-10 and Mk-12 via a short timescale conversion. Instead, we're stuck with subs that can't lay the mines that are actually produced in the game when in reality they could and did lay those mines.

Looks like this is one of the many loose threads left over when the programmers ran out of time to finish what the designers intended because the game had a completion deadline. Just something we have to accept as "not going to happen now".



I think you will find that it is a typo.

The datqabase has two versions of the Mk 10 and Mk 12 mines. Device #124 remains in production throughout the entire war and device #125 is in production from December 1941. When the various sub classes go into their June 1943 upgrades, those that retain the Mk 10 in slot #9, eg the Gato, Balao, Tench classes et al, should have switched from device #1646 to device #124.

Alfred

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 19
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 6:24:17 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4131
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
The reason USS Argonaut is NOT using slot 9 for mines is the simple fact that it did not use torpedo tubes to store and lay mines but dedicated minelaying tubes which were not able to carry and fire torpedoes. Hence no need to use special code hardwired to slot 9 that replaces torpedoes with mines when the minelaying mission is being selected.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 20
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 6:58:48 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15648
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I'm afraid that tinkering with the devices in the device tab alone won't change anything.

As long as the special mines weapons slot - slot no. 9 - in the ship classes tab remains set to the Mk 10 device, the subs should load Mk 10 only.


Are you sure the code is based on weapons slots? Admittedly we're looking at a sample size of ONE (all other US subs classes appear to use slot 9), but the Argonaut uses Slot 7 for it's mines, and I just loaded up a full set of 10's:




The display shows the weapon as the seventh in the list, but I suspect the database has two blank slots so that it is really slot 9 that has the mines. The two blank slots just don't appear on the display because they are empty of data.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 21
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 7:05:26 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15648
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

The reason USS Argonaut is NOT using slot 9 for mines is the simple fact that it did not use torpedo tubes to store and lay mines but dedicated minelaying tubes which were not able to carry and fire torpedoes. Hence no need to use special code hardwired to slot 9 that replaces torpedoes with mines when the minelaying mission is being selected.

There are some other "one-off" vessels/devices in the game for which the developers decided not to do a large amount of coding to handle their unique characteristics. This appears to be one of them. I know I do not care if the level of realism does not cover that one exception. Since, IRL, US subs rarely laid mines anyway, we have more than enough ability to use sub minelaying as it is.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 22
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 7:06:47 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4131
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
It pains me to tell you that your theory is wrong.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 23
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 7:10:24 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15648
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

It pains me to tell you that your theory is wrong.






No pain required - I stand (and sit) corrected! I think this is the first time ... but I could be wrong about that!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 24
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/12/2020 7:31:10 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4131
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I think you will find that it is a typo.

The datqabase has two versions of the Mk 10 and Mk 12 mines. Device #124 remains in production throughout the entire war and device #125 is in production from December 1941. When the various sub classes go into their June 1943 upgrades, those that retain the Mk 10 in slot #9, eg the Gato, Balao, Tench classes et al, should have switched from device #1646 to device #124.

Alfred


Not convinced. For me slots 124 and 125 are "abandonware" - device variants made for some reason during development and testing which finally are not being used in the game.

First of all, what could be the reason to switch from version Mk 10/1646 to version Mk 10/124 - which has WILDLY different values for penetration and load costs?

Furthermore, the sub classes that DO switch from Mk 10/1646 to Mk 12 do not use the Mk 12/125 but the one in slot 1647.

And finally, in DBB wich as you know has been made by the devs, the slots 124 and 125 and other duplicate devices in the same slot range have been deleted.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 25
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/14/2020 12:08:27 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6290
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
The typo could have occurred at various stages:

  • should have been devices #124/125 first with upgrades to #1646/1647 respectively
  • #1646 should not have had an end date

to name a couple of possibilities.

As to there being multiple versions of the same device in the database.  Generally they are left there for the use of modders.  Early WWII mines were often not as effective as they subsequently became.

Alfred

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 26
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/14/2020 1:36:18 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5305
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
So in fact there has been a mistake in transcription. Not especially surprising considering the complexity of the game. Just would have appreciated it if you'd not reassured everybody that all is well first. A lot of that going around these days.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 27
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/14/2020 9:05:13 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
If I understand this thread correctly, the required database amendments are:

First, go over the USN sub classes, and make sure they

(a) are using device #1646 (Mk 10) to start with, not the old version of the device, in weapon slot #9;

(b) and at an appropriately dated upgrade, (LST's 4204 sounds good) upgrade to device #1647 in that weapon slot;

(c) check subsequent upgrades as necessary; and

(d) adjust the availability date of the Mk 12 device #1647 appropriately.

Second, add a device being the Mk 11 used by the Argonaut, for its unique use, with a pool for some refills. The Allied player can then defer the upgrade to SST configuration until the stock of mines has been depleted, should s/he be so minded.

Items to be determined:

(a) how many Mk 11s were available?

(b) did they make any more? (Probably not, one infers.)

(c) when was Argonaut's mine gear landed?

The answer to item (c) was easy to find - Conway's has it re-designated "APS1" before the Makin raid in August 1942. DANFS entry is:

quote:

On 22 January 1942, she returned to Pearl Harbor and, after a brief stop there, proceeded to the Mare Island Navy Yard for conversion to a troop transport submarine.

Argonaut returned to action in the South Pacific in August... designation was changed to APS-1 on 22 September,...


So the initial upgrade might be available in February 42, although the current 21 day period might need to be extended.



_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 28
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/14/2020 11:12:22 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 8147
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
I only mined with Argonaut and some dutch subs. Usually US subs have better uses.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 29
RE: Submarine Mining Operations - 3/14/2020 10:08:27 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2178
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: online
For the average player, the easiest change is the one I showed in post #14: Eliminate the Mark 10-to-12 upgrade and extend the Mark 10 availability through the end of the war. That gives all US subs some level of mining capacity from beginning to end. Don't have to create new devices or test anything. It will just work.

No slap at modders or the guys who love fiddling with mechanics, but even a newb can do this one.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Submarine Mining Operations 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

0.180