In anniversary, the only way to have a submarine threat is to have your submarines scattered about. So far it has been my experience that usually you are attacking from at least two different sea zones, this would encourage you to attack from three or more to get the wolfpack bonus.
I disagree. One of the best reasons to buy subs is that they’re cheap and can take hits during a naval battle. If you’re subs are scattered in different sea zones, you negate this fodder ability in a defensive battle.
Secondly, I’m all about simplicity. Forcing the player to attack from 3 Different Sea Zones adds an unnecessary complexity to the game.
Weren’t we trying to make subs A LOT better, as you claim they are “Bogus?”
3) Submarine captains spent long times lining up shots in the security of knowing they were not seen and had plenty of time. They could be choosier.
Okay, you clarified it for me.
well both principles (1. a ratio whatever it is 2. each destroyer roll one die) encourages players to build more destroyers
the actual numbers can be tuned
I like ratio better because it doesn’t add to the combat sequence
its also something players are used to (from placing infantry on 1 or 2 on the battle board)
I would think if you’d want to fix the role of submarines, then fixes should be directed to possibly to biggest impact subs had on the war - attacking shipping and supply lines.
How about a “SBR-type” rule for subs in key sea zones? Maybe against shipments to UK and Japan only since they were most dependent on outside resources? Destroyers protecting these sea zones get a “AA” type role to defend so that subs have a chance to live and there is incentive to build subs? I would think that this could open up the Atlantic and Pacific a little more for something more than just sea unit stacking.
Seconded. +1 for an inventive idea.