RAEVSKI
|
Sample minelayer HMS ManxmanHMS Manxman
2650 t
speed 39 k
6x 4in DP
4x 2pdr AA
100-156 mines
|
RAEVSKI
|
Stats
Mains 6/6/5/5
AA 4
Speed 2
armour 2 8 2
SA Hi speed run.
this vessel as is is probably 6 points.
BUT SA Minelayer 8 (156 / 20 = 7.8. Rounded up 8)
adds 8 points total 14 points
What do u think of the system?
|
NeuralDream
|
8 mines? Hmmm, we may have to make it 1 mine per 40 then.
|
Task Force 57
|
Gun armament is a bit on the heavy side isn't it?
She might be cruiser sized but her gun outfit was primarily 4" DP... they were often used to beef up convoy AA power.
5/4/4 would be more accurate or perhaps on the VERY OUTSIDE 5/5/4.
This girl is a fast mine layer... not a cheap CL!!!!!
Also you ought to give her VITAL Cargo. These ships helped save Malta by running in AV gas, Torpedo's & diesel for subs and other small but vital equipment.
|
RAEVSKI
|
| Task Force 57 wrote: | Gun armament is a bit on the heavy side isn't it?
She might be cruiser sized but her gun outfit was primarily 4" DP... they were often used to beef up convoy AA power.
5/4/4 would be more accurate or perhaps on the VERY OUTSIDE 5/5/4.
This girl is a fast mine layer... not a cheap CL!!!!!
Also you ought to give her VITAL Cargo. These ships helped save Malta by running in AV gas, Torpedo's & diesel for subs and other small but vital equipment. |
ypur right i thought nthey where 6in and not 4 
|
Rengokuy
|
*recatches up on everything*
hmmmmmmm.....so did we mix in strategic and tatical into a giant clump>
|
RAEVSKI
|
| Rengokuy wrote: | *recatches up on everything*
hmmmmmmm.....so did we mix in strategic and tatical into a giant clump> |
We are looking at stregic only with mines already laid. which is fine with me
|
Rengokuy
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | | Rengokuy wrote: | *recatches up on everything*
hmmmmmmm.....so did we mix in strategic and tatical into a giant clump> |
We are looking at stregic only with mines already laid. which is fine with me |
Will we still be able to play with minelayers ?
Some minor nations need them as warships as well 
|
RAEVSKI
|
yes, u have to have the ship to lay the mines before battle
|
Rengokuy
|
Me likes
|
RAEVSKI
|
Its the only way so far.
The Example in my head is
Romania, there largest ships are minelyers.
Dacia and Regal Carol I.
apart from the 4 DDs.
|
Rengokuy
|
Overall I think it's not so bad....then if we want to do (dare I say) and advance rule set that includes a pre-battle and actual...laying your mines.
The only question I have, is
Since the Field is open game....
All minelayers will ever do is mine the objective markers, or a line on te opponetns side of teh map.....
Wihch I did encounter in my play testing, you didn't even need minesweepers, because you knew where the mines were already. ,,,why is why I favoired the whole...mine layers moving about doing it. IT made it a bit more suprising to where they were. Or at least limited the number of obvious spots they were in.
|
RAEVSKI
|
i see you point.
But mine sweepers can minize damage to all ships.
if you have sence to mine across the board.
|
RAEVSKI
|
Redo of Stats
Mains 4 3 3 (fixed new stat line)
AA 4 ( acounting for HA 4ich)
armour 2 8 2
SA hi speed Run
SA Minelayer 3
SA vital cargo 6
6 points +4 for minelaying
10 points
|
RAEVSKI
|
ok weeds this is one i started before. IT has a new SA Minelayer X
X = amount of mines
1X = 50 mines rounded.
So for Manxman SA minelayer 3
as mines sa but you can lay 3 and can effect subs.
|
RAEVSKI
|
AA5
|
Snippersly
|
AA should be like a 2 or 3... Only 4 guns dedicated to AA. No way it should be any higher than 3...and that is being generous IMHO.
Maybe an SA that allows you a higher AA if you do not fire the main guns at a ship and use them in your Air Defense phase. You could call it... ready... wait for it...
DUAL PURPOSE GUNS- If this ship does not make a main gunnery attack this turn, it can double the AA value.
So AA of like 3 and if you use the SA, you could get 6???
Snips
|
swarbs
|
Snips, many ships with AA 4/5 have no large caliber AA guns at all. If this ship has some larger weapons I think 5 is a solid minimum. I like the SA's too. Should it get 'no sea control' or is grabbing an objective ok?
|
chesty
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | Redo of Stats
Mains 4 3 3 (fixed new stat line)
AA 4 ( acounting for HA 4ich)
armour 2 8 2
SA hi speed Run
SA Minelayer 3
SA vital cargo 6
6 points +4 for minelaying
10 points |
So, I could use High Speed Run on turn one and take an objective on turn two?
What is Minelayer 3?
|
RAEVSKI
|
SA minelayer X
this is for desiganted (proper minelayers not crusiers or destroyers armed with mines)
as for normal mines but it can put a mine marl=kker for every X.
X= 50 mines. So if it carries 150 mines like manxman it becomes minelayer 3
As for high speed run the SA already exists on French DD's what is the difference. it has a speed of 39k
|
weedsrock2
|
Guys, I need you to spell out exactly what you want the 'Minelayer X' SA to say on the card.
|
RAEVSKI
|
ok chesty, could you help with that.
also an SA for Submarine mines.
|
Asbestos
|
I'm scratching my head as to what it is, I'm guessing you guys worked on this SA in the Forumini Mines Project?
|
RAEVSKI
|
| Asbestos wrote: | | I'm scratching my head as to what it is, I'm guessing you guys worked on this SA in the Forumini Mines Project? |
yep. it is closing down.
|
chesty
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | | As for high speed run the SA already exists on French DD's what is the difference. it has a speed of 39k |
Its just an odd combination. She has the speed to be a good objective taker in the game, and her mines could be used to restrict enemy pursuit, I guess. Interesting little Ship.
| RAEVSKI wrote: | ok chesty, could you help with that.
also an SA for Submarine mines. |
You mean, you want the mines to work against Submarines too? Let me ask about the Minelayer 3 first...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class minelayer) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Speed 2
Cost 10
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
High Speed Run, Precious Cargo 6, Minelayer 3 (New SA)
I'm not sure how you want to handle the mines. Should she put more mines per sector, or should she mine more sectors? If she can mine more sectors, does she do them one at a time, or all at once?
More mines per sector...
Minelayer 3 - Once per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place 3 markers on that sector. On each 1, the Ship takes 1 point of hull damage. On each 2, the Ship takes 2 points of hull damage. Torpedo defence works against this damage.
More sectors, all at once...
Minelayer 3 - Once per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector and two adjacent sectors. Place a marker on those sectors. Whenever a Ship enters a mined sector, roll a die for each marker in that sector. On each 1, the Ship takes 1 point of hull damage. On each 2, the Ship takes 2 points of hull damage. Torpedo defence works against this damage.
More sectors, one at a time...
Minelayer 3 - Instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship enters a mined sector, roll a die for each marker in that sector. On each 1, the Ship takes 1 point of hull damage. On each 2, the Ship takes 2 points of hull damage. Torpedo defence works against this damage. This ability can only be used three times per game.
Which way should we go?
Edit... Here's an example of how to change the wording to affect Subs...
More sectors, one at a time...
Minelayer 3 - Instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship or Submarine enters a mined sector, roll a die for each marker in that sector. On each 1, the Ship or Submarine takes 1 point of hull damage. On each 2, the Ship or Submarine takes 2 points of hull damage. Torpedo defence works against this damage. This ability can only be used three times per game.
|
Asbestos
|
The all in one sector is insane. Statistically any ship that enters that sector is going to be taking 1 hull point of damage.
|
chesty
|
The Minefield of Death version.
|
weedsrock2
|
Why are we changing the mine rules that R.B. has already created? I thought we were not using these cards to change any existing rules in the game.
At first I didn't agree that subs were not affected by mines. But after thinking about it think I can see why they did that. Subs have such limited movement already that hindering them with minefields might be too much. It was certainly a conscious decision on their part because it would have been very easy to include subs.
|
chesty
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | Why are we changing the mine rules that R.B. has already created? I thought we were not using these cards to change any existing rules in the game.
At first I didn't agree that subs were not affected by mines. But after thinking about it think I can see why they did that. Subs have such limited movement already that hindering them with minefields might be too much. It was certainly a conscious decision on their part because it would have been very easy to include subs. |
I haven't been following the Mines project, so I'm kind of in the dark, here, but I'm not sure how any rules are being changed. There's no rule that says two Gromkiy's can't put Mine markers in the same sector, for instance. That means mines can stack. As for the option of a single Ship mining more than one sector, I don't see a problem with doing it one sector at a time. That wouldn't break any rules, as far as I can tell.
RAEVSKI's idea for quantifying minelayers makes sense to me. The numbers may need adjusting, though. Gromkiy, with a load of only 60 mines, gets the same SA for Mines that Kirov gets with a load of 90. Manxman's load of 156 mines might deserve another marker, but I'm not sure about giving her a total of three.
Updated...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class minelayer) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 10
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
High Speed Run, Precious Cargo 6, Minelayer 2 (New SA)
Minelayer 2 - Twice per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship enters the mined sector, roll a die. On a 1, the Ship takes 1 point of hull damage. On a 2, the Ship takes 2 points of hull damage. Torpedo defence works against this damage.
(Subtly re-worded version of Mines)
Edit... I agree about the Subs, but I don't know anything about anti-submarine mines. Were they worth the trouble?
|
RAEVSKI
|
Anti sub. mines worked extremely well.
The romanian navy laid anti sub barrages up to the Caucus sinking approx 10-15 subs trying to interdict convoy traffic.
|
chesty
|
If they're set for Subs, do they still work against Ships? Who else actually used such things?
suggestion...
Anti-Submarine Mines - Once per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Submarine enters the mined sector, roll a die. On a 1, the Submarine takes 1 point of hull damage. On a 2, the Submarine takes 2 points of hull damage.
(A new kind of Mines)
Edit for another...
All Purpose Mines - Once per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship or Submarine enters the mined sector, roll a die. On a 1, the Ship or Submarine takes 1 point of hull damage. On a 2, the Ship or Submarine takes 2 points of hull damage.
(Another new kind of Mines)
|
RAEVSKI
|
the romanians laid barrages of mines against subs and surface vessels.
I believe the mines are different.
i was only trying to make it easy.
and make a differece between a minelayer and a minelaying DD/CA.
|
swarbs
|
Someone did ask if mines stacked. The answer is no. A sector is either mined or not. Two ships can lay mines in the same sector, but the effects do not stack.
I guess I've got the same complaint as weeds. The mine-laying SA in the game isn't really all that it could be, but we've got it.
|
weedsrock2
|
Swarbs beat me to it. WotC_Huscarl has made two important clarifications on the mine rules. One is that mines do not stack as Swarbs pointed out, the other is that submarines are not affected by mines.
The first clarification should not be changed in my opinion. That is going too far down the 'complicated' road for this game. The submarine issue could be addressed by Chesty's suggestion to have 'special' mines that do affect submarines. But not 'just' submarines. That would be equally silly. If the mines were only deep then the sub could just surface and go over them. So 'all purpose' mines would make sense. But I think we would need to assign a greater cost to a ship that can lay this type of mine. I think having mines affect submarines seriously degrades subs value because of their limited ability (speed 1) to get around a mined sector.
|
RAEVSKI
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | Swarbs beat me to it. WotC_Huscarl has made two important clarifications on the mine rules. One is that mines do not stack as Swarbs pointed out, the other is that submarines are not affected by mines.
The first clarification should not be changed in my opinion. That is going too far down the 'complicated' road for this game. The submarine issue could be addressed by Chesty's suggestion to have 'special' mines that do affect submarines. But not 'just' submarines. That would be equally silly. If the mines were only deep then the sub could just surface and go over them. So 'all purpose' mines would make sense. But I think we would need to assign a greater cost to a ship that can lay this type of mine. I think having mines affect submarines seriously degrades subs value because of their limited ability (speed 1) to get around a mined sector. |
i totally agree, but i think it can be done.
|
weedsrock2
|
Where are we on this. Can someone summarize the card and the SA's. I assume with 'All Purpose Mines'?
|
chesty
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | | ... and make a differece between a minelayer and a minelaying DD/CA. |
Ahh. Well, what if we agree that proper minelayers, unlike warships with Mines, can mine more than one sector per game? That seems easy and effective. The next question, of course, is how many more sectors?
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | Where are we on this. Can someone summarize the card and the SA's. I assume with 'All Purpose Mines'? |
I'm not too enthusiastic about All Purpose Mines instead of Minelayer, so I added a new proposal after the update.
Update...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class minelayer) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 10 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
High Speed Run, Precious Cargo 6, All Purpose Mines
All Purpose Mines - Once per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship or Submarine enters the mined sector, roll a die. On a 1, the Ship or Submarine takes 1 point of hull damage. On a 2, the Ship or Submarine takes 2 points of hull damage.
(original wording)
New proposal...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class minelayer) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 10 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
High Speed Run, MinelayerX?, All Purpose Mines
Minelayer X? - X times per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship enters the mined sector, roll a die. On a 1, the Ship takes 1 point of hull damage. On a 2, the Ship takes 2 points of hull damage. Torpedo defence works against this damage.
(Subtly re-worded version of Mines)
All Purpose Mines - Once per game, when Mining a sector, place a special marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship or Submarine enters that sector, roll a die. On a 1, the Ship or Submarine takes 1 point of hull damage. On a 2, the Ship or Submarine takes 2 points of hull damage.
(edited to go with Mines or Minelayer X?)
|
weedsrock2
|
I am okay with either SA, but I think they shouldn't both be used on the same ship. I like Minefield X better since it does not require two different kinds of mine markers. But I think Minefield X should have guidelines based on mine carrying capacity. Did you guys work that out?
The other reason for one or the other on any given ship is they both are long on text to fit on a card.
|
RAEVSKI
|
yes X is going to be 50 or 75 mines. if is going to effect subs then 75 if not 50
|
weedsrock2
|
Conway's says the Abdiel class carried 100 - 156 mines. Fleets says 156 mines. Is there a break for Mines 3, Mines 4, etc?
|
chesty
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | I am okay with either SA, but I think they shouldn't both be used on the same ship. I like Minefield X better since it does not require two different kinds of mine markers. But I think Minefield X should have guidelines based on mine carrying capacity. Did you guys work that out?
The other reason for one or the other on any given ship is they both are long on text to fit on a card. |
They're long because we don't have any rules for mines yet. All we have is the text of the Mines SA, itself. Maybe the new rules will include something about mine laying and sweeping, and we won't have to explain everything on the card. (he said defensively) 
I like the Minelayer SA better too. Save the special mines for something that was famous for it, if there is such a thing. (always with the research, this stuff) 
| RAEVSKI wrote: | | yes X is going to be 50 or 75 mines. if is going to effect subs then 75 if not 50 |
Okay. So, a Ship gets one marker for around 50 big mines, or around 75 little mines, or something like that? I'm guessing that not all mines were the same size or power, and that we need a little leeway on the stated mine capacities?
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | Conway's says the Abdiel class carried 100 - 156 mines. Fleets says 156 mines. Is there a break for Mines 3, Mines 4, etc? |
I don't know the criteria, but 4 sounds high. Even 3 sounds a little high, frankly. I'd be fine with just two markers. For game purposes, that would make this a very interesting Ship, indeed. 
Update...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class minelayer) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 10-12 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
High Speed Run, Precious Cargo 6, Minelayer 2 (or 3)
Minelayer 2 - Twice per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship enters the mined sector, roll a die. On a 1, the Ship takes 1 point of hull damage. On a 2, the Ship takes 2 points of hull damage. Torpedo defence works against this damage.
or
Minelayer 3 - Three times per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship enters the mined sector, roll a die. On a 1, the Ship takes 1 point of hull damage. On a 2, the Ship takes 2 points of hull damage. Torpedo defence works against this damage.
|
weedsrock2
|
I vote for Minelayer 2 being the maximum. Mainly because it starts to violate KISS if you have to keep track of more than that. Mines were indeed in many sizes and types. Mines laid by submarines were much smaller to fit in the torpedo tubes. Then there were contact vs magnetic, and I am sure more variants. But I think that is too much detail for this game. Just come up with a standard 'break' for Minelayer 1 and 2 for ships and submarines like you said. It would be helpful to put that in the Guideline stickies when you have decided on the break points.
Someone needs to do an accounting of the main minelaying ships and subs in WWII and figure out where a logical breakpoint is. My experience is it takes some digging on some of the subs since virtually all submarines could lay them as an option, and it is not typically listed in Conway's.
I suspect R.B. has already unveiled the minelaying rules in the Soviet ships. I doubt they get any more complex. He needs to introduce a minesweeping SA - well he doesn't HAVE to, but I suspect he will.
|
chesty
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | I vote for Minelayer 2 being the maximum. Mainly because it starts to violate KISS if you have to keep track of more than that. Mines were indeed in many sizes and types. Mines laid by submarines were much smaller to fit in the torpedo tubes. Then there were contact vs magnetic, and I am sure more variants. But I think that is too much detail for this game. Just come up with a standard 'break' for Minelayer 1 and 2 for ships and submarines like you said. It would be helpful to put that in the Guideline stickies when you have decided on the break points. |
I'm not sure what the maximum should really be, but anything over Minelayer 2 for this Ship seems to be over-kill, for game purposes.
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | Someone needs to do an accounting of the main minelaying ships and subs in WWII and figure out where a logical breakpoint is. My experience is it takes some digging on some of the subs since virtually all submarines could lay them as an option, and it is not typically listed in Conway's. |
I'm hoping RAEVSKI can help with that.
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | I suspect R.B. has already unveiled the minelaying rules in the Soviet ships. I doubt they get any more complex. |
A little more complex would be okay with me, if it makes mines more flexible, or more useful. We've already got separate SA's for laying mines by Ships or by Submarines in the Guideline SA's. I won't be surprised to get an Aircraft related version, sooner or later. We're about to have separate SA's for proper Minelayers and warships.
Looking forward, with KISS in mind, I'd suggest we allow for three types of mines (Anti-Ship, Anti-Submarine, and All Purpose) that can be laid adrift or tethered, and the default for mines should be the tethered Anti-Ship variety. Only Minelayers should be able to use special mines, if ever. I think that should allow for expansion without being too complicated, and it's just a suggestion.
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | ... He needs to introduce a minesweeping SA - well he doesn't HAVE to, but I suspect he will. |
Something like this, maybe?
Minesweeper - Instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, you can declare that you are sweeping mines. If you do, roll a die. On a 1, this unit takes one hull point of damage and the mine marker remains on the map. On a 2 or higher, remove the mine marker from this sector.
(Dumitrescu, Ghiculescu, Stihi Eugen)
Update...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class minelayer) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 10-12 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
High Speed Run, Precious Cargo 6, Minelayer 2
Minelayer 2 - Twice per game, instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, this unit can mine its sector. Place a marker on that sector. Whenever a Ship enters the mined sector, roll a die. On a 1, the Ship takes 1 point of hull damage. On a 2, the Ship takes 2 points of hull damage. Torpedo defence works against this damage.
?
|
NeuralDream
|
I agree with weeds. I'm pretty sure that in the future we will get ships with the same mine capacity as Manxman that will simply get the minelayer ability.
|
chesty
|
All we need is a cost, now.
