Sorry, cousin_joe, unfortunately no such rule exists.
I would suggest this for a house rule:
At the beginning of each combat round, determine which attacking subs are “screened” and which are “unscreened”. Count the number of attacking subs and the number of defending destroyers. Each attacking sub in excess of the number of defending destroyers is unscreened. For example, if there are four attacking subs and three defending destroyers, one of the subs is unscreened. During the Attacking Units Fire step, unscreened subs have the option of either attacking normally or automatically destroying one transport. Screened subs attack normally.
In addition, hits from battleships and carriers may not be assigned to subs.
These simple rules would allow subs to kill transports and capital ships that are unescorted by destroyers and/or cruisers with impunity. Destroyers would have full ASW capability, including the ability to hit subs, protect other ships, and allow planes to hit subs. Cruisers would have limited ASW capability, in that they would be able to hit subs, but not allow planes to hit them or protect other ships. Capital ships would have no ASW capabilities whatsoever.
I see what you’re saying Kreighund
But now this becomes overly costly for Germany and just not worthwhile doing
Germany is now needing 3-4SUBs to overcome any Allied “screens” and you have to remember, those SUBs are basically dead on the UK Counter
I don’t want this thread to turn into House Rules (“Because we all know, that the House Rules Police are watching” :wink:), but I really do think then, that they missed an excellent opportunity to replicate the Battle of the Atlantic much, much better than they do now. Right now, it’s pretty one-sided for the Allies.
Having DDs that do not detect SUBs on defense would allow for the asymmetric warfare we saw in WWII. In the Atlantic, Germany could not match Capital Ship production with the UK and go Navy against Navy. But a handful of SUBs could wreak havoc by sinking valuable transports. A similar situation occurred in the Pacific, though with US SUBs sinking Japanese transports (right now that set-up is looking very asymmetrical as well, in favor of Japan)
Right now though, as most would agree, SUBs just aren’t worth the purchase :cry:
Perhaps if each destroyer allowed air units to attack one enemy sub rather than all enemy subs it would improve subs’ survivability in my suggested house rules.
I agree that subs are pretty useless the way they are, but not quite as useless as they were in Revised.
My God, it looks like this game too are going to need some LHTR-fix.
Who is to blame, Larry or WOTC ?
Wouldn’t submarines still be useful as fodder pieces in large naval engagements?
@Cmdr:
Wouldn’t submarines still be useful as fodder pieces in large naval engagements?
Yes, but if you are defending, their defense is only a “1”, and you can’t use them as fodder for the new-and-improved-and-cheaper-kill-all-navies Bombers.
I was thinking something like… submarines in combat can, on the first round, be assigned for transport hunting. The opponent then allocates any amount of destroyers for sub hunting, sacrificing their normal combat ability (for either the round of combat or entire battle, I’m not sure which would be best). The destroyers all fire and remove enemies submarine immediately. Then, any submarines remaining fire, and every hit gets taken in the form of an enemy transport. Submarines then submerge and are removed from combat.
Obviously this is useless if you are going to win the naval battle with combined arms (as all transports will be destroyed anyway), the point of this is so that a few lone subs can pick off transports while enemy destroyers need to track em down and take em out.
I have my gripes with the new subs as well. Even though they only cost 6 IPCs, for 2 IPCs more you can get the superior destroyer.
yea i am with cobert. Destroyer trumps the sub now. The 2-2 unit is better for defense all around.
I do like Krieghunds idea ( not really new, but used in current house rules) of 1 to 1 matching Destroyer to Sub for ability to decide whether excess SS gain the preemptive strike. Thats how we have it too except we use Larrys rules for sub detection.
Well, fixing subs needs a greater change I think. I’ve been toying with the idea of an expansion to AA50, putting it squarely in the “Advanced” category, even though I’ve been trying to keep changes to a minimum. It also includes Interceptor and Escort rules. To not upset those against house rules threads, I post over at the correct area:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12671.msg349840#msg349840
yes thanks for following the rules!
To not upset those against house rules threads,
They are directed to the proper section, because its easier to find stuff in the long run if related info is in one place and not all over every section. Its not upseting, but its messy way of doing business to have unrelated information in every thread and every section.
@Imperious:
Destroyer trumps the sub now. The 2-2 unit is better for defense all around.
This is actually not true. For 24 IPCs you could get 4 Subs or 3 Destroyers. The 4 subs would actually beat the 3 destroyers both on offense and defense given average rolls. However, since subs cannot be hit by planes they are still a pretty mediocre fodder unit.
The sub-problem is not only about subs being obsolete in AAR and AA50, it’s most about the battle of the Atlantic missing completely both in AAR and AA50. Even with subs attacking at 3 defending at 2 if it still costs only 6 ipc, I wouldn’t buy subs with Germany.
Also if subs cost 3 ipc I wouldn’t buy subs with Germany.
What the designers should do is something more radical. Maybe German subs attacking @3, subs cannot be attacked unless detected by DD’s, although all naval units (except transports) should still be able to defend against subs.
Or only DD’s can attack and defend against subs.
Maybe even ports should be implemented.
This is actually not true. For 24 IPCs you could get 4 Subs or 3 Destroyers. The 4 subs would actually beat the 3 destroyers both on offense and defense given average rolls. However, since subs cannot be hit by planes they are still a pretty mediocre fodder unit.
Destroyers protect transports from air and subs do not.
Destroyers negate subs and subs defend at 1
Destroyers can hit air units, subs cant.
To keep a fleet alive nobody is buying subs anymore 4 ones is nothing to 3 TWOS.
The only reason to buy subs is to move thru enemy fleets and attack transports not protected by destroyers.
Subs cant be hit by planes as long as you have a destroyer, making destroyers, not subs even more effective. IN every case destroyers are the unit that either negates, defends fleets better, protects transports better, kills planes batter. Ill take destroyers any day over subs at 2-1. Subs cant even sub stall anymore making them even more useless.
Well, I think it’s safe to say that we all pretty much agree that Subs are almost useless and no sane player would buy them, especially with vastly superior DDs available for just a mere 2PCs more.
Again, it just begs the question of whether something is missing. How could SUBs have been designed to be so horrible? I noticed on Larry’s site, that he reports getting most of the things he wanted, but not everything. Analyzing what we know of the rules so far, the one underlying problem I see is the automatic detection of SUBs by a single DD. I’m wondering if SUB Detection rules may have been thrown out in favor of this much more simplified, but extremely game-altering decision.
Automatic SUB Detection by attacking DDs–> pretty much autokill of any defending SUB by DD + Air/Navy
Automatic SUB Detection by defending DDs–> extremely limited opportunity for SUBs to attack transports in a fleet (as most will be defended by at least 1 DD)
I’m still hoping there’s some game mechanic dealing with SUBs that we just don’t know about yet, but so far, it looks like (once again) we won’t see any SUB purchases for the OOTB edition and will have to rely on house rules to get a Battle of the Atlantic going. As for which house rules, that’s for another time and place, but most simple would be a National Objective for Convoy Raid damage, and some non-automatic sub detection rules
I’m kind of disappointed that AA50 may just be AA Revised on steroids, as opposed to actually changing the gameplay…
@Imperious:
yes thanks for following the rules!
To not upset those against house rules threads,
They are directed to the proper section, because its easier to find stuff in the long run if related info is in one place and not all over every section. Its not upseting, but its messy way of doing business to have unrelated information in every thread and every section.
Why aren’t the House rules threads for each version of Axis and Allies in Child Boards inside of each of the different versions? If I only play 1 or 2 versions of Axis and Allies, and I want to look at House Rules, then I must wade through all of the House Rules for each version all on the 1House Rules Board. Of course, having someone go through all of the House Rules threads to determine under which version it belongs would be a little time-consuming, but it would be quite rewarding in the end.
@Imperious:
yes thanks for following the rules!
To not upset those against house rules threads,
They are directed to the proper section, because its easier to find stuff in the long run if related info is in one place and not all over every section. Its not upseting, but its messy way of doing business to have unrelated information in every thread and every section.
Why aren’t the House rules threads for each version of Axis and Allies in Child Boards inside of each of the different versions? If I only play 1 or 2 versions of Axis and Allies, and I want to look at House Rules, then I must wade through all of the House Rules for each version all on the 1House Rules Board. Of course, having someone go through all of the House Rules threads to determine under which version it belongs would be a little time-consuming, but it would be quite rewarding in the end.
I like this idea. Instead of going through old ones, just put the old ones in an “old” house rule forum, where new topics are locked. The posters can then transfer.
Why aren’t the House rules threads for each version of Axis and Allies in Child Boards inside of each of the different versions? If I only play 1 or 2 versions of Axis and Allies, and I want to look at House Rules, then I must wade through all of the House Rules for each version all on the 1House Rules Board. Of course, having someone go through all of the House Rules threads to determine under which version it belongs would be a little time-consuming, but it would be quite rewarding in the end.
because its a bad idea: their is no need for a separate house rules section for each game. Its not hard to click and find what you need for a specific game because it is labeled as such. You can extrapolate that same argument of yours for ANYTHING.
examples:
whys is their no separate child board for X?
X could equal:
KJF threads
KGF threads
G1 strategy
Allied Strategy
What to buy?
forever…
hell no. forget such an idea. never.
@Imperious:
This is actually not true. For 24 IPCs you could get 4 Subs or 3 Destroyers. The 4 subs would actually beat the 3 destroyers both on offense and defense given average rolls. However, since subs cannot be hit by planes they are still a pretty mediocre fodder unit.
Destroyers protect transports from air and subs do not.
Destroyers negate subs and subs defend at 1
Destroyers can hit air units, subs cant.To keep a fleet alive nobody is buying subs anymore 4 ones is nothing to 3 TWOS.
The only reason to buy subs is to move thru enemy fleets and attack transports not protected by destroyers.
Subs cant be hit by planes as long as you have a destroyer, making destroyers, not subs even more effective. IN every case destroyers are the unit that either negates, defends fleets better, protects transports better, kills planes batter. Ill take destroyers any day over subs at 2-1. Subs cant even sub stall anymore making them even more useless.
Maybe I should have used the word cheap instead of mediocre to avoid any confusion, English is not my first language. Against other sea units Subs are better fodder units than Destroyers simply because of their lower price tag.
Unfortunately, as you mention, the Subs ability to avoid getting hit by planes is often more of a problem than a benefit as it effectively destroys their to function as a decent fodder unit against planes. I would not buy a sub in the Atlantic, maybe in the Pacific.
All I have to say is that the new sub IS extremly much better than it used to be.
-No auto-death due to a single fighter/bomber -> A LOT safer subs
-They cost 6 IPC. (25% reduction in price)
-Without destroiers, fleets may be extremly wounderable. Examples of battles:
2 subs versus 2 Carriers 4 fighters. Fighters cannot defend and the subs fights only the 2 carriers which fights with 2 twos.->
The subs got opening fire-> sub advantage. And they can destroy the entire fleet with 2 simple subs.
-Another issue would be ‘kill submarines’ or protect your ‘transports’. Can you do both? Not neccesarily, as
3 transports protected by 1 destroyer would be a tasty meal for fighters/bombers
-One sub versus 1 destroyer and 1 transport. 50/50 fight. However:
if you loose, you lost 1 sub. If you win you kill a destroyer AND a transport!
Conclusions: Subs can strike down BOTH unprotected transports AND poorly defended transport!
Another senario
-3 subs at defence versus 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and 1 carrieer.
Autowin for the attacker? Not neccessarily.
Lets say that the subs kill 1 unit and the ofensive player kills 2 subs. The attacker won the battle?
Not so fast? What do you do? Take out the destoryer and leave 1 carrieer to fight versus 1 sub? Not a god option is it.
Do you kill your carrieer and keep on fighting with 2 fighters and 1 destroyer? This attack is in no way a risk free auto win battle. You risk loosing everything with only moderate unluck. In this senario it is somewhat under 50% to loose your carrieer,
and the fleet remain is one single destroyer, which is a poor defence for your transports.
–-
Ok, Uk will probably seldom buy subs, but:
As Italy i would love to buy a sub now and then. Whenever a british or US navy comes close, I can strike first!
Often as italy you know that your subs cannot be striken down in defence there. And ofensivly subs is the best buy. You can kill whatever tries to come close.
If japan dont build destroyers, US should build a few subs just to potentialy wreck havoc.
Germany might build a few subs in the beginning cuz I doubt UK will be able to strike down their navy in the first round.
