I have a question about base defenses and minefields.

Assuming that you want to have a minefield that is quite close to a base, and with a reasonable limit on the total number of mines you can place, is it better to have a dense minefield with several mines per hex that would leave empty hexes in your field (although no paths for the enemy to take), or is it better to spread the mines out to put a mine in as many hexes as possible, but only one mine per hex?

Maybe both options have up-sides, but is one simply better than the other or would it all depend on the race that controls the base and the race that is attacking the base?

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 03:54 pm: Edit

@Kevin - First of all, I think the premise that it's a good idea to have minefields "quite close" to a base is flawed. Remember, bases are busy places, and military and civilian ships come and go on a regular basis. It seems to me that there would be a lot of "accidents" with mines blowing up really close to the base because some ship strayed too far from the safe path. (I'm speaking of mines triggered through M5.1).

Second, I don't see any real advantage in placing more than one mine per hex. You are decreasing the opportunity for an enemy unit to trigger the mine by placing them so densely.

So, personally, I favor the usual 11-15 hex radius with broad coverage. Any closer and you have issues with friendlies getting whacked by mines.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 04:40 pm: Edit

That's what captor mines and traffic control are for.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 07:58 pm: Edit

What's your goal for the minefield?

The last minefield I built was for a base station that I knew was going to be attacked by Andros. I designed that minefield to keep the andro ships *in*, not keep them out because I knew they would dis-dev over the field. My field was wrapped pretty tight with the inside edge at range-4 from the base. I clustered all the large explosive mines along the inside edge and doubled/tripled them up to make sure someone's PA panels would get a big shock if they tripped one. There was even a lane of command-controlled mines for traffic.

Clearly my configuration isn't optimal for keeping an enemy *out*.

What do you want the minefield to do for you? Randy's mine field idea is great if you want to keep the enemy out of the good sabre-dancing ranges.

Make a strategy for winning and see how a minefield fits into it.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Keven-Humar Barrett:

Deploying a minefield around a base is not a one thing only event.

Technically your minefield should be deployed to impose maximum delay in enemy efforts to assault the base. This varies depending on who the opposition is.

A base that is subject to attack by the Federation has to contend with the fact that Photons are one size fits most, i.e.,a photon has a range of 30 hexes whether mounted on a Battleship or a police cutter. The Federation also has a plethora of phaser-1s, which have a range break at 25-26 hexes. Consider a massed Federation task force and its damage out put and determine the ranges you need to hold them out of. At 30 hexes range massed proximty fuzes can pound a base to scrap without ever having to enter a minefield whose outer limit is at 15 hexes range.

This is less of a problem with other empires. Disruptors are more effective at 15 hexes range, and many ships cannot fire disruptors from beyond 15 hexes range, to holding a disruptor fleet beyond 15 hexes can be useful.

Before the plasma-S torpedo shows up, you can probably get away with a minefield that holds the Gorns at 20 hexes range (plasma-Gs are virtually useless). This changes with plasma-S torpedoes.

The Romulans with plasma-Rs are another matter.

Against Hydran fusion ships, fairly close is okay, but hellbores present problems.

The point is that you have to consider the synergy of the weapons that your enemy may use. It would be nice to always have a battle fleet to defend the base, but the reality would be that the enemy is going to choose the time when he will attack the base, and reinforcements may be farther away, or less powerful, than you might wish.

And, yes, widely dispersed minefields are weaker than those closer in, and that also is a factor, i.e., everything is a tradeoff.

As I have noted before, I was the kind of person who created minefields on weekends and kept them in a binder so that I was always ready to play a base defense. And that meant taking the time to look at the needs of each base (a base on the Klingon-Tholian front has different minefield needs than one on the Kzinti Klingon front).

By Reid Hupach (Gwbison) on Friday, February 19, 2010 - 12:32 am: Edit

Heck when I want to get rid of mines that is what old freighters are for.

Snowplow tactics.

Hey I just have a quick question.

Does a mine react to a Wild weasel as it would to the ship which it is mimicing?

(evil gears grinding in my head) bwhahahahaha...

Oops sorry.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, February 19, 2010 - 02:28 am: Edit

@Reid - (J3.26) SIZE CLASS: Mines treat an unvoided WW as a ship of the size it is simulating, not as a shuttle, for purposes of detection.

By Reid Hupach (Gwbison) on Friday, February 19, 2010 - 11:41 am: Edit

Hmmm lets see an Aux CV loaded down with just Shuttles. not moving, FC off, defensive EW to the max, shooting wild weasels into a mine field. waits till one blows then shoots another down the same course.

Sounds fun to me!

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, February 19, 2010 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Why not just use an ordinary ol' minesweeper?