Update...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class minelayer) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 10 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
High Speed Run, Precious Cargo 6, Mines
|
Asbestos
|
Cost 10? At least the Gromkiy has DCs and Torps.
|
swarbs
|
Sorry to butt in here after some decisions have been made, but does something like Lead the Attack fit better to represent Manxman's speed than High Speed Run? Perhaps not, but it's a thought. That would be just as useful for laying mines in front of the enemy and would get rid of the really weird no objectives taken by whole fleet ruling for HSR. Also, seems like getting in and out of Malta took surprise in addition to speed (which in my head anyway fits a bit better with Lead the Attack).
Also, have we decided yet what 'type' of unit this will be? It's not too big, so does it deserve to be a 'destroyer', missing out on ER gunnery, -2 to BB main guns against it?
|
RAEVSKI
|
Essential there are two types of mine layers.
The smaller approx 150 mine
and larger 200-400 mines
|
weedsrock2
|
| chesty wrote: |
Something like this, maybe?
Minesweeper - Instead of making an attack in the Surface Attack phase, you can declare that you are sweeping mines. If you do, roll a die. On a 1, this unit takes one hull point of damage and the mine marker remains on the map. On a 2 or higher, remove the mine marker from this sector.
(Dumitrescu, Ghiculescu, Stihi Eugen)
|
Um, yeah. Especially since I wrote the original version.
|
weedsrock2
|
| swarbs wrote: | Sorry to butt in here after some decisions have been made, but does something like Lead the Attack fit better to represent Manxman's speed than High Speed Run? Perhaps not, but it's a thought. That would be just as useful for laying mines in front of the enemy and would get rid of the really weird no objectives taken by whole fleet ruling for HSR. Also, seems like getting in and out of Malta took surprise in addition to speed (which in my head anyway fits a bit better with Lead the Attack).
Also, have we decided yet what 'type' of unit this will be? It's not too big, so does it deserve to be a 'destroyer', missing out on ER gunnery, -2 to BB main guns against it? |
Lead the Attack would be okay with me.
It was technically classified as a "Cruiser-minelayer" by the RN. But I agree it is a very small cruiser! So I am not sure where to go with this one. My inclination is to go with Destroyer given its size and armament.
|
swarbs
|
And also given that it would be too bad for it to be blown out of the water at ER without any trouble.
|
chesty
|
Shouldn't a Minelayer, even one with guns, be an Auxiliary?
|
weedsrock2
|
| chesty wrote: | | Shouldn't a Minelayer, even one with guns, be an Auxiliary? |
That's a good question. I don't have a good answer. I have always thought of minelayers and minesweepers as combatant ships. Maybe not. But specifically in the case of Manxman they were classified as cruiser-minelayers so I think these are definitely warships.
|
chesty
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | Essential there are two types of mine layers.
The smaller approx 150 mine
and larger 200-400 mines |
That's perfect! We can give Mines to the smaller ones, and Mines 2 to the larger ones.
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | chesty wrote: | | Shouldn't a Minelayer, even one with guns, be an Auxiliary? |
That's a good question. I don't have a good answer. I have always thought of minelayers and minesweepers as combatant ships. Maybe not. But specifically in the case of Manxman they were classified as cruiser-minelayers so I think these are definitely warships. |
I started to say most Minelayers had almost no armor, but that's true for Destroyers too. Hmmm. Gray area. Does the T1 Landing Ship, which is a common Auxiliary unit, count as a Destroyer for gunnery?
Apart from what to call her, here's an update adjusted as suggested...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class minelayer) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 8 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
Lead the Attack 2, Precious Cargo 6, Mines
|
swarbs
|
UG. T1 landing ship says Auxiliary. So I suppose that that's what this one will be too.
|
weedsrock2
|
| swarbs wrote: | | UG. T1 landing ship says Auxiliary. So I suppose that that's what this one will be too. |
Gunston Hall is also an auxiliary. I am okay with Manxman being classified an auxiliary. It was used for supplying Malta as much as as a warship/minelayer anyway.
|
swarbs
|
Yeah, it matches the roll of these units better than any other classification. I was just thinking that it would be nice if the enemy couldn'd pick off Manxman from long range, but with T1 as an auxiliary this is probably the best move.
|
weedsrock2
|
This class had a rated maximum speed of 39.75 knots. How about giving it High Speed Evasion?
|
weedsrock2
|
Hmm. I see we already have 3 SA's. Would you rather have Precious Cargo or High Speed Evasion? I am thinking the latter.
|
chesty
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | This class had a rated maximum speed of 39.75 knots. How about giving it High Speed Evasion? |
How about Speed 3? According to the Guidelines, she's right on the edge.
I was also thinking of Tiny Target. Not for her size, but for her legendary quickness.
|
weedsrock2
|
| chesty wrote: | | weedsrock2 wrote: | | This class had a rated maximum speed of 39.75 knots. How about giving it High Speed Evasion? |
How about Speed 3? According to the Guidelines, she's right on the edge.
I was also thinking of Tiny Target. Not for her size, but for her legendary quickness. |
I am not keen a ship this size getting speed 3. As you said, it is right on the edge and it couldn't maintain maximum speed for long. Plus it does not have the maneuverability of an MTB.
Tiny Target would work, but doesn't quite fit either. Good suggestions, but I think High Speed Evasion is a better fit and gets to Swarbs intent as a substitute for getting the destroyer abilities.
Precious cargo also fits historically. But honestly, it really isn't that useful in a typical game.
|
chesty
|
Update...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class Auxiliary) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 8 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
Mines, High Speed Evasion, Lead the Attack 2
|
olliande
|
Terrible and Milan were faster and don't have Speed 3, give it chase or High Speed Run, it's enough for a ship at 40 knots.
|
weedsrock2
|
| olliande wrote: | | Terrible and Milan were faster and don't have Speed 3, give it chase or High Speed Run, it's enough for a ship at 40 knots. |
True. But I think High Speed Evasion is a good compromise because Manxman is really a 'destroyer sized' ship but will not get the automatic protections that a destroyer gets in the game rules because it is classified as an auxiliary.
|
weedsrock2
|
| chesty wrote: | Update...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class Auxiliary) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 8 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
Mines, High Speed Evasion, Lead the Attack 2 |
This seems like a fine little unit to me. Definitely a specialty piece, but that it what it was.
|
swarbs
|
I can get behind this I think.
|
chesty
|
Definately a special type. I still haven't figured out what to do with her, exactly.
I couldn't find a photo, but everything else looks ready. What about the cost?
|
weedsrock2
|
| chesty wrote: | Definately a special type. I still haven't figured out what to do with her, exactly.
I couldn't find a photo, but everything else looks ready. What about the cost? |
Plenty of photos out there. I already have the pics ready for Manxman, Kaga, and Maya. I just have to get everyone to 'settle down' and then let RAEVSKI give costs.
|
RAEVSKI
|
| chesty wrote: | Update...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class Auxiliary) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 8 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
Mines, High Speed Evasion, Lead the Attack 2 |
is this it?
no anti sub mines?
1 mine counter?
|
chesty
|
Only one counter because she didn't carry the 200-400 mines it takes to get a second counter. No anti-sub mines because there are surely better candidates who should get them. The Manxman's thing was speed. I think this is about right.
|
weedsrock2
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | | chesty wrote: | Update...
HMS Manxman (Abdiel class Auxiliary) 2650 Tons
Available from 20 June 1941
Cost 8 ?
Speed 2
MG 4/3/3
AA 5
Armor 2/8/2
Mines, High Speed Evasion, Lead the Attack 2 |
is this it?
no anti sub mines?
1 mine counter? |
This is it. Please give us the cost.
|
RAEVSKI
|
8
|
weedsrock2
|
Here we go.
|
chesty
|
Hey! She's a handsome Ship. Thanks for another excellent card, weedsrock2.
Special thanks to RAEVSKI and Rengokuy for their research work on the Mines project. Cool stuff.
|
weedsrock2
|
Thank you!
Locked and loaded
|
