Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes

  • '17 '16

    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.

  • '17 '16

    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

  • '17 '16

    @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!

  • '17 '16

    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.

  • '17 '16

    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


  • Baron,

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

  • '17 '16

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


  • Its posted in Global War title under Major complexes.

  • '17 '16

    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.


  • I don’t think you can make rules that is both simple and historical correct. The hex and counter games have search rolls and sequenced fire, which make the games complex, not simple and fast to play. Xenon World at war have search rolls, and that makes sense. The ocean is a vast place, and the enemy is moving around behind that foggy horizon, so you need to roll a search roll before you find him, but then the enemy too can roll a search roll to avoid you. But if you find each other, then roll for combat. Land combat is different, you know the enemy is dug in behind that hill or city. So maybe a search roll will difference naval combat from land combat. Aircrafts will of course make for automatic find. But it will be a game in the game.

    Another and more simple way is to differ the movement values.

    Subs move 1, and can submerge from combat, but not retreat to another seazone.
    Tranny move 2, and can not retreat to another seazone. If the escort retreats, the trannies are sittin ducks
    Surface warships move 3, and can retreat to another seazone.

    This model the importance of speed and range in naval operations.

    To avoid trannies being fodder, let them cost 10 and defend on 1 against air.

    And do you really want to use a sub as fodder when it move 1 space only in a turn, and a Destroyer move 3 spaces ? I know I wouldn’t.


  • I also think you should have search planes to find ships.
    Small searchplane C10 A0 D2 M4  1d6 roll of 3 or less finds ships.
    Big searchplane  C12 A0 D2 M6    1d6 rol of 3 or less finds ships.


  • @SS:

    I also think you should have search planes to find ships.
    Small searchplane C10 A0 D2 M4  1d6 roll of 3 or less finds ships.
    Big searchplane  C12 A0 D2 M6     1d6 rol of 3 or less finds ships.

    What part of #Simplifying# is it you don’t understand ?

    Besides of that, I love your idea  8-)


  • Just making a suggestion to your last post about finding ships. When it comes to simplifying a game no such luck when it comes to Global 39 games or shorter games for me. Play with all the advance pieces in all games. So I went off topic a bit.  :-D

  • '17 '16

    Hi Narvik,
    a more historically detailled game should have such Air and Sea Anti-Sub Search Mission.
    But at our Theatre of Operations level, it is more abstract.
    DK’s 1:1 for blocking Submerge makes for the difficulty on finding Subs.
    Even when you bring a lot of planes, the Subs casualty will be restricted to the number of DDs.
    With Knp idea, formulated differently in Running Silent, Running Deep,  the single attack round allows better odds of survival for Pinned or Spotted Subs.

  • '17 '16

    I would add that even the Subs casualty rules Last Warship Chosen is another way to make Subs survive alike an harder Sub spotting.
    In mixed fleet against mixed fleet, there is no more Subs destruction Festival in the first rounds.
    Kind of Sub stealth ability.
    The primary targets are surface warships letting Subs survival easier on both sides for the end of such naval battle because most players will not sacrifice their big damaged BBs and Carriers to destroy enemy’s Subs.

  • '17 '16

    @SS:

    I also think you should have search planes to find ships.
    Small searchplane C10 A0 D2 M4  1d6 roll of 3 or less finds ships.
    Big searchplane  C12 A0 D2 M6    1d6 rol of 3 or less finds ships.

    Having no attack value these units cannot compete against reg Fgs and Bombers, if the same cost.

  • Customizer

    @Baron:

    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.

    Baron this HR has progressed beyond the simple blurbs here and there. I’ve also added bombard to DDs. A DD still can stop subs so yes you would still want them. Again I’ll point to my arguement against realism, historical realism attemps, and trying to correlate real-world numbers to units. Eventually the numbers go back to having 3 total types of units land , sea, and air which IMO is no fun. There is a game called Attack! Which implements this type of system you can get it for $15-20 on Amazon. It’s not exactly the same but comes close.

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 3
  • 34
  • 9
  • 10
  • 9
  • 4
  • 11
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

46

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts