AGEOD Forums

Question to who have made an ambitious landing without minesweepers, how bad were your losses to the mines?

I made a naval landing on Petrograd and had to go through mines without a minesweeper. The losses were minimal. I even went back and forth to pick up reinforcements and my only concern was cohesion loss from the movement, which was remedied with a one turn stay in Riga to get the correct reinforcements in place.

Thank you for sharing. It seems to easy that way, the map description for mines are scary. Maybe I should run some tests, to see if your were lucky or not.

I have prepared some statistics here by running 10 ambitious landings. The results are :
1) No lose of the elements, land or naval.
2) Cohesion will go down,
for naval units : 5% to 10%
for land units : 25% to 30%

Conclusion : This does not seems right, as you actually don't need minesweepers at all. Devs or beta testers are you reading? Your comments are highly appreciated.

paladin333 wrote:...This does not seems right, as you actually don't need minesweepers at all...

So in one word: worthless?

I'll research this weekend cohesion sounds about right but there should be hit losses as well.

No loses at all, this is just not right. There are should be losses and probably heavy losses to the landing fleet.

I think it really depends on how the enemy laying of mines was done:
with density (and sometimes no warn of death for the enemy go here) and you're lucky if there is only few casualty,
or in hurry, and with warn to try to prevent or slow down the enemy, and you're not lucky if heavy casualties (but that should be possible).

Maybe historically the laying was done with scarse mines,
but in all case at least medium losses should be feared even if unlikely.

WW1 was not my favorite conflict till founding this game, I am more WW2 guy. But, considering that
1) No landings were made in vicinity of mine fields in the period of WW1
2) UK had 700 minesweepers working day and night to clean up German mines set up by U-bots

the mines of that period had some punch and landing on the coast with mines fields presented shall be a challenge. I agree that it should be a Russian roulette, so sometime you should land with only a light losses, but sometimes it should be a harsh landing with dozens of ships lost to the mines. Of course I have run only 10 times test, so it is not a statistic, but I am not beta tester to run a test 100 times, therefore some comments from Devs or actual beta testers regarding the calculation of the mine field losses is appreciated.

If I remember correctlly, in 1.0.patch mines were very deadly. Maybe they were unintentionally toned down a bit?

It's a bug. The ChgHealthPerc parameter to the mines event specifies a -33 value, which the engine appears not to like. It works if changed to -40. Might have something to do with -33 leading to a decimal value.

I'll submit a fix for the next patch, in the meantime you can manually fix this if you like by going into the Events folder and opening MapAleas.sct then finding the text ChgHealthPerc -33 (it might be ChgHealthPerc -25 depending on your version) and changing to ChgHealthPerc -40

Altaris, you are one of the Devs, yes? Thank you for the clarification. I knew something is wrong. Glad that you confirmed it! Let's keep this game at top notch level. I like it so much, best Ageod game for me!