Submarine Rule Intepretation

[Jennifer]

So, in your mind, Mr. Switch, do you think that Submarines submerge before or after the attacker decides to engage again?

By your own admission (and I agree that’s how the OOB rules read, I disagree on LHTR until I get a page and paragraph) the submarines submerge in the same “sub-part” of a combat round.

[Krieghund]

@ncscswitch:

PHASE:  The entire aspect of a given turn of play (such as the Combat Movement PHASE or the Combat PHASE)

ROUND:  Each repeat of the 7 STEPS of active combat operations

STEP:  Each sub-part of a Combat Round
1:  Place units on Battle Board
2:  Conduct Opening Fire
3:  Remove opening fire casualties
4:  Attacking Units Fire
5:  Defending Units Fire
6:  Remove Casualties
7:  Press Attack or Retreat

If 1 round of combat does not complete the combat, you repeat steps 4 through 7.

The rules are explicit that under Step 7 of the combat sequence…

SUBMARINES:
Attacking submarines may retreat during this step by submerging…

Now, if you wish to argue, let’s see what others have to say about this…

Other than the statement in red (it should say to repeat steps 2 though 7), everything above is correct.

Subs sumberge in step 7 in both the box rules and LHTR.  In LHTR it clearly states that the attacker has the choice to retreat and/or submerge before the defender may submerge.  In the box rules it is never clearly stated in which order these things occur, only that they all occur in step 7.  The only reasonable interpretations can be that they occur simultaneously, or that the attacker chooses first, since that is the “normal” order of things.

[Guest]

The part in read is from LHTR, but it has qualifiers regarding SUB opening fire in subsequent rounds of combat.

I think it was written that way to remove any questions about BB’s support shots and AA fire in subsequent combat rounds.

[Krieghund]

From LHTR 2.0, page 14:

As long as combat continues, repeat steps 2-6 (only subs will be able to fire in step 2 - all other opening round fire capabilities are for one round of fire only).

If no submarines are present, then repeat steps 4-6.  Each such set of steps constitutes one cycle of combat.

The reference to steps 2 through 6 and 4 through 6 assume that the repeating cycle is actually part of step 7.  This could have been worded a bit more clearly, but I think the intent is evident.

I also think that this section may be the source of Jen’s misperception.  There is an inconsistency of terms here.  Opening Fire is referred to here as a “round”, while the complete combat round is referred to as a “cycle”.  However it also says on the same page that subs may submerge “at the end of ANY round of combat”.  This should read “at the end of ANY cycle of combat”.  No matter how many times you proofread something like this, there’s always something you miss!

[Ranor]

However, I won’t be reading all 30 pages, so if you find something that contradicts, feel free to share the page and paragraph number.  Line number would be great too.

OK the following quote is from LHTR Rules 2.0. On page 16 it states under the paragraph “Step 7: Press Attack or Withdraw” and the minor paragraph “Conditions for Ending Combat”

Condition B) Defender Withdraws Subs by Submerging

If the attacker has not withdrawn all units, defending submarines may submerge. They may not
submerge if opposing destroyers are still on the battle board. The defender may submerge one or
more subs, regardless of whether or not there are other types of defending units still on the battle
board.
Return any submerged submarine to the game board contested sea zone and tip it onto its side to
mark it as submerged. It remains submerged until the end of the noncombat move phase.
If no defending units remain on the battle board after this step, combat ends.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

However, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend you are correct until such time as you prove you are definitively; Attacker attacks with battleship, transport, 2 fighters, bomber and scores two hits, defender scores two hits.  Attacker takes damage to battleship and loses transport.  Attacker then determines to press the attack.  Defender takes transport, destroyer and submerges.

OR

Attacker retreats to SZ 8, builds a carrier and destroyer (best possible defensive punch they can afford on R1) and America units.  Now, the Russian submarine, I presume, is blocking SZ 12 so that America can reinforce the now empty England with some ground troops.

Germany has 3 submarines, 5 fighters, 2 bombers against battleship, 2 destroyers, carrier, 3 transports, 2 fighters

FROOD:

Attacker wins decisively with at least two bombers left most of the time.  The defender BARELY has a chance to keep her battleship alive.  And I mean BARELY.  We’re talking less odds then I’d be happy with as an island nation with no capitol ships within range to defend new transports.

And that’s assuming you are correct!  If you are incorrect it’s even WORSE because now you are trapped without the American Transports and Destroyer for help!

You’ve made two assumption errors here.

1).  Why would you put a better defensive piece out of a key battle as a blocker.  I would take a US tpt into sz12 with ground units to take algeria with 2 more ground units into an already weakened German Africa.

2).  Unless both subs hit, UK could lose a ftr to maximize their defensive capability in sz8 (we ARE listing max defenses, right?)

this gives 3 subs, 5 ftrs, 2 bmrs on
3 tpts, sub, 2 DD, A/C, BB, 2 FTR

I see 40% win for Germany.

I STILL say I would trade my entire allied navy in this example for the German airforce and no Germans in Africa.

[Jennifer]

@axis_roll:

You’ve made two assumption errors here.

1).  Why would you put a better defensive piece out of a key battle as a blocker.  I would take a US tpt into sz12 with ground units to take algeria with 2 more ground units into an already weakened German Africa.

I didn’t, someone said use the Submarine to block, I believe it was Switch, but I don’t remember for sure.  Anyway, the Transport would be needed to defend England with troops assuming England did not attack SZ 7 and spent all it’s money on navy.  That would mean that the only defenders in England would be 2 infantry, artillery, armor, bomber.  America would need to bring 2 infantry, artillery, armor, fighter, bomber just to make sure there was no Sea Lion success story.  That negates using a transport to block in SZ 12.

Also, I do not agree that 2 ground troops in Algeria weakens Germany at all.  I can easily block England from attack SZ 13, and retake Algeria and take Egypt with convenience if I want too.  However, it does weaken the allies because now they have no units in Africa.

2).  Unless both subs hit, UK could lose a ftr to maximize their defensive capability in sz8 (we ARE listing max defenses, right?)

this gives 3 subs, 5 ftrs, 2 bmrs on
3 tpts, sub, 2 DD, A/C, BB, 2 FTR

I see 40% win for Germany.

Losing a fighter makes little sense.  Losing the bomber maybe, but you’ll want the fighter for defense in SZ 8, I would assume.

I STILL say I would trade my entire allied navy in this example for the German airforce and no Germans in Africa.

But that is not the trade you are suggesting.  You are asking to trade the entire Allied Navy + most of the allied ground forces (and all but 1 infantry in Africa) without doing any serious damage to Germany in return.  Okay, you take out 5 fighters leaving Germany with 2 bombers, transport, battleship.  That’s plenty.

Top it off with Germany being able to rebuild fighters cheaper then you can buy carriers and battleships and I fail to see how this trade is in your favor?  And that’s assuming Germany bothers.  With no real navy to worry about (and two bombers can can reach out and touch any unprotected transports you build, forcing you to build warships first) why shouldn’t Germany and Japan go 100% armor dash for Moscow?  Even unbalanced trades where they lose more than the Russians will eventually let them take Moscow and probably before you can get the American transport train up.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

@axis_roll:

You’ve made two assumption errors here.

1).  Why would you put a better defensive piece out of a key battle as a blocker.  I would take a US tpt into sz12 with ground units to take algeria with 2 more ground units into an already weakened German Africa.

I didn’t, someone said use the Submarine to block, I believe it was Switch, but I don’t remember for sure.  Anyway, the Transport would be needed to defend England with troops assuming England did not attack SZ 7 and spent all it’s money on navy.  That would mean that the only defenders in England would be 2 infantry, artillery, armor, bomber.  America would need to bring 2 infantry, artillery, armor, fighter, bomber just to make sure there was no Sea Lion success story.  That negates using a transport to block in SZ 12.

I already said I would buy an inf, DD and AC and hit SZ7
so no Transport in SZ7 unless you bought a tpt on G1 (and an A/C to protect that tpt)

UK would have defending:
UK: 3 inf, art, tank, 2 ftr
US: inf,tank,bmr
10 units, pretty good.

Even IF Germany were to go for London, German airforce is greatly diminished, UK could easily take it back and the allied fleet now rules the atlantic.

