Submarine Rule Intepretation

[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.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

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.

Again, you have overlooked an earlier reply.

I said on a hit and run into SZ7, I would give Germany 2 hits.  one on the BB another to the bomber or ftr (which you berated me on).  The goal is to maximize the SZ8 defense, correct?

so 3 transports IS correct.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Anyway, I have adjusted the plan ever so slightly.  The German fleet in SZ 5 goes to SZ 6.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t a purchase and placement of a DD in SZ7 by UK now stop your sz6 ships from hitting SZ8?

If so, your plan to make sz8 an unsafe zone on G2 is busted.

Sure, I’ll sacrifice a DD since you bought a bomber, I think that’s about even for one turn of spending on other than ground units.

[Jennifer]

If you want to continue after this, to make NCSCSwitch happy, I recommend opening a new thread.

A Destroyer in SZ 7 does not make your defense better.  Now you are short a destroyer in SZ 8 and a Transport in SZ 12.  Both of which can be readily cleared allowing Germany Fleet Unification if that was the attempt, but both being destroyed with barely a 50% shot of taking out a German submarine.  That’s 8 IPC to sink 20 IPC worth of allied material.  That’s in Germany’s favor.

Given that situation, why should I not take out the destroyer, transport on Germany 2 and put 2 Carriers and a Transport in SZ 14 with the Battleship, Transport, Submarine from SZ 13? (Allowing a large invasion of Africa to be a threat, but even better, facilitating the invasion of Russia faster.)

Sure, you could muster a large fleet to sink it eventually, but the idea here is to negate America and England as a threat through the conservation of German equipment, effectively leaving Russia standing alone against Japan and Germany.  If you are busy attempting to nullify Germany from getting a huge win navally for the first two or three rounds, I think that is a success.  That’s 3 rounds with no help for Russia.

China J1, Sinkiang J2, Novosibirsk J3.  You are now, maybe, in a position to help Russia just as Japan reaches Russia’s door (and don’t forget Germany doing the same thing.)