Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes

@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.

Interesting. Let me think about it…

@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?

@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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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