Also, I do not agree that 2 ground troops in Algeria weakens Germany at all.  I can easily block England from attack SZ 13, and retake Algeria and take Egypt with convenience if I want too.  However, it does weaken the allies because now they have no units in Africa.

Didn’t germany already NOT attack AES?  wasn’t that part of this grand master plan? 
Doesn’t UK original AES units + 2 more US units > German units in Libya?

Oh that’s right JENFORZES!

2).  Unless both subs hit, UK could lose a ftr to maximize their defensive capability in sz8 (we ARE listing max defenses, right?)

this gives 3 subs, 5 ftrs, 2 bmrs on
3 tpts, sub, 2 DD, A/C, BB, 2 FTR

I see 40% win for Germany.

Losing a fighter makes little sense.  Losing the bomber maybe, but you’ll want the fighter for defense in SZ 8, I would assume.
maybe I should’ve said bomber instead (depends on if Germany did buy a transport to still threaten London) .  Two american ftrs can land on a SZ8 carrier.

But you didn’t comment on the only 40% win I find.  Sounds like a losing battle to me

I STILL say I would trade my entire allied navy in this example for the German airforce and no Germans in Africa.

But that is not the trade you are suggesting.  You are asking to trade the entire Allied Navy + most of the allied ground forces (and all but 1 infantry in Africa) without doing any serious damage to Germany in return.  Okay, you take out 5 fighters leaving Germany with 2 bombers, transport, battleship.  That’s plenty.

Top it off with Germany being able to rebuild fighters cheaper then you can buy carriers and battleships and I fail to see how this trade is in your favor?  And that’s assuming Germany bothers.  With no real navy to worry about (and two bombers can can reach out and touch any unprotected transports you build, forcing you to build warships first) why shouldn’t Germany and Japan go 100% armor dash for Moscow?  Even unbalanced trades where they lose more than the Russians will eventually let them take Moscow and probably before you can get the American transport train up.

What about the ‘opportunity cost’ of not attacking any Russia ground units with German air support?  ESPECIALLY if you’ve added a bomber G1 (and tpt and a/c?), your ground unit count might be a bit down. 
As the allies, I would ensure I gave Germany PLENTY of targets, especially Russia ground units.  EVEN JENFORZES have a limit … (in theory)

[TimTheEnchanter]

@Cmdr:

So, in your mind, Mr. Switch, do you think that Submarines submerge before or after the attacker decides to engage again?

By your own admission (and I agree that’s how the OOB rules read, I disagree on LHTR until I get a page and paragraph) the submarines submerge in the same “sub-part” of a combat round.

The following is from LHTR 2.0, page 14, about 2 inches below the paragraph you quoted

@LHTR:

See the paragraphs below for a more complete description and limitations of each kind of
withdrawal.

In step 7, combat continues unless one of the following conditions occurs (in this order of sequence):
Condition A) Attacker withdraws all attacking units (See detailed explanations below);
Condition B) Defender withdraws all submarines by submerging, leaving no other defending
units in play;
Condition C) Either or both sides lose all units

Box rules are definitely ambiguous, but there is absolutely no question with LHTR.

[Jennifer]

Okay, so attacker can chicken out before defender does.

Seems backwards, IMHO.  At least in LHTR.

---

Anyway, the potential threats are:

England is stuck in a forward position without American naval aid thus allowing Germany a significant attack with minimal risk
England and America cower in SZ 8 with every last piece of equipment they have, letting Germany unite her forces and have no risk in Africa at all
England jumps the gun, putting all their eggs in one basket hoping to catch Germany sleeping by putting her RAF in Russia

England does something smart and sails around S. Africa with the IO fleet or attempts to annoy Japan with it.

Any of those 4 options is a win for Germany.  Germany has lost NOTHING.  England and America have bowed to Germany and not only given her the initiative, but delayed their own moves by at least a full turn.

---

Axis:

Your numbers are incorrect.  Frood has the SZ 8 battle (assuming you left something in SZ 12 to stop the battleship/transport) at 49% attacker, 47% defender with most likely outcomes being 2 bombers and a fighter survive for the attacker.  And if defender survives, most likely outcome is you have a battleship and nothing else.

Again, I’ll take that with Germany.  Since Russia will now have at least 3 rounds with no support from the allies, I can mass produce tanks iwth Japan and Germany and just run over her without resistance.  And, without English or American navies, there will be no assistance in Africa, which means Germany can expect to be up in the low 50 IPCs in a matter of rounds.

Sure, I’m short on fighters, but fighters die to AA Guns, tanks don’t.  Fighters cost twice as much as tanks.  I’ll take 8 tanks over 4 fighters any day against Russia if England and America are fleetless.

[Zero Pilot]

@axis_roll:

I STILL say I would trade my entire allied navy in this example for the German airforce and no Germans in Africa.

Totally agree. In fact I can’t really think of an example where I wouldn’t make this trade. The Allied navy can be rebuilt if necessary. The German air force on the other hand will never return in equal numbers once decimated unless the Allies are already on the ropes.

[Jennifer]

@Zero:

@axis_roll:

I STILL say I would trade my entire allied navy in this example for the German airforce and no Germans in Africa.

Totally agree. In fact I can’t really think of an example where I wouldn’t make this trade. The Allied navy can be rebuilt if necessary. The German air force on the other hand will never return in equal numbers once decimated unless the Allies are already on the ropes.

The problem is he does not get the entire German Air Force, nor is he getting ANY of the Germans in Africa.  Not according to my plan.  He’s getting all the fighters at the cost of all the british fighters and all the british battleships and all of Britians first round of purchases AND Germany is getting Africa for little or no cost.

Germany should have, in Libya on R2: 3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor and that’s with NO EUROPEAN UNITS TRANSFERED.  England, according to his plan, has brought nothing to the show in Africa and has spent the entire first round putting boats in the water.  America likewise has brought nothing to the show in Africa, instead, bringing units to England to counter Sea Lion (as if that’s a real threat.)

Anyway, with the alteration of the rules, thanks to Tim the Enchanter (not sarcastic, honest thanks, if someone hadn’t nerfed my karma generating ability, I would have given you some karma for that) I’d say the SZ 5 fleet goes to SZ 6.  It can still be hit, but now England cannot possibly hit and run.  Meanwhile, the Germans can still use them in SZ 12 if they are NOT hit.

[Guest]

Before this gets off topic…

Is everyone in agreement now that SUBs may NOT submerge immediately after opening fire, despite Jen’s previous posts to the contrary?

[TimTheEnchanter]

@ncscswitch:

Before this gets off topic…

Is everyone in agreement now that SUBs may NOT submerge immediately after opening fire, despite Jen’s previous posts to the contrary?

Probably everyone except Mazer, since csub’s rules are exactly the opposite.  (frickin’ subs!)

Note: I agree with Jen that this is one case where LHTR seems backwards, and I’ve passed my sentiments on the subject on to Craig Yope and Krieghund  (who seem to be the resident experts on LHTR) in the past. The reasoning I was given is that the attacker gets to act first at each stage along the way, so they get to do so here as well to keep it consistent.  My response was I don’t care whether it’s absolutely consistent on who goes first, I want better gameplay, and I think the threat of defending subs submerging and stranding an attack fleet makes for much more interesting tactical options than the current LHTR order, IMHO.

[newpaintbrush]

@axis_roll:

EVEN JENFORZES have a limit … (in theory)

Clearly you do not understand the jenforces.

[Jennifer]

@TimTheEnchanter:

@ncscswitch:

Before this gets off topic…

Is everyone in agreement now that SUBs may NOT submerge immediately after opening fire, despite Jen’s previous posts to the contrary?

Probably everyone except Mazer, since csub’s rules are exactly the opposite.  (frickin’ subs!)

Note: I agree with Jen that this is one case where LHTR seems backwards, and I’ve passed my sentiments on the subject on to Craig Yope and Krieghund  (who seem to be the resident experts on LHTR) in the past. The reasoning I was given is that the attacker gets to act first at each stage along the way, so they get to do so here as well to keep it consistent.  My response was I don’t care whether it’s absolutely consistent on who goes first, I want better gameplay, and I think the threat of defending subs submerging and stranding an attack fleet makes for much more interesting tactical options than the current LHTR order, IMHO.

Now that we’ve found the relevant page number and paragraph, yes, i think we are all in agreement, at least in regards to LHTR.  (Box rules are still ambiguous, and as Tim says, C-Sub is the opposite).

Anyway, I disagree.  Submarines submerging should be during the declare casualties and thus, before press attack/withdraw.  Just my PERSONAL feelings, not saying it is a rule.

My rational is that this is the time the defender is making his choices.  He’s already at a disadvantage having to chose casualties before the attacker, therefore, the attacker should be at the disadvantage when it comes to submerge/attack options.

My further rational relies on common sense and not game mechanics.

1)  Submarine captains are going to know the instant they put fish in the water if they are attacking or submerging.  They are not going to sit around to see if they hit the enemy, they just want to get below the waves and away from possible depth charges as fast as possible.

2)  Submarines probably should not be allowed to fire in the round they are going to submerge.  They do not fire at aircraft, thus, it is assumed they are not firing because they are diving to safety. (They had deck guns and machine guns, the machine gun would have had the possibility of shooting down planes, but it’s safer to submerge, so they submerge.)

I understand that the two points are subjective and that others may have a different feeling about it.  Those are my feelings about it.

So, to reiterate in effort to being a bit more clear as to my meaning, the attack should go  as follows:

1)  Attacker decides to attack and with what units from where, or continue the attack already started.
2)  Opening Fire occurs.
2a) Defender determines what submarines will attempt to submerge and what submarines will fire on the enemy
2b) Attacker determines what submarines, fighters, bombers will withdraw or fire on the enemy
3)  Opening Fire Casualties are removed
3a) Defender selects casualties first
3b) Attacker selects casualties second
4) Normal Combat occurs.
4a) Defender selects casualties first
4b) Attacker selects casualties second
5) Determine if battle has been won. (AKA, no attackers or defenders are left to continue the battle.)
6) Return to Step 1.

As you can see, the burden is still on the defender to chose causalities before the attacker, allowing the attacker to tailor units left as needed. (If the defender kills off all his surface ships, then the attacker would be wise to keep his fighters/bombers to negate further damage from submarines.)  However, this also keeps the Attacker honest because he may have that backfire on him when the defender decides to submerge before the attacker can chose to retreat.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Axis:

Your numbers are incorrect.  Frood has the SZ 8 battle (assuming you left something in SZ 12 to stop the battleship/transport) at 49% attacker, 47% defender with most likely outcomes being 2 bombers and a fighter survive for the attacker.  And if defender survives, most likely outcome is you have a battleship and nothing else.

We can discuss the implications of a battle/strategic move ad naseum which can be very subjective in interpretation, but battle sim outcomes are not.  I have used two sims (batsim and frood) and have the same results, but you continue to maintain my numbers are wrong.

The best I can think of is to show your work:

note in batsim, I have to tweak it a bit.
3 carriers is two DDs and an a/c
the 1 inf on defense (hitting at 0) is the damage for the BB.

so can you please show me how my numbers are incorrect?

I’ll repeat.
Looks like a losing battle for Germany to me, and two dice sims prove my contention.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

@Zero:

@axis_roll:

I STILL say I would trade my entire allied navy in this example for the German airforce and no Germans in Africa.

Totally agree. In fact I can’t really think of an example where I wouldn’t make this trade. The Allied navy can be rebuilt if necessary. The German air force on the other hand will never return in equal numbers once decimated unless the Allies are already on the ropes.

The problem is he does not get the entire German Air Force, nor is he getting ANY of the Germans in Africa.  Not according to my plan.  He’s getting all the fighters at the cost of all the british fighters and all the british battleships and all of Britians first round of purchases AND Germany is getting Africa for little or no cost.

See, when you have a DISCUSSION, you are actually supposed to read and understand the other sides position, it’s kind of a give and take thing.  One key point I made was that the US ftrs are on the carrier, not UK’s planes.  USA can more easily afford to trade their airforce for the German air force

Germany should have, in Libya on R2: 3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor and that’s with NO EUROPEAN UNITS TRANSFERED.  England, according to his plan, has brought nothing to the show in Africa and has spent the entire first round putting boats in the water.  America likewise has brought nothing to the show in Africa, instead, bringing units to England to counter Sea Lion (as if that’s a real threat.)

