Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes


  • 2017 2016

    EDIT: you can get a whole picture of my very last units rosters based on the most recent discussion on this matter:
    My preferred one:
    Baron M’s G40HR Roster for 3-planes carrier & 6 IPCs 1914 Fighter & Sub A3 D1 C7
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1374545#msg1374545
    A less original but still functionnal
    Baron Munchhausen’s Complete Roster for play-testing with 2-planes carrier
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35173.msg1374562#msg1374562

    After reading on, thinking and talking about a lot of challenging new ideas on many issues about Transports, Submarines, Destroyers and aircrafts.

    Letting aside any impact on balance due to one starting set-up or another (which can be corrected by bids).
    I think now it is really possible to have less exception rules and special situations that need explanations.
    Thus improve overall interactions between these 4 units mainly.

    So why not gives a combat value to transport?
    Making it : Attack 0 Defense 1 Move 2 Cost 8, 1 hit, taken as last casualty
    Credit Eggman and Uncrustable:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1108106#msg1108106
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1110623#msg1110623
    or
    10 IPCs cost for Classic Transport being a casualty taken at the owner’s choice.
    Credit Der Kuenstler:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1109423#msg1109423

    About Aircrafts, why not let them hits any units, including Subs? As it was historically the case and in many previous games before A&A 50 Anniversary.
    You can read the interesting answers of Krieghund about the evolution of this rule on Aircrafts and Subs here:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14344.msg1264872#msg1264872
    Here is the most interesting point IMO:
    @Krieghund:

    @Baron:

    So is there any version of OOB Subs rules which allow Submerge during First Strike and let planes be able to hit directly subs without DD, the sole condition is that defending sub choose not to submerge first (in such situation, fighter A3 or StB A4 will be considered as any single indestructible attacking Cruiser A3 or Battleship A4, because Sub cannot hit air units.)?

    No.
    @Baron:

    In this condition DD still get a function because all freaking subs can always submerge before receiving any hits.

    If all Subs rules after Revised always included both Submerge during First Strike and planes need DD to hit subs,
    Does the simpler sub rule Submerge on First Strike phase with Air can hit subs without DD (if subs choose not to submerge) was ever play-tested?
    Because, according to the uncorrected AA50 Rulebook,
    Sub rule was easily understand that way (give hints to think about it),
    subs (submerging before reg combat) becomes far less vulnerable than in Revised rules (submerging after regular combat),
    and this rule is simpler: “simplifying unit interaction”.

    Yes, it would make subs less fragile, but the thing that it would not do is keep subs from being used as fodder in fleet battles. With subs being immune to air units without a destroyer, it’s dangerous to pad a fleet with subs, since all an attacker needs to do is go in without a destroyer in order to force all of his/her air unit hits to bypass the subs and hit the more expensive units. This makes destroyers the better choice for fleet protection, as it should be.

    A summary of the reasons behind OOB Subs and planes rules by Krieghund:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23342.msg797496#msg797496

    About Submarines, why not making them a more elusive and independent unit while forbidding them to serve as cannon fodder for bigger warships?
    @Imperious:

    Submarines should never be cannon fodder. In fact, Submarines should only participate in one round of combat and not engage in multi-surface combat actions. Their was never any major naval actions where submarines were used in a major role in such combat. They are basically sinkers of commerce ships. They participated as advance screening for fleet movements to locate and possibly sink a few ships that were passing through the area, but a sub travels at 7 knots underwater and a cruiser is at 34 knots and a battleship is 25-32 knots. That’s why the other chap in an earlier thread bought those destroyers and stopped buying battleships. (…)

    It is possible by simply add a special casualty rule for Subs : "Subs can only be picked as casualty when their is no more surface warships available."
    And for increasing their survivability, it depends on the Destroyers.

    About Destroyer, let them be the real and main cannon fodder of the sea.
    @Imperious:

    According to me, with anniversary rules we are going to see two “historical” behaviour:

    • DD have to be bought in larger quantity because TRNs and SUBs are not useful as cannon fodder;
    • DD have to be used to hunt SUBs.

    Destroyers are the Infantry of the seas. not subs. That was a mistake in Revised and now its corrected.

    Why not limiting their obstructive power against Subs to realist and simple 1:1 basis as Der Kuenstler, recently, and others before, like Knp7765, put forward?
    Credit Der Kuenstler:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34169.msg1314701#msg1314701
    Credit Knp7765:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32780.msg1251253#msg1251253

    @Bridger:

    I never liked the implementation of destroyers in A&A. Basically all one player has to do to inoculate themselves against sub attacks is build a single destroyer per fleet.

    So US and UK each build a single 8 IPC unit (or maybe two) and it completely removes the unit from play for the Germans.

    Huh? Why should 16 IPCs completely invalidate a unit’s usefulness?

    I always enjoyed the house rule of the destroyer’s ability to cancel sub’s specials being a 1-to-1 ratio. I.E. a single destroyer cannot stop a vastly larger number of subs. Are the ASW capabilities of the destroyer endless? no matter how many fleets of submarines, this one fleet of destroyers can stop all of them from getting a sneak attack? It seems bad from a game-play and realism perspective. Instead, for every destroyer present, one sub loses it’s opening fire/submerge/submersible abilities. So if you attack a fleet with 3 subs and they only have one destroyer, two subs still get opening fire.

    This makes much more sense in terms of game-play and actually allows for utilizing a sub strategy as Germany. Anybody have any reason this shouldn’t be the case?

    I REALLY think it is possible and that historical realism can be saved and even be much better.

    So, what could be the main restraints to not do it? Traditions? Old habits?


    As a parallel topics:
    I could also add, why Anti Air Artillery could no be like other ground units?
    Attack 0 Defense 1 Move 1, Cost 5-6? Giving 1 shot per round against 1 plane if any.
    And no auto destroy when a ground unit enter a territory in which AAA is the only unit to defend. Rolling a regular defense @1 is not so overpowering (Half rate of Inf or Art).


    Here below, the changes (bolded or strike-through) on the 1942.2 OOB rules which will greatly simplify units interactions:

    TRANSPORT
    Cost: 7 8
    Attack: 0
    Defense: 0 1
    Move: 2

    Unit Characteristics
    No Combat Value Non warship combat unit: Even though a transport can attack or defend, either alone or with other units, it has very little combat value of 0. This means that a transport cannot fire in the attacking unit’s or the defending unit’s fire steps. Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines. This lack of an effective combat capability also allows enemy ships to ignore the presence of transports.

    Doesn’t Block Enemy Movement:
    Any sea zone that contains only enemy transports doesn’t stop the movement of a sea unit. Air or sea units (other than transports) ending their combat movement in a sea zone containing only enemy transports automatically destroy those transports (unless they are ignoring them to support an amphibious assault instead). This counts as a sea combat for those sea units. Sea units can also end their noncombat movement in a sea zone containing only enemy transports.

    Chosen Last:
    Transports can only be chosen as a casualty if there are no other eligible units. Normally this will occur when only transports are left, but it can also occur under other circumstances. For example, submarines attacking transports and planes will hit the transports because they can never hit the planes. fighters attacking transports and submarines will hit the transports because they cannot hit the submarines without a friendly destroyer present.

    Carry Land Units:
    A transport can carry land units belonging to you or to friendly powers. Its capacity is any one land unit, plus one additional infantry. Thus, a full transport may carry either two infantry or a tank, an artillery, or an antiaircraft artillery unit plus an infantry. A transport cannot carry an industrial complex. Land units on a transport are cargo; they cannot attack or defend while at sea and are destroyed if their transport is destroyed.

    Loading and Offloading:
    A transport can load cargo from one or two territories in or adjacent to friendly sea zones that it occupies before, during, and after it moves. A transport can pick up cargo, move one sea zone, pick up more cargo, move one more sea zone, and offload the cargo at the end of its movement. It can also remain at sea with the cargo still aboard (but only if the cargo remaining aboard was loaded in a previous turn, was loaded this turn in the Noncombat Move phase, or was loaded this turn for an amphibious assault from which the transport retreated).

    Loading onto and/or offloading from a transport counts as a land units entire move; it can’t move before loading or after offloading. Place the land units alongside the transport in the sea zone. If the transport moves in the Noncombat Move phase, any number of units aboard can offload into a single friendly territory.

    Land units belonging to friendly powers must load on their controller’s turn, be carried on your turn, and offload on a later turn of their controller. This is true even if the transport remains in the same sea zone.

    Whenever a transport offloads, it cannot move again that turn. If a transport retreats, it cannot offload that turn. A transport cannot offload in two territories during a single turn, nor can it offload cargo onto another transport. A transport cannot load or offload while in a hostile sea zone. Remember that hostile sea zones contain enemy units, but that for purposes of determining the status of a sea zone, submarines and transports are ignored.

    A transport can load and offload units without moving from the friendly sea zone it is in (this is known as “bridging”). Each such transport is still limited to its cargo capacity. It can offload in only one territory, and once it offloads, it cannot move, load, or offload again that turn.

    Amphibious Assaults:
    A transport can take part in an amphibious assault step of the Conduct Combat phase. That is the only time a transport can offload into a hostile territory.
    During an amphibious assault, a transport must either offload all units that were loaded during the Combat Move phase or retreat during sea combat. It can also offload any number of units owned by the transports power that were already on board at the start of the turn.


    DESTROYERS
    Cost: 8
    Attack: 2
    Defense: 2
    Move: 2

    Unit Characteristics
    Anti-sub Vessel:
    Destroyers are specially equipped for anti-submarine warfare. As a result, they have the capability of cancelling**, on a one-on-one basis,** many of the unit characteristics of enemy submarines.

    A Each destroyer cancels the Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly unit characteristic of any single enemy submarine that moves into the sea zone with it. This means that the a single submarine must immediately end its movement, whether combat or noncombat, upon entering the sea zone. If a submarine ends its combat movement in a sea zone with an enemy destroyer, combat will result.

    If a destroyer is in a battle, it cancels the following unit characteristics of all one enemy submarines in that battle: Surprise Strike~~,~~ and Submersible., and Cannot Be Hit By Air Units. Note that destroyers belonging to a power friendly to the attacker that happen to be in the same sea zone as the battle do not actually participate in it; therefore, they do not cancel any of these characteristics of any defending submarines.

    Anti-Sub Patrol Mission:
    Since Destroyers are mainly escorting and patrolling against Submarines, when moving to attack at least one Submarine, Destroyers get a special retreat move:
    even if there is no more enemy warship in a once embattled sea zone, attacking Destroyers can retreat 1 sea zone from where they came.


    SUBMARINES
    Cost: 6
    Attack: 2
    Defense: 1
    Move: 2

    Unit Characteristics
    Submarines have several unit characteristics. Most of them are either cancelled or stopped by the presence of an enemy destroyer.

    Surprise Strike:
    Both attacking and defending submarines can make a Surprise Strike by firing before any other units fire in a sea battle. As detailed in step 2 of the General Combat sequence (pg. 16), submarines make their rolls before any other units, unless an enemy destroyer is present. In which case, every single Destroyer cancels one single Submarine Surprise Strike. All additional number of Submarine units over Destroyer units keep their Surprise Strike. If no submarine from neither side is eligible for a Surprise Strike, there is no step 2. Players move directly to step 3 of the General Combat sequence.

    Submersible:
    A submarine has the option of submerging. It can do this anytime it would otherwise make a Surprise Strike.
    The decision is made before any dice are rolled by either side (the attacker decides first) and takes effect immediately. When a submarine submerges, it is immediately removed from the battle strip and placed back on the map. However, a one submarine cannot submerge if an for each enemy destroyer which is present in the battle.

    Running silent, running deep:
    When a fleet only composed of Submarine units (not considering Transports) was unable to Submerge on a previous combat round due to enemy Destroyers presence, any number of them can Submerge at the beginning of the following combat round, in step 2.

    Influence and credits to Knp7765:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24124.msg828032#msg828032
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34169.msg1314766#msg1314766

    Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly:
    A submarine can move through a sea zone that contains enemy units, either in combat or noncombat movement. However, if a submarine enters a sea zone containing an enemy destroyer, it must end its movement there**: one single submarine must end his movement for each enemy Destroyer in the sea zone.** If it ends its combat move in a hostile sea zone, combat will occur. Any outnumbering submarine units over Destroyers can still move through this hostile sea zone.

    Does Not Block Enemy Movement:
    The “stealth” ability of submarines also allows enemy ships to ignore their presence.
    Any sea zone that contains only enemy submarines does not stop the movement of a sea unit. Sea units ending their combat movement in a sea zone containing only enemy submarines may choose to attack them or not. Sea units can also end their noncombat movement in a sea zone containing only enemy submarines.

    Cannot Hit Air Units:
    When attacking or defending, submarines cannot hit air units.

    Cannot Be Hit by Air Units:
    When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines unless there is a destroyer that is friendly to the air units in the battle.

    Last Warships Chosen:
    Submarine can only be chosen as a casualty if there is no other eligible warship units. As long as a friendly Destroyer, Cruiser, Carrier or Battleship has an active part in the battle, Submarine unit cannot be taken as a valid casualty.

