Thank you very much for the comments.
This is an interesting approach, but it takes away more of the players’ choice in determining casualties, which some players tend to not like. With the OOB rules, the attacker can control that decision process more through the composition of the attacking force, which makes for interesting strategic decisions.
However, you agree that :
Yes, that’s the way it works. There are some situations in which it may be a disadvantage to have a destroyer. It depends upon what you’re trying to accomplish.
And you also agree upon this:
@Krieghund:
The defending player should allways be able to choose subs instead of other surface ships in a mixed fleet if they do not submerge.
I agree in principle, but that’s not how it works.
I just realized that instead of this rule DD limitation to planes:
@Krieghund:
Air unit hits can’t be assigned to subs unless there’s a destroyer friendly to the air units in the battle.
You could just forget the last rule on planes and simply have this plane limitation against subs unit (almost like the rule about transport chosen last):
Planes cannot hit any subs if their is any other elligible combat unit casualty.
Said otherwise, Subs are chosen last by planes, then transports, as a non-combat unit, are chosen last.
You let Destroyers and Submarines with their same capabilities.
Big warships will still need Destroyers screen against planes, so you keep an historical fleet.
Planes will still need DD to prevent Subs from submerging before combat.
Adding Destroyers will always be an advantage, not an hindrance (as you admit above).
Their will be no complex and anhistorical situation between Submarines attacking transport while scrambled Fgs patrol not able to do anything!
On the contrary, their will be a cat and mouse situation: which one will finish off the enemy first?
The only big difference will be this:
Some carriers and planes fleet defending without DD against an attacking only Subs fleet will get more protection by aircrafts.
Subs will be more vulnerable in this situation, but they still have their first strike shots against the carriers.
And, as the attacker, Subs can choose when and how they attack and when they need to retreat.
Even more, player maybe ready to take the risk of throwing an unescorted carrier, knowing planes can get a chance vs subs.
Even playing it as a gamble target (like the IJN Carriers in Leyte Gulf Battle), I let subs attack first, but after: all my planes can get a chance to hit before Subs retreat.
This way Subs will be just a little weaker, but it is an acceptable sacrifice, I believe. And a lot to win on the other part.
Don’t you think, it could have been an alternate way to resolve the subs used as naval fodder?
And without introducing a complex unit interaction as do the “DDs needed for aircraft”?
I know, it goes beyond the scope of your function as the “official answers giver”, but your last answer pushed me to resolve the planes, subs, DDs conundrum.
Keep historical fleet, simpler unit interaction, and planes able to hit subs (as it was historically correct).
I really like to have your play-tester/developper POV.
I have this one coming from you to argue for the DD is needed.
But maybe, you can compare and have something more specific to tell about this “fixer” for planes vs subs, and DDs:
@Krieghund:
Planes were very effective sub killers in reality. However, reality suffers a bit when translated into an abstract board game.
Adding the rule that destroyers are required as “spotters” for air attacks against subs represents the concerted effort needed to hunt and attack subs hiding out between raids. This gives subs more longevity and makes them more the fearsome foes that they actually were in the early to middle days of the war.
It also promotes the purchase and maintenance of more well-rounded fleets, as destroyers are necessary to guard against the threat of subs. This reflects the reality that subs were a constant threat to military shipping as well, and that no convoy would travel without destroyer escorts because of that threat. At the same time, it keeps them from being used as cheap “cannon fodder” in naval battles, as they were most often not used extensively in fleet operations, but rather as harassing hunters where their unique properties were best utilized.
All of these points, taken together, allow the game to abstractly represent the economic and military threat posed by submarines in World War II. This makes subs a useful and strategic purchase in the game. I hope this sufficiently answers your concerns.
In addition, you easily can imagine a UK fleet of Aircrafts, carriers and cheap submarines.
German’s aircrafts attack, what will happen?
The subs cannot be used as fodder, carriers and planes will be first casualties.
It will be similar to the OOB rule: DD is needed to kill subs.
Uk’s subs will have nothing better to do than submerge.
Hence, Destroyers are still very needed.
@Baron:
I know, it goes beyond the scope of your function as the “official answers giver”, but your last answer pushed me to resolve the planes, subs, DDs conundrum.
It’s not my “function” so much as it’s a badge assigned to me by the “powers that be” on this site, which I have no official connection to. I’m simply here to help you guys out.
I really don’t see how your method is superior to the one currently used in the game. It’s just different. While it removes the sub/destroyer/air unit interaction (but not entirely, as subs can still avoid air units entirely unless they bring a destroyer along), it adds a layer of complexity to the choosing of casualties - six of one, half a dozen of the other. As for the “realism” of planes being able to hit subs, I’ve already addressed that, as you quoted above.
@Baron:
I know, it goes beyond the scope of your function as the “official answers giver”, but your last answer pushed me to resolve the planes, subs, DDs conundrum.
It’s not my “function” so much as it’s a badge assigned to me by the “powers that be” on this site, which I have no official connection to. I’m simply here to help you guys out.
I thought so because you seems always to be there when anybody need an answer or a confirmation about rules.
It is not a part of your job from WotC or else?
If it is a kind of benevolent or pro bono activities, then you clearly deserve at least this badge and much more thanks.
I really don’t see how your method is superior to the one currently used in the game. It’s just different. While it removes the sub/destroyer/air unit interaction (but not entirely, as subs can still avoid air units entirely unless they bring a destroyer along), it adds a layer of complexity to the choosing of casualties - six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Sorry, I don’t understant what you meant by “six of one, half a dozen of the other.” Can you explain it a little more.
it adds a layer of complexity to the choosing of casualties
I’m not sure that it “adds” a layer, I rather say change a layer for another.
