Mines

Given that Mines systems cost 10 points each and take up 3 Mass each for three
mines it would seem reasonable that each mine is about one mass apiece and
cost 3 points per mine with one left over for the mine layer system. This
means at one point apiece and taking up one mass apiece, mines are not that
great of a bargain... For the same cost I can get a Submunitions pack that
does 3D6 beams worth of damage at 6 inches of range, or one Torpedoe for a
fighter that does 1d6 damage straight... Now neither Torpedoes or Submunitions
packs are affected by screens but mines are. There is something truly wrong
when most players use large heavily shielded ships for mine sweepers.... and
they rarely are affected. Given these facts I propose that mines do 3d6 beams
worth of attack instead. With their already reduced detection range of 3
inches, this rule would already offset the cost difference of a an active
system versus a mine that stays on the board. Additionally the 3d6 beams
attack has only 1 in 216 chance of inflicting 6 points of damage while a
torpedoe has 1 in 6 chance of inflicting 6 points of damage. All those in
favor say aye. Althose not in favor make your counter arguments. Phil P.

In a message dated 97-02-07 01:28:48 EST, you write:

> There is something truly wrong when most players use large heavily

> of

I agree that mines as written are truly worthless. Our group uses the
following mines: Standard Mine Layer: 1 Mass. 3 Points May drop 3 mines and
three decoys. Each mine is 2d6 detontation beam weapon exactly as written in
the Full Thrust rules. Large Mine Layer: 3 Mass, 10 points May drop three
large mines and three decoys. Each mine is a 6d6 detonation beam wepon and is
activated as normal mines. Powered Mine Layer: 3 Mass 10 points May drop three
mines and three decoys. Each mine is a 2d6 beam weapon with internal power
supply capable of firing for the entire duration of the average game. Mine is
activated as normal, but is not removed after firing.

We assumed that each mine is individually small enough to be effectively
invisible to sensors, but also so small as to not have the surface area to
mount sufficient passive detectors for target tracking, etc. Therefore each
mine has a small active emitter and detector rig, which makes the mine visible
to ship sensors. Decoys are simply emitters that mimic the mine's active
emmitter. A ship cannot tell a decoy fro a real mine until within detonation
range. It is also impossible to distinguish mine types outside of the
detonation range. Mines emplaced around bases and similar installations may be
command activated. These mines (and equal # decoys) are not placed on the
table to start the game. They may be activated in the end phase of any turn
and begin emitting Mines are then placed on the table and are active for the
next turn. Cost is the same as dropped mines.

These rules have worked out OK when players have used them. One time a player
laid minefields around his support ships which were armed only with AA batts.
I got to him though with fighters, which the mines cannot engage
:).
Another time the same player equipped some of his ships with a minelayer each
(large or standard) and dropped them in front of fast moving enemy vessels.
One of my destroyers got caught moving to fast to avoid the screen of mines
and so I guessed at which one was a decoy and tried to shoot through. I
guesses wrong and a large mine rolled well and completely wasted the destroyer
:(.

Comments?

Brian

Phil writes,

> This means at one point apiece and taking up one mass apiece, mines

I think a lot of people on this list would agree. I make my mines do 1-6
POINTS of damage, like a torpedo. Check Jerry Han's archives for a couple
dozen different ideas for mines.

> Given that Mines systems cost 10 points each and take up 3 Mass each
=snip=
> There is something truly wrong when most players use large heavily
=snip=
> All those in favor say aye. Althose not in favor make your counter

We use the following: Nova Mines by Brian Bell

Nova Mine. This mine uses a plasma generator similar to the SMNC. However, the
plasma sphere is not self-sustaining, and there for only lasts 1 round.
In addition, it is not nearly as powerful. 1) Increase number of mines to 6.
2) Upto 2 mines may be placed during a turn. a) Player writes down coordinate
of mines and turn placed. b) Mines may be placed anywhere in a 6" radius of
the path the laying ship takes during the turn it is laying mines. (no
markers, write down X,Y coordinates from a designated corner of the play
area.) c) A ship that lays mines may not use any other offensive weapons. 4)
Mines become active the turn after they are layed (std).
5) Mines (sensor/trigger) range is increased to 6"
6) Mines explode in a 6" radius (largest template for SMNC) whenever ANY

ships (friend or foe) cross in range. Any ships that cross the template suffer
1d6 actual damage (ignores screens & Kra'Vak armor). a) A mine WILL destroy
another mine that is in range (destroyed mine does NOT explode unless caused
by another ship crossing its sensor range). 7) Once a mine explodes, it is
dead. 8) Mine sweepers range is also increased to 6". a) On a result of 1 any
other ships that cross the damage radius are also damaged. b) On a result of 2
the mine's sensors are jammed and will not go off that turn reguardless of how
many ships cross the detection area.
  c) On a result of 3-6 the mine is destroyed before it may damage any
ship. 9) Any ship may use active scanners to detect a mine. a) Scanning ship
must state the coordinates it is scanning.
  b) On a roll of 4+ it will detect any mine that is within 9" and in
the forward arc.
  c) Enhanced sensors add +1, and Superior sensors add +2 to the roll.
d) Scanning is done before movement orders are writen. 10) Cost: 15, Mass: 5.

> Robert C. Hendricks wrote:

We let this be the mine owning player's choice.

> 2) Mines seem pretty wimpy. Shouldn't they do more damage?

Saturation is the key. We also have mods for active mines that can move up to
6" per turn. This was used at GenCon and PentaCon for our planet assault
scenario.

> I use mines that do 1d6 damage (not reduced by screens) to all ships

We usually do not include fighters as triggering the mine. Jon T, what's your
take on this?

Apparently, I _could_ be fashed after all.

For a single mine, the current damage probabilities
on unshielded and heavily-shielded ships are:
Mine         No shields   Level-3 shields
Damage
0               9/36          25/36
1              12/36          10/36
2              10/36           1/36
3               4/36           0/36
4               1/36           0/36

The probability that a ship will escape ANY damage from a given mine's attack
is 25% for unshielded ships and
just over 69% for Level-3 shields!

A Superdreadnought can therefore lumber straight through most practicable
minefields, presumably making a derisive snorting noise as it does so.

Mines as they stand are utterly useless. In addition to 1d6 damage, I'd
suggest they should ignore shields, so that they give even the big ships pause
for thought, and make mineweepers more attractive.

cheers

> At 10:35 AM 4/4/97 +0300, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
The rules are contradictory.
> How to make mines more worthwhile? Ok, mine-laying isn't a typical
I agree that Mines are currently not worth the bother. I've seen too many
capital ships act as mine sweepers with their heavy sheilds. Given that a
single torpedo shot from a fighter costs 3 point and causes 1d6 damage with no
shields and given that a mine costs 3 points apiece (1 for the rack), I have
them make a 3d6 beam attack. This means that it has a
1/36 chance of doing 6 points of damage with an average of 2.5...  This
less capability offsets the ability to sit there indefinitely during the game.
I recommend that for a strategic game that a minefield can be maintained but
requires a Mine tender and a certain number of points per strategic turn to
replace those mines that fail, are destroyed by micro meteors, etc. I also
think that Torpedo Bombers be able to carry Mines as well, I use
them as Sub-chasers against cloaked ships.  This obviously means that I
let mines attack cloaked ships. I also use missiles to deliver mines. At a
cost of 6 points apiece they carry one mine each. Since a single torpedo
fighter carrying a single mine would cost a little over 6 points this seems to
work, although the missile takes up more Mass. Maybe the Missile should carry
two mines or one 4d6
mine...
All of these techniques I use to combat Kravak and cloaked ships. It would be
a fun scenario to play a convoy with a CVE and a couple DDs against a small
wolf pack of Cloaked ships... Phil P.

I'd leave the mines at 1d6 damage. This makes a failed minesweep not as nasty.
Part of the PSB would be that mines need more electronics & a long term
powersource, otherwise you would need to redeploy the minefield every couple
of days to recharge. Not that a damage change would make much difference, a
minefield would normally be sewn densely enough that any ship attempting to
pass would be
attacked by at least 5-6 mines (or in the case of Honor in Exile, 50-60
mines per ship.)

'Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
Commodore Alfred K Hole - RNS Indy's Folly [CB]
Captain Nicolette O'Teen - RNMS Golden Spear [CB]
EBD Medusa - RIP

> -----Original Message-----

Hello, I've been looking at the original rules for mines, and while I've
known this has been discussed before, I'd like to re-open the subject,
especially in light of the Fleet Book. To review, the Mines in Full Thrust and
now Fleet Book take up one mass each and cost two points apeice. The Mine
Layer masses two points plus one per mine with a cost of 6 per layer and 2 per
mine. Mines do 2D6 BEAM damage when they attack a ship with an expected effect
of.67 points damage. The best mine sweeper still remains a ship with two
screens! Meanwhile, a More Thrust Missile with a Mass of 2 and an endurance of
three turns does 2D6 Torpedo damage with an expected effect of 7 points
damage. We can assume that roughly half of the Missile is devoted to
propulsion. A Salvo Missle Salvo takes up two mass per Salvo. Each missle that
hits does 1D6 damage.  So a single missile weighing about 1/3 mass does
1D6 Torpedo damage with an expected effect of 3.5 points damage. A Torpedo on
a fighter does 1D6 Torpedo damage. If we assume that the weapon system on a
fighter takes up roughly half its mass then a
torpedo wieghing 1/2 mass does 1D6 damage with an expected effect of 3.5
damage.
    Since we can see weapon systems that do 1D6 damage per 1/2 mass
devoted to the warhead, Why not let this carry over to an advanced mine
system?

    Enhanced Mine: Mass: 1    Cost: 3  Does 2D6 damage to contact within
3 inches that does not satisfy IFF challenge. Additional mines could include
the same effect as More Thrust Missile Warheads to include Needle [targeted
system set at time of drop] and EMP.
       Sand mine:    When it blossoms it generates a debris cloud 1 inch
in Diameter. Ships, fighter, missiles, etc. that fly through this cloud take
appropriate damage. Sustained by a magnetic field for up to three turns or
when impacted by something that explodes or in some other fashion disrupts the
field pattern (ships, fighters, missiles, etc)

I would argue that the Mass 2 of a mine layer is a little much. Perhaps it
should be Mass 1 plus each mine.

    Mine Launcher:    For those who enjoy Babylon 5, this is what they
meant.
    Mass:    3 (1 arc) plus 1 per additional arc (3 max).  Cost 3 * Mass
Must be attached to a mine rack with Mass 1 per mine. For Newtonian games:
Flings a Mass one mine down a set angle (don't forget to add the ship's
current momentum...) at a velocity up to 12MUs.
    For Cinematic Movement:    Places a mine out within arc within 12
inches of the ship. Launched during combat phase, arms and takes effect during
next movement phase.

> In a message dated 7/9/99 11:33:17 AM EST, schoon@aimnet.com writes:

<<
I kind of like the idea of beefing up a mines a bit, but before we go hog wild
with this we should look at what we want mines to really do.

A 2d6 mine IS beefed up, but it also has the capacity to obliterate anything
up to a Frigate in one blow. Do we want this?

> [quoted text omitted]

A Naval mine is able to take out a frigate in one blow right now, today. Is it
unrealistic to have it do that in the future? I don't know. Back in the days
when we played a lot of Star Cruiser ships had "sub munition dispenser" which
dropped "mines" in the area of the target which engaged the target

which one shot x-ray detonation lasers. Very effective one shot weapon.
These were NOT capable of taking out a ship in a whack. Mines that simply blow
up are not likely to be effective in space warfare, because too much of the

blast effect goes in directions that do not focus the damage against the

target.

By using a detonation laser instead as the weapon in the mine, in FT terms you
would have a one shot high power beam weapon that would attack the target when
it moved into range and be expended with that attack. That should not
overbalance the game, I should think. It might be the best way to look at
"mines" in space. IMHO. of course.

> A Naval mine is able to take out a frigate in one blow right now,

As much as I hate to be the one to say this, reality doesn't always make for
good gaming. I'd be really bored playing a recreation of the air war in the
gulf.

