Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 28, 2024	25		08/28 10:38pm

From dim memory of when I created minefields in a binder, I know that my counter-Romulan Minefield did have more command detonators and very few captors. However, it tended to be sparse becauase you wanted to keep plasma torpedoes away, Disruptors at Range 16, but Plasma-S you need to hold at at least Range 21 so you have some opportunity to repair your shields. Plasma Rs, I do not remember for sure.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, August 28, 2024 - 03:35 pm: Edit

I also like to add a few "Nuisance" mines; well away from the rest of the field and sparse enough that they don't trigger the requirement to notify an enemy that they're in proximity to the minefield (IIRC, you gotta let them know if there're six or more automatic mines within six hexes of a ship).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 28, 2024 - 05:52 pm: Edit

There have been proposed a number of new types of mines over the years, I know I submitted one myself back in the day.

What I am not sure of, is mixing such ideas in this topic.

Perhaps we should concentrate on the existing rules for mines/minefields?

Alan Trevor:

What ever happens to second generation star ship technology, I am confident the the steves will ensure that it “plays nice” with the other technology eras already in the game. (I.E. early years, middle years, General War era etc.)

By sticking to the existing rules, we are by definition “playing nice” with whatever changes the steves make.

It has to, because all of it is balanced in terms of BPV.

If it doesn’t, then at that point, x-ship technology could be added to the arsenal of mine fields. But that is a steves decision.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, August 28, 2024 - 08:14 pm: Edit

With few exceptions, minefields are deployed to assist with the defense of a fixed location, be it a base or planet or both, and said location should have additional measures to bring to bear: fighters and/or gunboats, assigned defense ships, ground-based weapons, DefSats, etc.

At the end of the day, a minefield is supposed to be a cost-effective method of slowing down a hostile force so that the aforementioned defenders can contend with it -- nothing more, nothing less. Existing minefield packages still accomplish this goal when the hostile force is comprised of X-ships, albeit requiring additional packages and/or buying some more command-controlled mines to do the job as effectively as against a hostile non-X force, and can be accounted for with BPV expenditure in keeping with the high cost of the attacking X-force.

What is not viable is installing X-technology in the thoroughly-expendable mines themselves; as the cutting-edge semi-experimental technology that it is, it is both too expensive and too maintenance-intensive for such deployment. This would include any "stealth coating" or whatnot, which if it were not X-technology itself would have already been used if it were feasible to do so.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 28, 2024 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Which brings the discussion back to using off the shelf technology and existing protocols.

It appears to be only two options:

One, to use an existing “Package” of mines and stiffen it with additional purchases of additional mine field equipment(small or large explosive mines, deadman control mines, etc.

Or,
Two, take a standard mine field package, and swap out selected mines withe additional other pieces.

Both options will increase the price in BPVs, though presumably, option 2 will be slightly less expensive that Option #1.

The problem, as I see it, is only option #1 actually makes the mine field more effective through the increase of additional mines/equipment thus forcing the player controlling the force that is actually actively sweeping for mines to expend more time clearing the mine field.

Only those forces actually using General War Era ships (or earlier tech periods) will be affected as they will require more time to sweep for the additional mines/ equipment than X-Ships will need.

The only real question to answer, is, should there be any limits on how much a player can buff a mine field through additional equipment purchases? I realize that the 10% or 20% limit on commanders options purchase is limited by the Scenario, but if a player is defending a Star base, a fleet of ships and goodness knows what ever other ships or non ship units might be present, but there should be some limits in my opinion on how dense a minefield could be reinforced.

For example, it was mentioned earlier that a standard package of mines has 69 pieces of equipment.

Is a 100% increase too much? Instead of 69 mines etc, would 69+69=138 be a good upper limit?

Just trying to point out that if there is no limit, some player (and this could be something I might spend points on if For some reason I couldn’t spend it on more bases, fighters, monitors, or additions to the ship in the force.)

It should also be pointed out that doubling the number such mine field items like explosive mines and equipment comes at the price of more paperwork tracking the status of such 5hings during game time.

If there needs to be a change in how mine fields are used and equipped, then at least make it playable.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 29, 2024 - 12:25 am: Edit

Jeff,

Note that (M6.33) COST OF MINES DEPLOYED AROUND BASES allows purchase of up to 6 standard mine packages for a base defense. So that takes you 414 mines, though 24 of those 414 mines are sensor mines. M6.33 also allows individual mines to be purchased at the cost specified in (M6.31) COST OF MINES PURCHASED INDIVIDUALLY, but this is much more expensive.

