• Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Topic: Mines

I like mines, they add some interesting tactical variety to battles.

That said, I have to admit as many times as I have seen them used it never occurred to me until a recent battle that the range to launch them seems far too long.

10 hexes is longer than 1/2 the normal weapon ranges... is in the long range band of the 12 range and the medium of the 15.

I understand the launch range is equal to fighter movement... but that basically makes them untargetable drones with 1 turn of movement.

Is this really reasonable? Especially give the historical use and purpose of mines as a defensive rather than offensive weapon?

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Mines

I essentially see mines as static devices, or devices with limited manoeuvrability. Having a launch range of 10 seems a little...extreme.

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Mines

this is the "future" and as such does not follow the same rules

I see land mines in the "future" deploying as a JiT asset (ooo, corp-speak) right in front of the convoy, or tanks or infantryman or whatever.

Activated electronically, controlled by a simple AI, and deployed quickly, these spider-like devices will take the place of the static mine.  A side benefit being these mines should be easy to recover, simply deactivate them and tell them to "run home forrest"

Here's the very beginnings of this.  Look for better solutions in the next 5 years, esp. if the so-called war on terror lasts as long as I expect it will.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050411-matrix-mines.htm

of course the "activists" don't like land mines cause they are squeamish about non-combatants.  JiT deployment helps, I can't see why they have trouble with better technology. These ain't claymores, that's for sure.  (Though they probably still say FRONT toward enemy)

Here's a couple of reactions to the issues with mine deployment.

The distance is offset by the fact that they must be "launched" at the end phase (check the FAQ), providing most vessels the opportunity to simply move a couple of mega-kliks out of range.  Additionally, minesweepers are then given the opportunity to sweep the next turn.

That also changes the "untargetable" drones issue as they have to sit through an entire turn before they detonate.

jim

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: Mines

I tend to agree with across the board, Jim.

I think my problem is in the range itself. It outstrips so many effective weapon ranges that it makes me wonder.

I think if it were shorter... somewhere in the 6 range I would feel better about it.

Really just wondered what others thought - if it were just me I would accept it with only cross-table whining to you. tongue

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Mines

Taltos wrote:

I like mines, they add some interesting tactical variety to battles.

That said, I have to admit as many times as I have seen them used it never occurred to me until a recent battle that the range to launch them seems far too long.

10 hexes is longer than 1/2 the normal weapon ranges... is in the long range band of the 12 range and the medium of the 15.

I'm not sure I remember correctly, but I don't think the "launcing range" is factored into the weapon cost -- so you could reduce it to 6 hexes (or less) and get away with it...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Mines

I can say for sure that I have whined about mines, more from a "you roll HOW many dice" aspect.

I don't see the range being an issue at all, but we can make it 6 when we play next, see if it makes a difference.  I'm not sure it will.

jim

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Mines

jmpehrson@comcast.net wrote:

> In regards to the range of mines being 10 hexes, in our group
> this is more than appropriate.  Mines are difficult to employ
> effectively against agile targets.  For the most part, mines
> have been used to suppress/deny areas on the map where you
> don't want your enemy to move.
>
> We picture them as being small fighter sized vessels with a
> short duration booster on them to get them to their
> deployment location.  Once there, they activate.  In a way,
> they are a short ranged drone with an arming delay and a
> slightly larger warhead.  It makes sense that they can move
> in any direction from the mining vessel.  We do not envision
> them as a dead lump of explosive dumped out of the ship.

I like this interpretation of what mines are... smile

> One abuse of the mine rules (in Starmada at least) we've
> encountered is how many mines can you deploy at one time? 
> This particularly was a problem with a stationary target
> (such as a star base) defending itself against mines.  In one
> set point battle, one opponent designed a very expensive
> base, while the other opponent designed a fleet of small
> cloaking ships loaded with only mines.  The ships cloaked
> into range, then appeared and deployed all their mines.  The
> poor base (w/ shield 4's, PDS, armored everything, etc.)
> would of had over a 1000 dice rolled against it ... before
> that happened we all stopped and reflected on the rules.

Well, in theory, you could end up rolling 1000 dice of non-mine weapons against a stationary target, too... but I think it would be reasonable to limit the number of mines 'launched' in a turn to the number of undamaged hull points on the ship.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 137

Re: Mines

cricket wrote:

Well, in theory, you could end up rolling 1000 dice of non-mine weapons against a stationary target, too... but I think it would be reasonable to limit the number of mines 'launched' in a turn to the number of undamaged hull points on the ship.

Another rule, which would also eliminate the nasty cloak-TDAR abuse and probably others, would be:

"A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) cannot do ANYTHING, other than movement, that would increase its chances of damaging an enemy, directly or indrectly.  This includes attacking, attempting to acquire a TDAR lock, launching fighters, laying mines, charging an anime spinal mount, performing repairs, etc."

Because there is absolutely nothing that can be done against a cloaked ship (except where the cloak roll fails), it can usually get into the perfect position to attack and escape if necessary.  To allow the ship to also drop in and out of combat to take advantage of timing in other aspects makes it, IMHO, too powerful.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 137

Re: Mines

mundungus wrote:

Another rule, which would also eliminate the nasty cloak-TDAR abuse and probably others, would be:

"A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) cannot do ANYTHING, other than movement, that would increase its chances of damaging an enemy, directly or indrectly.  This includes attacking, attempting to acquire a TDAR lock, launching fighters, laying mines, charging an anime spinal mount, performing repairs, etc."

Or, more elgantly still, "A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) may perform no actions other than movement.  Movement includes regular movement, stutterdrives, hyperdrives, overthrusters, evasive action, and emergency thrust.  Any action involving interacting with another unit, such as launching or recovering fighters, ramming, towing, or being towed, is specifically prohibited."

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Mines

mundungus wrote:

Or, more elgantly still, "A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) may perform no actions other than movement.  Movement includes regular movement, stutterdrives, hyperdrives, overthrusters, evasive action, and emergency thrust.  Any action involving interacting with another unit, such as launching or recovering fighters, ramming, towing, or being towed, is specifically prohibited."

This the INTENT of rule C.7.2, although it may not be worded very well. I may replace it with the above paragraph in future editions.

Thanks! smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 137

Re: Mines

cricket wrote:
mundungus wrote:

Or, more elgantly still, "A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) may perform no actions other than movement.  Movement includes regular movement, stutterdrives, hyperdrives, overthrusters, evasive action, and emergency thrust.  Any action involving interacting with another unit, such as launching or recovering fighters, ramming, towing, or being towed, is specifically prohibited."

This the INTENT of rule C.7.2, although it may not be worded very well. I may replace it with the above paragraph in future editions.

Thanks! smile

Okay, I'd like to put that in the FAQ, but I can't seem to find the "create a new page" page.  Can anyone tell me how to get there?

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: Mines

I can't tell from the new text if launching mines whilst cloaked is allowed or not, so it may still need refinement.

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Mines

A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) may perform no actions other than movement.

so there's your answer

There's no real add a page page, what you do is type the text of the new page into the address line and it creates one for you.

also, in order for it to register as a starmada question you have to start the question with [[category:starmada]]

There's help in the wiki home page for you if you need more.

but the mines page is here: http://mj12games.com/faq/index.php/Mines

and I'm updating it as I type, well, just after I type this...

and I added this page: http://mj12games.com/faq/index.php/Cloaking

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: Mines

jimbeau wrote:

A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) may perform no actions other than movement.

so there's your answer

A point. :?

I guess I meant that it is a little confusing to go on then and specify prohibited actions in a what reads like a finite list...  but I accept that the ruling is sufficient as proposed.

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Mines

ah, yes, I was taking that as a list, but I see your point wherethe first looks like a finite list (and it is AFAIK) the second is only implied that it isn't

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 137

Re: Mines

Taltos wrote:

I guess I meant that it is a little confusing to go on then and specify prohibited actions in a what reads like a finite list...  but I accept that the ruling is sufficient as proposed.

I was trying to avoid any rules lawyering along the lines of, "A fighter flight landing on my cloaked carrier isn't the carrier taking an action, it's the fighter flight taking an action, so I should be allowed to do it."

So, here's improved wording:

A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) may perform no actions other than movement. Movement includes regular movement, stutterdrives, hyperdrives, overthrusters, evasive action, and emergency thrust.

A cloaked unit cannot be acted upon by any other unit;  this includes towing it or landing fighters on it.  If a unit merely attempts (and fails) to cloak, other units may act on it.

Battlesats, drones, fighters, marine boarding pods, and mines already on the board may continue to operate normally;  however, no additional drones, fighters, etc. can be launched until the ship de-cloaks again.

Dan, may I add this to the FAQ as the intended meaning of C.7.2?

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 137

Re: Mines

mundungus wrote:

A cloaked unit cannot be acted upon by any other unit;  this includes towing it or landing fighters on it.

Ooh, but what about area affect weapons.  What if I suspect there's an adjacent cloaked ship, so I set off my shockwave?  I'd say that should affect the cloaked ship.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 137

Re: Mines

cricket wrote:
mundungus wrote:

"A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) may perform no actions other than movement..."

This the INTENT of rule C.7.2, although it may not be worded very well. I may replace it with the above paragraph in future editions.

Thanks! smile

We should probably also remove the text in C.31 that talks about a cloaked ship acquiring a TDAR lock.

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Mines

mundungus wrote:

Dan, may I add this to the FAQ as the intended meaning of C.7.2?

For now, yes.

big_smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Mines

mundungus wrote:
mundungus wrote:

A cloaked unit cannot be acted upon by any other unit;  this includes towing it or landing fighters on it.

Ooh, but what about area affect weapons.  What if I suspect there's an adjacent cloaked ship, so I set off my shockwave?  I'd say that should affect the cloaked ship.

Yes. Area effect weapons would obviously affect a cloaked vessel.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website