VC House Rules II

[theduke]

How about we keep Germany at 40 IPCs starting out by just combining Belo. and W. Russia into Belo. and still make it worth 2 IPCs, but then making the territory of Germany worth 12 IPCs? This might be useful when changing around techs, if we decide to go with my plan for techs. More on this later.

I think the addition of Burma will make it harder for the India and FIC unit placements to effect each other, which is probably good. We can create starting unit placments be such that Japan can fairly easily take Burma on turn 1 to simulate it falling in early 1942. Also, the territory gives me an interesting idea for a Burma road NA.

Maybe we could make US even worth 50 IPCs, instead of 45. The extra 5 could be 4 more for C. US and 1 more for Panama. Depending on how good sub interdiction is we’ll decide later if we can make US that strong and have it balance out.

What is your impression so far on all the map changes I proposed in the last 2 posts?

[theduke]

I just wanted to add something else about my idea of fighters in combat needing to count the combat as 1 move… Now it makes it a lot harder for Germany to take Egypt in G1. Fighters can’t be used on G1 in Egypt, making the African front even better for UK and thus more realistic. I never liked how Egypt was taken before UK could even strategize what to do there on their first turn.

Don’t worry, the idea of Germany not doing well in Africa shouldn’t cause balance issues once we come up with some other rules that will make the Axis much stronger.

[Imperious Leader]

About the map your designing… can we also make Midway Island run though the border of SZ 57? This will make it so Midway is actually midway across the Pacific and can be used on both Japan and W. US for bombing, thus increasing it’s strategic value. Can we also make Gibraltar run through the border of SZ 12? This will also increase it’s value and allow for us to call that a strait in which Gibraltar control passage through the Med.

The map is allready made… i can easily make any changes…On the idea about Midway. i dont think its a good idea to change the map other than add some additional VC of a different color. the map should be offered to promote the project, but also to give people who play regular revised a larger map. The additional colored VC can be easily ignored, but its really hard to ignore the fact that WE changed the location of Midway… Also, from a historical basis it was not possible for any planes to take off from this point and bomb say japan. A closer island should be used… and their are other canidates for this… I would be strongly in favor not to “move” any territories, but more inclined to add say a few islands ( in a different shade) so its easy to know whether they are from the basic game or the varient. Ill look at the map closely and get back with you.

also changing the values is along the same lines as above…

However… their is another way… If you would permit a second map to be commissioned but including Italy and all the additional map changes you wanted… I would be very willing to do this… possibly it could be what “phase II” would entail including convoy boxes etc… you like?

What do you think about combining Belo. and W. Russia to be 1 territory? I never liked the strategic implications in the game of those being separate territories. To keep Germany at 40 IPCs we can make the new Belo. territory worth 3 and make the Balkans worth 4. After all, why are the East Indies worth 4?.. becuase of oil! The same should apply for the Balkans.

This again would be great on the Phase II map project. I also want the concept of oil to be the focus on both axis and to some extent the Soviets and UK. The ideas from axis and allies europe are a good starting point for this…

What do you think about making Karelia worth 3? This would make an IC purchase there cheap enough to be worth considering as well as giving Russia 25 IPCs to start. This would be incentive for Russia to build an rtl in the first round instead of the boring 8 infantry. It would also make the city more important and strengthen Germany since they will have it for most of the game.

There are other changes that I wanted to make to the map too, but they can only be made if we can get sub interdiction to be very effective. I think I’ve made some really good sub interdiction rules that would allow the following changes without giving the Allies too much advantage:
All nations have income that are multiples of 5…
Russia=25 (Add 1 to Karelia)
Germany=40

UK=35 (Add 1 to Australia, 2 to Burma (new territory), 1 to W. Canada and 1 to either Trans-Jondan or Persia… probably Persia)
Japan=30
USA=45 (Add 1 to China, 1 to Greenland and 1 to Mexico)

---

On this idea i was wondering why the change needs to reflect this 5 IPC thing… is it to reflect only the new values of your proposed territories or is their some other mechanism at work? Or is it some aesthitic thing with numbers being rounded up or down?

Again i think this idea is phase II material, and if it falls in this catagory Italy should be included as the 6th player alsong with the additional territories, neutrals, etc. right>?

[theduke]

IMO the mult. of 5 IPC thing is just for simplicity in the begininning so fewer bills are needed and they are easier values to remember for players that don’t play very often. It’s not a big deal but it’s one of those things that just makes the game slightly less intimidating for newbies, etc… Why have Russia start out at 24 when they can just start with 25? Russia was stronger historically than they are represented in the game anyway. Same with the US.

There is only one problem I have with postponing these changes to the starting incomes. I think I can come up with a set of interdiction rules that I think balances out the game from the super high Allied economy of 25+35+50=105 or a set of rules to counter a lesser Allied economy of 24+30+42=96, but not both at the same time. If we have phase 1 with the same IPC values (96)then we’ll have to hold off on sub interdiction until phase 2 as well since they have to be introduced together for balance purposes.

Should we have phase 1 without interdiction and without realistic Allied economy and without a new map? That might work out OK for balance purposes if we can come up with a few more additional rules to improve the Axis’ chances. Should we shoot for that?

I know Midway is too far to realistically bomb either IC, but since it can already be used to bomb W. US in the game, it should also be able to bomb Japan in the game. We could change the rules for movement so neither can be bombed, but I don’t know how to do that since it’s the same distance in the game from UK to Germany. If we reduce bomber movement so bombers can’t go from Midway to W. US and back again then the UK/US bombers also won’t be able to bomb Germany. I say just let bombers move 6 so bombers can do the Midway bombing run and call it only a minor sacrifice of realism for the greater good of simplicity.

[Imperious Leader]

Should we have phase 1 without interdiction and without realistic Allied economy and without a new map?

This can be accomplished with the revised map ( e.g interdiction with the idea of placing an undisclosed Lend lease amount as the tranny moves to Archangel, or Persia. The lend lease payment is written as follows: SZ 19 tranny = 5 Lend lease points for russia, or SZ 10 tranny has 10 Lend lease points for UK. The german player has no knowledge of what is coming over, so hell make an effort to attack whatever comes over. Phase II can include actual convoy boxes and further extentions of this.

[theduke]

What do you think of the ‘fighter combat=1 fighter move’ rule and the ‘fighters on carriers have to land on carriers’ rule?

There are a lot of different ways to incorporate interdiction. Let’s settle on all the other rules we’ll use for phase 1 and then come up with a set of interdiction rules that will balance up the game. What other rules are there?
-defender retreats?
-techs?
-NAs?
-strategic bombing?
is there anything else that we need for phase 1? I don’t think we need much else but I want to hear your thoughts.

[Imperious Leader]

Well  i have allways advocated fixing the carrier based fighters vs. land based… Ill post additional ideas tonight.

[theduke]

I went back the the first post of this topic and changed Tripoli to Kursk and Baghdad to Damascus and Anchorage to Sao Paulo. I still don’t know what I’m going to do about a minor VC in western China even though for game purposes there needs to be 1. When we make the new map in phase 2 we can make another territory so there are 3 green (US occupied) territories in China instead of 2. This will allow China to hold out better, prolong the Chinese/Japanese War, allow US to start out with more IPCs (I’m hoping to get them around 55-60 IPCs total), and make it so theminor city doesn’t have to be in Sinkiang.

This is going to be a lot harder making a set of rules to go with the old AAR map and then another set of rules for phase 2 to keep the game just as balanced.

[Imperious Leader]

I like the idea of more china territories along with certain rules… Limited attacks against china… say one per turn or requiring Japan to garrison them or China gets a free Infantry?  Id say making 2 more territories in china, Also possibly cut France into 2 spaces. Germany as well …west and east

[theduke]

I haven’t given much thought to adding new territories in Europe since bad things might happen if you’re not careful with the territory positions. For example, if the Western Allies can amphibious assault in either the low countries or France then that means Germany has worry about defending both those territories instead of just placing units in the one territory of W. Europe. More territories can make it really hard for Germany and Germany already has it tough defending just W. Europe. We can talk about this more after we settle the other issues.

I don’t think we’ll need special rules helping China out. The 3 inf per turn US can put there should be enough.

[theduke]

What do you think of the fighter ideas from before?

I’m also thinking of changing around the starting IPC values to the following for phase 2 (or phase 3?):
(Based on GDP paper from Mark Harrison so 1 IPC equals approx. 10 billion 1990 International Dollars)

Russia=25 (see above posts)
Germany=45 (IPC distribution of territories decided later)
UK=35 (see above posts)
Japan=20 (FIC, Kwang. and Manchuria only worth 2 each, E. Indies and Philippines only worth 2 each, Borneo worth 1 and Okinawa worth 0)
US=as high as I can get it… probably end up around 60 since I can’t get it around 120 IPCs
Italy=15 (Italy worth 10, Greece/Albania worth 3, Algeria and Libya worth 1 each) … problem with Italy though. Italy can’t have 7 VCs! I don’t even like Italy as capital VC because only 3 inf/per turn should be in Italy. Italy would mean all nations can’t start with 7 VCs. I don’t think Italy can be added for the good of the game. Maybe make Italy as some kind of weird NA for Germany or just some kind of weird optional rule. Maybe make all other map modifications and include Italy in phase 3?

*1 IPC would then equal approx. 10 billion 1990 International Dollars

[Imperious Leader]

I have this book coming in about 2-5 days… I ordered it from amazon about 2 weeks ago. I used Adlertags post to figure out some IP numbers… but id like to get the book just to make sure the figures are correct. THe rule i want for was divide numbers by 6. which gives UK 45 IP and Germany 65 in 1939… I will quickly read the boom and post everything for you. Lets postpone this question till then.  In the mean time naval, air and land combat for phase 1 and 2.

In general naval combat with surface ships is seperate from sub combat, air combat with either naval or land should be seperate if other defending planes are in the battle. Once one side loses planes then air attacks on naval/ land should be pretty devistating. Land forces should not be able to hit planes, and ships should have lower values against planes. Some planes should not be able to attack subs w/o a destroyer ( ASW) > I think artillery should get one “barrage” attack on the first round. Also on sea i think BB should get a preemtive strike each round. IN general i think navy should go down in price.

[theduke]

Wouldn’t the IPC values reflect 1942, not 1939?

I think it’s OK to allow ground troops to hit planes once all other units are killed, like it is in the box rules. I don’t think we need to introduce new rules that say, for example, fighters have to bug out once all their supporting ground troops are killed. If the fighters didn’t have to ever retreat and couldn’t get hit then they would just stay and slowly pick off the enemy ground units without penalty.

[theduke]

I’m thinking of adding the following new restriction to IC purchases:

ICs can only be built in territories with a VC. The number of non-infantry units placed per turn at an IC can’t exceed the number of VCPs in that territory. The IPC limit of 4*the territories IPC value also still applies.

The above restriction makes it so territories can’t build more rtl than infantry (unrealistic). Opinions?

[Imperious Leader]

Wouldn’t the IPC values reflect 1942, not 1939?

yes but i was using an example of how i used the numbers for another game. The book has everything for every year of the war.

I think it’s OK to allow ground troops to hit planes once all other units are killed, like it is in the box rules. I don’t think we need to introduce new rules that say, for example, fighters have to bug out once all their supporting ground troops are killed. If the fighters didn’t have to ever retreat and couldn’t get hit then they would just stay and slowly pick off the enemy ground units without penalty.

OK on this perhaps this can be a phase two thing…but realistically “infantry” and armored relied on defensive air support and counterair to protect the sky from enemy planes… they had no ability to shoot down fighters and level bombers in a manner that could ever be reflected in the level of abstraction. that is to say in the course of a turn their was not way for infantry or even a small flak battery to down 1,000-1,500 planes which is what that piece is in the game. At most youll get lucky and lose 50 planes from flak artillery during a 4-6 month span.
Im sure we can model a correction on this. An analogy would be to say air planes are the best destroyer of subs, when we know most of the time subs are submerged and planes have limited access to ASW unless a destroyer is present… The same goes for sub vs. sub combat… its basically impossible…

I can easily visulize a bunch of krauts shooting mp-44’s in France and Mustangs moving at 500 MPH swooping down and destroying nearly every german in sight with repeated strafes. The question is how to model this ?

[theduke]

Im sure we can model a correction on this. An analogy would be to say air planes are the best destroyer of subs, when we know most of the time subs are submerged and planes have limited access to ASW unless a destroyer is present… The same goes for sub vs. sub combat… its basically impossible…

I can easily visulize a bunch of krauts shooting mp-44’s in France and Mustangs moving at 500 MPH swooping down and destroying nearly every german in sight with repeated strafes. The question is how to model this ?

I’m getting really close to an awesome set of rules that will be very simple and realistic for fighters/bombers and subs/interdiction and defender/attacker retreats. I also have an interesting idea for a set of techs. Since all the changes are somewhat related to each other I’ll probably just end up posting them all together some day so they’ll make more sense that way. I think you’ll like all those as ideas as much as the the victory cities.

Do you think the new IC restriction is needed too? I kind of think it is but I’d like feedback.

Changing the subject a little, I’d like to hear your opinion on the following odds:
(Example: a bomber being shot down by AA gun would be about 1/10)
how about a fighter unit destroying a sub unit?
a fighter unit and destroyer unit destroying a sub unit?
a sub destroying a sub?
a fighter unit destroying another fighter unit?
a fighter unit being shot down by flak in a combat against ground troops?

[Imperious Leader]

Changing the subject a little, I’d like to hear your opinion on the following odds:
(Example: a bomber being shot down by AA gun would be about 1/10)
+++++ yes thats accurate BTW

General comments:
Two location techniques came to the rescue of the Allied Powers. The first was the development of sonar in ships and the second was radar in both ships and aircraft. Another innovation to become widely used later was the airborne searchlight, but the more powerful models needed such amounts of electricity that only with the introduction of turbine powered aircraft did they become really useful.

The provision of seaborne air cover was essential. At first, the British developed temporary solutions such as merchant aircraft carriers and CAM ships. These were superseded by mass-produced, relatively cheap escort carriers supplied by the United States and operated by the US Navy and by the Royal Navy. At this point there was a significant difference in the proficiency and tactics of the two navies and criticsm was aimed at the British.

The Americans favoured aggressive hunter tactics with escort carriers on search and destroy patrols, whereas the British preferred to defend convoys, forcing the submarines to go elsewhere. The American view was that this did little to reduce or contain U-boat numbers. In the event, the tactics were complementary, suppressing and destroying U-boats.

The critical Allied advantage was provided by the breaking of German naval codes.

how about a fighter unit destroying a sub unit?
+++++++only after say mid 1943 were “fighters” able to help sink subs. I think they were largely used as spoters and used radar to locate, while surface ships were used to deliver the Coupe De Grace…

a fighter unit and destroyer unit destroying a sub unit?
++++++++ Since the beginning of the war coordination were used.

a sub destroying a sub?
++++++never at all in ww2

Aerial combat system:

Air Missions:
You may perform one of 9 missions for each air unit during each turn. Some missions such as Strategic Air defense, Defensive Air Support (DAS) and Maritime Coastal Defense can be played as the defender during your opponents turn. In each case air units will invariably conduct combat against each other and now have modified air combat values as follows:

Unit>>>>> As attacker As defender
Fighter>>>> 1-2 1-3
Dive-Bombe>>>> 1 1
Bomber>>>> 1 1
Jet Fighter>> 2X 1-4 2X 1-4
Jet Bomber>> 1-2 1-2

Air Combat Sequence:

1. The attacker moves planes into the defenders territory (along with possible land forces).

2. Possible Anti- Aircraft rolls are performed in territories with a VC or Complex.

3. The defender can allocate air units in defense.

4. Aerial combat occurs for a specific duration of separate combat rounds (as outlined by a specific air combat mission). The combat values of all planes are outlined in the above chart.

5. Once the defender has either been destroyed or retreats, then the attacker can conduct his original air mission.
   Note: The above air unit values apply to air to air combat. The value of planes attacking land targets is the unit’s normal combat values. In any case after clearing the skies of enemy air units you may now perform one type of air mission summarized as follows:

6. Tactical Air Command Missions:

A. Close Air Support
The use of planes to support ground attacks is a basic use of airpower. Each Fighter or Dive-bomber can aid one armored unit with a +1 attack modifier at a 1/1 basis.  Defending ground units can call on DAS if they have fighters in range (see below).

B. Interdiction
Each Bomber can attempt to stop the movement of enemy units out of a given territory. The Bomber is placed into the space until the following turn when it can then be used for further missions. For each Armor class unit that attempts to move into or leave the space is subject to a roll of one D6. A roll of 1 and the unit is destroyed. A roll of 2-3 and the unit may not leave the space that turn.

C. Air Transport
Bombers can transport up to two Infantry units from one territory to another (of any type). The transport path can be over either land or sea zones. All air transport is done during the non-combat movement phase.

D. Airborne Assault
Only Airborne Infantry can carry out such missions and a drop cannot be greater than two territories from any friendly unit. Bombers are the only units that can drop such units. And they cannot perform any other functions on the turn they drop Paratroopers. Note: No more than two paratroopers can be dropped by each bomber per turn. Paratroopers must start out on the same space as the Bombers that carry them.

During the phasing players turn the defender also has a number of actions that they can undertake as follows:

E. Defensive Air Support (DAS)
During Ground Combat Resolution, defending fighters may move to an adjacent territory and participate in the defense of friendly ground units being attacked. Movement of these units takes one full combat round before they can be used. (Example: On round one, the defending player announces that he will dispatch fighters and on round two they are used in combat). All air units then fight combat rounds concurrent but separate to the current ground combat rounds. Aircraft called up for DAS missions are not committed to fight a minimum number of combat rounds. For example: defensive Air Support was called in on combat round one and ready to fight on round two, but the defender rolled very poorly on his first round and decided to call off DAS and not risk losing his planes. At the end of ground combat resolution, surviving Defensive Air Support (DAS) units must return to their original territory, if possible. All hits and loses from air combat are taken from those participating air units until 1) only one side has planes, 2) one side retreats their planes, or 3) one side retreats his ground units thus ending combat. Note: planes that “retreat” do not get a free parting shot from enemy planes. If one side has planes left over the hits can be applied to ground units for the duration of combat rounds. On their own turn they can still move into new combat missions, but they cannot perform multiple defensive air functions such as DAS and coastal defense. Only one action can be done on their turn, and one action delegated in a defensive action during another players turn.

F.  Maritime Coastal Defense
During Naval Combat Resolution, defending air units (including bombers) may move to an adjacent sea zone to participate in the defense of friendly naval units being attacked, or where defending naval units are conducting combat against enemy naval units that have ended their movement in the defender’s sea zone (including during amphibious assaults). Movement of these units takes one full combat round before they can be used. (Example: On round one, the defending player announces that he will dispatch fighters and on round two they are used in combat). At the end of naval combat resolution, surviving coastal defense air units must return to their original land territory, if possible.
    Air units may provide coastal defense even if the land territory they are from is under attack.  They may provide coastal defense, defend the land territory, or provide strategic air defense; they may not do more than one.  At the end of combat resolution, if the territory a defending air unit flew from is captured, the air unit must fly to the closest friendly territory within its flight range. If no friendly territory is available, the defending air unit is eliminated.

2. Strategic Air Command:

A. Strategic Bombing Run
Each player can bomb enemies Industrial Complex as follows: 1) each bomber (and possible escorts) moves over a targeted IC. 2) The defending player can fire any AA shots on each plane and/or he can call in defensive air support for one round of air combat. 3) Each surviving bomber rolls two D6 with the result equaling the number of IP that is lost from defending players next turn. When you attack/perform SBR attacks you take of the money from those nations IP balance. An IC may lose more IP than its printed value.

B. Air Escort
All air units (except bombers) may accompany moving bombers or naval units as far as their range allows them and participate in air combat, but they may only enter two sea zones to the target territory and two sea zones when returning from the target territory.

