Mines (small rant)

7 posts ยท Jul 9 1999 to Jul 12 1999

From: Izenberg, Noam <Noam.Izenberg@j...>

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:09:19 -0400

Subject: Re: Mines (small rant)

Schoon: <smaller>[snipped mine stuff]

....

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.

<rant>
I _hate_ mines as a space combat concept. I understand we're abstracting
3-D
down to 2, but mines blow that abstraction away and assume we're playing 2D
from the get go. Might as well play Wet Thrust. Mines in open space are
nonsensical unless you plant them right infront of a ship, in which case you
should be playing with SMLs. The only other place they might be passable is in
a concentrated field around a fixed object, but the farther out you go
outward in inches, the worse the abstraction gets - pi*r^2 vs.
4/3*pi*r^3 is
coverage of a circle vs coverage of a sphere. Unless you pay that much more
for increasing radius of coverage, you're taking advantage of the abstraction.
That bugs the carbon out of me.
</rant>

From: ScottSaylo@a...

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:13:25 EDT

Subject: Re: Mines (small rant)

In a message dated 7/9/99 1:10:06 PM EST, Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu
writes:

<< I _hate_ mines as a space combat concept. I understand we're
abstracting
3-D
down to 2, but mines blow that abstraction away and assume we're playing 2D
from the get go. Might as well play Wet Thrust. Mines in open space are
nonsensical unless you plant them right infront of a ship, in which case you
should be playing with SMLs. The only other place they might be passable is in
a concentrated field around a fixed object, but the farther out you go
 outward in inches, the worse the abstraction gets - pi*r^2 vs.
4/3*pi*r^3 is
coverage of a circle vs coverage of a sphere. Unless you pay that much more
for increasing radius of coverage, you're taking advantage of the abstraction.
That bugs the carbon out of me.
 </rant>
> [quoted text omitted]
That's why you want the mine to represent a focused beam weapon not a
firecracker.

P>S> Space is full of silicon creatures, but we do not want you to become one.

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 16:52:07 -0700

Subject: Re: Mines (small rant)

> Izenberg, Noam wrote:

> <rant>
...Large well directed snippage...
> </rant>

While I may not agree with you on the meaning of 'stealth', you have nailed it
on this one.

Bye for now,

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 20:01:28 -0400

Subject: Re: Mines (small rant)

> Izenberg, Noam wrote:

It kind of depends on where you're putting them. You don't drop mines at
random all over the ocean. You drop them outside harbors, or in straits
(around planets, or near jump points).

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:14:27 -0700

Subject: Re: Mines (small rant)

> Laserlight wrote:

It would be cheaper and more effective to build warships to defend the
location.   consider the number of mines it will take to destroy a
battleship squadron of two ships, lay them out in a straight line 6
inches apart, this is the depth of the minefield.   Now calculate
the surface area of each of the spheres, divide by the area covered by each
mine, and you have the number of mines in each layer. Add all the layers
together and you have the number of mines
you must buy to build the minefield.   Say that 5% of the mines
become inactive each year, plus the cost of the minelayers and minesweepers to
maintain the field, we are now in the range of having a fleet of 20 or more
superdreadnoughts parked at the planet full time for the same cost.

Bye for now,

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 13:29:33 -0400

Subject: Re: Mines (small rant)

> >> <rant>

You are making the assumption we want 100% coverage. Not necessarily the case.
Anything that complicates the enemy's mission is fine. Also, I'm not
holding out for destroying BB's--if mines can kill his frigates and
DD's,
that'll work for me.

Say that 5% of the mines
> become inactive each year, plus the cost of the minelayers and

Mines don't have salaries. Mines are incredibly cheap compared to warships.
Mines don't need to be active (thus suffering maintenance attrition) all the
time--deploy them only when you think you need them.  I'm not saying
mines are king, I'm not saying that I want a mine warfare game, I'm not saying
I don't understand the difference between trying to cover a surface and trying
to cover a volume. But they ought to be practical in at least some
circumstances. Think of them as a short range SM. Wouldn't you at least
consider deploying some in the path of an oncoming battle fleet?

From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:05:41 +1000

Subject: Re: Mines (small rant)

G'day Noam,

> Mines in open space are nonsensical

Actually the two work well together. If they're dodging one they could well be
hitting the other, or you use one to herd them into the other...

Hey I'm FSE I've got to use as many disposable weapons as possible right?;)

Beth (who can finally put all those childhood hours moving sheep into a good
practical game use).