Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…

[Der Kuenstler]

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@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.

[Der Kuenstler]

Thanks for the info!

[Yavid]

@Der:

@Black_Elk:

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).

[baron Münchhausen]

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. :-o

Defending 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?

@Black_Elk:

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.~~

[Der Kuenstler]

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@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.

[Der Kuenstler]

@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.

[toblerone77]

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.

[Der Kuenstler]

@toblerone77:

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks guys for your reply,
I think I really find the solution and it was under our noses.
The issue about 6 IPCs Subs is that it shouldn’t be the fodder of the sea, but 8 IPCs Destroyer.
Larry Harris fixed this issue by requiring that planes need Destroyer to hit Submarines, so not bringing into combat a Destroyer will prevent the defender to use submarines as fodder against a massive Air attack.

Your 8-8-8 was part of the solution Toblerone77.
Destroyer is still A2 D2 M2 C8, 1 hit, block Submarine’s no hostile SZ and Surprise Strike on 1:1 basis
Transport is A0 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit (I prefer chosen last for historical, but the Classic transport is OK, from a game play perspective)

The real change is to make Submarine absolutely not interesting unit as fodder.
Here is the trick, I think:
Submarine A3 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit, Submerge, cannot hit plane, No Hostile Sea Zone, Surprise strike and the rest as OOB.
Need 1 DD to block 1 Sub’s Surprise Strike.
Works the same as yours Der Kuenstler, with KNP escape always possible during regular combat phase, except 1 thing:
planes can always hit submarines (DD not needed, but they can submerge before being attacked, if the Surprise Strike Phase is not blocked).

On offense, such Sub can be prefered over Destroyer A2 and even sometimes, Cruiser A3 and Fighter A3, simply because you will be able to directly hit Warships, even capital warships (the costlier units), with even a bonus by getting ride of enemy’s DDs and being able to retrieve Surprise Strike. So submarine would not be chose amongst the first fodders casualties.

At first glance Sub seems more powerful.
In fact, this Sub unit is weaker than the actual OOB Submarine with DK’s HR.
4 OOB Subs A2 D1 C6 = A8 D4 C24, 4 hits.
3 Subs A3 D1 C8 = A9 D3 C24, 3 hits.
4 Subs A2 OOB 57% vs 3 Subs A3  38% for 8 IPCs Subs, if both were attacking the others at her attack factor.

On offense, it is still a formidable weapon, but on defense and due to the similar cost with Destroyer, it will be a waste to sacrifice them as fodder since you can always Submerge (once the first regular attack has been done against them, in case when many DDs are attacking) to make a better use of them on the offense. Let them survive to fight another day!
Why would you keep them as fodder to pad your fleet on defense, since they are now vulnerable to plane but unable to hit them like DD can?

I think this new combat value and the same cost as Destroyer and the evasive Submerge will do the job by itself without the need to add a specific restriction on casualty picking as I suggested earlier.

The optimized choice of any owner’s will be clear. You can use Subs as fodder on defense, but it is at a huge tactical cost, since this more expensive Submarine is an offensive weapon, hitting as hard as a Cruiser on specific targets, such as BB, CV and Cruiser. That was the case OOB, but since it was the cheapest warships, it was clearly tantalizing to pick them as casualty.

What do you think of this?
Isn’t that simpler?
No special rule for plane.
No unlimited blocker capacity for DD, keeping 1:1 against Surprise strike and no hostile SZ only.
A Submerge capacity which is not block but only delayed until the regular combat phase, which still imply that Planes needs to bring X number of Destroyers to prevent X number of Subs from submerging during their Surprise Strike phase.

Do you see why it was mostly right under our nose? :wink:

[toblerone77]

Baron,

I think your heavy attack low defense sub is perfect with the 8-8-8 formula! I like it.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

Baron,

I think your heavy attack low defense sub is perfect with the 8-8-8 formula! I like it.

I’m happy to see a reaction to my last idea.  :lol:
I was really wondering about meaning of the silence on this proposal.
Was it too harsh and too high a “3” for Sub which were traditionally attacking @2, that no one like it?
Or because it could be the demised of “Super submarine”?

Do you also include the idea of lifting all restrictions on planes against subs too, as I strongly advocate?
By this, I mean planes can always hit any unsubmerged Submarine, with or without destroyers.

4 OOB A2 Subs 6 IPCs against 3 Destroyers D2 8 IPCs gives on AACalc:
Overall %: A. survives: 79% D. survives: 18.1% No one survives: 2.9%
while
3 Subs A3 D1 C8 against 3 DDs D2 C8 gives on AACalc:
Overall %: A. survives: 69.3% D. survives: 24.4% No one survives: 6.3%
I used 3 SuperSub against 3 DDs
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=3&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dSSub=&dDes=3&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=

So, on the same IPC basis against Destroyers, this Sub attacking A3 is 10% weaker than is OOB counterpart attacking A2.

So, on face value, a Sub attacking @3 seems stronger, but according to combat value/IPC ratio, it is weaker, for real.

Here is something from an old post talking about this idea for totally different reason:
@KionAAA:

Hello Friends
I propose different submarines. I approve MrRobotos suggestion:

Submarines: 3A/1D/8C
This would weaken subs while underlining their attack power.
Let me explain why this is a good idea:

As yet, subs are by FAR the best choice for attacks and should be part of every defending fleet as MrRoboto highlighted so nicely a few pages ago. But I don’t want to open this discussion in this post, maybe in another.

With the new subs on the other hand, destroyer, (new) cruisers and carriers would be the ships of choice for a defensive fleet while the subs remain the best attacking ships. Although not as powerful as before, everyone doubting this can start the battle calculator:
3 now subs hitting at 3  versus 4 old subs hitting at 2 (which can be simulated by 3 tanks attacking 4 infantry): the old subs would win with 57% versus 38% (5% draw).

So this new rule would weaken subs in the defense (where they should never have been in the first place) while (almost) preserving their attacking power.
So far, see you around
Kion

About Submarines on defense:
3 Destroyers A2 8 IPCs against 4 OOB Subs A2 D1 6 IPCs gives on AACalc:
Overall %: A. survives: 55.8% D. survives: 41.3% No one survives: 2.9%
while
3 DDs A2 C8 against 3 Subs A3 D1 C8 against gives on AACalc:
Overall %: A. survives: 80.5% D. survives: 17.1% No one survives: 2.4%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=&aDes=3&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dSSub=3&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=

It is a 25% weaker defense for this Submarine unit at 8 IPCs compared to OOB 6 IPCs Sub.

About Submarine Technology,
I think it is still playable as Super Submarine keeping attack @3 and Defense @1, but simply at the lower cost of 6 IPCs.
Nothing else to change and it is enough to be as powerful as before:

4 Super Subs A@3 cost 6 IPCs against 3 Destroyers 8 IPCs gives on AACalc:

Overall %*: A. survives: 93.2% D. survives: 5% No one survives: 1.8%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=4&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dSSub=&dDes=3&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=

It will become a 25% rise on attack, instead of just 15% rise compared to OOB Sub (79%)

---

Do you have any specific opinion about the Destroyer role in such 8-8-8 configuration?
A) 1 DD block all Subs (as OOB) Submerge and First Strike?
  (On attack, 1 DD+ X number of planes can wreck havoc on X Submarines, as long as the DD is not sunk.)

B) 1 DD block all Subs (as KNP) First Strike but not Submerge (it is only delayed from step 2 to step 4) ?
  (On attack, 1 DD+ X number of planes can wreck havoc on X Submarines,  and only until the step 4. Defending Units Fire, in which surviving Subs can submerge instead of rolling defense @1.)
@knp7765:

A couple of house rules that my group uses:
1 - Defending Subs are allowed to submerge after first round of combat even with enemy destroyer(s) present.  Basically, the attacker gets to roll with whatever he/she is attacking with, including aircraft of course.  If they score hits on the subs, then tough luck. If they miss some/all of the subs, then the subs can submerge and escape the battle. I get the idea of destroyers cancelling the first strike capabilities of subs and spotting them for aircraft attack, but I have never liked the idea that a sub is “trapped” and can’t submerge just because an enemy destroyer is present.  In reality, subs COULD still evade destroyers, it was just a little harder.  Plus, I don’t like the idea of a single destroyer showing up with 10 fighters to wipe out a stack of subs.  That just doesn’t seem right to me.

C) 1 DD block 1 Sub (as DK) Submerge and First Strike?
 (On attack, 1 DD+ X number of planes can wreck havoc on only 1 Submarine, as long as the Destroyer unit is not sunk.)

