A large part of the usefulness of mines comes from that there is no easy way to disable or detect them. An IFF transceiver which disables the mine against certain targets is therefore an inappropriate component to include on a mine for two reasons:  first, a transceiver is an active component which both transmits and receives (hence transceiver rather tan receiver), which basically paints a big target marking the location of each mine in your minefield (granted, if the mine has any active components at all, like station-keeping thrusters or active sensors, this isn't a big issue, because hiding those is probably harder than hiding a weak communications signal), and jamming isn't a solution to this because your jamming would have to cover the frequency band(s) being used for the IFF queries, which disables the transceiver. And second, it's basically a minefield with an off switch that can be picked up by anyone reasonably close to ships passing through the minefield. Even worse if I'm handing it out to trading partners, because not all of my trading partners are necessarily at war with the people I'm at war with, which should make them relatively easier for my war enemies to infiltrate or obtain information or components from.

Making the transceiver reprogrammable also leads to the unfortunate possibility of my enemy figuring out how to reprogram it, which as you might guess is not the most beneficial of occurrences.

Turning the transceiver that you suggest be placed upon the mine into a receiver solves half of the problem, but still leaves the minor issue of giving anyone with the ability to record a transmission an off switch for your entire minefield as long as they can get a ship (or a spy) sufficiently close to record said transmission from a ship passing through the minefield. And before you say that "encryption will solve this" or that "you can't detect the code" - it's significantly easier to record transmissions than to decipher them, and if all I want to do is retransmit said signal I really don't care what the signal contains, as long as I can reproduce the signal, and it should be relatively easy to get a ship or a spy close enough to record these transmissions, especially if you've been allowing trading partners to pass through the minefield. For that matter, if you've been allowing trading partners access to codes or components which allow them to pass through the minefield, it shouldn't be terribly difficult for me to steal the codes or components from the aforementioned trading partner. The more widely distributed these pass-keys become, the less useful they are in restricting passage through the minefield. Additionally, naval powers have historically had somewhat loose interpretations of the freedom of the seas when it comes to neutrals (or non-neutrals) trading with belligerents. While such stops as occur on the oceans would likely be harder to perform in space, it's a rare merchant who would risk the seizure or destruction of his or her vessel and cargo on the basis of being safe from such interference by virtue of being a neutral when stopped by a warship. Such stops are often only avoided when the nation to which the merchant belongs has a sufficiently large military or naval potential to make an issue out of the stops.

Well, they're certainly an excellent way to waste resources that could better be used for something more practical.

Aw. Come on. Use your imagination.

1). Mines have no need to be like they were during and prior to WWII. There is a lot of technology that allows mines to sit without emitting any except an inconsequential amount of energy (detection requires very (maybe explosively) close proximity) and still be able to recognize that some large object is approaching. They are called passive detectors.

2). Not all mines would have to check an approaching ship's IFF, in fact, such an arrangement would scramble the IFF protocol pretty badly. It would only need one, a master controller mine if you like, that would be able to turn on or off the other mines. Nor would the mine to mine communication have to be limited to a simple on/off condition, nor would the communication have to be continuous. The band width is, today, wide enough for one mine to tell the others which ships are ok and which are not.

3). You always have the risk of an enemy circumventing any of your defensive mechanisms, regardless of what it is. That is why they need to be monitored by people trained to recognize the little clues that might indicate that someone has sabotaged your defenses.

4). Any defensive measure, in order to keep it effective, has to be testable. That requires a communication component with a viable handshake protocol between the defense mechanisms and the tester. (Don't forget that even with manned mobile devices that the crew could decide to change sides. And an unmanned mobile device can be captured or circumvented just as easily as a mine.)

5). IFF doesn't have to recognize only one code, nor does it today. You can assign a different code to each of your trading partners, or each of his ships, and store those codes, with other data about his ships, into the device's IFF's data base.

6). All ships and all defensive devises would need an IFF. Otherwise how can you tell a friend from a foe? Someone could build a ship that looks like one of yours, but without IFF, how would you know if it really was one of yours. If your ship's crew or data banks don't have a valid code, you get attacked.

And there is much more.

The whole point of mines is that mines are orders of magnitude cheaper than unmanned mobile defenses, don't have to be individually manned, can be seeded into an area by a tender, are orders of magnitude smaller than an unmanned mobile device, are harder to detect than larger devices, and can be as smart as your tech base will allow.

on land,this is true and mines are useful. In 3d space, it's hilariously false. there is too much area you have to fill with mines to protect, and the whole thing falls apart. 

They also still don't add anything to the game. we already have mobile defenses and star bases, mines are both silly and add nothing of value. 

Lucky Jack and I already told you why we think mines are a good thing. Ok, you can disagree, but please stop ignoring our arguments. We already told you what we thinj what the benefit is/would be.

I'm thrusting my Machiavellian hips reading this thread. As far as "allied movements" through your own geopolitical territory, it is far more likely that US military aircraft fly through Kazakhstan's airspace than Canada's. Just because you are allied with the Archaens it does not seem realistic to allow their ships through your airspace because you are both major powers who ultimately, are using each other to advance the ultimate objective of total victory for your race. So maybe for minor powers or major races whose power has diminished to polity orbits akin to vassal states, that have nothing left to lose it makes sense to freely invade their airspace without permission

Unfortunately, he's right. Nothing in your arguments amounts to more than "mines for the sake of mines" and a lot of frantic justifications for it.

Not to mention the indiscriminate nature of mines. In today's world we call them a war crime; maybe the cost of using mines in the game should be being completely shut out of all trade and alliances so the IFF issue becomes irrelevant.

As far as I am concerned, this whole thread is a non-issue. I don't care if a mechanism is included in the game that prevents one's ships from entering another's space borders. If the game includes it, I will adapt.

If mines are included in the game I would insist that countermeasures of some sort also be included, perhaps including the ability to destroy the mines at stand-off ranges (which means adding ranged attack capabilities to ships, and might make the whole idea useless anyway, due to design/coding costs). If this is done, I would adapt.

As far as I am concerned, end of discussion.

stand your ground rules laws don't work in space....  j/k

I like the idea of an inter species council arguing, voting, setting distance boundaries from colonies to determine borders. 

1 think we need to consider is that this site is about the player's right to throw other civilizations out of their space. All these other ideas r to help  u do this. My answer to civilizations patrolling their borders perfectally, and not being the jurisdiction of the leader. Reminds me that Obama controls illegal emigration and the military. Let us not forget about homeland security. Remember 911. Border security failure. Pearl harbor border security failure. Over 1 million people sneak into this cpuntry illegally every year. I think we need to consider that every country in this world cares about border security except sometimes Americans. Another consideration is about the thousands and usually millions of miles between objects in space.  I hear stories about people sneaking out of their countries illegally to go shopping all the time. Lets not forget about 18th century Japan and the Zuni. I think the player should have a right to threaten other players to get out of their space.

No, he's not.

1. The "justifications" are in no way frantic. I find them logically or I wouldn't have written them.

2. Mines are not just for the sake of them, I want them to improve the defenses of neuralgic strategic points, a point constantly ignored here.

Regarding the war crime argument - don't yout think the drengin. dread lords or yor would mind about comitting war crimes? In view of the things they already do?

Space mines are nowhere as nasty as anti-personel mines buried in some field where some kinds will find them and try to play with it. That's why they are a war crime now.

Edited for typos...

Sorry, but that's the tone your posts are giving off. Most of your arguments would be somewhat valid if we were dealing with a "real life" GC universe, but won't work well in the actual game due to the turn-based issues. Are you factoring in time to lay the mines, cost of tenders, upkeep cost, etc. or are you just assuming mines just appear and are free afterward? In turn based terms, how many mines can be built and placed in one turn? How much manufacturing production is needed to build and maintain them? Are the mines laid on the same hex as the planet, starbase, etc. or on the hexes around the target? If around the target, are you increasing the associated costs 6-fold like you should?

Mines around a single point target might be reasonable if planetary defenses were part of the game (i.e. orbital mines that need to be cleared before invading, in addition to things like planet-based fighters, shields, etc.) It doesn't make sense to add mines in that context without adding other planetary defenses.

Much the same goes for starbases. If the mines are just an additional source of damage to the attacker, they're no different than any other weapon module. If they are preventing the attacker from hitting the base until the mines are cleared, what is the actual game mechanic involved, and how does the user benefit?  Are those mechanics likely to be something a human player can easily cheese out of but the AI will struggle with? (example from GC2 - stacks of minimal armed tiny hulls parked on an unarmed mining starbase could hold off a Dreadlord fleet for a considerable time without any hope of ever beating them due to AI limitations)

And as it has been pointed out repeatedly, ships can do that just as well - better, since they can be repositioned when the front shifts. Again, I think the main difference here is that you intend mines to be essentially free, which would make them a viable choice. Add in reasonable costs (including opportunity costs such as having to build the tenders instead of warships) and mines aren't nearly as good a choice as you seem to think.

One of the big benefits of mines in real life is that they are "on" 24/7, while manned defenses can't be. Real life warships can't be at battle stations every minute of the day, and that gives an attacker an advantage if he can surprise them. The "surprise attack" advantage isn't replicated in game, which greatly increases the defensive value of ships relative to mines.

Some civilizations might not, but others would. If anything you've made an argument for mines to be available only to certain ethical alignments. And who says the Drengin and Yor wouldn't hesitate to use them if there was a significant down side to doing so? That's an AI issue. Obviously the Dreadlords wouldn't hesitate, since they don't participate in trade or diplomacy anyway.

And a land mine going off only kills one or two people. A rogue space mine might kill a passenger ship with thousands of people aboard, or result in debris from a killed ship landing on a planet.

Sorry if it's how you're reading my posts. They weren't (and aren't) meant to be insulting, I just wanted to post valid arguments why mines are not completly useless, at least in my opinion. I find it rather annoying when my arguments are not countered or discussed but just dismissed as "jusitifications". If you have counter arguments, good. Bring them.

Well, I try to start with a realistic approach, and then think about how to implement this into the game. Of course would mines need some layer ships, costs for the mines themselfes and (very low) maintenance. On how many mines to build and lay per turn is of course a balancing matter in the game, so it's hard to number it. Taking the "realistic" approach, 1 turn is a week (at least in GC2), so plenty of time to at least lay a couple of hundreds of them - maybe more. The mines would be laid on the same hex you want to protect. Because you can't mine cubic parsecs (so even a field layed in one hex would never fill the field completly. In game mechanics, either you attack the planet or starbase directly, suffering damage from the mines before engaging the defenses (regardless if ships or stationary). Or you take a cautious approach, entering the field in one turn and attacking the next turn without taking damage from the mines. Or you could stay even longer to completly eliminate the field.

Same for the yor. As an AI race, they'd use any tech to take an advantage. If it's effective, they would do it. If not, why waste resources? And if mines in the game were not effective, ok, then there's no need to implement them. And humanity has already proven that they are willing to use them...

The same goes for every battle field. As discussed in another post, mass driver weapons are bound to hit something, even if it's light years and several thousand years in the future. What about all those ships blown in battles? They'll drift away, maybe hitting a planet or colliding with another ship, causing several thousand innocent victims. Or a missile, targeting a merchant or passenger ship instead of a warship?

      I want to point out that war crimes may only apply to humans. How much of human influence is in the galactic council, or what exactly how much control the galactic council have over the other species is up to stardock to decide. R the small races on the galactic council cause if they r not then the laws wouldn't apply to them. I will admit for most of the species there r ethical issues to take into account. In the real world mines r meant for defense purpose. In the game it would at least slow down a cautous species, and do damage to a reckless species. This post is about isolation. The object is to keep people out of your space. This might discourage u from entering if their ship r fast enough to stop u. I want to point out that if u don't want to spend time worrying about mines don't use them. I think all this arguing has turned stardock away from this post. I try to pay attention to who is stardock cause that is who really matters. The only thing that really matters is that does the player have the right to throw u out of his territory. Everything else is how do we implement this.

I think we should take into account if this works for a Tbs game or not, and can the Ai handle this effectively.

They're not insulting or anything, they just have the tone of someone who just can't give something up as a bad idea and move on. Fine, mines are not completely useless in your opinion. In my opinion, the ideas you have put forward are balancing issues you've brought forward solely to balance the game in favor of mines being more effective than they should be, ignoring any practical limitations because "mines are cheap". If we were discussing land mines not far removed from a hand grenade in terms of complexity you might even be correct. Once you start adding sophisticated IFF systems, passive sensor arrays, weapons big/strong enough to hurt a ship thousands of kilometers away, etc. you've abandoned the "mines are cheap" justification and need to start thinking of them as miniature ships that will cost a lot to build and maintain.

Well at least that much is reasonable. Others in the topic were viewing them as an area-denial weapon (which they are on land and at sea). Now we need to consider whether the AI can use them well and respond appropriately when the player uses them. For that matter, ways the player can cheese their way around or through them (dedicated "minesweeper" ships attacking independently before the main fleet to allow a clean shot, etc.)

I meant as a game AI balancing issue. Does the Yor AI value the benefits of mine use over the benefits of trade and diplomacy?

Which is why I specifically mentioned mines being an ethics-related tech, since not *all* humans consider them ethical. Since GC3 will have something other than the basic GNE ethics tech, maybe mines will only be available to civilizations below a certain score on the "Humanitarian" scare or something.

Those are all legitimate issues, but lack the intent that mines have. There's a difference between an unexploded shell landing in a field and deliberately planting scores of mines in that same field. One is an unintended consequence of an attack on an enemy occupying that field at the time the shell was fired and the other a deliberate attack on anyone who goes into that field any time in the future - intended enemy, friendly soldier later in the war, farmer on a tractor after the war, or child 20 years later.

I agree that there should be some way to enforce border control, but it should require active participation by the player.  The more I think aboout it, the sillier the use of influence in space is.  For sure, if you have one planet in a huge system, all of which is controlled by someone else, that should have some effect.  But having Thalans decide to become Yor?  It just doesn't seem logical.  Think about how long cultural minorities on Earth have endured.