Subs are awesome



  • Notice where I said in reference to Russia’s income, “without liberating a single territory” the figure I gave you was for Germany having control of Ukraine, E. Poland, and Belorussia.

    With a 5 sub purchase on G1 that only leaves 1 IPC. That is no ground units. At least the Infantry and tanks you purchase in round 2 will not have far to go to find the Russians. A pack of subs in the Baltic only protects Norway, NW and France from a UK invasion. It does nothing for stopping an invasion of Algeria from SZ12. To attack seazone 12 the subs will have to come in range of the destroyers that will be in seazone 12 which would be 2 British and 1 US. All the subs can do on defense is sink a destroyer and die to aircraft fire.

    Why don’t you read up on Abattlemap and we can play a game here sometime on the forum and you can put this theory to the test of an actual game.



  • This argument would be more fair if Germany was allowed to build U-Boats directly from French harbors, which is actually historical.  Since they can’t, I have to side with A44.  Subs serve only as a limited asset to the Germans.  They aren’t world beaters



  • @wodan46:

    If Britain builds Bombers, then you can go secure the seas around the United Kingdom easily, whereupon Britain will never be able to invade you.  Since invasion is no longer a concern, you can then return the focus to crushing Russia.

    There’s one problem, you just gave Russia 2 rounds of much needed time to gain Territory, Units, and IPC’s.

    @wodan46:

    Why would I build more German Subs?  I already have 8.  At this point, Germany should probably switch to massing Infantry and Bombers.  7 Infantry and 2 Bombers is about right.

    Because you said in your post above to mass subs on G2 (just like you did on G1).  So now your going to go almost exclusively Infantry?  Sounds pretty defense to me.  But that’s probably a good call because on UK2 and US2 turn……you’ll need to get everyone in their bomb shelters.  (Better hope they’re not HB’s)

    @wodan46:

    First turn, Japan should sink all of its IPCs into Research Chart 2.  By the time it collects some real money on the following turn, it will probably have a tech, and it can mass appropriately.  If they get Super Subs, Radar, or nothing, they should probably invest in some Subs to keep Americans away.  If they get Improved Shipyards, they should crush the US with a more conventional fleet, and anything else they should focus on abusing their uber air force instead.

    Ummmm nope, you said on J1 to spend everything on that massive 2 sub fleet.

    @wodan46:

    Then Japan sinks the American fleet, and either invades West US or goes back to ignoring America and pounding Russia.

    OK sinks the American fleet with what? Transports?  You just spent all your IPC’s on Tech?  And if your going to sink my American fleet (which is subs)  how you gonna do that without Destroyers?  That tactic sounds familiar…now where did I hear that?  😉  Also how is Japan gonna pound Russia if you’re sinking all your IPC’s in Tech dice and Subs?  In order to pound Russia you gotta buy ground forces and Transports and keep shipping to the mainland.



  • @a44bigdog:

    Why don’t you read up on Abattlemap and we can play a game here sometime on the forum and you can put this theory to the test of an actual game.

    Where should I go to get Abattlemap working anyways?  I wanna play.

    Also, I’m beginning to suspect that Germany might be best building a Sub fleet on Turn 2 or even 3, seeing as a British fleet is not an immediate threat early especially if you sink their starting navy with your air/sea force.



  • @I:

    There’s one problem, you just gave Russia 2 rounds of much needed time to gain Territory, Units, and IPC’s.

    With what?  If the Russians actually attack, they will suffer losses at a higher rate than Germany, something they can ill afford when Germany has a significantly larger budget than them anyway.

    @I:

    Because you said in your post above to mass subs on G2 (just like you did on G1).  So now your going to go almost exclusively Infantry?  Sounds pretty defense to me.  But that’s probably a good call because on UK2 and US2 turn……you’ll need to get everyone in their bomb shelters.  (Better hope they’re not HB’s)

    Subs are a deterrent.  You only mass them if the enemy needs deterrence.  Building a Sub fleet on G2 instead, building 5 Subs and either 5 Infantry or 3 Tanks, might be doable.

    @I:

    OK sinks the American fleet with what? Transports?  You just spent all your IPC’s on Tech?  And if your going to sink my American fleet (which is subs)  how you gonna do that without Destroyers?  That tactic sounds familiar…now where did I hear that?  😉  Also how is Japan gonna pound Russia if you’re sinking all your IPC’s in Tech dice and Subs?  In order to pound Russia you gotta buy ground forces and Transports and keep shipping to the mainland.

    You may notice that Japan has starting units.  This strategy works better if they use them.  The American fleet in the Pacific, by the start of A1, consists of a Destroyer, a Carrier, and 2 Fighters, with an additional pair of Fighters and Bombers that aren’t in range yet, but can quickly join up.  Japan’s Consists of 3 Carriers with as many as 6 Fighters, a Battleship, and a Cruiser.

    J1: Tech Research*3
    J2: If by now, you got Heavy Bombers, mass Bombers, if you get Jet Fighters, mass them and Carriers, if you get LRA, mass either, if you get Improved Shipyards, get a conventional fleet, if get Super Subs, Radar, or nothing, you should mass Subs and Bombers.



  • The first post in this thread has links to the Abattlemap program and the AA50 files.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12873.0

    This thread explains how to play here using the forums.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13365.0

    Strategic theory is nice. And I do like seeing people thinking outside of the box. However without game play testing strategic theory is just that theory. This is also why I am not a big fan of mathematical evaluations either. Axis and Allies is not a balance sheet.



  • @a44bigdog:

    The first post in this thread has links to the Abattlemap program and the AA50 files.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12873.0

    This thread explains how to play here using the forums.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13365.0

    Strategic theory is nice. And I do like seeing people thinking outside of the box. However without game play testing strategic theory is just that theory. This is also why I am not a big fan of mathematical evaluations either. Axis and Allies is not a balance sheet.

    Thanks, I’ll check it later today, when I get back to my room computer (I am abusing a library computer right now, and thus can’t



  • Fleet Action, strategic-subs no, but as raiders, ambushers, Oh yeah…
    On the other hand, I have been caught with my pants down, so to speak,
    by having a CV and 2 FTR, being caught by two subs- it was not pretty- good bye IPC’s.  Keep several DD handy at all times-LOL.



  • @a44bigdog:

    The first post in this thread has links to the Abattlemap program and the AA50 files.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12873.0

    This thread explains how to play here using the forums.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13365.0

    Strategic theory is nice. And I do like seeing people thinking outside of the box. However without game play testing strategic theory is just that theory. This is also why I am not a big fan of mathematical evaluations either. Axis and Allies is not a balance sheet.

    Used Winzip, but can’t get file to run, even after I extracted it.  Can open map though. Got it working, mostly.



  • @Bluestroke:

    Fleet Action, strategic-subs no, but as raiders, ambushers, Oh yeah…
    On the other hand, I have been caught with my pants down, so to speak,
    by having a CV and 2 FTR, being caught by two subs- it was not pretty- good bye IPC’s.  Keep several DD handy at all times-LOL.

    I see no reason why Japan’s fleet action can’t consist entirely of raiding subs.  Scatter 6-12 Subs, with no more than 1 Sub per sea zone within range of a Destroyer, and America will be forced to invest in a fleet of Destroyers, which even if it is successful, has no actual ability to attack Japan proper, who probably has 50-70 Income.



  • Wodan if you will read that second thread I posted it will explain battlemap. It is pretty much an electronic game board. It doesn’t really “run” or “do” anything. If you can open the maps it sounds like you have it working.

    You might want to check out the play by forums section and play some games here to test some of your strategies. I am only around on weekends and already have 7 games in progress at the moment but I probably could get some rounds in against you next weekend.



  • @a44bigdog:

    Wodan if you will read that second thread I posted it will explain battlemap. It is pretty much an electronic game board. It doesn’t really “run” or “do” anything. If you can open the maps it sounds like you have it working.

    You might want to check out the play by forums section and play some games here to test some of your strategies. I am only around on weekends and already have 7 games in progress at the moment but I probably could get some rounds in against you next weekend.

    Ok.  I got Battlemap working to the point that I could place and remove units.  How do you scroll/zoom in/out?



  • The + and - keys on the number pad of the keyboard control the zoom. However the unit icons do not change size with the levels of zoom so zooming far out to see the map can create issues.

    Scrolling is done by holding the right mouse key and moving the mouse.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    In a nutshell, submarines can be good additions to an already strong fleet or they can be a great method of keeping a cleared ocean yours.

    However, in BOTH scenarios, you have to have a good surface fleet first.  Submarines are an after thought, something to augment your abilities much later.



  • @a44bigdog:

    The + and - keys on the number pad of the keyboard control the zoom.

    LOL no jokes, I’ve been playing online for like 4 years and never knew that. Cool



  • @Cmdr:

    In a nutshell, submarines can be good additions to an already strong fleet or they can be a great method of keeping a cleared ocean yours.

    However, in BOTH scenarios, you have to have a good surface fleet first.  Submarines are an after thought, something to augment your abilities much later.

    Jennifer Exact emundo …. Wodan, your instincts are correct, subs do matter, but as jennifer states, one of many tools and tactics you can deploy with a balanced surface fleet.
    A sub only strategy, would likely hinder your correct tactical use of subs, as most unbalanced strategies, eventually fail to their internal flaws.



  • The big way I see subs being used is when the enemy decides to use a large amount of carriers to inexpensively add more offensive punch to your fleet while not worrying about the defensive aspect as carriers are skewed toward the defensive.  The only problem with that idea is the subs are absolutely worthless in the defensive aspect against the carrier’s planes unless they bring DDs, or unless you have no surface fleet.  I really like purchasing around 3 for the US if i’m going pacific to force Japan to respond with a naval buy or lose control of the seas.  The other problem is the destroyer raid where the enemy sends one destroyer plus lots of planes to kill your sub stack.  All in all this game really pushes you to use a balanced fleet focusing on destroyers, and subs are part of that concept even if not directly used, all in my opinion of course.

