@aardvarkpepper said in Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
@megatron said in Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
I understand that without a destroyer any attacking air units cannot hit submarines. Which also means as a defender I cannot assign hits from air units to submarines.
Isn’t this a huge drawback if I, for example, use submarines to soak up damage in sea combat but would be unable to do so if the opponent doesn’t have any destroyers and therefor I would have to assign hits to more valuable units?The destroyers ability to make my subs visible should be a drawback. Why can’t the defender just order the subs to surface? From a tactical point of view this just makes no sense to me.
Imagine two carriers four fighters are attacked by four submarines two fighters. Submarines fight best by submerging to avoid enemy attacks. It would not make sense that the submarines leap out of the ocean into the path of enemy guns.
It’s not great that submarines are invincible either, but if one has to pick and choose, I’d say it’s not that bad.
In the above scenario, instead of attacking with four submarines two fighters, the attacker could just go in with four submarines against two carriers, ignoring the defending fighters.
But there’s any number of different situations, which may involve the defender deliberately taking destroyers as casualties early to manipulate how hits must be later allocated? Or attack/defense compositions could be given that are quite different to my example?
Yes, absolutely. But again, we’re looking at submarines submerging, or submarines sort of leaping out of the ocean, and if a simple rule is to be made universal, which should be chosen? Or what other simple solution should there be?
That kinda gives me different thoughts about. I think the role of the submarine as a surprise attack unit that is usually able to just avoid damage at all instead of being cannon fodder because its by balancing “unfortunately” the cheapest sea unit makes more sense.
That said, ships should still have much more defensive capabilities against air units than they have now. Maybe giving +1 def against air, or a one time roll like an AA has.
But I would like to stay as vanilla as possible. So maybe making the destroyers ability optional would be interesting as @vodot mentioned. Not sure how strongly this affects balancing though.
The destroyer should be your cheap piece. They were the fodder of naval units. As mentioned I can post what I’ve been playing with. Could test yourself with just OOB rules and such with my piece tweaks.
P Panther moved this topic from Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition on
@aardvarkpepper said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
I feel those suggested changes may have come out of discussion for another version of Axis and Allies. The changes are just way too good for Allies in 1942 2nd edition.
I’m not saying 20 IPC battleships are a GOOD thing either. But I expect 14 is too much of a good thing.
Yeah I shouldn’t have posted that table in this discussion or forum; it’s off-topic (cheaper/rebalance boats in general) and more directed at the larger/more open-ended games like G40.
@aardvarkpepper said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
But again, we’re looking at submarines submerging, or submarines sort of leaping out of the ocean, and if a simple rule is to be made universal, which should be chosen? Or what other simple solution should there be?
relevant RAW for subs in 42.2 is
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.
I think the simplest fix for the situation the OP describes is to make the following change:
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 and there are no surface
warships friendly to the submarines remaining that can have those hits assigned to them.
The two situations would then be
So subs could still be hunted and hit by A/C+DD groups, but they could no longer soak hits from aircraft in a mixed battle because in such a case they would now always be hit last. They retain their current ability to soak hits from surface ships and other subs, however.
A problem with this change would be a case where an attacking group of ships and planes would want to hit subs before hitting enemy destroyers/other surface ships. Have you guys encountered such a case?
@vodot said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
@aardvarkpepper said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
But again, we’re looking at submarines submerging, or submarines sort of leaping out of the ocean, and if a simple rule is to be made universal, which should be chosen? Or what other simple solution should there be?
relevant RAW for subs in 42.2 is
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.The effect of this change would be that subs can still be hunted and hit by aircraft + DD groups, while not allowing them to soak hits from aircraft in a mixed battle because they will always be hit last in such a case. They retain their current ability to soak hits from surface ships and other subs.
What do you mean by they will always be hit last ? Subs ?
The problem is destroyers cost to much and subs to cheap.
@general-6-stars said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
What do you mean by they will always be hit last ? Subs ?
I mean that under my proposed rule change subs would always be hit last by any aircraft that could hit them. Subs could only be assigned hits from enemy aircraft if there were no surface ships eligible to receive those hits.
Going back to the 1DD + 2FTR attacking 1BB + 6SS example, the defending subs could still be hit by the attacking aircraft - but only after the BB has been sunk (and providing the DD has survived that long).
Currently per RAW, subs can soak aircraft hits as long as there’s also an enemy destroyer present (the gist of the original complaint from @Megatron). The attacker in the above example is forced to sub-hunt first (because of A&A’s defender-chosen Order-of-Loss (OOL) rules) - while the ignored BB shoots his sub-hunting planes out of the sky. If the attacker leaves his DD behind, this combat is suddenly correct - the fighters duel with the BB and ignore the subs.