D) 1 DD blocks 1 Sub (as DK + KNP) First Strike but not Submerge  (it is only delayed from step 2 to step 4)?
 (On attack, 1 DD+ X number of planes can wreck havoc on only 1 Submarine, and only until the step 4. Defending Units Fire, in which the Sub can submerge instead of rolling defense @1.)

E) 1 DD blocks all Subs First Strike and blocks only 1 Submerge?
  (On attack, 1 DD+ X number of planes can wreck havoc on only 1 Submarine, this 1 Sub can only survived, if it sink the enemy’s destroyer, then submerge on the subsequent round.)

F) 1 DD blocks all Subs First Strike and blocks only 1 Submerge for 1 round ?
  (On attack, 1 DD+ X number of planes can destroy 1 Submarine (which always retaliate @1 in the first combat round); and, if this 1 Sub survived, it can submerge in General Combat step 2 Surprise Strike or Submerge of the second round.)

G) 1 DD blocks 1 Sub (as DK) First Strike and blocks only 1 Submerge for 1 round ?
  (On attack, 1 DD+ X number of planes can destroy 1 Submarine (which always retaliate @1 in the first combat round); and, if this 1 Sub survived, it can submerge in General Combat step 2 Surprise Strike or Submerge of the second round.)

I’m just thinking about OOB A vs B and D, is it possible that without 1:1 blocker, a fleet can still get an optimized padding with only 1 Destroyer and many many Submarines, which would be taken as fodders ?

---

Do you share my understanding of the player psychological behaviour toward Submarines A3 D1 C8 taken as casualty?
Or do you have different view on this?

@Baron:

The real change is to make Submarine absolutely not interesting unit as fodder.

On offense, such Sub can be preferred over Destroyer A2 and even sometimes, Cruiser A3 and Fighter A3, simply because you will be able to directly hit Warships, even capital warships (the costlier units), with even a bonus by getting ride of enemy’s DDs and being able to retrieve Surprise Strike. So submarine would not be chose amongst the first fodders casualties.

On offense, it is still a formidable weapon, but on defense and due to the similar cost with Destroyer, it will be a waste to sacrifice them as fodder since you can always Submerge (once the first regular attack has been done against them, in case when many DDs are attacking) to make a better use of them on the offense. Let them survive to fight another day!
Why would you keep them as fodder to pad your fleet on defense, since they are now vulnerable to plane but unable to hit them like DD can?

I think this new combat value and the same cost as Destroyer and the evasive Submerge will do the job by itself without the need to add a specific restriction on casualty picking as I suggested earlier.

The optimized choice of any owner’s will be clear. You can use Subs as fodder on defense, but it is at a huge tactical cost, since this more expensive Submarine is an offensive weapon, hitting as hard as a Cruiser on specific targets, such as BB, CV and Cruiser. That was the case OOB, but since it was the cheapest warships, it was clearly tantalizing to pick them as casualty.

I thought about a 1942.2 Classic UK’s attack in Baltic Sea (2 Subs newly built, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport):
OOB 2 Fighters and 1 StBs against Kriegsmarine:
OOB: 1 Cruiser is defending @3, once hit, the transport is auto-killed. The Subs cannot be hit by aircrafts alone.

Attacker Results:
Probability % # units / losses
  47.98% 3: 2 Fig, 1 Bom.  / no units. : 0 IPCs
  49.65% 2: 1 Fig, 1 Bom. / 1 Fig. : 10 IPCs
  2.19% 1: 1 Bom. /  2 Fig. : 20 IPCs

Defender results:
Probability % # units / losses
  0.08% 4: 1 Tra, 2 Sub, 1 Cru. / no units. : 0 IPCs
  0.1% 3: 1 Tra, 2 Sub. / 1 Cru. : 12 IPCs
  99.82% 2: 2 Sub. / 1 Tra, 1 Cru. : 19 IPCs
12 IPCs save.

With this simplify interactions:
1 Cruiser D3, C12, 1 hit
2 Subs D1, C16, 2 hits unable to hit aircrafts but able to submerge before the attack
1 Transport D1, C8, 1 hit

The defending player may choose to keep intact her 2 Submarines by submerging.
Or he can decide to take them as fodders to protect the Cruiser.
He can either decide to pick the 8 IPCs Transport first, or not, according to the number of the first round UK’s hit-s.

The situations is much more tactically challenging for the defending player, much more interesting choice to make.
Let’s suppose that the Transport must be kept at all cost:

Attacker results:
Probability % # units / losses
  16.87% 3: 2 Fig, 1 Bom.   / no units: 0 IPCs
  34.17% 2: 1 Fig, 1 Bom   / 1 Fig,  : 10 IPCs
  25.39% 1: 1 Bom. /     2 Fig. : 20 IPCs
  23.57% 0: no units. / 2 Figs, 1 Bom. : 32 IPCs

Defender results:
Probability % # units / losses
  0.46% 4: 2 Sub, 1 Cru, 1 Tra. / no units. : 0 IPCs
  2.23% 3: 1 Sub, 1 Cru, 1 Tra. / 1 Sub : 8 IPCs
  7.18% 2: 1 Cru, 1 Tra.      / 2 Sub : 16 IPCs
  10.03% 1: 1 Tra.      / 2 Sub, 1 Cru. : 28 IPCs
  80.1% 0: no units. / 2 Sub, 1 Cru, 1 Tra. : 36 IPCs

So instead of just a 50/50% odds of loosing a plane, this scenario is much more unpredictable.

But the German’s player can still decide to Submerge his two Subs and this will be similar to the OOB example situation above.
But the most important thing is that everything is a player tactical choice.
And there is no more scripted defense scenario and the attacking UK player have to weight his own risk and also what kind of risk the German’s player is willing to take.

Does every one starting to see the big picture?

[toblerone77]

Im at work right now Baron and have some other posts I need to work on. But yes the concepts you outline look intriguing.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

Im at work right now Baron and have some other posts I need to work on. But yes the concepts you outline look intriguing.

@toblerone77:

Baron,

I think your heavy attack low defense sub is perfect with the 8-8-8 formula! I like it.

I hope so, but I wasn’t the first talking about a Submarine A3 D1 M2 C8. Actually I revised some threads about Subs, I was sure that someone already suggested it.
It is not for the same reason and the same intention than mine but Mr Roboto was talking about the same issue on Subs as the sea-fodder unit.
Here he is:
Re: G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.
@MrRoboto:

My idea of units is to have each ship has its own role. You can have a look at other strategic games. Whenever units don’t have a specific and distinctive role, it causes balance problems.

Now let’s have a look at the Naval units.

Submarine = By far the best in offense. Best in Defense due to being so cheap cannon fodder. Strong convoy. Bypass blockades without dd. Requires DD to negate first strike.
DD = Cannon fodder against air-only attacks. Blocker. Needed to attack subs.
Carrier = Main source of damage in defense. High flexibility due to higher plane range. Great support on landings.
Battleship = Soak one hit. They are actually just bad destroyers without the ability to detect submarines. Unless you can manage to repair them. Each time you repair them, their value has increased a lot. Slight support on landings

What about the cruiser?
Comparison to DD: Far worse in attack/defense. No additional ability against submarines. Too expensive to be used as cannon fodder or blocker
Comparison to BB: Slightly weaker than BB in attack/defense. No soaking. Even weaker landing support.

My idea of a solution:

a) Increase submarine cost to 8. Make them attack on 3, defend on 1.
b) Redesign battleship.
 b1) Remove bombard ability.
 b2) Remove convoy ability.
 b3) New ability: Damage facility. A Battleship can bombard a facility on a coastal territory for 1d6, with a range of 2. This counts as an attack, so no other movements can be made in that turn afterwards. It’s basically like having rockets at sea.
c1) Reduce cruiser cost to 11
c2) Bombard immediately removes the unit from the board, if it hits. Cruisers still attack or defend at 3, but bombard at 4.

Now let me explain my proposals.

The submarine is too strong, I’ve said it often enough. My main concern about the sub is it’s existence as the cannon-fodder unit. That leads to it’s strong defensive value.
Instead I’d like to see the sub as the strategic bomber of ships. Glass cannon style. The increased cost will remove the cannon-fodder status. It’s higher attack damage makes them equally strong in offense (for 24 IPC you get 3@3 instead of 4@2, which is roughly the same. power 9, hp3 vs power 8, hp4).

Cruisers/Battleships/Destroyers: You cannot balance all 3, without giving them different abilities. As long as the cruiser is just a small battleship, math will always find the better of these two. And if cruiser and BB are exactly equal, there would be no reason to buy the more expensive one.
With my proposal, the destroyer will become the sole cannon-fodder unit. In addition it serves it’s current role as blocker and anti-submarine unit.

The cruiser is worse in attack/defense IPC-wise than the destroyer, but is a huge support on landing operations. By far the most landings are small skirmishes, like the battles for the DEI. The new bombard will help there greatly, both sides. The destroyer should still be better at pure sea battles though. I’ve not run the math in detail yet, perhaps bombard needs to be buffed to 5, not sure here.

The Battleship is about as strong as a cruiser in pure naval battles, but has the ability to bombard facilities in addition to it’s soaking skill. Range 2, but only against facilities on territories with access to sea. This gives battleships value after the big naval battle is over (besieging Japan, escorting the transports in the canal).

Toblerone, you should also reread my edited last post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34169.msg1372085#msg1372085

Below, you get 2 different cost scales depending upon looking for a Sub at 8 IPCs (nearer OOB scale) or
lowering Destroyer at 6 IPCs (getting 2 basic Naval units at 6 IPCs, and so not too many units at the same cost, while keeping Transport at 8 IPCs.
This last one is at a higher cost than fodder units (providing another repeller for using TPs as fodder), which can allow more freely to consider it without the Taken Last rule.
@Baron:

I believe it is the better way to simplify every interactions.

Of course, the cost of Submarine is increase to 8 IPCs, this make any Naval investment still a bit costlier.
Of course, there is the OOB transport at 7 IPCs, but I rather prefer a transport acting like other units, as much as possible while still keeping OOB balance.

So here is the complete roster with the minimal changes to planes, Destroyers, Submarines and Transport:
Infantry A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 3
Get +1A if paired 1:1 with Artillery

Mechanized Infantry A1-2 D2 M2 Cost 4,
Get +1 if paired 1:1 with Artillery
Can Blitz when paired 1:1 with a Tank

Artillery A2 D2 M1 Cost 4
Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry

Anti-Aircraft Artillery A0 D0 NCM1 Cost 5, 1 hit,
up to 3 @1 preemptive against up to 3 planes, whichever the lesser

Tank A3 D3 M2 Cost 6
Can Blitz or allow MechInf to blitz on 1 on 1 basis.
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.

Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 8
Surprise Strike (except when ASV is present),
Submerge (instead of rolling to hit a target),
No Hostile Sea Zone (except when ASV is present),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an ASV.

Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 8
Anti-Sub Vessel on 1 DD:1 Sub basis:
blocks Surprise Strike and No Hostile Sea Zone
but cannot cancel Sub Submerge (which will happen for defending Subs in regular combat phase after the attacker rolls, if a DD block the Sub’s Surprise strike).

Transport A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit, still taken as last casualty.

Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 10
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 11
Gets A4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter unit or a Tank.
Cannot do interception mission on defense, TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 12
Shore bombardment @3

Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 12
SBR/TcBR Attack @1,
SBR/TcBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

1942 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 14, 1 hit
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)

G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 Cost 16, 2 hits
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)

Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 20, 2 hits
Shore bombardment @4

---

Now, here is an alternate scale of cost for those which wanted more warships for their bucks, it keeps all the combat ratio between them very close to OOB :
Instead of having a bottom cost  at 6 IPCs for Naval units, instead of 8 IPCs:

Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 6
Surprise Strike (except when ASV is present),
Submerge (instead of rolling to hit a target),
No Hostile Sea Zone (except when ASV is present),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an ASV.

Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 6
Anti-Sub Vessel on 1 DD:1 Sub basis:
blocks Surprise Strike and No Hostile Sea Zone
but cannot cancel Sub Submerge (which will happen for defending Subs in regular combat phase after the attacker rolls, if a DD block the Sub’s Surprise strike).

Transport A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit,
Works as classics: casualty taken at the owner’s choice.

Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 9
Gets A4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter unit or a Tank.
Cannot do interception mission on defense, TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 9
Shore bombardment @3

Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 10
SBR/TcBR Attack @1,
SBR/TcBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

1942 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 11, 1 hit
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)

G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 Cost 12, 2 hits
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)

Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 15, 2 hits
Shore bombardment @4

---

I really think this scale can be funnier (letting people buying more impressive sculpts than just tiny ground units) while still requiring the same 8 IPCs for transports investment, this make them costlier than the basic fodder unit at 6 IPCs.
This can let give up the “taken last rule” and let to the player’s hands all the decision on casualty.
The combat values of each units will speak for itself to help the player minimize the effect of losses and maximize the potential combat values it can preserves. The cost and combat values most of the time will be enough incentive, so the “unit general behaviour” (motives for buying it, offensive or defensive combat function, Non-Combat Move and usual casualties order) works in the way intended for this kind of unit.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

The answer to this unrealistic mess is to do what artillery does with infantry. Their powers work when being matched on a 1:1 basis. Just as one artillery does not make 10 or more infantry attack @ 2, one Destroyer should not be able to stop 10 u-boats from leaving the Baltic Sea. I’m proposing that the destroyer’s powers be limited to a 1:1 basis with subs, like this:

1. SUBMERSIBLE: One destroyer and two fighters attack three u-boats. Only one of the u-boats should have to stay. The other two should be able to submerge and escape.

2. SURPRISE STRIKE: If one DD is in a naval task force attacking four subs, only one of the subs should lose the surprise strike ability, not all four. One DD cannot be everywhere.

3. TREAT HOSTILE ZONES AS FRIENDLY: If five subs want to come out of the Baltic and there are two British DD’s blocking their way, only two subs should have to stop. The other three should be able to get by.

Coming back to the opening post:

There is one problematic aspect in your idea from a game-play looking up for simplicity.
In naval combat between Subs and many destroyers the type of attack or defense of submarines can constantly be moving according to how many Submarines is in excess of Destroyers.

Example: 6 Submarines are attacking 4 Destroyers.
First round: 4 Subs get @2 / 2 Subs get @2 First Strike against 4 DDs @2
Fictional casualty results : 2 Submarines

Second round: 4 Subs get @2 / no first shot against 4 DDs @2
Fictional casualty results : 1 Submarines / 2 Destroyers

Third round: 2 Subs get @2 / 1 Sub get @2 First Strike against 2 DDs @2
Fictional casualties: 1 Submarine / 1 Destroyer

Fourth round: **1 Sub get @2 / 1 Sub get @2 First Strike  **against 1 DDs @2
Fictional casualties: 1 Submarine

Fifth round: 1 Sub get @2 / no first shot against 1 DDs @2
Fictional casualty: 1 Destroyer

1 Submarine win!

OOB rules is simpler on that point, as long as there is one destroyer, Submarines don’t get Surprise Strike. All the rolls are @2.
With your 1:1 blocking on Surprise Strike and Submerge, in each combat round you have to compare both sides to see the number of subs and ASV units to fix the number of First Strike shots.

@Baron:

About subs combat role, I can follow you and DK for the 1 Destroyer blocks 1 Submarine principle.
However, this imply that to determine how many first strike submarines get, each combat round the number of subs and destroyers must be calculated and revised.
It adds an annoying procedure before a lot of naval combat round.
For my part, I would rather prefer to let destroyers block the submarine submerge 1 on 1, but needs only 1 destroyers to protect against first strike.

On that point, something which could simplify combat interaction is to only apply the 1 DD:1 Sub blocker to Submerge and Hostile Sea Zone Movement.
This means letting Destroyers blocking all Surprise Strike.

Doing this will still gives a better survivability and mobility (which is needed also for survival) to Submarines but they will be less killing machine.
Any 4 Subs against 3 Destroyers will gives the same odds than OOB.
And when a few Destroyers with a bunch of planes attack some Subs, only the same few numbers of Submarines will be vulnerable.
All the others Subs would be able to submerge before combat.

Once this said, I know you will not rewrite your rulebook.
I just wanted to point a certain kind of flaw in the 1:1 approach placed upon blocking Surprise Strike on this basis.
Blocking only Submerge and Subs Movement is less problematic.
Besides, I can add that even lowering the combat prowess of Submarines (to OOB level) against Destroyers isn’t the end of Atlantic U-boat peril.
As a counterweight, you can still make the Convoy Disruption Raiding rules more powerful in many ways.

---

I found that Cmdr Jennifer also saw the issue of the 1 DD :1 Sub blocker basis on Surprise Strike:
@Cmdr:

If you were to go along this route, I think the cost of the submarine should be increased to 8, or even 9 IPC. Since their power is significantly magnified. (You have to have a destroyer for EVERY submarine attacking which means, as a battle drags on, you’ll lose more and more ability to negate sneak shots sinking your ships before they can return fire.  This is going to get increasingly magnified by either you sinking destroyers which defend a lot worse, or sinking cruisers and battleships to maintain your submarine screens.)

I think you’ll also end up in situations where the battle will get confused. What I mean is you’ll have to keep track of how many submarines get to sneak vs how many are blocked by destroyers.

The current rules minimize the complexity by stating that a single destroyer is enough to negate the sneak shot ability of all submarines.  It’s simple.

This should be taken into account on how increasing Subs combat power can be disastrous against Destroyer.
Veqryn is talking about the OOB Subs and say that OOB DD is a liability! (Follow the link to read the OP combat situation that Veqryn is adressing.)
DK, it will be much worse with 1 DD 8 IPCs : 1 Sub 6 IPCs blocker basis.
@Veqryn:

It is a lot more complicated than the first glance.  I have been testing out different fleets fighting against each other, and it really seems like once fleets get big, destroyers are a major liability.  
If the enemy has a good number of subs, along with some planes or high value ships, then you would be better off without any destroyers.
So when is it good to have a destroyer?  If the enemy has few or no high value ships and few or no planes, then you will want the destroyer to negate the subs first strike ability.
(or if the engagement is very small, like 1-4 units total, you may want it to make sure you are just outright killed).
So in other words, avoid building destroyers until you see what your enemy is building for a couple turns.  And most likely you should never build them in the pacific.
thx Kang,

• veqryn

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14215.msg430027#msg430027

All I can say is that, at least 8 IPCs Subs A3 D1 against 8 IPCs DD A2 D2, is less unbalancing in favor of the Subs if wanting to play 1:1 blocker basis.

---

Here is a commentary which can provides new idea to improve Subs survivability somehow, but Romulus can provides too complex solutions:
@Romulus:

I think the sub are better modeled in Anniversary than in any preceding A&A. To still improve the modeling we should have that sub could be hit only by DD, and DD allows CA and aircrafts to hit subs. BB and AC have no depth charges or torpedoes for attacking the sub. Thay may only maneuver for avoiding subs torpedoes or trying to ram a surfaced sub.
Submerged sub may not be hit by the guns of the surface ship. So the better defense for sub is to submerge. No any sub in a real battle stay on the surface for being attacked by ship guns or aircraft bombs.

In the real fleets it does not resist the “escort submarine”. It exist the escort DD, or the escort AC etc.
Submarine operate separated from the rest of the fleet, in autonomous operation.

They were not around during fleet engagement they were too much slow for staying together with a battle fleet. They cannot maneuver nor stay in formation with ships that have, at least, the double of their speed.
They were specialized attack vessel, which task has been lurking around to hit passing ships.

DD and aircrafts had the task of dealing with subs.
When Bismark was sunk in battle with the Home Fleet there were a lot of U-Boat around the battle area, they arrived just in time to disturb the UK DD rescuing of the Bismark survivors, after the battle.

In the battle of Midway there were a lot of Japanese subs around the islands with the task of intercepting and attacking the USA ships. Before the battle, they saw and attacked nothing.
Yorktown, heavily damaged, and on the way for the Hawaii was sunk, after the battle, by one of the japanese submarine still patroling the sea.

---

@Lynxes:

Subs being sunk by aircraft only happened in the war, especially in the Bay of Biscay when the German subs were transferring to the Central Atlantic, but given the scale of the game it’s good that it’s omitted. We also see shore batteries and mines sinking subs on the link posted, but that’s not in the game? Bringing a DD is easy to do and it introduces more strategy in the game and builds matching the opponent, works very well.

Only thing I’d like to change is 1) subs move being blocked by DDs (since this pretty much kills German sub builds in Baltic) 2) subs not being able to block movement of unescorted transports. After that, subs are perfect!  :wink:

[Argothair]

@baron-münchhausen I think part of what’s needed to make subs both simpler and more realistic is to have a strict “up or down” rule that always applies. In other words, in any given battle, for the entire battle, the sub is either above the waterline or below the waterline. The sub’s owner might get to choose, or the attacker might get to choose, depending on how many destroyers and planes and things are in the battle zone, but we can’t have five different “states” for a sub to exist in, because that’s part of what causes the confusion. Right, like I don’t want to learn about what happens to a sub whose surprise strike is cancelled but that can still submerge but only after the first round of combat. That’s just too much. Either the sub is up, in which case it participates fully in combat, or down, in which case it ignores all combat.

Just my two cents.