• I have always felt the rules for subs were unfavorable and that subs should be given a bigger role in the A&A series.  Historically, subs and aircraft were the big killers of the oceans and I have not seen that in A&A.  Could someone let me know if the sub rules are getting any new thoughts in the game?

  • '10

    Could someone let me know if the sub rules are getting any new thoughts in the game?

    Per LH
    Sub stalling… As in Anniversary you can either pass through a sub or attack it if you have a DD.

    Per Krieghund
    2) Are there any changes to sub movement rules?

    My sources say no.

  • Subs can STILL be used effectively. you can make your opponent waste money on a navy, just six IPC is an excellent way to make sure your opponent never leaves transports unattended. I used subs effectively today!

  • By the end of the war subs were nowhere near as effective as in the beginning of the war. The destroyers had the edge in that confrontation. For the subs, the hunters bacame the hunted.

  • '20 '18 '16 '13 '12


    By the end of the war subs were nowhere near as effective as in the beginning of the war. The destroyers had the edge in that confrontation. For the subs, the hunters bacame the hunted.

    This is true. Furthermore, subs played a much bigger role in the atlantic than they did in the pacific, and with the inclusion of the “supply lines” I am sure subs will see their fair share of the action.

  • Dido that, convoy zones will be a subfest or sub feast if you prefer. It should add something the sea’s have been lacking, giving subs a much bigger role.

  • Have we not gotten as close to “realism” as could have been asked for without detracting from game play?  Subs have become an effective and well balanced unit in AA50, let’s not tinker with what works.  If they get any more added advantages, I hope it has to do with shipping convoys.

  • '20 '18 '16 '13 '12

    Agreed. I think too much game complexity can be a seriously bad thing. Simplicity is one of the advantages AA has over other WWII simulation games, it makes it fun to play for the average person, which means more recruits!

    Keep the subs simple, they are almost too complex as it is, what with the subs not actually being there unless there is a destoryer present and all. And convoy zones will give them a more historically acurate role anyway.

  • Yes keep it simple

  • The only thing I would possibly like to see change is the one DD sees all subs thing. Thats kinda lame, and there is defiantly room for improvement there. Radar/sonar should be in the tech tree, until you develop this tech you should have very limited detection.

  • I agree with the 1 DD cancles out 1 SS idea.  I mean really even throwing out the logic part of it leaves you with the game balance aspect that one 8 IPC unit can cancel an infinite number of 6 IPC units is a little silly.  Of course the whole math factor can be scary to most who fear that such equations are best left to Einstein and leave most gamers running to the hills.

    • At the beginning of the attack and/or move stage, each player secretly decides where he wants his sub located for that particular stage.  Write down the name of the sea in the Admiral’s Registry.

    • Subs have a fire power rating of 6 and 10 kill points

    • Submarines cost $200 M plus one grain unit, one oil unit, and four mineral units.  This gives you a submarine loaded with two nukes

    There are some other rules about choke points, sub detection,and ambushing.  Also L-stars are at a reduced defense against missiles fired from submarines.

  • sounds like the “Supremacy” game, zooma.

  • Furthermore, subs played a much bigger role in the atlantic than they did in the pacific,

    Got to argue here, Subs became supreme in the Pacific for the USN.  The Sub effort more or less cut Japan off from alot of important resorces (Oil, Rubber any one) by the end of the war.  The Japs never ran proper convoys and considered escorting a demeaning task for the Mighty Japenese Navy.  I will second the feeling here simplity is best.

  • I agree this game must be kept as simple as possible (KISAP) and NOT simple stupid (KISS) like the Risk game. It is obvious we need some special rules, like a sub can not kill aircrafts nor shore bombard land units, even if it historically had a little gun on deck. This is logical.

    I think IMHO that the naval rules from AA50 is the best so far. Of course it look strange that one single destroyer will allow bombers to kill hundred subs, butt if we had to match destroyers and subs one-to-one, just imagine the more complex resolving of battles.

    Now gimme a + and help me reach the 800

  • Anniversary really made subs have a nice defined role. Their cheap status (6 rather than 😎 means you can build 33% more for the cost. This means you can get much more firepower and ability to kill with subs than before. The addition of cruisers and the nerfing of destroyers means more ships are vulnerable to first strike than before, and the ship that hoses subs is weaker (although, admittedly, less expensive). Finally, their reduction in defense means that they are made into much more purely offensive weapons. This means a naval aggressor builds subs, not someone looking to protect their navy and shipping. This means subs are more powerful in their specific role than ever, and have a nicer, clear role.

  • Sub rules are fine just the way they are.

  • yup, I am happy with a niche unit. I mean its cool to be able to run away!

  • I agree AA50 rules for subs are the best so far. It defiantly makes them more of an attack unit. The lower cost is way cool. The addition of convoys will give them even more of an aggressive role I hope.

    The only part that “might” need improvement is detection. I still say that subs were much more deadly early in the war. It took the UK/US some time to develop tactics to launch a successful anti sub campaign. The use of advanced radar/sonar along with depth charges/forward devices is what turn the tide. On another note Japan was way behind in detection, and to give them the the same advantage from the get go seems wrong. I know game balance plays its part here. I wouldn’t want game play to suffer. Larry did say there would be tech in the AA40 global game. Maybe there will be limited detection out of the box, but tech will give you advanced sonar/tactics. I also hope he develops a 3 branch tech tree so you can narrow down your advancements, ground, air or sea. That way a power like Russia might look at developing its air tech w/o fear of getting navy tech.

  • maybe they could make a tech like advanced artillery for detection, so its one destroyer per sub, but with the tech, you get two or three subs per destroyer

  • That’s workable. Anything would be better then 1 DD see’s everything right out of the box. You could even house rule something like that into AA50, just make it part of the radar tech. 1 for 1 until you get advanced radar(tech) then 1 DD see’s all subs. Its even kinda how the radar tech works. You fire AA guns @ 1 until you develop radar giving your AA guns a kill @ 2. Early in the game subs could easily out number DD’s, but you would still get limited detection. I might have to try this next game.

    This would also work when air units & DD attack subs. Matched up 1 for 1. Excess subs would be allowed to submerge, unless the power w/DD & air units also has radar. At that point subs could not submerge til the DD is destroyed, just how it is now

    Come on give subs more bite! :evil:

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 12
  • 17
  • 5
  • 10
  • 4
  • 5
  • 24
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys