@armedace
Those are some pretty cool ideas, I’ve thought about incorporating marines and how to do so-your ideas seem good. I also like the idea of interceptors at 2, more realistic and makes you think about SBR more. Although I’m not so sure about reducing air bases costs and increasing their ability to scramble to nearby land-seems OP.
Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…
-
@Der:
Baron - Nothing is set in stone for me - I haven’t had a chance to extensively test any of these ideas - it could be I end up using some of your ideas, which are not bad - just different - thanks for sharing them!
That’s OK.
I just believed that a theorical “paper experiment” would allow to agree on this issue on “pinned subs”, which I perceived as a weakness.This point on Pinned Subs doesn’t seems to bother you.
So, as long as it is not really an issue for you and since you provides more reason on its behalf.
The only way to really figure it out if it really suits you and your friends, will be playtesting.I have no specific HR on Convoy Raid.
We are simply not there in my play group. Maybe someday.
I hope because its seems the best way to describe the real impact of Subs in WWII.
It wasn’t combat, it was far more Merchant’s ships destruction.Keeps us posted if there is any feedback on all your rules and mechanics.
-
I have no specific HR on Convoy Raid.
We are simply not there in my play group. Maybe someday.
I hope because its seems the best way to describe the real impact of Subs in WWII.
It wasn’t combat, it was far more Merchant’s ships destruction.
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s why we introduced merchant marine rule in our game.
We have merchant marine piece on the game board and when submarine sink a merchant ship the owner get a penalty. -
That’s why we introduced merchant marine rule in our game.
We have merchant marine piece on the game board and when submarine sink a merchant ship the owner get a penalty.Is this the house rule where you have to constantly move each country’s merchant marine ships around the map making deliveries and pickups? That does not sound like fun to me….
-
It takes few second to move it during non combat move. 3 zones.
It’s more realistic than ghost convoy and/or image on the game board.
Also if you don’t want to loose IPC players must protect those convoy with destroyer and escort so more historical than attack the Kriegsmarine with 20 destroyers in the middle of the Atlantic…AL.
-
It takes few second to move it during non combat move. 3 zones.
It’s more realistic than ghost convoy and/or image on the game board.
Also if you don’t want to loose IPC players must protect those convoy with destroyer and escort so more historical than attack the Kriegsmarine with 20 destroyers in the middle of the Atlantic…AL.
If I’m reading your rules right here (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17827.0)
There are 33 Merchant Marine pieces in the setup. Then each one may need an escort, right? So you are moving 40-60 ships around each round? And all must be moved every round. That still sounds like a lot of book keeping to do. Guess I’d have to actually see what you are doing to get it fully.IMO this game is a WAR game primarily, in which war is waged. It is not a shipping game. This is why I think invisible “virtual” convoys are most appropriate for this scale. They give you the concept of Convoy Raiding without cluttering up the map. Notice on land there are no actual train or truck pieces that bring raw materials to the industrial complexes. All of that is assumed to be going on but is not visible.
-
Merchant marine is really important in our game because of lend lease.
US player can send materials to UK, commonwealth, China and later to USSR.
UK player can send materials to commonwealth,China and later USSR.
Only 1 units per boat. (Tank, airplane, artillery).
Once the boat arrived to his destination, the new owner change the units for his own.
After that, the convoy return to his home to get new unit.
The convoy move during non combat move.AL.
-
Merchant marine is really important in our game because of lend lease.
US player can send materials to UK, commonwealth, China and later to USSR.
UK player can send materials to commonwealth,China and later USSR.
Only 1 units per boat. (Tank, airplane, artillery).
Once the boat arrived to his destination, the new owner change the units for his own.
After that, the convoy return to his home to get new unit.
The convoy move during non combat move.AL.
Interesting ideas!
-
And you get a penalty of 5% for each cargo you lost so you’ve better to protect it.
In the case of UK, the player has 9 cargo.
You lost all your boat? You’ll get a penalty of 45%…
But of course you can buy new cargo. (5$ for each).
And next you won’t suffer anymore penalty.That why you have to protect it with destroyer and escort. (yes we have both).
AL.
-
I found this post in another thread of AA50, in which Defenseless Transport and DDs blocking all Subs was introduced:
I will try to make some spaces for easier reading.
Kavik Kang was amongst the first to suggest the 1 DD :1 Sub ratio but for movement blocker only.
This example show how to use so called Fleet Submarines tactics to maximized their potential as sea-fodder units.@Kavik:
I’ve been learning AA50 by playing it and trying out different openings offline and watching other people play and what they do. One thing I’ve noticed in watching other people play is that almost nobody, even the very best players, seems to understand the ramifications of how subs work within the new AA50 rules. I’m an old man for a gamer and I’ve been playing games for over 30 years. My favorite games have always been naval combat games, and AA50’s new sub rules are based on how subs work in certain other, more complex games. So I already have a lot of experience with the concept, and a pretty good understanding of naval combat. So I thought I would provide this little primer on subs and naval combat within AA50 in the hopes that Japanese players will stop sailing within range of my well composed US fleet thinking that they are safe just because they have 1 more carrier than I do and then dying to the AA50 version of a carrier air strike.
First, the main sub users in AA50 are USA and Japan. England generally has little use for subs, other than maybe for a single attack on the Italian navy. Italy might build some fleet subs as cannon fodder in their fleet, but without carriers have no real need for subs. Japan also only has a need for fleet subs (which I will explain later), but has much more of a need for them than Italy does because they have carriers. Once you truly understand how subs work in AA50, you’ll understand why they are such an essential part of any fleet.
Subs are defensive units and they are the infantry of the sea. The most important thing to keep in mind about subs is that, if a destroyer is present, they can’t safely move within range of enemy units. One destroyer and as many planes that can reach will get to take one round of shots at your subs (more rounds if the destroyer survives the first round) and they will attack your subs, which only defend at a 1. You can’t move within range of enemy destroyers or you will die. But if your subs are supported by air units the enemy fleet can’t move within range of your subs, either. That last point is the crux of the issue.
The point most seem to be missing is that subs are meant to die. It doesn’t matter that they only attack at a 2, subs are defensive attacking units.
The best example are what I call fleet subs within AA50.
Fleet subs are subs that travel with a carrier fleet. Their sole purpose is to die in an air strike on an enemy fleet.
In the real world carrier planes fly out great distances to hit enemy fleets, they don’t sail up and get into a close range fight with them. This is actually how carriers work in AA, as well, except that the carrier planes need to be escorted by subs. The subs are only there to die, and you would ideally have as many subs as hits you believe you will take in one round of combat with the enemy fleet (against the IJN, this means 4- 6 subs). This has a huge impact on the stand-off between two fleets such as the US and Japanese fleets in the Pacific.
Let’s look at a typical stand-off between two typical carrier fleets and what happens to one of them if it allows an air strike supported by subs from the opposing fleet.Let’s say that the Japanese fleet is, as usual, more powerful than the US fleet. The Japanese fleet is more powerful, so the Japanese player moves within 2 spaces range of the US fleet at Hawaii believing that he is safe. The Japanese fleet consists of 3 carriers (with 6 fighters), 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, and 1 destroyer. The US fleet consists of 2 carriers (with 4 fighters), 2 destroyers, and 4 subs. The US fleet performs an air strike with 4 subs, 2 destroyers (using them because he didn’t have enough subs to send in this instance, and 4 fighters. The carriers stay in Hawaii. The battle calculator will tell you that we will lose this fight badly, but the battle calculator isn’t taking everything into account AND assumes that we will stay for multiple rounds of combat. We won’t be. We are the attacker and we can retreat whenever we want. In this particular example they will almost certainly have to take one shot and leave because all the subs will die in round 1.
So we shoot and get 4 hits (average), 1 sub and 3 other hits.
The Japanese player takes the free hit on the battleship from the sub, loses the destroyer and then must chose between a plane, cruiser, carrier, or battleship for the other 2 hits.
He probably kills 2 planes.
The Japanese fleet shoots back and gets 6 hits (1 better than average) the US kills the 4 subs and destroyers and then retreats all 4 of his planes from the battle (if a DD lived retreat it as a blocker). The US fleet in Hawaii is 2 carriers with 4 fighters.
The remains of the Japanese fleet are 3 carriers, 4 fighters, 1 battleship, and 1 cruiser.
The US mostly lost only subs which contribute very little defensively too the fleet other than dying instead of better units, the Japanese lost fighters, the primary defense of the fleet.
They have to withdraw and rebuild expensive fighters.
The US just needs a couple more subs and destroyers which if they are in a stand off with the Japanese navy are probably already arriving from the west coast at the end of this turn allowing the US fleet to remain in Hawaii. We lost 2 more units (we lost 4-6) than the Japanese navy did, but due to the nature of the combination of subs and airplanes attacking, in the grand scheme of things, we clearly won the fight. Had the Japanese player had subs and destroyers protecting his planes and larger ships all we would have done was whittle down each others sub/destroyer forces a little. The US fleet in this instance had a superior composition with its combination of subs and fighters so the larger Japanese fleet comes out on the short end of the stick. This is actually even worse for the IJN because the US would actually also have 2 heavy bombers attacking from Hawaii that I intentionally left out to show just the matchup between the fleets alone.The key factor is the effect that and air strike has in relation to the defensive strength of the fleet. If you trade subs for fighters with an enemy fleet, when the battle is over your fleet is stronger defensively than the opposing fleet was before the fight. You lost subs, they lost fighters. There is a chance that the enemy fleet is too weak to withstand yours now, and if not the next air strike will probably achieve that. As soon as the enemy fleet has been sufficiently weakened you can eventually forget the air strikes and move your whole fleet in for the final battle. Every time you trade a sub for a plane, cruiser, or battleship you are altering the balance of power between the two fleets in your favor. In an air strike, the more subs you have the more rounds of combat you can fight. You usually only have enough subs for 1 round of combat, but later in the game it is possible that you have enough subs to protect your planes for multiple rounds of combat. In these cases you can do serious damage to the enemy fleet without exposing your own to any real danger. Subs are the infantry of the sea, there is little difference between 8 Infantry and 4 fighters in Moscow and 8 Sub and 4 Fighters in Hawaii. The main difference is that the Infantry and fighters in Moscow will sit there and wait to be attacked, while the subs and fighters will attack the enemy as soon as he comes within range. The combination of subs and airplanes are defensive attackers.
You Japanese players need to trade some of those ground units for destroyers and subs to protect your fleet. I can’t count the number of times I have watched the IJN sit there with the US player having the power to hurt it bad, sitting with within range, but not realizing that was the case. The initial Japanese fleet will get hurt badly by the turn 3 US navy if it doesn’t add some protection on turn 2. All those nice ships and planes need at least 2 destroyers and 2 subs for protection (Japan eventually wants at least 4 destroyers and at least a number of subs equal to the number of fighters on their carriers). The starting Japanese navy is essentially naked, and most players just leave it that way. This is why the IJN usually loses when they finally fight. The US player built a lot of protective ships early on out of necessity, so when the fleets finally meet those 3 or 4 extra escorts make all the difference and the Japanese player is left insisting he must have rolled bad because he had an extra carrier. The way the dice actually play out, once you’ve got 3 or 4 carriers involved then subs and destroyers actually become more useful in the big fleet battle than an extra carrier. They keep the big numbers rolling longer where the less protected fleet begins losing the big numbers early. Once you have enough protection, relative to the size of the enemy fleet and land-based air that is within range, then adding more carriers again becomes better than more escorts.
Fleets are highly defensive in nature. When two fleets are equal in size they cannot enter within range of each other. If the fleets are well designed, the one who enters range first loses. This means that fleets exert a strong zone of control within a 2 space radius of where they are, due to the strike range of their subs/destroyers and planes. Another way of putting it is that a carrier fleet provides coverage of spaces within that range.
So, for example, with this US fleet in Hawaii facing the 3 carrier IJN fleet in the above example, the US could safely retake the Philippines (if it is empty) and probably hold it for a turn or 2 or maybe for the rest of the game.
All they need to do is sacrifice a transport to get 2 inf there.
To retake it the Japanese would have to sacrifice 2 transports, or have a bomber in range to help 1 transport, because any naval units they send there will die to the air strike we just covered. In fact, attempting to re-take Philippines is usually what causes the air strike we went over above they get it back, and lose their naval superiority for the rest of the game.Once a defensive position like this has been established the player with the coverage over the islands is free to re-take them with sacrificial transports. If you have enough destroyers, you can cover the landings with 2 destroyers if the Japanese don’t have any subs to strike with their planes, hoping to kill planes with your destroyers, otherwise just sacrifice the transports to take any islands you want. This effect can also be achieved with a combination of subs and bombers. Once in place, it just isn’t safe to approach such a position without at least 4 subs and/or destroyers defending the fleet. The Japanese don’t have this early on, so a US player going KGF can cause great difficulty for Japan early by placing 6 subs and 4 bombers in Hawaii. You can get by in the Pacific with subs and bombers in Hawaii, and a few transports to re-take island that this force covers. This relatively small force can seriously harass Japan for most of the game at relatively little cost. This can’t be done if the Japanese destroyer is alive and in range at the end of turn 1, but it almost always dies to the battleship. As long as the destroyer is not there, the 5 subs and 3 bombers the US can land in Hawaii on turn 2 will cause Japan problems all out of proportion to their cost to the US player. A single transport can take Philippines as soon as they are in place, for example, and the Japanese will have a hard time taking it back any time soon without sacrificing at least 1 transport to do it (or by sacrificing a significant portion of his fleet). This is a very cheap way of focusing almost all of your attention on Germany, if that is your plan, while still causing some serious problems for Japan during the early turns AND forcing them to buy at least 2 destroyers and 2 subs for the pacific fleet. It takes several turns for Japan to build enough protective subs/destroyers to safely get within range to threaten your subs unless they are willing to not build a lot of things they would normally build during the early turns. When he finally does move within range, suicide the subs into him and fly the bombers back to West US and on to Germany from there (assuming you are still going KGF).
The effect of destroyers in a fleet battle deserves mention as well. The important aspect of destroyers in a fleet battle is that the presence of an enemy destroyer means that his planes can hit your submarines. In a fleet battle this actually works against the enemy fleet as it allows you to take subs as casualties from airplanes. If no destroyer was present, all air hits would have to be taken on airplanes, but because an enemy destroyer is present all hits can be taken on the subs. There is no way around this, fleets must have destroyers, it is just the way it works and it works well, actually. This is another advantage of the sub supported air strike… you have no destroyer present, so the enemy must take all of your air hits on his planes while you can take air hits on subs because his destroyers are in the fight. Sometimes, though, such as the US have an opportinty to hit the Japanese fleet on turn 2, you have no choice and have to send your destroyers in too… but Japan probably doesn’t have any subs on turn 2 anyway so it doesn’t matter in that case.
Do this experiment with the battle calculator. Enter a typical US airstrike on the IJN. The US has a defensive position of 6 subs and 4 bombers at Hawaii and the (still not completed with subs and destroyers) turn 3 IJN foolishly enters range. We actually have a chance of winning this fight outright, which allows you to see something in the battle calculator that might surprise you.
US 6 subs and 4 bomb v IJN 2 carrier, 4 fig, 1 batship, 1 cruis = US win 15%.
US 6 subs and 4 bomb v IJN 2 carrier, 4 fig, 1 batship, 1 cruis, 1 destoyer = US win 35%.If you add a 1 destroyer to the Japanese fleet Japan has a 20% greater chance of losing because that extra ship is there. This is because with the destroyer present the US can now take hits from the defending fighters rolling a 4, on subs that roll a 2, instead of on bombers that roll a 4. But this doesn’t mean you don’t want destroyers in your fleet, it just means that you want several of them. Start adding DDs in the battle calc and watch the percentage drop back down. More importantly, consider the trade on hits you will now make if you suffer an air strike. At least 2 destroyers and 2 subs are required for the protection of any fleet and this is very realistic.
A Note About German U-Boats:
Unfortunately, Germany is not a sub user. So close, and yet so far.
With a single small rule change subs would become a vital part of Germany’s arsenal in keeping the British navy away.
If Germany could keep 4-6 subs in SZ 5, which they can afford to do, they could cover SZs 3, 6, & 7 and keep the British navy out of those SZs. It would be really cool, and make subs a vital weapon for Germany as they should be. But the nature of subs is that they must be outside of range of enemy ships beforehand, so that enemy ships cannot enter within their range. They cannot enter range of an enemy fleet to attack, the enemy fleet must come to them.
This almost works for Germany, they can get into position in SZ 5 with 3 subs and their air force on turn 1 and keep the British navy out of important sea zones (3, 6, and 7).
It all falls apart with the unrealistic ability of a single ship to block an infinite number of ships in AA50.
This means the British can simply place a single destroyer in SZ 6, blocking the German subs, and put their navy in attack range.
The subs can’t reach the navy, so they can’t attack.
And on the following turn the British navy enters SZ 5 and destroys all of the subs.
This means that it would be a huge waste of money for Germany to try and use subs because all England has to do is sacrifice a single destroyer to kill the entire German U-Boat fleet.This would be simple to fix with a simple rule from other naval combat games.
Instead of a single ship being able to block an infinite number of enemy ships, which is ridiculous, blocking ships should only be able to block an equal number of ships.
This rule works much better and would correct several different problems associated with blocking naval units within AA50.
With this rule if the British tried to block SZ 5 with a single destroyer the Germans would simple be required to leave a single sub behind to fight it (they could leave more if they wanted, but must leave a number of ships equal to enemy blockers as they pass through that SZ) while the rest of the subs continue on to attack the UK fleet. The blocking rule is the only major problem remaining in A&A naval combat, and it alone prevents subs from being useful to Germany.With the picket force rule in place, naval combat in A&A would work very, very well and Germany would be buying subs every game.
great article
I would agree about the zone of control that Submarines (and equal navies) project.
I also like your idea of making single surface warships be able to stop only a limited number of ships, rather than infinite ships. Â I would argue that a rate of 1 to 2 would be better than 1 to 1 and that this hold for any kind of ship, that 1 destroyer for example could stop up to 2 subs or other ships from passing under it, or that 1 cruiser could stop up to 2 destroyers/warships from passing through it too, but that all other ships could continue past the single guy. Â An interesting idea for sure. -
DK,
did you ever read this stuff and thread?
There is many ideas you could use I think:
@cousin_joe:Hey guys,
We all know the AA50 OOTB version is severely missing a Battle of the Atlantic
We’re looking for some suggestions on rules to makes SUBs more viable, especially for Germany
These should be very small and simple rules tweaks which don’t involve introduction of any new units or setup changes
Generally these rules should involve the followingSubs should be more viable purchases, especially for Germany
Subs should have capabilities for economic attacks
Subs should have capabilities to harass transports
Subs should have increased survivability on defense
Subs should not be overly strong as warshipsWith that said, I do have some initial thoughts…
1. I think we have to reinstitute Convoy Raid damage like we had in AARe
-This can be done as an NO, I would include it for US,UK,Japan, and Italy
-Keep all enemy SUBs away from your shipping lanes
-Lose 2IPC for every enemy sub within 1 SZ (ie. adjacent)
-Lose 1IPC for every enemy sub within 2 SZFor AA50, I would just include the areas around the capital ICs, not every IC. For US, it would be bothe EUS and WUS. Subs that became submerged would count for AA50.
2. I think SUBs should be allowed a Special Attack(needs a name) against enemy transports
-Any attacking force consisting only of SUBs, attacking any enemy fleet with at least 1 transport, has the option to avoid Regular Combat, and instead launch a Special Attack against the trasnport(s).
-For each DD in the defending force, roll a die. This is considered a Sub Screen, and actually takes place before the attacking subs roll
-Any roll of 2 or less is considered a hit and results in an attacking SUB being removed immediately
-Any surviving SUB is considered undetected, and is allowed to ignore all other defending units and specifically attack a transport.
-Any roll of 3 or less is considered a hit and results in a defending TRN being removed immediately
-Surviving SUBs can now submergeWhat this does is give Germany some chance of slowing the UK(or US) in the Atlantic. SUBs become a nusiance for the Allies. they will have to invest some resources to either kill SUBs or better defend their fleets (more DDs, replacement TRNs). US and Japan can harass each other in the Pacific as well. For the Super Subs Tech, I would say the Sub Screen drops to 1 or less, and TRNs are sunk at 4 or less. I would not have Super Subs give any benefit to the regular attack. Subs stay specialized for their economic role and don’t become a cheap warship.
3. The last component of SUB rules for AA50 Enhanced would be giving them some increased survival. As to how, I’m not quite decided yet
-there have been some ideas thrown around though…A. SUBs are detected on a 1:1 basis. 1 DD detects 1 SUB. If attacked, any undetected SUB may submerge prior to the battle.
-this is not bad, though it doesn’t give much protection for lone SUBs. I would add a rule that ANY SUB, can submerge after 1 Round of Combat, regardless of whether or not an opposing DD is present.B. Using Detection Rolls as in AARe. To me, this just doesn’t feel right for AA50. DDs and SUBs are cheaper. It seems a bit more complex than it needs to be. I suppose it works, but I’m hoping there are simpler ways.
C. SUBs can only be attacked and killed by DDs. The idea here is that if SUBs are attacked, only the opposing DDs get to roll against them. I would say at a roll of 2 or less, 3 or less if a FTR or BMBR is present (could even do this on a one-to-one ratio). The idea here is that SUBs must be hunted down by DDs. I worry though, that this makes SUBs too powerful, especially in the Pacific where SUBs may outnumber DDs by a significant amount.
Anyways, this last aspect is important for SUB viability. There’s no use producing SUBs if they can be killed so easily. You don’t want to overdo it though by making them too hard to kill either. I’d like to see what other suggestions are out there, or how we can modify one of these existing options to make it suitable for use.
-
Hmmm…well it does show that there are more people out there who aren’t satisfied with the OOB DD rules.
It takes a huge and expensive effort for me to redo the rulebook, reteach everyone, and remake the reference cards, battle boards, and map for new rules. If it has to happen, I’d rather it be an annual thing, not monthly.
Interesting read but my group and I are happy so far with our solutions, unless further game play exposes some terrifically ugly flaw.
-
@Der:
Hmmm…well it does show that there are more people out there who aren’t satisfied with the OOB DD rules.
It takes a huge and expensive effort for me to redo the rulebook, reteach everyone, and remake the reference cards, battle boards, and map for new rules. If it has to happen, I’d rather it be an annual thing, not monthly.
Interesting read but my group and I are happy so far with our solutions, unless further game play exposes some terrifically ugly flaw.
to redo the rulebook, reteach everyone, and remake the reference cards, battle boards, and map for new rules.
It was not my intent at all, but as you have done with your challenging thread, making me think further deeper on the issue of DDs and Subs.Knowing these different ideas can be useful when willing to change and play with a different dynamics of Subs, Transports and Destroyers.
Actually, I also found on AA50 forum a different way of seeing KNP’s submerge available after Destroyer attack. -
Thanks for the info!
-
@Der:
To date I’ve never been truly satisfied with implementation of subs absent some HR to correct them. Going back to Classic they are always problematic. But also iconic, and thus necessary :)
It would be nice to get something functional and handle their interaction with destroyers, air, and production once and for all. I would definitely prefer a scheme that could work across multiple boards.Exactly. I would say the submarine is the biggest headache in the whole game. Probably because it can’t actually disappear under the water as it does in reality, abstract rules need to be made up for it, which often contradict all the other naval rules.
Probably the biggest reality that the current rules don’t take into account is that in WWII much of the time you couldn’t find the things. Then, if you did find one, it might get away. Heck, once a U-boat went right into Scapa Flow, one of the busiest ports in the world, sunk the Royal Oak, and got away. In the current rules, you always find the sub - just look at the map. Then you send a DD over there and kill it - and if you bring enough support it never gets away.
speaking of subs staying on the game board… There was an old expansion that had you hold the sub off board for 2 turns then put them on the board for one turn. If it was off board it couldn’t be attacked and you had to keep track of it’s movements on a piece of paper. We always played it when the sub returned to the board you had to show everyone it’s movements to prove how it got there. (no cheating).
-
Hi Der Kuenstler,
probably this specific point on Subs, Destroyers and planes has been buried under the “Convoy Disruption HouseRules” topic in the thread.
Since your way of playing Submarine and Destroyer (and transport) is the most similar to mine, I’m asking about it for a second opinion.
Could you be tempted to try it in a next game of yours? I would like if it was possible to share common experiences about our play-tests.I have done some play-tests with this special HR and I really feel this works great and solve all the unhistorical issue about planes unable to directly hit Submarines (of the actual OOB).
I can also add that 1:1 blocking capacity of Destroyers against Submarines works great.
When we use Subs on attack, it is interesting to see a few of them able to roll surprise strike even if there is Destroyers on the other side.
It gives the impression that their special ability can be part of the game (not an everytime blocked by single Destroyer) and useful without being an absolute weapon.
For the few Subs in excess over Destroyers, a surprise strike @2 is not the end of the world.
And it is also counteract by the fact that planes can always hit Submarines.
So Fighter defending @4 can do a lot of damage to Submarines wolfpack even if they are freely making surprise strike @2 because Destroyers have been sunk.@Baron:
@Der:
@Baron:
A submarine unit can be choose as casualty when there is no other elligible surface warships (DD, CA, CV, BB).
The problem here is, that the sub usually works alone, so it will be the only casualty to choose most of the time.
It doesn’t make Submarines more vulnerable. In fact, when acting all alone, the casualty work as a regular combat unit, it stays simple.
Combined with attacking planes, Submarines only fleet can also be a good tactical move against a surface vessels fleet, since Subs are cheaper and are allowed to be taken as casualty before costlier planes.Probably, I was unclear about some aspects of the HR on Subs casualty:
Your main ideas apply also here:
Destroyers can block the submarine submerge on a 1 on 1 basis and 1 Destroyer cannot stop additional Subs from crossing the single DD’s controlled SZ.
The difference is about Surprise Strike, I prefer the OOB: it needs only 1 destroyers to protect against Sub’s Surprise Strike.
EDIT: I used to play with your simpler: Sub’s Surprise Strike is blocked on a 1 on 1 basis.Submarines LAST CASUALTY RULE:
A submarine unit can be choose as casualty when there is no other elligible surface warships (DD, CA, CV, BB).
In other way, submarines will be the last casualty amongst warships.-Planes need no more Destroyers to hit submarines.
Fgs, TcBs and StBs can hit submarine anytime, inside the limit of this given rule on Subs casualty.-Submarines keep Surprise strike, Submersible, Cannot hit air, and Treat Hostile Sea-Zones as Friendly. ~~-1 Destroyer unit protects against all Subs Surprise Strikes .
EDIT: I used to play with your simpler: 1 Destroyer unit protects against 1 Submarine’s Surprise Strike._1 Destroyer unit prevents only 1 submarine Submerge and for 1 combat round only. _And 1 Destroyer can only stop 1 Submarine Treat Hostile Sea-Zones as Friendly capacity.
So additional Subs can cross a given SZ to make Combat or simply as a Non-Combat Move in the further away SZ.__ Special retreat move for Submarines and Destroyers:
Even if there is no more enemy ships in a once embattled Sea-Zone, attacking Subs and Destroyers can retreat 1 SZ from where they came.
EDIT: We didn’t use this special feature, but instead we allowed that Submarines can stay in combat and be used as casualty while other units retreat.
It is a partial retreat for Planes and costlier Surface Warships.