    Independent retreat:
    Submarines on attack can retreat after the others units retreat.
    This will allows subs a way to continue an attack all by themselves (and to be sacrificed) while all the other units have retreated.


    A&A 1942 Second Edition, p.26:
    AIR UNITS

    Air units can hit submarines only if a friendly destroyer is in the battle. Whenever a round of combat starts and there is no enemy destroyer, submarines cannot be hit by air units.


  • '14

    Well as far as tradition or habbits go most of them aren’t that old. The majority of interactions you noted only go back to Revised and A&A50. And the aaaguns are vendors more recent than that.

    I must say I agree with most of what you’re proposing. The problem in Classic was that there were no warships, no destroyers and no cruisers, so subs and transports were fodder by default. The rush to alter the interaction of units to get rid of the fodder mechanic led to come rules that in my view weren’t really necessary. Transports taken last was an easy fix. Likewise sub pairing 1:1 is pretty simple. I’m not opposed, though of course you will come up against resistence from the people who suggested the current rules.



  • Since the cheapest unit always will be fodder, why not just change the cost ?

    Destroyer cost 8, A2 D2
    Submarin cost 9, A2 D2 and submerge
    Tranny cost 10, D1


  • 2017 2016

    @Narvik:

    Since the cheapest unit always will be fodder, why not just change the cost ?

    Destroyer cost 8, A2 D2
    Submarine cost 10, A2 D2 and submerge
    Tranny cost 9

    A challenging idea which should be explored, there was a time when Sub have A2 D2 and cost 8 with a few different abilities.

    You only add submerge, did you imply that surprise strike should disappear?

    My first impression, is that doing this makes 2 basic naval units with same attack and defense factor.
    The historical background seems to show that submarines were cheaper to built and weaker against Destroyers.
    Making Subs at a higher cost seems a bit counter-intuitive, on a ship for ship basis.
    However, this could be rationalize by saying that there is many more Sub vessels represented by a given sculpt compared to the Destroyer.

    Even though, the fodder problem will be only partly resolve.
    If the opponent have many planes, even with a higher cost, the owner may see that Subs can be sitting duck compared to Destroyers. So wasting the costlier subs, instead of losing the more cheaper but useful Destroyer.

    Most of the time, Submarines will be taken second in order of casualties, keeping others costlier warships as the last units.
    This will only displace the historical issue. Since in major naval battle, subs were not the main target and casualties.


    I know that my casualty rule for submarine contradict the usual pattern of casualty, this makes submarines a less interesting buy.
    However, I think this could be compensate with a more elusive factor against Destroyer (1:1 to block submerge, for a single round, and surprise strike, as long as a Destroyer is present on 1:1 basis. As DK suggested.) And/or by making Submarines more dangerous somehow? Just too bad that A&A 1942 version have no Convoy disruption rule. That was the main function of the submarines. At least, it could work in Global versions.

    My casualty rule for Subs still keep an OOB specific game strategy (mostly used by Germany, but not exclusively), attacking with planes and Subs against carriers, destroyers and planes escorting transports.
    This allows the attacking player to sink the cheaper subs and keeps his costlier fighters.

    That’s the big difference compared to a more radical casualty rule such as : “Subs must be the last casualty amongst all combat units.”

    The only particular situation which can arise after a few combat rounds will be Fighters and Subs attacking the remaining Fighters of such a fleet. In OOB, the attacking Fighters must be selected as casualty.
    With my rules, the attacking Subs will be chosen first.

    This is no big deal since this situation is OOB usual in ground combats or against any other warships.

    In addition, giving back a combat value to Transport would probably balance the change for Subs casualty, because the DDs, Cruiser, Carriers and BBs will be more exposed to direct damage than OOB, lowering their odds of survival.
    But, considered as a whole fleet, with Subs and Transports able to give and take hits at the end of the battle, this can gives a similar odds of survival than OOB.


  • 2017 2016

    @Black_Elk:

    Well as far as tradition or habbits go most of them aren’t that old. The majority of interactions you noted only go back to Revised and A&A50. And the aaaguns are vendors more recent than that.

    I must say I agree with most of what you’re proposing. The problem in Classic was that there were no warships, no destroyers and no cruisers, so subs and transports were fodder by default. The rush to alter the interaction of units to get rid of the fodder mechanic led to come rules that in my view weren’t really necessary. Transports taken last was an easy fix. Likewise sub pairing 1:1 is pretty simple. I’m not opposed, though of course you will come up against resistence from the people who suggested the current rules.

    This points toward three aberrations which creates both complex games situations and contrary to a consistent historical simulation.

    1- Transport could have been taken last (without too much turmoils ) but the no combat value makes an infinite number of transports destroyed by a single combat unit.

    2- A single Destroyer can block an infinite number of Surprise Strike attacking Submarines.

    3- The Destroyer can block an infinite number of defending Submarines Submerge.
    So a massive number of Submarines can be destroyed (by a large air fleet and a single Destroyer) while the attacker can only lose one Destroyer.

    In addition, Planes cannot hit submarines without Destroyers, makes the Carriers very vulnerable against Submarines.
    While, historically, Escort carriers were specifically used in submarine warfare.

    Aircrafts and 1 destroyer combined with transports on offense against defending Submarines makes for complex situations which needs explicit FAQ.
    And some strange unhistorical impossibility to destroy Subs and no way of protecting transports against them. Making for auto-kill or immediate retreat.

    @Black_Elk:

    I understand the logic behind requiring the DD to be present in the battle from a game mechanics standpoint (basically because you just want people to buy Destroyers), but from a practical/historical perspective it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

    Aircraft were an important part of the Allies’ anti-sub warfare strategy, and carrier based aircraft especially. I feel like either there should be no sub/aircraft interaction, or it should be unrestricted, because otherwise the DD stuff just introduces more unnecessary confusion into the mix. They create a bunch of peculiar sub-specific combat situations, that players then need to keep track of and argue about.

    Here is some info on ASW tactics from the wiki, for anyone who’s interested. 🙂

    WW2 Atlantic ASW Tactics

    Many different aircraft from airships to four-engined sea- and land-planes were used. Some of the more successful were the Lockheed Ventura, PBY (Catalina or Canso, in British service), Consolidated B-24 Liberator (VLR Liberator, in British service), Short Sunderland, and Vickers Wellington. U-boats were not defenseless, since their deck guns were a very good anti-aircraft weapon. They claimed 212 Allied aircraft shot down for the loss of 168 U-boats to air attack. At one point in the war, there was even a ‘shoot back order’ requiring U-boats to stay on the surface and fight back, in the absence of any other option.

    The provision of air cover was essential. The Germans at the time had been using their Focke-Wulf Fw 200 “Condor” long range aircraft to attack shipping and provide reconnaissance for U-boats, and most of their sorties occurred outside the reach of existing land-based aircraft that the Allies had; this was dubbed the Mid-Atlantic gap. At first, the British developed temporary solutions such as CAM ships and merchant aircraft carriers. These were superseded by mass-produced, relatively cheap escort carriers built by the United States and operated by the US Navy and Royal Navy. There was also the introduction of long-ranged patrol aircraft.

    Many U-boats feared aircraft, as the mere presence would often force them to dive, disrupting their patrols and attack runs. There was a significant difference in the tactics of the two navies. The Americans favored aggressive hunter-killer tactics using escort carriers on search and destroy patrols, whereas the British preferred to use their escort carriers to defend the convoys directly. The American view was this tactic did little to reduce or contain U-boat numbers. The British view was influenced by the fact they had had to fight the battle of the Atlantic alone for much of the war, with very limited resources. There were no spare escorts for extensive hunts, and it was only important to neutralize the U-boats which were found in the vicinity of convoys. The survival of convoys was critical, and if a hunt missed its target a convoy of strategic importance could be lost.

    Once America joined the war, the different tactics were complementary, both suppressing the effectiveness of and destroying U-boats. The increase in Allied naval strength allowed both convoy defense and hunter-killer groups to be deployed, and this was reflected in the massive increase in U-Boat sinking in the latter part of the war. The British developments of ASDIC, Centimetric Radar and the Leigh Light also reached the point of being able to support U-Boat hunting towards the end of the war, while at the beginning technology was definitely on the side of the submarine. Commanders such as F. J. “Johnnie” Walker RN were able to develop integrated tactics which made the deployment of hunter-killer groups a practical proposition.

    For the historical reference on planes in Sub warfare:

    Most often built on a commercial ship hull, escort carriers were too slow to keep up with the main forces consisting of fleet carriers, battleships, and cruisers. Instead, they were used to escort convoys, defending them from enemy threats such as submarines and planes. In the invasions of mainland Europe and Pacific islands, escort carriers provided air support to ground forces during amphibious operations. Escort carriers also served as backup aircraft transports for fleet carriers, and ferried aircraft of all military services to points of delivery.

    In the Battle of the Atlantic, escort carriers were used to protect convoys against U-boats. Initially escort carriers accompanied merchant ships and fended off attacks from aircraft and submarines; later in the war, escort carriers were part of hunter-killer groups which sought out submarines instead of being attached to a particular convoy.

    In the Pacific theater, CVEs provided air support of ground troops in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. They lacked the speed and weapons to counter enemy fleets, relying on the protection of a Fast Carrier Task Force. However, at the Battle off Samar, one U.S. task force of escort carriers managed to successfully defend itself against a large Japanese force of battleships and cruisers. The Japanese were turned back by a furious defense of carrier aircraft, screening destroyers, and destroyer escorts, proving that CVEs had the striking force, if not speed and strength, of full CVs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escort_carrier

    Since OOB doesn’t have any Escort Carriers, I believe they are part of actual Aircraft Carrier unit.
    This show how the rules “Planes needs Destroyers to hit Subs” are counter-intuitive and counter-historical gamey rules.



  • OK, you got some good an valid points, Baron.

    What if Subs roll a preemptive surprise strike, and if a hit the casualty sink fast and can not defend.
    Then all warships, trannies and aircrafts that survived in that seazone now roll for defense. I believe the usual defense numbers are too high, unless every sub mission is a kamikaze mission, so maybe everybody roll a 1 when defending against attacking subs. The AA gun rolls 1 against planes in the sky, so why not roll 1 against Subs too, they are under water after all. The Destroyer has no special ability when defending against subs. Then surviving Subs can submerge or continue attacking.

    Attacking a Sub is another matter. I think only Destroyers should be able to hunt and attack Subs. To keep it historical correct, the Destroyer should attack at 2 and the Sub defend at 1

    This is the most simplified system I can think off


  • 2017 2016

    Interesting. Let me think about it…


  • 2017 2016

    @Narvik:

    OK, you got some good an valid points, Baron.

    What if Subs roll a preemptive surprise strike, and if a hit the casualty sink fast and can not defend.
    Then all warships, trannies and aircrafts that survived in that seazone now roll for defense. I believe the usual defense numbers are too high, unless every sub mission is a kamikaze mission, so maybe everybody roll a 1 when defending against attacking subs. The AA gun rolls 1 against planes in the sky, so why not roll 1 against Subs too, they are under water after all. The Destroyer has no special ability when defending against subs. Then surviving Subs can submerge or continue attacking.

    The defensive roll is the most problematic issue. If Subs are all alone, it works but when there is other units it becomes schizophrenic for the defending units, which defense value do they get and if it is the higher, then why is it possible to take subs as casualty?

    One game System I played makes an independent Submarines attack first, until the attacker retreat his subs. Then, all the other units are going into combat.

    This doesn’t work if there is many 2 hits BB or CVs, because Subs won’t be able to sink anything. And Subs becomes as vulnerable without specific rule such as no defense roll on the first combat round against subs.

    Maybe we should explore the AAA comparison.
    Rule Example broad guidelines:
    Subs can attack with other units.

    Each Destroyer and plane can roll 1 preemptive attack or defense @1. Remove Subs casualties.

    Subs make their attacks @2 or defense @1. Remove immediatly enemy’s casualties.

    All other units have regular attacks and defense, including the previous DDs and planes. Remove casualties. But Subs cannot be taken as casualties.

    What do you think of this new way of doing things?
    Does it worth to explore it?



  • With all due respect, I don’t think you will get anyone to play a game where Destroyers roll preemptive against subs.

    And since the topic is to simplify the interaction, I don’t think a unit should have several different combat values against different enemies or situations. Lets just keep the current value system.

    You know that in the real war subs would never cooperate together with surface warships in joint operations because they had short range and low speed. A cruiser could sail at 30 knots, and a submerged sub at 7 knots, forcing the Sub to only do independent operations, alone or with other subs. But in A&A games both Subs and warships have the same range of 2 spaces, and speed during the battle is not an issue. Perhaps if Subs could only move 1 space and warships move 3 spaces, but that is not going to happen.



  • …or you can google Convoy PQ 17.

    Germany would attack the convoy with battleship Tirpitz, lots of Subs, land based Dive-Bombers and Heavy Bombers. UK would defend close with destroyers and frigates, and a fleet of battleships, carriers, cruisers and destroyers.

    attached is a pic of the naval battle

    Convoy_PQ-17_map_1942-en_svg.png


  • 2017 2016

    @Narvik:

    With all due respect, I don’t think you will get anyone to play a game where Destroyers roll preemptive against subs.

    And since the topic is to simplify the interaction, I don’t think a unit should have several different combat values against different enemies or situations. Lets just keep the current value system.
    You know that in the real war subs would never cooperate together with surface warships in joint operations because they had short range and low speed. A cruiser could sail at 30 knots, and a submerged sub at 7 knots, forcing the Sub to only do independent operations, alone or with other subs. But in A&A games both Subs and warships have the same range of 2 spaces, and speed during the battle is not an issue. Perhaps if Subs could only move 1 space and warships move 3 spaces, but that is not going to happen.

    I agree. Trying to make Destroyers and Planes as a kind of AA guns against Subs adds more problems.
    Mainly, Subs become invincible if all Destroyers and planes are destroyed. I think it is a probably a dead-end.

    About move and space representation in game, it is more a matter of range than pure speed.
    However, it is clear why Subs were destroying slow Merchant ships mainly.
    Maybe an A&A future version will give cruisers a 3 Spaces Move, as in WWI 1914 game.


  • 2017 2016

    Thanks for the picture and the Convoy PQ17.

    As I far as I understand the story, German’s Submarines were able to attack the same targets as their planes.
    It increases my confidence about my Sub Casualty rule which lets Submarine units being used as fodder in a combined attack with aircrafts.



  • Baron…do you play sometimes…did you ever tried all what you wrote?


  • 2017 2016

    Yes indeed, but not enough to my taste.

    In my lifetime I played 4 differents kind of Sub rules: Classic, World War II The expansion, Iron Blitz and 1942.1 & 1942.2 OOB.

    Some of my ideas are explorations of consequences of others, or ideas inspired by others.
    It takes some spagghetti on the walls to find which one worth a real play-test.

    I made many statistical eval of the 3 actual SBR (Triple A, 1942.2 OOB, G40 OOB) before suggesting 3 slightly differents ones (1 for G40, 2 for 1942.2), which can works and have better incentive, for example.

    In my 1942.2 A&A game, I used one of them, which have a better incentive (than 1942.2 OOB SBR) but keeps the better historical background of 1942.2 SBR over Triple A SBR (Interceptors defending @2).


    For Subs, I can say I tried to develop HRs at least 4 times before coming to this one.
    IMO, it is the better of all my former HRs on Submarines, Destroyers and planes warfare.


  • 2017 2016

    I revised my opening post above.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1320853#msg1320853

    All the OOB rules are at the end of the post.
    You will easily see the modifications and differences which are either bolded (for addition) or strikethrough (for eliminated parts of the OOB rules).

    I will really appreciate comments and suggestions for improved formulations.

    This OOB Revision included many suggestions from 3 other members, which I credited and gave the link to their first post about the topic.

    Maybe this HR can create some shift in the balance of the actual games, but I think this HR is probably one of the few ways to solve the many aberrations created by
    1- Defenseless transport rules,
    2- Planes needs Destroyer to hit Submarines and
    3- 1 Destroyer blocks Surprise Strike and Submerge, etc. of all submarines units.

    Hope you will see how it provides a really simplified interactions amongst all these air-naval units.



  • @Baron:

    Thanks for the picture and the Convoy PQ17.

    As I far as I understand the story, German’s Submarines were able to attack the same targets as their planes.
    It increases my confidence about my Sub Casualty rule which lets Submarine units being used as fodder in a combined attack with aircrafts.

    Now if you had googlet that battle you would have noticed that the Germans lost many planes but no subs. It looks like the trannies had aa guns but no anti sub weapons


  • 2017 2016

    @Narvik:

    @Baron:

    Thanks for the picture and the Convoy PQ17.

    As I far as I understand the story, German’s Submarines were able to attack the same targets as their planes.
    It increases my confidence about my Sub Casualty rule which lets Submarine units being used as fodder in a combined attack with aircrafts.

    Now if you had googlet that battle you would have noticed that the Germans lost many planes but no subs. It looks like the trannies had aa guns but no anti sub weapons

    This will add some historical facts behind the idea of reintroducing a Transport, 1 hit value, able to defend @1 in my opening post.

    Germany lost around 12 planes on 202 planes. Around 6% casualties.

    We did discuss about the problem of giving only an AA gun defense for Transport. In fact, it makes transports a better defensive weapon since the attacker will have no choice and cannot apply any hits against either 6 IPCs Subs or 8 IPCs Destroyers but must destroy either a 10 IPCs Fg or a 12 IPCs StB.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1114302#msg1114302

    So a Transport defending @1 is simpler and gives more space to the attacker choice of casualty.

    The idea is to simply rationalize the Transport unit as having a few Destroyer escorts (Frigates) with the only Transport ships.
    I think it was always the case for Military transport. They never travel by themselves but didn’t always have an extensive cover of Destroyers to protect them.

    @Der:

    Larry Harris said this about transports in 2007 on his site:

    “I will say this… Transports are considered to be lightly defended with escorts. Additional ships provide additional defense and so on.” (Posted: Fri 23.Feb, 2007)

    So originally transports were not to be thought of as just transports.

    Two maxims of the game have generally been:

    1. every decision involves some risk (dice rolls)
    2. defender chooses his own casualties

    The new transport rules violate both.


  • Customizer

    @Narvik:

    Since the cheapest unit always will be fodder, why not just change the cost ?

    Destroyer cost 8, A2 D2
    Submarin cost 9, A2 D2 and submerge
    Tranny cost 10, D1

    I have advocated my HR of each ship costing 8 IPCs (toblerone77’s “8-8-8” house rule) but each having balancing stats and abilities. With those same stats and all other rules remaining OOB. This resolves the “fodder” problem. Transport are also no longer called transports but “Naval Support Vessels”

    Also I have some serious disagreement the argument against the fodder argument, because ultimately to eliminate fodder and really get at the strategic level you would really only use an air, naval and ground unit, but the you basically have Risk!


  • 2017 2016

    Hi toblerone,
    you are talking about this one, isn’t it?
    @toblerone77:

    Here’s my take. 86 all the specialized rules for subs, destroyers and transports. Treat them like any other unit. Allow subs to make an “SBR” in convoy zones. Allow Destroyers in those zones to act as “AAA” if applicable.

    First bump the sub defense back up to 2.

    In the case of non-global games use SZs adjacent to ICs as convoy zones. Keep the sub’s range the same but allow them to return to a friendly SZ after a “commerce raid”, remember they must have range just like an aircraft unit.

    Allow planes to take out subs and allow subs to fire back assuming they would have AAA capability, which not exactly historical, but did happen and is somewhat plausible. Same for TRNs.

    Let TRNs defend at 1 all other OOB rules apply.

    To balance it out let DDs support amphibious assault for one round 1:1 infantry, CAs 1:2, and BBs 1:3. All other OOB rules would apply.

    Third, let APs, DDs, and SS just be one price 8 IPCs. Their abilities and advantages amongst each other at the same price-point (IMO) negate much of the debate of “fodder/balance/etc.” BS.

    Just my take. Have at it guys  🙂

    So, your Transport is the same as the one in the opening post (A0 D1 M2 C8, taken last)?
    But Subs are very different.


  • Customizer

    Yep.


  • 2017 2016

    According to your HR combat values, the Sub will be more popular than Destroyer. No need to buy them, just planes for 2 more IPCs to kick out Subs.
    Subs are more dangerous than the OOB DD, since it shoots down planes.
    The less important historical feel can be disturbing for my part.
    I could live with Subs defending @1 against all units, but @2 vs planes I couldn’t.

    Maybe we should discuss about the impact or no consequences of the naval Cannon fodder effect.

    @a44bigdog:

    Most ASW of the time was the good old Mark I Mod zero eyeball. WWII subs were surface ships that could submerge. They spent the majority of their time on the surface. The electric engines used when submerged had a very limited speed and run time before the sub had to surface to recharge the batteries. Ariel observation was what lead the Germans to develop the snorkel a device for running the diesels while underwater.

    Submarines also could and did engage aircraft. The preferred method however was to dive. Not because the deck guns mounted on the subs could not adequately engage the aircraft but that once spotted other aircraft and if close surface vessels would be called in. By diving the sub could flee the area.

    This page has the loses by cause for u-boats. Note that almost HALF or to aircraft.
    http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    Baron,

    What is your subpen rule if you have one. Thought I seen you post once. Can’t seem to locate it.


  • 2017 2016

    I don’t have any.
    What is yours?
    How does it become an important aspect of the subs rules?


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    Its posted in Global War title under Major complexes.


  • 2017 2016

    Thanks.
    It’s adding another element of complexity for those which are found of historical background games.
    For now it is outside the scope of this actual thread on simplifying things to improve the overall A&A experience.
    I keep your Sub pen rules in my backpocket. It may be useful.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 4
  • 3
  • 11
  • 3
  • 9
  • 85
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games

45
Online

13.3k
Users

33.6k
Topics

1.3m
Posts