AARe : Enhanced

[axis_roll]

You are taking one scenario and showing how it MIGHT benefit that scenario.  I am commenting on the implications across a whole game plan or other game plans with respect to the sub as a roamer of the sea/fodder unit.  Particularly in the Atlantic theatre.
What is the Japanese PIN move?

The goal of the "PIN" is to keep USA from ever building a PACIFIC fleet WHILE you sap their income.  Or if USA tries to keep up by adding to its fleet in a naval arms race, they are effectively PINNED to Western USA because the IJN can destroy the fleet if it ventures out or splits in two.

If you can do this with JUST Subs that makes it easier.  Once a group of 10+ subs or so are in hawaii, other IJN support ships are no longer needed since the subs can not be sunk without an enemy DD.  In your example, US builds 5 subs.  Will that stop the pin?  No, since they can not kill the subs.  It MIGHT cause some IJN units (back) to Hawaii to sink the US subs.  Does this really "HELP" USA out of the pin?  Doubtful if the IJN comes back in full force.  If USA tries to build a DD(s) to join the subs (the next turn), the 10 Japanese subs can easily sink it/them... subs can not hit subs, so the DD's have to be taken as losses instead of the subs.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

That's the point.  The Japanese cannot "pin" America since they cannot sink the American submarines without their own destroyer.

Now you have 10 Japanese submarines in SZ 52 (which basically means you have no army or navy anywhere else on the board since you spent everything on submarines) and America has 5 Submarines in SZ 55.

You attack, America retreats to SZ 54 and builds 5 more submarines.  You attack and America retreats to SZ 55 building 4 Destroyers.  Now it's 10 American Submarines, 4 American destroyers vs 10 Japanese submarines.


However, as it is now:

Japan has 10 Submarines in SZ 52.  America builds ANYTHING in SZ 54/55 and it's sunk, probably without loss to Japan.  Game over.  Winner Japan.  No possible solution since America cannot build a fleet to push the enemy away eventually.

[axis_roll]

That's the point.  The Japanese cannot "pin" America since they cannot sink the American submarines without their own destroyer.

Now you have 10 Japanese submarines in SZ 52 (which basically means you have no army or navy anywhere else on the board since you spent everything on submarines) and America has 5 Submarines in SZ 55.

You attack, America retreats to SZ 54 and builds 5 more submarines.  You attack and America retreats to SZ 55 building 4 Destroyers.  Now it's 10 American Submarines, 4 American destroyers vs 10 Japanese submarines.


However, as it is now:

Japan has 10 Submarines in SZ 52.  America builds ANYTHING in SZ 54/55 and it's sunk, probably without loss to Japan.  Game over.  Winner Japan.  No possible solution since America cannot build a fleet to push the enemy away eventually.

THE PIN is not a 3 round game plan.  It's a long term plan that can be especially effective with a German rocket game plan.  This is a slow build up of subs.  The Axis CAN win a long, economic war.  Add German wolf packs and you've got a mess for the allies to deal with.

And since WHEN does Japan have NO DD's?  ESPECIALLY if a game where changed as you suggested and subs REQUIRED DDs to sink them?

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Japan almost never has a destroyer in the games of AARe I have played and in almost every game of AAR I have played. (The exception is when they do exceptionally well in SZ 52 and they don't lose their destroyer there.)

Okay, so if Japan is taking, for arguments sake, 8 rounds (which is a long tactical plan vs 3 rounds which is as fast as possible for Japan) to get 10 submarines, how in the bloody hell do you suppose they are surviving!?!?!  They better all be back by SZ 60 because I can almost assure you with 100% confidence that America will be absolutely murdering those submarines by round 8 for sure, probably round 4 (which is generally when my America has Pacific Naval Superiority.)

[axis_roll]

Japan almost never has a destroyer in the games of AARe I have played and in almost every game of AAR I have played. (The exception is when they do exceptionally well in SZ 52 and they don't lose their destroyer there.)

What the hell is the americans doing if you don't need any DDs?

Okay, so if Japan is taking, for arguments sake, 8 rounds (which is a long tactical plan vs 3 rounds which is as fast as possible for Japan) to get 10 submarines, how in the bloody hell do you suppose they are surviving!?!?!  They better all be back by SZ 60 because I can almost assure you with 100% confidence that America will be absolutely murdering those submarines by round 8 for sure, probably round 4 (which is generally when my America has Pacific Naval Superiority.)

The IJN sits at Hawaii for a few rounds... remember that as part of the PIN?  They can sit there J1 and stay there going forward.  It's easy to play defense with your navy (for both US and ���).  But being forced to stay in one SZ to stay alive is no good (while losing 10 IPCs to convoy raids...)  THIS also works both ways (US can force Japan to sit at home just as easily).   The pacific fleet balance is a very sensitive one, one that can be easily thrown off balance into one sides favor under your proposed rule that subs can not hit subs.

Obviously there are times when you can not do the pin or it's not the best move to do (as with any strategy in Enhanced).  Alot depends on UK's move.  An Indian IC usually makes the PIN alot less effective.
I just went back and re-read your proposal.  You are not saying subs can not hit subs, just that they must have a DD present.  This still makes subs harder to kill... and that is not necessarily a good thing, but I will further discuss and then decide is a game play test is needed.  Game play is the best way to tell if a rule is a good or bad one.

Are you implying that the Subs have to be detected for the attacking subs to be able to hit them?

Can you post a suggested modification to the Enhanced Naval battle sequence with some examples to see how battles are affected?

[Cmdr Jennifer]

What I am saying is that I feel a modification to submarine combat may be in order.

You may ENGAGE enemy submarines with attacking submarines, however if the defending submarines are UNDETECTED prior to opening fire (and I believe it goes Detection ==> Opening Fire ==> Attacker/Defender ==> Remove Casualties) then the defending submarines have the option to retreat BEFORE opening fire.

This would allow Japan or America to recover after a bad naval engagement because you would have to bring in destroyers to pin their submarines down and force them to stand and fight.  Otherwise, Japan/USA could easily retreat and build more and keep doing that until they have the firepower to defend some surface ships.


Example:

Japan sinks the American fleet in Solomon Island's Sea Zone 45 with 1 Aircraft Carrier, 3 Damaged Yamato Class Battleships, 2 Jet Fighters and 10 Super Submarines remaining.

America has nothing left, but America does have 56 IPC.

So America purchases 8 Submarines (Naval Industry would reduce the cost to 7 IPC putting America on even footing IPC wise with Japan's Kaitens)

Japan attacks SZ 55


Detection Phase:  No attacking or defending destroyers present, all submarines are undetected
Defending, Undetected Submarines decide to engage or withdraw
Attacker/Defender Opening Fire
.
.
.


The only change is that the defending submarines are allowed to chose to retreat before opening fire if they are undetected.  This may make them harder to kill until you get a destroyer, but odds are, it will just force you too make sure you have a destroyer or two.

[axis_roll]

The only change is that the defending submarines are allowed to chose to retreat before opening fire if they are undetected.  This may make them harder to kill until you get a destroyer, but odds are, it will just force you too make sure you have a destroyer or two.

Agreed, more forced DDs.

Who does that help/hurt more?  I am not sure.  I can see how it might help in a certain situation... but it really does make subs more powerful.   They are alot harder to kill, because right now, subs can hunt subs, relatively cheaply.  DD's make it more expensive to root out the subs.

At this point, I would suggest game play testing, if you haven't tried that route yet.  I will try my next game to incorporate this change.  Still can't decide which side it helps/hurts more.  That's probably a good thing as it's passing the smell test:  It doesn't stink!

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I know, as I mentioned before, I had not really tested this, I was wondering if it had been tested prior to AARe being released, seems it has not.

I'm not sure if it will help or hinder either side really.  It would obviously help the losing side recover if the winning side has not maintained a well rounded fleet.

As for being more or less expensive, we're only talking 2 IPC difference.  Remember, destroyers are not 12 IPC anymore, they are 10.   Both sides have 7 IPC submarines if they chose the correct NAs, but those lock up one of your NA selections and for America, that could be their only one!

Basically, my hope is that requiring an attacking destroyer to lock defending submarines into combat before opening fire will negate the "pin" maneuver and give the IJN a purpose in life other than going to harass the British. ^_^

[axis_roll]

As for being more or less expensive, we're only talking 2 IPC difference.  Remember, destroyers are not 12 IPC anymore, they are 10.   Both sides have 7 IPC submarines if they chose the correct NAs, but those lock up one of your NA selections and for America, that could be their only one!

Well $2 does add up, and it's can easily be $3 as you pointed out, so then it really adds up.... especially for US who has to buy navy in both oceans.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

But the US can get naval industry and if Japan does not take Kaitens (and with only two selections you get in most games, Kaitens are not always the way to go) it's only a difference of 1 IPC.

[axis_roll]

But the US can get naval industry and if Japan does not take Kaitens (and with only two selections you get in most games, Kaitens are not always the way to go) it's only a difference of 1 IPC.

OK, average $2... * 4 DD's the US will buy = one sub
4 DD's purchased for both pacific and atlantic if the axis run a sub game plan is NOT outrageous.

To me, that ADDS up.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I guess.  I have not yet seen a game where Germany's submarines are able to take the Atlantic.  Not saying it cannot happen, just that I have not seen it.

I presume it's Africa Corps + Wolfpacks for Germany and Banzai + Kaitens for Japan.

Countered with Russian Rail for Russia, Radar + Royal Navy for England and Naval Industry for America.

From what I can tell, that means America can pretty much go 100% against Japan in the Pacific allowing England to tie up Germany and, since Germany is putting submarines in the water, Russia can push on Germany's front.

But that's just from my limited experience.

[Rakeman]

If a sub is detected, but no enemy destroyers are present, does it still have all the advantages subs had in LHTR?

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I do not believe so.  After opening fire occurs all submarines are considered "detected" and detected submarines don't get the sneak shot ability, the way I read the rules.

Axis would know more for sure.

[Rakeman]

Yeah... I really love these rules, but I hate the way subs were handled, so far... it could have been done much simpler, I think.  Honestly, I have no ideas how subs work, even after trying to play through a game... the game is great, and you really do see more Pacific action because if Japan gets Hawaii, Australia, and India, all Germany needs is a single Russian VC and it's game over... so the Allies actually send ships down there!  It's just too bad one of the ships (subs) confuse the HECK outta me!