    The thing I’m trying to figure out is if there is anyway on earth for Germany to use subs, and I wonder if Italy could get some use out of them.  The other problem with subs is of course the DD block, but I’m wondering if later on we may see players in the Atlantic ‘trading’ sea zones because of the sub/DD interaction.



  • @wodan46:

    @Bluestroke:

    Fleet Action, strategic-subs no, but as raiders, ambushers, Oh yeah…
    On the other hand, I have been caught with my pants down, so to speak,
    by having a CV and 2 FTR, being caught by two subs- it was not pretty- good bye IPC’s.  Keep several DD handy at all times-LOL.

    I see no reason why Japan’s fleet action can’t consist entirely of raiding subs.  Scatter 6-12 Subs, with no more than 1 Sub per sea zone within range of a Destroyer, and America will be forced to invest in a fleet of Destroyers, which even if it is successful, has no actual ability to attack Japan proper, who probably has 50-70 Income.

    A minor US fleet, with two or three BB, one or two destroyers and a transport would be a pain to take out. Besides: I believe the Japanese aim is not to defend Japan, but to dominate the entire Pacific (with Japan herself not even threatened).



  • @Andy1984:

    @wodan46:

    @Bluestroke:

    Fleet Action, strategic-subs no, but as raiders, ambushers, Oh yeah…
    On the other hand, I have been caught with my pants down, so to speak,
    by having a CV and 2 FTR, being caught by two subs- it was not pretty- good bye IPC’s.  Keep several DD handy at all times-LOL.

    I see no reason why Japan’s fleet action can’t consist entirely of raiding subs.  Scatter 6-12 Subs, with no more than 1 Sub per sea zone within range of a Destroyer, and America will be forced to invest in a fleet of Destroyers, which even if it is successful, has no actual ability to attack Japan proper, who probably has 50-70 Income.

    A minor US fleet, with two or three BB, one or two destroyers and a transport would be a pain to take out. Besides: I believe the Japanese aim is not to defend Japan, but to dominate the entire Pacific (with Japan herself not even threatened).

    The subs would allow Japan to dominate the Pacific.  Japan should build 7 or so Subs J2, 6 Subs J3, and 5 Subs a turn thereafter as needed.  So long as Japan spreads them out to a density of 1 sub per sea zone, the US will probably have to spend 40 IPCs a turn on Destroyers in order to a punch a decent hole in the Subs, and even that will be slow and take time.  If they don’t mass Destroyers, the Subs simply obliterate the American fleet on the counterattack.  If they have Super Subs, it will be even worse.

    The thing is that Japan doesn’t really need that many reinforcements to secure all the territories they wish, which means that they can afford to waste 30-50 IPCs a turn on Subs.  America, in the mean time, needs to organize an invasion force with Transports and either Carrier Groups providing air support or Cruisers/Battleships supplying bombardment, all of which must be purchased on 40-50 IPCs.



  • First:
    Face it, bombers, not subs are the main weapon of naval combat. They have far superiour theatre flexibility and combat range and thats it.

    Cut your losses:
    You normaly cant afford to lose your limited number of bombers in fleet actions. And thats where the sub comes into play. 2-3 subs together with 2-3 bombers are enough to wreak havoc on most fleets and with a rising number of aircraft this equation gets even better, as you can absolutely afford to lose your subs and then decide to continue the action or to retreat.

    Superiour opposing air force:
    If the opponents air is too strong, subs can repel small fleets and hunt the lone transport. This tactic has been discussed before.



  • @Count_Zeppelin:

    First:
    Face it, bombers, not subs are the main weapon of naval combat. They have far superiour theatre flexibility and combat range and thats it.

    Cut your losses:
    You normaly cant afford to lose your limited number of bombers in fleet actions. And thats where the sub comes into play. 2-3 subs together with 2-3 bombers are enough to wreak havoc on most fleets and with a rising number of aircraft this equation gets even better, as you can absolutely afford to lose your subs and then decide to continue the action or to retreat.

    Superiour opposing air force:
    If the opponents air is too strong, subs can repel small fleets and keep the hunt the lone transport. This tactic has been discussed before.

    I agree.  The use of subs with aircraft is a gret combo for naval combat  (even better if you have super subs).  You can even make it cheaper if you have long range aircraft and jet fighter, transforming your fighters in better weapon than the original bomber.



  • I agree.  The use of subs with aircraft is a gret combo for naval combat  (even better if you have super subs).  You can even make it cheaper if you have long range aircraft and jet fighter, transforming your fighters in better weapon than the original bomber.

    I’m sorry to disagree, but long range aircraft benefits bombers so much it would be a waste to switch to fighters. Although saving 2 IPC per unit is nice, being able to bombard any territory or sea zone on the map at will is much too good to give up on - and thats what long range bombers do!


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

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

62
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts