I believe it was the intent too keep the extremely low priced submarines from being too powerful. I think this might make submarines way too powerful again. After all, we are talking about a potential 5 IPC unit that attacks at 3 or less and cannot be hit by the target it sinks in the water. No other unit has that ability, nor that price.
That's a good point, though it assumes two techs and I don't think it's as powerful as heavy bombers (and certainly it's not as bad as heavy bombers + long range aircraft).
Now, admittedly, I think in most games submarines are virtually useless. They're more of a way too keep your opponent honest and protect his transports than anything else.
Right, subs are too weak but I don't want to mess up the game balance.
What the designers did was add in a unit to replace the submarine: the destroyer. It costs the same as a submarine in Revised did, it has the same attack/defend abilities as a submarine did (except it can also defend against air attack, which submarines could not do before) it moves as far as a submarine, it can block enemy movement like a submarine. In all respects (except defending against air attack and not getting a sneak shot) destroyers in AA50 are identical to submarines in Classic/AAR.
I believe your best option would be to just use destroyers as you did submarines before.
Even with AA50's long-overdue unit cost reductions, fleets are still expensive so I don't like the idea of having to use DDs as fodder instead of subs.
When I started playing AA50 two things took some time to get used to. 1st was transports. I could see why a transport shouldn't get a shot at a plane or war ship. I didn't like losing them at the end of a sea battle or when the enemy could just do flybys and kill them without firing. I'm warming up to it though.
I like that trns aren't in the battle. In fact, so far I like all of the AA50 rule changes except for defending subs not being able to be used as fodder against planes.
Its like why would the enemy bring a destroyer into the battle, it would be a penalty.
Exactly. Sure there are some scenarios where sending in a destroyer makes sense, but there are many in which an attacker would choose not to send in a destroyer to ensure that planes hit only non-sub defending units. It doesn't make sense to be penalized for bringing destroyers into a battle and also allows for loophole-ish manipulation.
My son pointed out however if you captained a sub and your fleet was attacked by only air units would you stay on the surface and wave your arms in the air and say here I am ignore that battleship and shoot at me.
Keeping subs on the surface to give planes something else to shoot at isn't as far fetched as it might seem; sacrifice for the sake of delaying/distracting an enemy from more important objectives isn't that uncommon.
I may try my house rule next game... it shouldn't diminish the role of DDs as sub hunters and I don't think it'll make subs too powerful. But given the amount of play testing that takes place, I assume that the game designers kept the rules the way they are for a reason. Perhaps I just haven't played enough and this isn't as big a problem as I think it is.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback!