How do submarines work?

@Moller A submarine is a sea unit with an attack value and a defense value. What makes it special are its “Special Abilities”/unit characteristics as described by the rulebook(s) and (partly) outlined by @WindowWasher above.
Those are:

Surprise Strike (X) Submersible (X) On Station Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly (X) Doesn’t Block Enemy Movement Can’t Hit Air Units Can’t Be Hit by Air Units (X)

An enemy destroyer cancels those unit characteristics marked with an (X).

@Moller said in Battleship/cruiser with destroyer vs submarine:

I tought without a destroyer you can’t detect a submarine so you can’t attacked the submarine.

This is not part of the rules, sorry.

I believe they made Submarines weak for defense to 1 because every single player would pump out cheap Sub. to boost their navy so this allowed great strength for destroyer + “any” attacks to have the advantage.

Thank you guys. That was very helpful!

@Celvus:

Thanks for the quick Answer Elrood! :-)

I Still find this Rule a little Strange. So the Allied Fraction just stands beside the Sea Fight watching the Battle and drinking some Beer?.  :|

Well, if that helps, imagine a vast seazone where the UK DD and Russian Sub are not in some battle group but actually far away from each other.  :-)

@Celvus:

Anyway since we play by the Rules we have to respect that. :-)

Good choice, there is nothing against house rules, but I would not mess with something integral like that. The befits of mixed fleets are already crazily good.

for example. UK / US fleets mass in SZ109 or 110. You think Berlin is save since you have a DD in SZ112 and few troops in Denmark, and have not many troops in Berlin (may be even none).
Then:
US fleet takes Denmark and after that UK goes into baltic sea and attacks Berlin, killing Germany most likely with that move. - Axis have no way to interact between US and UK moving… so its really nasty.

That happened to more than one inexperienced player, since it takes some time to “see” these possible scenarios.  :wink:
Just to let you see the possibilities

@ShadowHAwk:

@barney:

So a solution to the KJF only allied way to win would be ?
Seems like Japan would have to be weakened and possibly the US as well?

Maby change the turn order so the game becomes more balanced.

How about.
Germany, USSR, Italy, UK, Anzac, US, Japan, China, France.

This makes a decent game in the med because Italy actualy keeps its fleet.
UK-pac gets 1 more turn buys effectively and a battleship.
Anzac fleet is grouped.
US fleet can group.

So less easy targets, India has 1 turn extra buys so harder to get from japan. Same for the anzac.

At least J1 will be less predictable, UK1 will be less predictable and it gives the allies the initiative in the pacific.

While this completely cripples Japan it makes the European Axis absolute monsters. Don’t see how the axis would ever loose. UK looses his fleet off Egypt right away and his forces in Alexandria. Italy takes Egypt T2 100% and then what do the allies do?

Ya, you are more able to invest money into Europe as US, but could you stop a monster Italy/Germany?

One big thing I’d like to note is that I really don’t like that Anzac can can open for US. This is way too powerful.

@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.

When will you bring us with more in-depth article, stratigiCOW? Look forward to it. :roll:

Clearly ShadowHAwk does not understand what I am talking about.

1. Attacker has only subs
2. Defender has destroyer and subs

In this case defending subs fire first and any hits are assigned to attacking subs. The attacking subs who are hit do not fire back! hence the term surprise defence!

To my knowledge this is the only situation where  the defending side roll dice before attacker!