The standard package costs 100 BPV purchased as a belt across the map but only 50 BPV if deployed around a base. Purchasing the equivalent of the standard package, but buying it as individual mines would cost (if I did the math right... it's late at night... why am I even still up???), about 153 BPV (which includes the cost of the command detonators, chain detonators, deadman detonators specified for the standard package).

My question is: should there be "alternate" versions of the "standard" package, that provide cost discounts comparable to the current standard, but with different minefield composition?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 29, 2024 - 06:01 am: Edit

Alan,
For myself, I would say a provisional ‘yes’.

With conditions, such as the alternate YIS date set to coincide with the introduction of X-Ships (first Generation.)

And as to your earlier concerns about additional generations of X-Ships tech, how about we cross that creek after ADB publishes it?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 29, 2024 - 04:58 pm: Edit

The principle weakness in Base Defense Minefields is always that they are laid in circles around the defended locality, so a given attacker seldom faces more than 16-20%% of the mines, and will concentrate his assault on that one side rendering 80-84% of the mInes useless. Simply adding more packages does not change that pardigm, the defender is spending more BPV for mines that have little to no effect on the attack and having the frustration of having to lay out the mines for no gain, or worse eventually discovering the minefield is a trap for his own forces.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 30, 2024 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Which is all well and good, as far as it goes.

but the problem is the historical record in Star Fleet Battles History includes mines and mine fields in the background and in a number of published scenarios.

With all due respect, you are clearly establishing that mines and mine fields are economically over priced in BPV terms.

I realize that it is balanced in terms of Combat BPV.

What I am talking about specifically, is that the Economic Cost of Mine Fields is out of balance with the number of historical scenarios where mine fields are present.

I understand the logic, just pointing out that there is a disconnect in a few isolated cases. (It should be noted in passing, that is no overwhelming need to change anything. It has worked well enough for years.)

(Note: I am NOT arguing for any change to the existing rules.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 30, 2024 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

The point I was making is that simple making the minefields thicker does not solve anything. The attacking force is going to concentrate on a very small section of the minefield, whether it is a "barrier" field across the map sheet or a defensive field around a base.

Further, if the goal is to stop X-ships they are unlikely to accomplish much to that end because X-ships have a large capacity for reserve power, read shield reinforcement. Which allows an X-ship force to plunge into the minefield and take their "lumps" before another ship takes the lead to repeat the process. This was not much of a problem before X-ships, where 10 point mines could seriously attrit the shields, but you would need a lot of NSMs to deter X-ships that come a knocking at your door.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 30, 2024 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

And I was under the impression that we had already addressed that point. I appreciate your confirmation that we, as a group, had arrived at the right conclusion.

One issue that has not been addressed, is Star Fleet History seems to say that mine fields, in spite of declining effectiveness as X-ships are deployed in increasing Numbers thru out the alpha quadrant/octet, continue to be used.

Is this simply another case, like that of fighter and bomber technology, that while Star Fleet history states that X-Ships effectively ended continued development of new fighter (and to a lesser extent, bombers), both type continued to be deployed for years after the development of X-Ships?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, August 31, 2024 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Okay, here's another dumb thought...

In the time when X-ships were flying with non X-ships, the X-ships have certain... Advantages... When dealing with mines. This has already been addressed with X-ships being regarded as minesweepers when dealing with mines.

Advance time a bit to when non X-ships are regarded as being as non-viable as W and Y era ships were during the GW era. By this time frame, X-ships are common enough that various variants will start to be produced.

WHAT IF, at this later time period, mines are "Improved" to the point where regular, non-minesweeper variant, X-ships lose their minesweeper bonuses that they enjoyed in their early X-ship era? The various empires are deploying new mines that, while otherwise identical to standard, GW era mines, cancel out the minesweeper bonuses of non-minesweeper X-ships AND non-X minesweepers. That'll require everyone to build X-ship minesweepers to counter...

Like I said, this is probably another dumb idea, but it does allow a redress of the situation without a snotload of new rules...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, August 31, 2024 - 01:05 pm: Edit

A thought occurred to me as a potential compromise solution. Assuming Alan's math is correct, could the paid BPV of a mine package be raised by 10%, or whatever arbitrary number is appropriate at the given year, and the package be given 15 points, or 10% of the actual number if Alan's math is incorrect, to be used as BPV equivalents for modifying that mine package only. These points can be used for more mines and/or types of mine control systems for that package only.

This would be a redefinition per Alan's initial question. It would be adjustable for the year in question; 5% on this year to both the BPV and the points to bolster the mine package. 10% on this later year, and so on. It would add uncertainty to the makeup of the mine packages, which would further slow down the advance of an attacking force. It would maintain the existing rules for all types of mines. It would not be limited to x-tech years only should such a bolster be appropriate earlier.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, August 31, 2024 - 06:52 pm: Edit

10% of which cost, the 100 standard cost or 150 individual cost?

By James Cummins (Jamescummins) on Saturday, August 31, 2024 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Perhaps a mine package after a certain date will include a certain number of improved mines for free with the package.
These mines would have improved features. Not all below need apply
1) Foremost that they cannot be swept by X-ships and require dedicated mine ships. Due to improved stealth technology. but it is still rare so only a certain number of mines are so enhanced
2) increase warhead strength
3) increased damage area maybe add 4 more hexes ( In the third hex radius) 2 in one direction and two in the opposite, like the radiation stream in a pulsar). but with the same detection radius. a non uniform blast area.
4) Better detection and detonation ability
5) drift ability, when active will drift 1 hex towards a ship per turn.
6) Command control of the above ability, to allow player to direct mines to move in a certain direction, this will allow more mines to be engaged in a scenario
7) wider area of detection, with improved detection abilities and command control of "normal mines" to allow it's improved detection to remote detonate normal mines
8) shaped charge. to allow blast in a cone shape in a certain direction. increased damage yield

the features could all be separate with BPV cost for each enhancement, or the improved mines come with the first option and the rest are BPV extras

or not

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, September 01, 2024 - 12:35 pm: Edit

A large mine that combines the abilities of a small captor and small explosive mine.

An improved "fuse" so mines have a slightly greater chance of doing their thing?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, September 01, 2024 - 11:55 pm: Edit

3) increased damage area maybe add 4 more hexes ( In the third hex radius) 2 in one direction and two in the opposite, like the radiation stream in a pulsar). but with the same detection radius. a non uniform blast area.

Claymore-style mine??

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, September 02, 2024 - 08:25 am: Edit

Stewart, both in turn. The cost of a mine package around a base is 50 BPV. Up that to 55 BPV. That extra 10% in cost allows 10% of the individual mine cost total for the package, 153 if Alan's math is correct, for 15 points to be used for that package as the owner sees fit.

If the mine package is a 100 BPV per the rules by location, 10% of 100 BPV 10 BPV for a total cost of 110 BPV, but provides 15 points as BPV equivalents for that Package.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 03, 2024 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Drift Mines:

That is a non-starter in my opinion. The record keeping on the mine control sheet would be nearly impossible, and more difficult to verify after the game. While it sounds good in theory and can be done with a computer to track the mines, with a pen and ink/pencil game it is unworkable at present and I doubt any fleet would employ such mines as they would be a threat to their own merchant men delivering supplies.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 04, 2024 - 12:50 pm: Edit

My personal preference would still be to handle this without introducing new types of mines. I would rather see several different "standard Packages" that could be purchased with cost reductions comparable to those in M6.2 and M6.33. Not all of these packages need cost the same, and they might become available in different years. For example, as X-ships become more common, various empires might start deploying a "typical" package with more large and fewer small mines, and a higher percentage of command, chain, or deadman detonators. At some point (say, Y185) these "enhanced" minefields become sufficiently "typical" that they can be purchased at reduced cost. Suppose the enhanced field would cost 210 points if each mine is purchased individually. Starting in Y185 it could be purchased as a "package deal" for, let's say, 140 BPV as a "barrier" field or 70 BPV defending a base.

Something along these lines appeals to me more than introducing a bunch of new mine types; though some people are likely to see things differently.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Wednesday, September 04, 2024 - 07:21 pm: Edit

Well, there could be a standardized add-on/enhancement of say 3 items from the following list [(sensor plus 2 small explosive), (2 small captor or 1 large captor), (5 small explosive or 2 large explosive), (3 small + 1 large explosive)] plus 3 additional detonators for a set cost, limit of two enhancements per minefield.

This does expand the minefield but players already have this ability just at the 'normal' cost, this just makes some package deals in that regard. Additional packages could be allowed for later advancements (at least until minefields are entirely disused).