C. Strategic Air Defense
Directly before strategic bombers roll for damage on an IC, defending fighters in the territory may defend against bomber (and their escorts, if any) with one round of combat. Defending Industrial Complexes have a built in AA gun defense against each attacking air unit. The strategic bombers and their escorts can only target defending fighters (and not any ground units). Any surviving bombers may then bomb the IC.

a fighter unit destroying another fighter unit?
+++++++see above

a fighter unit being shot down by flak in a combat against ground troops?
+++++zero chance

this site encapsulates the model of ASW very well.
http://www.valoratsea.com/destroyer.htm

[theduke]

I think these rules simplify the key ideas down a lot and incorporate well into the game (Comments on realism?):

-Combat move phase is made just like before.

-The combat phase is now partitioned into 6 different battle types. The following is the order in which the battle types must be resolved (If more than 1 battle of the same battle type, then attacker determines the order of those battles):

1. Attacking Sub Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking subs share the same SZ space as any defending surface naval units at the end of the combat move phase. (Note that attacking surface naval units and defending subs in that same SZ do not participate in the battle.) Battle continues until either side retreats all remaining units or the attacker submerges all remaining subs. In any battle type, if units retreat then they may not be used in the latter battle types of that combat phase.

2. Aerial Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking air units share the same SZ or territory with any defending aerial units at the end of the combat move phase. (Note that attacking and defending ground or naval units in that same SZ or territory do not participate in the battle. Battle continues until either side retreats or wins outright. Also note that the winner of this battle with units left and didn’t retreat may have their fighters participate in the latter battle types that follow.

3. Surface Fleet Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking units (other than subs) share the same SZ as any defending units (other than subs). Note that any surface naval units that won in battle type 1 may participate in this battle type. Note that any attacking fighters that won in battle type 2 above may participate in this battle along with any attacking naval units.

4. Defending Sub Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking units (other than subs) share the same SZ as any defending subs. Again, if the attacker won battle type 2 and 3 with fighters then those fighters may then particpate in this battle type. If the attacker won battle type 3 with any surface units then they may participate in this battle type. Note that only subs may defend during this battle type.

5. Ground Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking units share the same territory as any defending units. Note that any fighters surviving battle type 2 may participate in this battle type.

6. Strategic Warfare: This consists of strategic bombing, sub interdiction, rocket attacks.  If a territory is invaded and taken during the previous battle types 1-5, then the strategic combat in that territory is cancelled. This takes place after all other combat so that a territory isn’t bombed and then taken, resulting in unrealistic double damage to the defending territory. Now territories can only either be taken and not bombed, or attacked but not taken and then bombed, but not both taken and bombed (more realistic).

This small set of simple rules organizing combat order fixes a ton of the problems that we’ve talked about… fighter dogfights, air superiority, subs fighting separately from surface fleets and other subs, etc… Let me know what you think.

[Imperious Leader]

Thats a way to break it down. Its realistic to be sure and we can tidy up with some bit on how each duty is performed. OK lets move from that point into the specifics of each unique combat action. I think naval should go first.

[theduke]

I believe for phase 1 we should just work on fixing flak and subs. All other combat will definitely fix the game but will require a lengthy set of rules and might put many people off. We should hold off on improving fighter dogfights/escorts/interceptors/realistic naval combat until phase 2.

Method 1 for resolving sub combat (and for resloving flak problem):

Targeting/Detecting: In order for subs to be hit and air units to be hit by flak, they must first be targeted.

Detecting Subs: The opponent rolls 1 die for every fighter and surface naval unit (except destroyers) that are in the same SZ as an enemy sub at the end of a combat move phase. For every roll of a 1 or 2, a sub has seen successfully targeted/detected. Destroyers do not have to roll to target an enemy sub since every destroyer detects 1 enemy sub automatically. Combat then continues as usual, with only detected subs able to be hit.

Include the following new rules with method 1:

-Before combat with subs, the opponent rolls to detect opposing subs. Move all detected subs to the battle board along with all the other units. Hidden subs remain on the game board. Hidden subs may still fire on opposing units like detected subs, but they remain on the game baord to designate that they cannot be hit by opposing units.
-Before actual combat, the player owning the subs may then choose to either submerge or fire at the opponent, but not both. The player may submerge any number of the detected subs on the battle board or any number of the hidden subs still on the game board. If the player chooses to submerge any subs, that player tips those subs on their side to destinguish them from the firing subs. Submerged subs don’t get to fire, but if they survive the combat round they get to escape further combat. Subs that fire on opposing ships do not get to submerge at the end of the combat round.
-After the first combat round, all remaining subs (those that didn’t submerge in the first round and survived) are automatically detected for the rest of the battle (subs can only be hidden during the first round).

Example: Attacker sends 1 DD, 1 BB, 1 CV and 2 FTRs to attack 3 subs in a SZ. The attacker rolls 4 targeting dice (1 for the BB+1 more for the CV+2 more for each FTR). Only 1 of the 4 dice is either a 1 or a 2 (roll all 4 dice at the same time since it doesn’t mater which of the 4 units detects the sub). The attacker adds 1 more detected sub due to the DD. The total number of detected subs is therefore 2. Combat continues as normal, except only 2 or the 3 subs may be taken as casualties. The 2 detected subs and 1 hidden sub can each choose to either fire back or submerge but not both (decided before combat but after targeting rolls).

Targeting air units: Anytime any number of enemy air units fly over a hostile territory with an AA gun, the AA gun rolls 1 targeting die for each enemy air unit. For every roll of a 1 or 2, 1 enemy air unit has been successfully targeted. For every targeted air unit, roll 1 die to see if the air unit has been hit (e.g. so if no air units are targeted, then no dice will be rolled the second time). AA guns still only hit on a 1. Repeat this process for enemy air units flying back home over hostile territories during the non-combat move phase. If an enemy air unit is attacking a territory with an AA gun and doesn’t take the territory (a typical case of this would be during a strategic bombing run), then the AA gun will roll to target (and if successful then roll to hit) the air unit both before the combat and on the return trip home during the non-combat move phase.

Odds an air unit will be shot down = (1/3 chance of being targeted) * (1/6 chance being shot down) = 1/18
1/18 chance shot down before combat + 1/18 chance being shot down in non-combat move phase on the way back to the UK = 1/9 chance (this is darn close to the 1/10 chance we wanted)

Method 2 for resolving sub combat:

Before combat involving a sub, each sub always rolls a die during opening fire step no matter if enemy DDs present or not. For every roll of 1 or 2, a sub gets the chance to submerge before the first combat round. Submerging during opening fire step only makes subs invulnerable to non-DD’s. If a sub successfully submerges during the opening fire step of a round, then each DD present may still fire on that sub for only that 1 round only(represents depth charges). As in box rules, any subs surviving at the end of any combat round may choose to submerge to end combat.

Example: 1 DD, 1 BB and 1 FTR attack 2 subs. Both subs roll for initial submerging. Only 1 roll is a 1 or 2 so 1 sub gets to submerge. The other sub is fired upon by the 1 BB and 1 FTR. The submerged sub is fired upon by the DD and can only be taken as casualty if DD hits. Any surviving subs can automatically submerge after the first round, like usual.

Those are the 2 methods for sub combat that I think are simple enough to use. Method 2 is slightly simpler and method 1 ties in nicely with flak so 1 targeting rule can be used in 2 different aspects of the game.

Here is a breakdown of the odds for sub warfare using the 2 methods:
The following format is the number of attacking units against 1 sub and the corresponding odds of hitting that sub in first round.
method 1: (sub decides to submerge on first round instead of firing back)
1 ftr=1/31/2=  1/6
2 ftrs=5/93/4= 5/12
1 BB=1/3*4/6=  2/9
1 DD=1/2=        1/2
1 ftr+1 DD=3/4=3/4

method 2:
1 ftr=2/31/2=  1/3
2 ftrs=2/33/4= 1/2
1 BB=2/34/6=  4/9
1 DD=1/2=        1/2
1 ftr+1 DD=2/33/4 + 1/3*1/2= 2/3

Which set of odds better reflects realism of WWII sub warfare? Which of the few ideas outlined above from each method are realsitic/ unrealistic?