Subs vs loaded carrier question



  • First of all rules are the Rules.

    But they have a pretty good historical basis, sure there was airborne radar but that was not available till 1944 before that most planes where merely spotters.
    Only specific planes could engage subs, and only when armed with depth charges. Most of the time planes doing CAP would be fighters and well a fighter VS a submerged sub is useless.

    Also subs would attack at night making fighters useless as night takeoffs and landings where not something done during WW2, it was already tricky on fixed airfields and it was a no go for carriers. Also it would be silly to asume that damage to the carrier would leave the planes intact. Violent explosions, shaken up, slided atop of eachother to 1 side. all these things make planes a lot less flyable afterwards.

    The game should be playable, for every rule we can find a reason why it is silly. Cruisers VS a carrier would also leave the planes out of the fight because the attacker would attack at night. And why would the planes attack a sub when there is a carrier there as well? Why can a single destroyer stop a whole battlefleet from moving through, surely the destroyer would be gone when it spotted the fleet. Besides 1 destroyer in the vast ocean ( even a flotilla ) would not be able to spot a battlefleet let alone stop it.

    Just accept that a lot of rules are there to make the game playable and fun not to make it a simulation.


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    First of all rules are the Rules.
    But they have a pretty good historical basis, sure there was airborne radar but that was not available till 1944 before that most planes where merely spotters.
    Only specific planes could engage subs, and only when armed with depth charges. Most of the time planes doing CAP would be fighters and well a fighter VS a submerged sub is useless.

    Also subs would attack at night making fighters useless as night takeoffs and landings where not something done during WW2, it was already tricky on fixed airfields and it was a no go for carriers. Also it would be silly to asume that damage to the carrier would leave the planes intact. Violent explosions, shaken up, slided atop of eachother to 1 side. all these things make planes a lot less flyable afterwards.

    The game should be playable, for every rule we can find a reason why it is silly. Cruisers VS a carrier would also leave the planes out of the fight because the attacker would attack at night. And why would the planes attack a sub when there is a carrier there as well? Why can a single destroyer stop a whole battlefleet from moving through, surely the destroyer would be gone when it spotted the fleet. Besides 1 destroyer in the vast ocean ( even a flotilla ) would not be able to spot a battlefleet let alone stop it.

    Just accept that a lot of rules are there to make the game playable and fun not to make it a simulation.

    A strange fact about U-boat casualties in WWII: 264 were sunk by warships while 250 were sunk by airplanes by themselves. Also, 37 U-boats were sunk due to team work between land-base aircrafts and warships.

    From my POV, it is a factual evidence that planes were efficient Anti-Sub weapons.
    Usually, Fighters (mostly F4F-Wildcat) and TBF Avengers worked together to get many kills in ATO 27 u-boats by F4F paired with TBF/ 8 subs were credited to TBF alone.

    PBY Catalinas were good too: they sunk 30 U-boats all alone, and 8 others in team work.
    Near 60 u-boats were sunk by B-24 Liberator all alone.

    Of course, during years 1943, 1944 and 1945, they were more active and efficient.
    1942 was the turning point.

    Source: u-boat.net

    Here is an interesting plane, able to do a lot by itself during 1942 and 1943 (near 20 u-boats sunk):
    Lockheed Hudson Patrol Bomber

    Hudsons began to receive ASV radar in early 1940, and were assigned specifically to antisubmarine duty beginning in August of 1940 from Aldergrove, Northern Ireland. In March, 1941 No. 269 Squadron began operations from Iceland. One of the Hudson’s first successes against U-boats was on August 27, 1941, when an Iceland-based Hudson bombed and damaged U-570 and, after repeated strafing passes, observed the U-boat crew to surrender. The Hudson circled the U-boat and called additional aircraft and ships to the scene. U-570 was indeed captured intact, although the crew had thrown the Enigma machine and codebooks overboard. Hudsons went on to achieve two dozen additional successes against U-boats. An Africa-based RAF Hudson of No. 608 Squadron was the first aircraft to sink a U-boat with rockets.

    The Hudson was also used by the RAF as a bomber, some 35 taking part in the RAF’s second “thousand bomber” raid. Hudsons flown by the RAF, RCAF, RAAF, and RNZAF fought in virtually every maritime theater of the war, including the Mediterranean, South Pacific, Indian Ocean, North Atlantic, Caribbean, and even the East Coast of the United States in support of US forces. Hudsons of No. 161 Squadron were used in clandestine operations, landing in open fields of occupied Europe at night to deliver or retrieve agents or to provide weapons or information to partisans. Many nations used the Hudson to train the crews of bombers and patrol aircraft. Many also served as transport aircraft.

    The first two U-boat sinkings achieved by American forces were both achieved by US Navy Hudsons, and the first sinking by the USAAF was also by a Hudson. The first submarine sinkings by Brazilian and RNZAF forces were also by Hudsons (the former assisted by a PBY Catalina).

    http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/hudson.htm


  • 2017

    Thanks Baron for looking up the facts. This supports the suggestion that planes should have an opening shot at subs.
    At the same time this would change the dynamics of the game a lot. But after all this was not a discussion about changing the rulebook!


  • 2017 '16

    @GiddyXray:

    Thanks Baron for looking up the facts. This supports the suggestion that planes should have an opening shot at subs.
    At the same time this would change the dynamics of the game a lot. But after all this was not a discussion about changing the rulebook!

    I still don’t think it is a good a idea to return to classic rule for planes vs Sub.

    @ShadowHAwk:

    First of all rules are the Rules.

    Just accept that a lot of rules are there to make the game playable and fun not to make it a simulation.

    I don’t share this perspective. Such way of thinking would not have given Destroyer, Cruiser, Artillery, MechInf, TcBs, AAA units. A&A would  have stayed in Classic format.
    I much rather prefer OOB second edition rules.
    And usually, simplicity and better historical depiction are two major criterias which drive improvement in such war game.



  • @Baron:

    @GiddyXray:

    Thanks Baron for looking up the facts. This supports the suggestion that planes should have an opening shot at subs.
    At the same time this would change the dynamics of the game a lot. But after all this was not a discussion about changing the rulebook!

    I still don’t think it is a good a idea to return to classic rule for planes vs Sub.

    @ShadowHAwk:

    First of all rules are the Rules.

    Just accept that a lot of rules are there to make the game playable and fun not to make it a simulation.

    I don’t share this perspective. Such way of thinking would not have given Destroyer, Cruiser, Artillery, MechInf, TcBs, AAA units. A&A would  have stayed in Classic format.
    I much rather prefer OOB second edition rules.
    And usually, simplicity and better historical depiction are two major criterias which drive improvement in such war game.

    If you are going to change all the rules and unit profiles sure go ahead but that requires a lot of play testing as well.

    There are plenty of rules in this game that have no base in history or even contradict history.
    There are plenty of units that have weird quirks that are completly ignoring history.
    If you are going to make things better then revise the whole game and all of the unit profiles not just because you want to attack subs with planes change this 1 rule.

    Some things that are worst then the submarine rule.
    Aircraft range ( really a plane attacking from WUS in SZ91 ), could be why subs are immume to them 🙂
    Persia being pro allies ( it was neutral, it was attacked by the allies in 1942 for being neutral, and only after being occupied by the allies did they somewhat cooperate, this is the same as saying france was pro-axis )
    Distances in europe, it is a lot quicker ( in those days ) to travel from south france to the border of poland then it was to cross into russia. In this game that isnt the case, also for a plane that restriction isnt there. Yet in this game stalingrad->moscow is just as fast as paris->berlin.  Given the poor roads and rail network for an army this isnt the case.



  • Still waiting for the 8.8 Flak (AAA) to get at least 1 defence against all attackers additional to their air capabilities 😉


  • 2020 2018 2017

    Mr. Baron,

    My assertion was only that planes, by themselves, are not effective weapons against submarines.  Nor is any other one thing I listed, by itself.

    Does the Fighter unit in AxA represent a Brewster Buffalo or a Black Widow?  Answer;  Both and neither, and all of the other planes used in the war as well, but none specifically.  If it represented a PBY, why cant it just land on the water?  Why not add that?

    The answer is, well you could.  That’s how wargames evolve;  people have pointed out all sorts of fairly easy things to integrate into the game that wouldn’t require major tweaks to be made to how the game operates.  But AxA is already at the point where the units added in the most recent iteration are very slight variations on what came before.  Cruisers are 1.5 destroyers.  Tac Bombers are reversed fighters…mechs are infantry that move 2…  You can add in SPGs and ATGs (reversed tank 2/3 for 5) but again, they aren’t going to add a whole lot to the game because its a d6 based game, and it has 4X (economy, diplomacy, building and battle) in just the right proportions.

    Economy is robust, but simple.  Unit choice is rich, but not confusing.  Diplomacy is a thorny tack on, but it creates new choices for the Axis.  There are a ton of teams, but they’re all different.

    If you mess with any of these things or increase their complexity/rules, you risk bogging the game down when it is already 8-12 hours long…

    Try Twilight Imperium holy crap Axa + MOOrion in space…


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @Baron:

    @GiddyXray:

    Thanks Baron for looking up the facts. This supports the suggestion that planes should have an opening shot at subs.
    At the same time this would change the dynamics of the game a lot. But after all this was not a discussion about changing the rulebook!

    I still don’t think it is a good a idea to return to classic rule for planes vs Sub.

    @ShadowHAwk:

    First of all rules are the Rules.

    Just accept that a lot of rules are there to make the game playable and fun not to make it a simulation.

    I don’t share this perspective. Such way of thinking would not have given Destroyer, Cruiser, Artillery, MechInf, TcBs, AAA units. A&A would  have stayed in Classic format.
    I much rather prefer OOB second edition rules.
    And usually, simplicity and better historical depiction are two major criterias which drive improvement in such war game.

    If you are going to change all the rules and unit profiles sure go ahead but that requires a lot of play testing as well.

    There are plenty of rules in this game that have no base in history or even contradict history.
    There are plenty of units that have weird quirks that are completly ignoring history.
    If you are going to make things better then revise the whole game and all of the unit profiles not just because you want to attack subs with planes change this 1 rule.

    Some things that are worst then the submarine rule.
    Aircraft range ( really a plane attacking from WUS in SZ91 ), could be why subs are immume to them 🙂

    That point bothers me too.
    I will post something in the house rule thread discussing this topic.
    I believe calculating 1 MP per SZ in NCM phase while 2 MPs per SZ during CM phase for all aircrafts can works without adding too much complexity.
    This may better simulate how difficult to spot enemy in open Sea and makes planes units less ominous weapons. That way, warships gets a better projection of power at sea compared to planes, specifically strategic bombers.


  • 2020 2018 2017

    Aircraft are trumping units in this game;  they are better than their cost, more flexible than any other unit (since they can be on land or sea).  They prevent the game from being like Risk; where only numbers matter and all the units are the same.

    This is just like the sub rule, its to represent the overpowering advantage aircraft had and have over all other types of unit during that era.  Not sure what objection that raises, except that they are OverPowered.  Which is true in real life also, airpower is OP compared to its costs and that’s why they keep using it.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 21
  • 7
  • 6
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 4
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

68
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts