Submarines

@Narvik:

Yu are correct. Subs never did combined arms operations together with battleships or bombers. Subs did independent operations, but sometimes together with other subs, like the German wolf packs. And in the same way, you never did see Strategic Bombers cooperate with infantry or Tanks. Strategic Bombers were designed to target Industrial Complexes, and Subs were designed to target convoys. But since this is a simple game, the fun factor is more important than historical accuracy.

Really, with tactical bombers now available, they should take on the role that the old bombers had - attacking along with infantry & tanks, etc. The Strategic bombers should only wreck infrastructure and economy and perhaps lower morale.

so u are asking if there was ever a fleet put together in world war ii, or maybe i should say a task force that included carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines all in the same fleet?

I think Narvik is correct that subs were never used in that role…but let me check my library…and i will let you know…but i do think he is correct!

@Der:

Really, with tactical bombers now available, they should take on the role that the old bombers had - attacking along with infantry & tanks, etc. The Strategic bombers should only wreck infrastructure and economy and perhaps lower morale.

No, I don’t think a unit should be limited too much. As you know, subs did sink battleships too, even if cargo ships were the main target. And heavy Bombers did carpet bomb soldiers on the ground and warships, even if bombing of infrastructure were the main purpose. I just think, that since we now got all this new units, they could get more special abilities.

Submarines should be stronger in attacking convoys, but for that to happen, only destroyers should be able to hit subs. If not, then no sub will survive the 1 Destroyer + stack of Bombers combo.

And, slightly off topic, I think the new Tactical should cost 10, att 3 and def 4. Special ability, target Tanks and Mechs before other casualties.
The fighter should cost 6, att 1and def 2. Special ability, target other aircrafts in dog-fights before taking land unit casualties.
The St Bomber should cost 12, att 4 and def 1. Special ability, do SBR against ICs

@ShadowHAwk:

The part of the bombers is not correct.
Strategic bombers where used extensively against all kinds of targets not just industry.
D-Day saw a lot of strategic bombers dropping bombs all over the place.
Strategic bombers where used as mobile artilery where tactical bombers where more for close air support.
[…]
Dont forget that in real life there is not a strict line between stategic bombers and tactical bombers, Germany used the same bombers to attack airflields, london, and convoys and to support the attacks during the blitzkrieg.

Yes, I think that part of the confusion about all this comes from the fact that the A&A term “Strategic Bomber” is a debatable one that confuses capabilities (the bomb load a plan can carry and the range at which it can operate) with possible missions (the targets against which you use a plane).  The units in A&A that are deemed “strategic bombers” are more properly called heavy bombers and (in some cases) medium bombers, which is in fact what they were called during WWII.  The uses to which they were put were not rigidly defined by the strategic/ non-strategic concepts.  The Mitchell medium bomber, for instance, was used for the Doolittle Raid, which was a strategic mission (albeit on a very small scale).  The B-17 and the Lancaster, both of them heavy bombers, were used (along with a variety of medium and light bombers) to attack beachhead fortifications on D-Day, which was a tactical mission.

Generally, the heavy and medium bomber categories were called by those terms.  There was more terminology variety at low end of the scale, in the niche occupied by the A&A “tactical bomber” units: light bombers, fighter-bombers, multi-mission fighters, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, ground-attack aircraft and so forth.  Some of the planes in those categories show up in A&A as fighter sculpts – the P-38 Lightning being a good example of a versatile plane that had many roles.

@Narvik:

In the current A&A Global game, the units are misused in a gamey way. Subs are used as fodder in naval battles, and this is historical not correct since subs were the most expensive and time consuming ships to build. But even worse, to kill a group of 5 subs, you can send in one destroyer with 10 Bombers, and you only lose your destroyer. Or you can send in one destroyer with 5 Battleships, and they absorb all the hits. Now this are all tactics that an experienced player can use against a beginner just for fun, but it feels wrong.

Among the tons of house rules to fix this issue, I favor to let destroyers be the only units to hit subs. This is almost historical  correct. The game start in 1940, and planes did not sink subs before 1945. It will also get rid of a lot of special rules, like the sneak attack etc. So, if you play on the current Global map, and want to target the convoy zone outside UK, you just send in 2 German subs. Now, if there are a UK fleet there, they cant roll against subs. Only destroyers can. And one destroyer roll one dice, and maybe sink one of the subs. Now if there are 3 UK destroyers there, they roll 3 dice. That is a simple rule, and I cant understand why its not an OOB rule.

But then we got the problem that a convoy zone adjacent to UK is very easy to protect. UK just place a lot of destroyers there, protected by scrambling fighters and a fleet. And this is just like in the real world. German subs almost never sank ships in port. But the Global map don’t have convoy zones out in the ocean, only adjacent to land, where they are easy to protect. So IMHO that is a flaw. Making the A&A Europe 1999 map superior, when it comes to commerce raiding. Â

I see the same issue about Subs.
Here is how I try to solve the problem:
@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.

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 controled SZ.
The difference is about Surprise Strike, I prefer the OOB: it needs only 1 destroyers to protect against Sub’s Surprise Strike.

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 .
But _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.

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 fest 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.

so, there is a reason the old World at War is never played. When the rules got too specialized and difficult, people don’t play it

@Narvik:

so, there is a reason the old World at War is never played. When the rules got too specialized and difficult, people don’t play it

I agree with you. While I understand that the way subs are portrayed in this game may not be very realistic, and the same could be said of bombers, trying to make special rules to make them more in line with how these units were actually used will end up making the game way too complex. Just the basic set of rules for the game is hard enough to get all into your memory. I have played this game for years, but I still find myself checking the rule book for certain things.
If you add more rules, then that is more that you will have to keep checking on during play. That will just slow things down to a crawl. Especially if you end up with rules where a sub can do this in this situation but not in another situation, and so on…
While I do like an occasional change for something different, like Young Grasshopper’s new Halifax rules or the G40 Delta Deck, I still prefer this game to be relatively simple. Too much complexity saps out the fun.

What makes Halifax so interesting it is because it simplifies the oddity about UK’s dual economy.

I should also add that it also introduce another aspect of Historical Realism by giving Commonwealth a whole Power status, as it should be.

Simplifying+ More realism = a lot of +++ on the Opening Post of Halifax House Rule.

That is the recipe for success.

@Narvik:

@Der:

Really, with tactical bombers now available, they should take on the role that the old bombers had - attacking along with infantry & tanks, etc. The Strategic bombers should only wreck infrastructure and economy and perhaps lower morale.

No, I don’t think a unit should be limited too much. As you know, subs did sink battleships too, even if cargo ships were the main target. And heavy Bombers did carpet bomb soldiers on the ground and warships, even if bombing of infrastructure were the main purpose. I just think, that since we now got all this new units, they could get more special abilities.

Submarines should be stronger in attacking convoys, but for that to happen, only destroyers should be able to hit subs. If not, then no sub will survive the 1 Destroyer + stack of Bombers combo.

And, slightly off topic, I think the new Tactical should cost 10, att 3 and def 4. Special ability, target Tanks and Mechs before other casualties.
The fighter should cost 6, att 1and def 2. Special ability, target other aircrafts in dog-fights before taking land unit casualties. The St Bomber should cost 12, att 4 and def 1. Special ability, do SBR against ICs

On 1942.2, play-tested a similar unit of Fg at the same cost but attack @1 on first strike.
The Bomber and Cruiser were at 10 IPCs, also. Tactical Bombers (A3-4 D3-4 M4) were at 9 IPCs.

Such a Fighter unit makes a too big competitive buying against submarines.
Same price, can do the same cannon fodder in Naval Combat and better on defense but also useful in ground battle. That’s seems a problem.

Everyone around the table agree that all the changes shifts the balance toward Allies, mostly due to cost decrease.

Did you introduce a three planes aircraft carrier? If not the case, this have a very big downgrading impact on the defensive strength of the combined units Carrier+2Fgs.
In addition, in Naval Combat, the special ability of Fgs have far less significance since, at 6 IPCs, it is always amongst the first casualty taken.
Destroyer (A2 D2 Cost 8 ) have a better combat value.

Maybe this last point is still more historical since many Fgs were destroyed and damaged in Naval combat, often in PTO, there was Battle between ennemy’s aircrafts against warships but not warships against warships.

If you also play-tested it, leave me some feedback.