> By using a detonation laser instead as the weapon in the mine, in FT

This is an idea that might bear looking into. Beefing them up by treating them
as a higher class beam. I sort of like this. Keep the same detection range,
but make it a Class 2 or 3 weapon. Comments?

> In a message dated 7/9/99 11:33:17 AM EST, schoon@aimnet.com writes:
These
> were NOT capable of taking out a ship in a whack. Mines that simply

I think, (without referring back to the book) that that is exactly how I
described the mines originally in FT2....

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:55:36 +0100 Ground Zero Games
> <jon@gzero.dungeon.com> writes:

Yep, on page 18 in FT2. These are described as detonation beam weapons that do
2D6 of BEAM damage.

> Phillip Pournelle wrote:

> Mines are a very effective weapon. Historically they

Yes, and they continue with the mission long after the reason for thier
deployment has ceased.

Bye for now,

[snipped mine stuff]

I agree that straight FT2 mines are fairly weak when brought straight over to
FT2.5. They would appear to be useful as a prelayed field only, and I suspect
the minelayer system was included only for specific scenarios (a minelayer
interupted in its task).

I kind of like the idea of beefing up a mines a bit, but before we go hog wild
with this we should look at what we want mines to really do.

A 2d6 mine IS beefed up, but it also has the capacity to obliterate anything
up to a Frigate in one blow. Do we want this?

    Schoon
Mines are a very effective weapon. Historically they have destroyed or mission
killed larger portion of vessels than any other weapon system...

> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:55:36 +0100 Ground Zero Games

I agree, however, we also have it noted that MT Missiles are similar
X-Ray lasers pump by a nuke.  I'm just saying that if the warhead on a
MT Missile is mass one and does 2D6 damage, perhaps a mine with the same
warhead should do the same.

Sure, all
> these ships lost were older pre-dreadnaught battleships with less

Maybe HMS Audacious (lost in the Irish Sea 27/10/14) - don't know how
many she hit, but the damage caused was apparantly quite light

Would you count Viribus Unitis, QE & Valiant, all sunk by limpit mines (albeit
temporarily for the last 2)?

Ah - I found one!  Spanish dreadnought Alfonso XIII (later Espana) hit a
single mine & sank 30/4/37.  Mind you, she was the smallest Dreadnought
ever built & (to quote Conways) her 'speed, protection and freeboard [were]
well below average'.

I did War Studies for three years at University. I have no idea what to do for
a living with it, but I have accumulated a vast amount of interesting books on
ships...

TTFN,

Nick

If mines are detonation lasers they might ignore shields - remember that
beams are asumed to be particle beams.
However that is just nit-picking. Though it does make mines nastier, a
beam that ignores screens.

I rather like the captor mine style. The mine fires a missile at the ship.

Maybe there is room for both, but that leads to a SFB style book keeping
nightmare.

> At 09:31 AM 8/16/99 +0100, you wrote:

There are speculative designs out there for nuclear warheads that have
something of a 'shaped charge'. Originally envisioned for taking out hardened
sites like missile silos, they might be useful in space, too.
*****

> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:31:46 +0100

...

> I rather like the captor mine style. The mine fires a missile at the

1) I have heard of expedient minefield clearance using artillery. It doesn't
give a very reliable sensation for the infantry that have to advance into the
"beaten zone".

2) They have stupidly large numbers of mine varieties now. Including
anti-helicopter mines and many off-route mines that are hard to clear
because they don't sit in the path you're advancing through but they engage
your tank from the side or rear with a GMS or IAVR type attack.

3) Spider mines are a neat concept. They can arrange themselves to avoid
sweeping and also use their mobility to get in the way of their target.

4) Embedding electronics into mines would be interesting. Some of the good
mines now have no metallic parts. I suppose a chip might be okay, but start
putting metallic sensor transducers in the mine along with antennae or
whatever and you have a more detectable mine.

5) If the device accepts incoming comms, wide-area EMP or targetted EM
jamming might render such a field inert (probably the default if no outside
comms work) and then sweepable by conventional means.

