Mine-layers, Mine fields.

[HeTasksMe_HeTasksMe]

A number of he DD's in the game had a mine-laying capacity.   If those DD's were able to drop a line of mines, to block a narrow passage or defend a cap, it would offer a dynamic challenge to the mine-layers and their opponents.  Moored mines below the surface, only mine-laying team sees were the mines are placed on the mini-map.   A special alert could be made if an opposing unit visually saw mine-laying in action.  

[BrushWolf]

If you think that people are bad about where they fire their torpedoes this would be worse. They also don't fit the level of the game as mines were really a strategic weapon for area denial.

[AVR_Project]

INTRODUCING:

New ways to turn PINK...

Besides, we already have the Sims.

[Tingent]

It will happen eventually, mark my words. As soon as subs are introduced, next will be frigates & mine layers.

[Umikami]

1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

They also don't fit the level of the game as mines were really a strategic weapon for area denial.

I've heard that said, but some things keep cropping up. One of those things is documentation that either Jellico or Beatty, and honestly I forget which, chose not to pursue the Germans at Jutland because he was concerned that they had laid mines during their retreat, an obviously tactical use of the weapon. While no actual mines were actually deployed, te fact that such a move concerned the RN Commander shows they were not just a strategic weapon.

I have advocated for the introduction of mines, but in all honesty they would be difficult to use, requiring almost psychic ability to predict where the red fleet would be sailing.  At best they would be a sort of static defense based on hopes of luring enemy combatants down very specific channels to their deaths. And since nothing is ever free in this game, the DDs deploying the mines would certainly be giving up something to have the mines, in real life that being torps. A DD without torps seems somewhat less fearful; even in the case of Friesland, so the 1 minelayer per match thing probably isn't realistic. 

Still, the game does seem to be running out of new things. Ise and Tone are here; who the hell thought they'd ever work that out!

[1SneakyDevil]

DDs have enough going on already and then even more if subs make it out of test.

I could see them implemented on maps where sonar needs to detect them rather than having a ship class be responsible for laying them.

[DrHolmes52]

2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

If you think that people are bad about where they fire their torpedoes this would be worse. They also don't fit the level of the game as mines were really a strategic weapon for area denial.

Nothing will make people happier than having a teammate lay a string of mines across their escape route when their priority target hits 3+

[BrushWolf]

49 minutes ago, Umikami said:

I've heard that said, but some things keep cropping up. One of those things is documentation that either Jellico or Beatty, and honestly I forget which, chose not to pursue the Germans at Jutland because he was concerned that they had laid mines during their retreat, an obviously tactical use of the weapon. While no actual mines were actually deployed, te fact that such a move concerned the RN Commander shows they were not just a strategic weapon.

I have advocated for the introduction of mines, but in all honesty they would be difficult to use, requiring almost psychic ability to predict where the red fleet would be sailing.  At best they would be a sort of static defense based on hopes of luring enemy combatants down very specific channels to their deaths. And since nothing is ever free in this game, the DDs deploying the mines would certainly be giving up something to have the mines, in real life that being torps. A DD without torps seems somewhat less fearful; even in the case of Friesland, so the 1 minelayer per match thing probably isn't realistic. 

Still, the game does seem to be running out of new things. Ise and Tone are here; who the hell thought they'd ever work that out!

It was Jellicoe and he wasn't afraid of the escaping German's laying mines but about mines that were already there, area denial.

[WanderingGhost]

Maybe, MAYBE, a small patch, easily spotted by teammates, released by submarines as an option that's more limited. Like, a cluster of 3-5 that is hard to spot for the reds, but isn't going to be insane damage wise unless your a DD or sub. Or with friendly fire off entirely.

Otherwise - 100% with Brushwolf on this. Couple days ago (last time I played) had a moron DD launching torps behind me - one set causing a BB to citadel mine because I couldn't angle without being hit by his and a second that hit me because by the time the warning went off I was too far in path and while trying to not eat his entire spread, ate torps from both his AND the red team at the same time. To say nothing of yet again people who only have 4-6 km torpedo ranges nearly or actually hitting me with torpedoes which I'm sorry, it is one thing if you don't expect a ship to be in your path on a 10 km shot because the torpedo has enough time to travel that a BB could change course and sail a ways that you couldn't possibly predict, but you need to be a special kind of stupid to get team damage at 4 km with torpedoes. 

It's the main reason I don't want Kitakami to return - sure, I had a blast using it. But I was one of maybe a couple dozen players tops that didn't turn pink using it because most went 'lol my skill wall IS MAXIMUM' and fired torpedoes indiscriminately laying waste to both teams in the process. Seriously, torpedo based not-so-friendly fire needs to be turned off for that thing to come back, let alone just generally. Everyone always goes 'but torpedo spam will be worse' but the games I see - it literally can not get worse when I'm already dodging torps from both teams every other match - least with FF off I only have to dodge the red ones and ignore the crybaby who should have aimed better when he hits me instead of the red ship and gets nothing but a higher resupply cost.

[Lert]

Because having your ship explode for having the sheer audacity to drive it somewhere  is not going to promote camping and static play whatsoever.

[Umikami]

2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

It was Jellicoe and he wasn't afraid of the escaping German's laying mines but about mines that were already there, area denial.

That isn't the way I read it; it was fear of mines being deployed during the retreat. I should probably find the appropriate page in the appropriate book and mark the quote, chapter and verse stuff, so I can find it quickly as this has actually come up before, believe it or not.

[BrushWolf]

5 minutes ago, Umikami said:

That isn't the way I read it; it was fear of mines being deployed during the retreat. I should probably find the appropriate page in the appropriate book and mark the quote, chapter and verse stuff, so I can find it quickly as this has actually come up before, believe it or not.

It takes hours and hours to deploy a mine field. There were mine fields in the direction of Germany and while they know roughly where they were at night without modern navigation it would have been too easy to run into them.

[EXIT_TO_PORT]

7 hours ago, HeTasksMe_HeTasksMe said:

A number of he DD's in the game had a mine-laying capacity.   If those DD's were able to drop a line of mines, to block a narrow passage or defend a cap, it would offer a dynamic challenge to the mine-layers and their opponents.  Moored mines below the surface, only mine-laying team sees were the mines are placed on the mini-map.   A special alert could be made if an opposing unit visually saw mine-laying in action.  

What might the counter play be? There would have to be a counter play. A signal perhaps? Making ones ship impervious to mines. And maybe it takes 30 seconds + normal reload times to switch from laying mines to main battery so mine laying makes you completely vulnerable during the process, unable to defend, and your top speed while laying mines is obviously much slower, so don't get caught, or you might have to abort and lose the mine field, and perhaps you only get two or three mine-laying consumables per match. There are plenty of variables to make it an interesting and semi-realistic (?) gameplay element, imo. 

[michael_zahnle]

Many of the arguments against minelayers are superficial at best.

11 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

They also don't fit the level of the game as mines were really a strategic weapon for area denial.

Two words... submarines and carriers.

5 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

It takes hours and hours to deploy a mine field. 

Torpedo reloads... destroyers simply didn't carry them on 99% of the ships.

56 minutes ago, EXIT_TO_PORT said:

And maybe it takes 30 seconds + normal reload times to switch from laying mines to main battery so mine laying makes you completely vulnerable during the process, unable to defend, and your top speed while laying mines is obviously much slower, so don't get caught, or you might have to abort and lose the mine field, and perhaps you only get two or three mine-laying consumables per match. 

This doesn't apply to ASW or torpedoes so it shouldn't apply to mines.

I could see minelayers being useful on certain maps, such as Solomon Islands,  Estuary or Two Brothers as an area denial weapon.  I wouldn't eliminate a torpedo mount to add mines, instead it could be an option to replace depth charges as a limited consumable prior to battle.  Mines would would be deployed as a line of 5 or 6 weapons and would have a time limit instead of being a permanent feature of the battle field once deployed, perhaps 60 seconds with a reload time at least as long as a torpedo mount.  Damage inflicted would be substantial, at least as destructive as a torpedo if not more, but once detonated that mine would be eliminated creating a gap in the line.  Passing through a mine field successfully would give 2 "hits" for potential damage calculations, in addition to the damage applied if actually hitting one.  As a deterrent to carrying mines, the potential of a magazine explosion on your deck instead of simply incapacitating the launcher might be applied.  Mines could be detected visually in time to avoid if moving slow enough, although hydro and radar would be useless, and smoke would make them invisible.

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.

[Umikami]

9 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

It takes hours and hours to deploy a mine field. There were mine fields in the direction of Germany and while they know roughly where they were at night without modern navigation it would have been too easy to run into them.

It takes no time at all to send light cruisers to the rear of the fleet to drop mines as they head home, following the big boys in. And if I remember correctly, some mines could even be set to sink after floating for a given length of time. Gotta love that.

[BrushWolf]

9 hours ago, michael_zahnle said:

Many of the arguments against minelayers are superficial at best.

Two words... submarines and carriers.

Torpedo reloads... destroyers simply didn't carry them on 99% of the ships.

This doesn't apply to ASW or torpedoes so it shouldn't apply to mines.

I could see minelayers being useful on certain maps, such as Solomon Islands,  Estuary or Two Brothers as an area denial weapon.  I wouldn't eliminate a torpedo mount to add mines, instead it could be an option to replace depth charges as a limited consumable prior to battle.  Mines would would be deployed as a line of 5 or 6 weapons and would have a time limit instead of being a permanent feature of the battle field once deployed, perhaps 60 seconds with a reload time at least as long as a torpedo mount.  Damage inflicted would be substantial, at least as destructive as a torpedo if not more, but once detonated that mine would be eliminated creating a gap in the line.  Passing through a mine field successfully would give 2 "hits" for potential damage calculations, in addition to the damage applied if actually hitting one.  As a deterrent to carrying mines, the potential of a magazine explosion on your deck instead of simply incapacitating the launcher might be applied.  Mines could be detected visually in time to avoid if moving slow enough, although hydro and radar would be useless, and smoke would make them invisible.

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.

Do we really need more things that don't fit? Also as I said we have enough trouble with people firing flaky at best torpedo shots and poorly placed mines will be just as big a problem.

5 hours ago, Umikami said:

It takes no time at all to send light cruisers to the rear of the fleet to drop mines as they head home, following the big boys in. And if I remember correctly, some mines could even be set to sink after floating for a given length of time. Gotta love that.

The sinking after a set time is more of a WWII and later thing and is not 100% effective so any field laid would still have to be swept for the laying side to transit those waters. They are still finding mines left over from the North Sea mine barrage and that happened over a hundred years ago.

[Umikami]

28 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The sinking after a set time is more of a WWII and later thing and is not 100% effective so any field laid would still have to be swept for the laying side to transit those waters. They are still finding mines left over from the North Sea mine barrage and that happened over a hundred years ago.

I believe that; when they built the bridge from Denmark to Sweden, including the part that runs underwater, they found 17 live naval shells in the path of the roadway on the sea floor, apparently left over from Jutland or some other encounter. And you don't want to know how much land is unusable because it is still filled with 100 plus year old land mines. They did build things to last a while back then.

[BrushWolf]

3 minutes ago, Umikami said:

I believe that; when they built the bridge from Denmark to Sweden, including the part that runs underwater, they found 17 live naval shells in the path of the roadway on the sea floor, apparently left over from Jutland or some other encounter. And you don't want to know how much land is unusable because it is still filled with 100 plus year old land mines. They did build things to last a while back then.

It isn't so much that they were made to last as all munitions are made for a long shelf life. The problem is those munitions are long past their safe shelf life and were not stored in proper conditions and they all degrade differently. Some you could drop a tank on and they won't go off and others you look at them sideways and boom

[Umikami]

1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

It isn't so much that they were made to last as all munitions are made for a long shelf life. The problem is those munitions are long past their safe shelf life and were not stored in proper conditions and they all degrade differently. Some you could drop a tank on and they won't go off and others you look at them sideways and boom

Can you imagine being 187 feet under water, marking a route for a bridge, and stumbling on unexploded 15" shells? That kind of thing could ruin your whole day.

[HeTasksMe_HeTasksMe]

11 hours ago, michael_zahnle said:

Many of the arguments against minelayers are superficial at best.

Two words... submarines and carriers.

Torpedo reloads... destroyers simply didn't carry them on 99% of the ships.

This doesn't apply to ASW or torpedoes so it shouldn't apply to mines.

I could see minelayers being useful on certain maps, such as Solomon Islands,  Estuary or Two Brothers as an area denial weapon.  I wouldn't eliminate a torpedo mount to add mines, instead it could be an option to replace depth charges as a limited consumable prior to battle.  Mines would would be deployed as a line of 5 or 6 weapons and would have a time limit instead of being a permanent feature of the battle field once deployed, perhaps 60 seconds with a reload time at least as long as a torpedo mount.  Damage inflicted would be substantial, at least as destructive as a torpedo if not more, but once detonated that mine would be eliminated creating a gap in the line.  Passing through a mine field successfully would give 2 "hits" for potential damage calculations, in addition to the damage applied if actually hitting one.  As a deterrent to carrying mines, the potential of a magazine explosion on your deck instead of simply incapacitating the launcher might be applied.  Mines could be detected visually in time to avoid if moving slow enough, although hydro and radar would be useless, and smoke would make them invisible.

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.

I though of it like radar, only some DD's.  And, only one consumable per game.   Mines would be devastating to DD's and subs, minor to a cruiser and negligible to a BB; like a heavy torpedo.   "Damn the torpedoes!"

[BrushWolf]

1 minute ago, Umikami said:

Can you imagine being 187 feet under water, marking a route for a bridge, and stumbling on unexploded 15" shells? That kind of thing could ruin your whole day.

This is actually something that anyone that dives war wrecks has to watch for too.

If you want an unexploded ordnance nightmare try the SS Richard Montgomery.

 

[HeTasksMe_HeTasksMe]

21 hours ago, DrHolmes52 said:

Nothing will make people happier than having a teammate lay a string of mines across their escape route when their priority target hits 3+

Area denial, exactly, but to scale.  A sting of a half dozen mines in open water is useless.   Team coordination is a challenge in all scenarios, and there are rewards for coordinating and penalties for not.

[HeTasksMe_HeTasksMe]

12 hours ago, michael_zahnle said:

Many of the arguments against minelayers are superficial at best.

Two words... submarines and carriers.

Torpedo reloads... destroyers simply didn't carry them on 99% of the ships.

This doesn't apply to ASW or torpedoes so it shouldn't apply to mines.

I could see minelayers being useful on certain maps, such as Solomon Islands,  Estuary or Two Brothers as an area denial weapon.  I wouldn't eliminate a torpedo mount to add mines, instead it could be an option to replace depth charges as a limited consumable prior to battle.  Mines would would be deployed as a line of 5 or 6 weapons and would have a time limit instead of being a permanent feature of the battle field once deployed, perhaps 60 seconds with a reload time at least as long as a torpedo mount.  Damage inflicted would be substantial, at least as destructive as a torpedo if not more, but once detonated that mine would be eliminated creating a gap in the line.  Passing through a mine field successfully would give 2 "hits" for potential damage calculations, in addition to the damage applied if actually hitting one.  As a deterrent to carrying mines, the potential of a magazine explosion on your deck instead of simply incapacitating the launcher might be applied.  Mines could be detected visually in time to avoid if moving slow enough, although hydro and radar would be useless, and smoke would make them invisible.

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.

Floating mines could have a very short visible detection range; forcing a ship going through a tight channel to consider slowing down, plowing ahead, or going around.   Going slow and seeing the mines would allow a ship to avoid them.  A lookout's audible warning could be made.

 

[Umikami]

3 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

If you want an unexploded ordnance nightmare try the SS Richard Montgomery.

Since I live on the other side of the world, I find this hilarious; it would be different if I could look out my kitchen window and see those masts every day. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

[BrushWolf]

9 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Since I live on the other side of the world, I find this hilarious; it would be different if I could look out my kitchen window and see those masts every day. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

When they should have cleaned it up was just after the war but it kept getting put off and now there is no way to do the job.