Similar in spirit with the partial attacking aircraft retreat during amphibious assault, meant to save costlier planes while ground units were doomed.So, a Submarine unit : Attack 2 Defense 1 Move 2 Cost 6
will be cheap and far more difficult to spot and destroy. Hence, have a better survivability compared to OOB.
However, Submarines will no more serve as a cheap fodder for any big warships, and this make them less interesting for some kind of naval investments and strategies.So, Submarines will be acting like Submarines in all situations.
Submarines mostly attack Surface Warships (DD, CA, CV, BB) but can sometimes hit submarines (at the end of naval combat or when patroling with Destroyers against Subs only fleet).
There will be no more Subs destruction festival in opening Naval Battle. :-oDefending planes will be very dangerous (as they should) against attacking Submarines only fleet, even when there is no more destroyers on the plane’s side. :evil:
Attacking planes combined with Subs only fleet can also be a good strategy against a standard fleet, since Subs are cheaper and are allowed to be taken as casualty before planes.And what about you, Black_Elk?
Any chance to try Der Kuenstler 1 DD is paired off against 1 Submarine?
And KNP’s either you roll on defense or you submerge in the regular combat phase, once DDs blocked Surprise Strike capabilities?Any play-tests follow-up/feedback on these two points?
I favor the 1:1 unit pairing suggested here.
Also the suggestion to allow u boats to dive after the first round of combat. My friends and I always thought that the Destroyer really neutered subs when it was first introduced with that ability to hold the sub for the duration of combat. We used to really enjoy Classic and Revised rules that allowed submarines to wage some form of economic warfare. Usually in the form of a modified strat bombing or rocket mechanic (these always seemed the simplest and most effective way to make subs useful outside of opening strike combat or fodder.) But we also used to use rules similar to how convoys are treated. We’d do subs 2 spaces out from an IC and things of that sort. Then the new rules and price structure were introduced… I felt they were pretty successful in establishing DD as the fodder preference, but also made subs rather weaker despite the cost drop. Basically since aa50 retaining the sub as basically only valued in a combat role.
Convoy disruption was a good attempt, but again I wish this stuff would be introduced on a core board instead of just the advanced one like the 1940 maps.
I agree too.Some kind of baseline economic role for the sub, paired off against destroyers 1:1.
Although the new cost at six is pretty damn cheap. Something to encourage wolf packing would be nice. But also a reason to fan out across the atlantic.To date I’ve never been truly satisfied with implementation of subs absent some HR to correct them. Going back to Classic they are always problematic. But also iconic, and thus necessary :)
It would be nice to get something functional and handle their interaction with destroyers, air, and production once and for all. I would definitely prefer a scheme that could work across multiple boards.~~ -
Well, I’m repelled at any rule that controls what a defender takes as a casualty. Maybe it is my loyalty to the long time Axis and Allies standard “defender chooses his own casualties.” I wouldn’t like being forced to take other units if I can take a sub.
The only house rule exception I use to that is, during sea battles with carriers and BBs, every other hit MUST kill or sink something. This is to prevent large groups of BBs sailing around taking all free hits while destroying everything. (we use auto-repair)
The other rule you have there that I don’t care for is that planes can freely hit subs without a DD. It would take some pretty amazing pilots to find and nail a sub at periscope depth with no help. In my rules the planes can only hit subs that are matched 1:1 with an enemy DD. Even then, if all the attacking DDs and planes miss during any round, the sub can escape up to its full range. This makes the sub very slippery.
We have found so far that subs can have a lot of extra advantages and still not take over the game. This is because subs do not help take land, and taking land is what increases your income and thus your fighting power. Subs for us have stayed an interesting sideshow, (although a more relevant sideshow) even with all of their additional HR abilities.
-
@Der:
Well, I’m repelled at any rule that controls what a defender takes as a casualty. Maybe it is my loyalty to the long time Axis and Allies standard “defender chooses his own casualties.” I wouldn’t like being forced to take other units if I can take a sub.
The only house rule exception I use to that is, during sea battles with carriers and BBs, every other hit MUST kill or sink something. This is to prevent large groups of BBs sailing around taking all free hits while destroying everything. (we use auto-repair)
Thanks for answering.
I see. Funny to see how even this close about Transport combat values (A0 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit), it makes us using them quite differently. And “a choose all your casualty” can drastically change some battles outcomes when many transports are involved from a “Taken last”.
About this process of selecting casualty, did you note that when the odds are mostly even and the battle is tight, a player which have to ponder whether or not his transports have some chances to survive by keeping them as the last ones may slow down the game.
Too much non-obvious choices in this casualty selection, seems to appear an hindrance to a smooth and fast combat process more than a real benefits to the game.
It diverts the focus from the strategical level. I really wondering if obvious casualty was clearly intentional by A&A developers.
Did you experiment something similar?
I see this also occured by using AAA firing 1 shot @1 every round at the same 3 IPCs cost. Loosing an Infantry Def@2 to keep one shot @1 becomes, after the initial combat round, an increasing gamble, which decision may take time. It is much simpler when knowing that your AAA have done his job, or not, and your not expecting anything except to use it as a fodder in the next rounds.
I’m guessing that can be one of the reason Larry H. did not put forward an AAA acting more like normal ground unit.Did you see some of your players sacrificing 20 IPCs Battleship and 16 IPCs Carrier for the benefit of 8 IPCs Transports?
Or are they just choosing to maximize enemy’s loss and minimize friendly ones, as the game perspective would require?
To answer the historical depiction department, is your Classic transport still use to protect the costlier ones, ultimately?@Der:
The other rule you have there that I don’t care for is that planes can freely hit subs without a DD. It would take some pretty amazing pilots to find and nail a sub at periscope depth with no help. WWII Subs were traveling on surface most of the time. And diving only when the watch was seeing incoming planes. Sometimes, Subs were caught off guard too. In my rules the planes can only hit subs that are matched 1:1 with an enemy DD. Even then, if all the attacking DDs and planes miss during any round, the sub can escape up to its full range. This makes the sub very slippery.
According to my HR above, it is still implied that planes attacking a Submarine group, will still need Destroyers (on a 1:1 basis) to block them from submerging during the First Strike Phase. The slipperyness of our Submarines is the same, only difference, a defensive submerge sub must stay in the SZ, yours can travel.
To be clear, the planes freely attacking Subs is to allow heterogeneous naval combat.
Even if Submarines are present, or didn’t submerge, planes can still protect transports and capital warships after loosing all Destroyers amongst their first casualties.@Der:
We have found so far that subs can have a lot of extra advantages and still not take over the game. This is because subs do not help take land, and taking land is what increases your income and thus your fighting power. Subs for us have stayed an interesting sideshow, (although a more relevant sideshow) even with all of their additional HR abilities.
I agree. The only special show that Submarine can do in my HR, is to be able to sink transport before other vessel units, if the transport’s owner choose so.
This is for imitating somehow convoy attack on transport. -
@Baron:
Did you see some of your players sacrificing 20 IPCs Battleship and 16 IPCs Carrier for the benefit of 8 IPCs Transports?
Or are they just choosing to maximize enemy’s loss and minimize friendly ones, as the game perspective would require?
To answer the historical depiction department, is your Classic transport still use to protect the costlier ones, ultimately?It depends on the situation. You might take the transports last if you really needed them for a coming amphibious invasion. Or if you have a free hit to take on a BB, a sub or a DD to take, you might take them instead as they cost the same or cheaper. I don’t think of a sea battle as necessarily happening with tactical accuracy. I just think of it as reducing your enemy’s capability to wage war. That is the bottom line. Whether he takes the transports first or last is his choice - he is still losing units.
It is exactly the way we fight on land, too. When attacking tanks fire, the defender chooses his infantry every time, even though we know the tanks would really be firing at other tanks first.
-
This may not be all that relevant to the OT but, I recently played a game of spring 1942 with a new player. The inevitable sub and transport problems came up and began slowing down the game. After the first two Turn we simply agreed to make subs just like any other unit. This sped the game up tremendously. He as the Axis enjoyed the fact that Transport could be destroyed easily without escort until I destroyed a few Japanese and German Transports via aircraft.
Axis won on the standard victory conditions.
Now I am still developing HRs for all of my games/variants. However this was a FTF lesson in at how crappy OOB rules are and the fact that for more casual FTF players the standard strategies and tactics of “power gamers” don’t necessarily apply. Many of the newer OOB rules since revised in fact do not help the game for the more casual player and stretch the game out to the point where; if you can actually find a gamer willing to give it a go, you must use HRs in many cases to get them even close to playing the game again.
In conclusion, my potential A&A recruit said that he had enjoyed playing the Hasbro version whilst attending college, but he would probably not buy a new copy of the A&A series as it would be collecting dust on his games’ shelf due to lack of people who would play.
Before you assume this gentleman is a newbie gamer. I must state that this guy has hundreds of games in various genres and is an avid Risk/Strategy gamer.
His conclusion and many of my potential recruits is…Too many bad OOB rules and too long to play with a mildly satisfying (Axis) win. -
Many of the newer OOB rules since revised in fact do not help the game for the more casual player and stretch the game out to the point where; if you can actually find a gamer willing to give it a go, you must use HRs in many cases to get them even close to playing the game again.
I absolutely agree! I think this subject - of general simplicity in Axis And Allies - is worthy of its own thread, so I will start one.
Suggested Topics