6) Once you have grav vehicles, you have new challenges. If the vehicle is up
a few meters and exerts no ground pressure, only mines with sensors will work.

7) Engineers with custom mine clearing equipment are your best option, or just
bypassing the mines with VTOLs or some such technology. Infantry or Artillery
minesweeping is risky.

8) Being even more imaginative, if your mine works off radar, spray the
minefield with a metallic flake suspension.... oops, no signal.

9) If the mine can move, so can small robots or even smaller nanomites to
hunt and disable them. Point and counterpoint. You lay a high-tech
moving
minefield, I sent out high tech HK anti-mine bots to kill your mines.
Mine come with a small laser and bake your mines without exposing humans to
risk.

I was under the impression the main function of a minefield included:

1) self defense of a position (defensive minefield around a firebase) 2)
channelizing the enemy (denying him access to some route, forcing him to take
another more favourable one which you want him to take) 3) breaking up
reinforcements (FASCAM or arty scatterable minefield deployed behind the
enemy) or withdrawals
4) Toe-poppers (small plastic leaf looking mines that injure rather
than kill) seem to exist to cause a drain on the support infrastructure by
creating casualties and long term care victims rather than killing

Essentially, as someone pointed out, creates an impenetrable (well, not really
but if you can attain a decent Probability of Encounter then no one wants to
chance it) bit of terrain. Even the suggestion of a minefield can be enough.

Anyone know much about scatterable mines? Are they easier to sweep or
breach (a field)? Can they be swept with FAE/Arty etc?

I believe also that if you have the time, you install anti-tamper
gear on some of your mines to encourage people not to try to sweep your
minefield. Some modified version of this (maybe some CDMs set
for rat-size amidst your AT minefield) could stop the minesweeping
rats situations from being terribly viable.

> --- kaladorn@magma.ca wrote:

> I was under the impression the main function of a

Protective minefield, more or less.

> 2) channelizing the enemy (denying him access to

Turn or block tactical minefields.

> 3) breaking up reinforcements (FASCAM or arty

OK. . .

> 4) Toe-poppers (small plastic leaf looking mines

Don't exist. There are no Russian scatmines that are leaf, toy, butterfly, or
other 'harmless' shape. That's a military Urban Legend.

You left out the Fix and Disrupt. These are intended to hold the enemy in
place and force him to commit breach assets prematurely, in coordination with
a fire sack to kill him with direct and indirect fire.

> Anyone know much about scatterable mines? Are they

Much harder to breach, and no, a LOT of them cannot be swept with FAE or
Artillery. In fact, I wouldn't let artillery sweep the mines of the 23rd
century. Most
of them will have anti-shock devices.

See: http://angola.npaid.org/mine_italy_vs_1.6.htm for
an example.

> I believe also that if you have the time, you

Anti-handling devices.  You can do this seperately
(mousetraps, fer instance) but a lot of modern mines
have built-in AHDs and ADDs.

What about the Soviet PFM-1:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/minerats/figures/mine3.gif

Looks somewhat butterfly shaped to me. I am quite certain that this is one of
the mines that people refer to when they talk about mines that children
mistake for toys.

Tony

> On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 05:33 PM, John Atkinson wrote:

> --- Tony Christney <tchristney@telus.net> wrote:

As opposed to US cluster bomb munitions that look like round balls, ranging
from softball to golfball size?

The shape of the PFM-1 is purely for aerodynamics. You
get a better dispersal pattern that way. The original statement was of the
usual ignorant babble about Evil Russians Murdering Children. Geez, there's
enough stuff to fry Communists for, let's not make stories up.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> >4) Toe-poppers (small plastic leaf looking mines that injure rather

A mine type designed for exactly this purpose existed during WW2. Very
small, spike-shaped, fired a rifle bullet through the foot (and
occasionally the groin) of the first person to step on it.

Tactically it would be used as a blocking or disrupting minefield, of course.

Later,

G'day guys,

On the topic of toe poppers, Derek thought you might like to know that one of
his instructors once showed them how to improvise them in the field with a
bullet, a few bits and a small hole in the ground. A nasty surprise to
unsettle the enemy I guess.

Cheers