See, when you have a DISCUSSION, you are actually supposed to read and understand the other sides position, it’s kind of a give and take thing. Again you seem to disregard the inf and arm USA brings to Algeria to block the SZ13 fleet attack on sz8

Anyway, with the alteration of the rules, thanks to Tim the Enchanter (not sarcastic, honest thanks, if someone hadn’t nerfed my karma generating ability, I would have given you some karma for that) I’d say the SZ 5 fleet goes to SZ 6.  It can still be hit, but now England cannot possibly hit and run.  Meanwhile, the Germans can still use them in SZ 12 if they are NOT hit.

Well if I understand the rules correctly, this would be even WORSE for Germany.  The DD UK buys UK1 can be placed in SZ7 to block any SZ6 units from getting to SZ8.  UK can may or may not attack sz6 if they like and now the UK tank in eca can be brought home to London.  So much for the SZ8 attack or sea lion either.

[Jennifer]

As for your numbers:

You have 1 transport too many in your defense force.  That’s just the most obvious difference.  You are losing one in SZ 7 and using one to block in SZ 12.

Also, you have mentioned that America was going to Algeria, but many of the others, have mentioned that America only goes to England.  Thus I did not disregard your post of America in Algeria, I just went with the majority of the people who are arguing.

---

Anyway, I have adjusted the plan ever so slightly.  The German fleet in SZ 5 goes to SZ 6.  This prevents the unification of the Allied fleets if the British bring the Battleship to the battle while still maintaining the same threat as before.

I believe you missed that in your haste to respond.  It’s okay, I do it sometimes too.  But I wanted to remind you of the change.  This would change your battle statistics signficantly.

We are now talking (at best):

2 Fighters, 1 Destroyer, 1 Battleship, 1 Carrier, 3 Transports (assuming you block SZ 13 as stated), 2 submarines (assuming England purchased 1 Carrier, 1 Submarine on UK 1)

To combat that we have:

1 Transport (Fodder), 1 Destroyer, 3 Submarines (1 from SZ 13, 2 from SZ 6), 5 Fighters (starting fighters that landed in W. Europe on Germany 1) and 2 Bombers (1 purchased on Germany 1.)

This gives: 81% chance attacker survives, 17% chance defender survives.  If attacker survives, odds are great that the attacker will have 2 fighters, 2 bombers left. If defender survives, obviously, we are talking a damaged battleship.

Now, okay, “but what if I buy a destroyer and a carrier on UK 1 and unite the fleet?”

That’s:

Defender: 3 Transports, Submarine, 2 Destroyers, Carrier, Battleship, 2 Fighters (20%)
vs
Attacker: Transport, 3 Submarines, Destroyer, 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers (77% - Fighter, 2 Bombers)

---

The added benefit to this arrangement is that England is ensnared into making decisions that most players do not make on any given game day.

England can do the following:

1)  Attack SZ 6 with air and sea and be stranded without American defensive support
2)  Attack SZ 6 with just air and hope the dice don’t go bad. (Seems like the dice go bad in that battle more often then good, at least for England.  I dunno why, it’s 68% odds in attacker’s favor (though that’s to have the bomber survive).)
3) Leave SZ 6 alone, unite the fleets in SZ 8 and hope to get above average dice on the defense - but run the risk of the attacker retreating the instant your carrier is sunk to save money.

None of the three options makes me happy.  Many people will opt for option 2.  It’s a pretty standard move when a carrier is NOT purchased for the SZ 5 fleet.  However, there are a growing number of people who are more likely to use the money on that carrier for something else and trust that England will chicken out of the SZ 5 attack, or the dice will edge slightly (or more then slightly) in their favor on defense.

Do note, however, the defender OOL when Germany defends against Air Power Attack only is Submarine, Submarine, Transport, Destroyer thus giving them the best possible chances to kill off enemy planes.

And yes, I have a counter in mind.  I actually have two of them.  I think they are pretty effective, I just won’t post them until I iron out the axis side first. :P

[Guest]

This is off topic as a rule question and now belongs in a new strategy thread.