To rephrase the OP again, there shouldn’t be a case where an attacker is de-incentivized from bringing DDs into combat with subs out of fear that their DDs will enable the enemy’s subs to “leap out of the waves” (as @aardvarkpepper put it) to absorb hits from their attacking aircraft!
My rule change represents what I think is a best of both worlds with one simple change - let the subs be hit by aircraft+DD groups while preventing them from soaking the damage from the aerial portion of a large combined air/naval battle.
Making it based on OOL (order of loss) works well, I think, because OOL is not really relevant in the one situation where an a/c+DD group would WANT to hit subs - when sub-hunting/clearing sub groups. OOL isn’t important if subs are the only defending units!
Does that make sense?
At attacker that brings a DD + planes into a SZ with only enemy subs probably wants to sub hunt. That’s the RAI; he should be able to do that just like the OOB rules. However, an attacker bringing a DD + planes into a SZ with subs and a bunch of surface warships is definitely not sub-hunting - he is attacking a surface fleet! Sure, once he wipes out the fleet he will want to hunt the subs too; but that’s the correct OOL: he will want to hit the surface ships first. We shouldn’t penalize him for buying the DD by forcing every attack that contains a DD+A/C to sub-hunt before attacking the surface fleet.
@general-6-stars said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
The problem is destroyers cost to much and subs to cheap.
I think thats the essence of the problem. In real life submarines are far more expensive than destroyers. But then their role is also less impactful in the game which kinda justifies the low cost.
Giving surface ships AA capabilities would put more pressure on air units in naval battles. This would also reflect reality a bit better since ships were outfitted with countless anti air guns.
If subs cost more then destroyers then they should be not cheaper. Not basing it on let’s give them less cost because there weren’t that many.
I have played with different sub, destroyer and plane rules for a long time now. Plus Cruisers having aa capability. But a different topic.
Try subs cost 8 and destroyers cost 7. But allow the sub to dive with destroyer present and destroyer getting a depth charge shot.
@vodot said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
@general-6-stars said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
What do you mean by they will always be hit last ? Subs ?
I mean that under my proposed rule change subs would always be hit last by any aircraft that could hit them. Subs could only be assigned hits from enemy aircraft if there were no surface ships eligible to receive those hits.
Going back to the 1DD + 2FTR attacking 1BB + 6SS example, the defending subs could still be hit by the attacking aircraft - but only after the BB has been sunk (and providing the DD has survived that long).
Currently per RAW, subs can soak aircraft hits as long as there’s also an enemy destroyer present (the gist of the original complaint from @Megatron). The attacker in the above example is forced to sub-hunt first (because of A&A’s defender-chosen Order-of-Loss (OOL) rules) - while the ignored BB shoots his sub-hunting planes out of the sky. If the attacker leaves his DD behind, this combat is suddenly correct - the fighters duel with the BB and ignore the subs.
To rephrase the OP again, there shouldn’t be a case where an attacker is de-incentivized from bringing DDs into combat with subs out of fear that their DDs will enable the enemy’s subs to “leap out of the waves” (as @aardvarkpepper put it) to absorb hits from their attacking aircraft!
My rule change represents what I think is a best of both worlds with one simple change - let the subs be hit by aircraft+DD groups while preventing them from soaking the damage from the aerial portion of a large combined air/naval battle.
Making it based on OOL (order of loss) works well, I think, because OOL is not really relevant in the one situation where an a/c+DD group would WANT to hit subs - when sub-hunting/clearing sub groups. OOL isn’t important if subs are the only defending units!
Does that make sense?
At attacker that brings a DD + planes into a SZ with only enemy subs probably wants to sub hunt. That’s the RAI; he should be able to do that just like the OOB rules. However, an attacker bringing a DD + planes into a SZ with subs and a bunch of surface warships is definitely not sub-hunting - he is attacking a surface fleet! Sure, once he wipes out the fleet he will want to hunt the subs too; but that’s the correct OOL: he will want to hit the surface ships first. We shouldn’t penalize him for buying the DD by forcing every attack that contains a DD+A/C to sub-hunt before attacking the surface fleet.
Hi Vodot,
you got it right. A few months earlier, I got the same issue on a DK’s treads.
A few houserules can provide for keeping Destroyer as seafodder, even with C8 higher relative cost to Subs at 6 IPCs.
In addition to
I agree 8 IPCs is high for naval fodder, but in a game with higher economy like G40, it remains reasonable and yet more pieces make for a longer game. So, in 1942.2, 8 IPCs can be useful to keep in check pieces junkies who wants more units on board and aiming at a 12 hours game.
@Megatron it is a large drawback, which is why subs are the cheapest naval unit.