Because the actual planes need DDs to hit subs creates a layer of complexity when choosing casualties.
You must cautiously roll planes separatly.
You have to watch if there is still a DD with the plane, and if not, you must check if there is other elligible casualty.
Don’t you have to often answer many questions on that matter?
I think that both rules on planes limitations vs subs have almost the same level of complexity.
Maybe I’m wrong on this.
But I believe that introducing somekind of Subs casualties by plane without the need of destroyers would better depict the WWII naval combat but, in addition, allows much more tactical situations in the game (because Subs will kept their First Strike shots: simply sometimes players will use more planes than DDs against Subs).
@Baron:
Finally, is there any single post or thread which contains a summary of all Subs rules of the different A&A games?
Not that I’m aware of.
Am I right about all this?
Classic:
1st ed.: A2D2M2C8, Surprise Strike, cannot submerge, cannot hit air.
2nd Ed. A2D2M2C8, Surprise Strike, cannot submerge but can withdraw in another SZ, cannot hit air.
3rd Ed. A2D2M2C8, Surprise Strike, can submerge in SZ at the end of the round, cannot hit air.
Iron Blitz, A&A 3rd Ed.:
Sub: A2D2M2C8, Surprise Strike, can submerge in SZ at the end of the round, cannot hit air.
Destroyer: A2D2M2C8 can retaliate even when hit by subs surprise strike and cancel Subs submerge.
Pacific and Europe Edition:
Sub: A2D2M2C8, First Strike on attack only, can submerge at the end of the round, cannot hit air, cannot be hit by air.
Destroyer: A3D3M2C12, cancel First Strike, Submerge and allows planes to hit subs.
Revised Edition:
Sub: A2D2M2C8, First Strike, can submerge at the end of the round, cannot hit air.
Destroyer: A3D3M2C12, cancel First Strike and Submerge.
Anniversary Edition, AA50:
Sub: A2D1M2C6, First Strike, can submerge in First Strike phase before regular cmbt, cannot hit air, cannot be hit by air.
Destroyer: A2D2M2C8, cancel First Strike, Submerge (Submersible) and allows all planes to hit subs.
1942.1 and 1942.2: Same as AA50.
Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, 1st and 2nd Ed..: same as AA50.
@Baron:
I thought so because you seems always to be there when anybody need an answer or a confirmation about rules.
It is not a part of your job from WotC or else?
Nope.
@Baron:
If it is a kind of benevolent or pro bono activities, then you clearly deserve at least this badge and much more thanks.
You’re welcome.
@Baron:
I’m not sure that it “adds” a layer, I rather say change a layer for another.
Because the actual planes need DDs to hit subs creates a layer of complexity when choosing casualties.
You must cautiously roll planes separatly.
You have to watch if there is still a DD with the plane, and if not, you must check if there is other elligible casualty.
You would also have to roll for air units separately under your proposal, so that doesn’t go away.
@Baron:
Don’t you have to often answer many questions on that matter?
No more than for other complex (and some not-so-complex) rules.
@Baron:
I think that both rules on planes limitations vs subs have almost the same level of complexity.
Maybe I’m wrong on this.
You’re not wrong. That’s what I meant by “six of one, half a dozen of the other”.
@Baron:
Am I right about all this?
Mostly. A few things:
In all editions of Classic, only attacking subs get First Strike, and subs can withdraw.
In 3rd edition Classic, only defending subs can submerge.
In original Europe and Pacific, destroyers do not cancel subs’ ability to submerge.
In 1940 2nd editions, 1941, and 1942 2nd edition, subs prevent unescorted transports from offloading for an amphibious assault.
Thanks for all the answers and specially for Sub rules history.
You’re not wrong. That’s what I meant by “six of one, half a dozen of the other”.
What I should understant about “six of one, half a dozen of the other”, is that it is just an expression to illustrate complexity?
I made a new thread in the House Rule section.
It has a revised version of the summary of Subs rules, can you check, please, if all things are now corrected?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33290.msg1266767#msg1266767
@Baron:
What I should understant about “six of one, half a dozen of the other”, is that it is just an expression to illustrate complexity?
It’s an expression to indicate that two things are just about the same. There are 12 in a dozen, so half a dozen is six. In saying “six of one, half a dozen of the other”, you’re basically saying they’re both six, and therefore the same, even though you’re saying it differently.
@Baron:
I made a new thread in the House Rule section.
It has a revised version of the summary of Subs rules, can you check, please, if all things are now corrected?
Only one thing: The rule about subs preventing unescorted transports offloading for an amphibious assault only applies to the 2nd editions of 1940 and 1942, not the 1st editions.
@Baron:
What I should understant about “six of one, half a dozen of the other”, is that it is just an expression to illustrate complexity?
It’s an expression to indicate that two things are just about the same. There are 12 in a dozen, so half a dozen is six. In saying “six of one, half a dozen of the other”, you’re basically saying they’re both six, and therefore the same, even though you’re saying it differently.
Now I see, sorry I was a little slow here: english is not my mother tongue.
@Baron:I made a new thread in the House Rule section.
It has a revised version of the summary of Subs rules, can you check, please, if all things are now corrected?Only one thing: The rule about subs preventing unescorted transports offloading for an amphibious assault only applies to the 2nd editions of 1940 and 1942, not the 1st editions.
I made the correction, hope all is correct.
Thanks again for the supervision.
If you have any idea about the release year of classic editions, I will incorporate them in my post.
1st: 1984
2nd: 1986
3rd: 1997
1st: 1984
2nd: 1986
3rd: 1997
Thanks again.
Now, I hope I will find time to describ the evolution of the control effect of Subs on SZ.
