@Silent:
The only reason is that even without surprise attacks subs for let’s say 24 ipcs (4 subs) beat 24 ipcs of destroyers (3 destroyers) on both offense and defense on average.
I guess that’s a decent enough point. I guess i just want germany to have a naval game but it doesn’t really exist :(
Bring back convoy spaces! :P (or even an optional rule - for every sub germany has in the atlantic at the end of their turn - UK loses that many IPCs.).
I always enjoyed the house rule of the destroyer’s ability to cancel sub’s specials being a 1-to-1 ratio. I.E. a single destroyer cannot stop a vastly larger number of subs. Are the ASW capabilities of the destroyer endless? no matter how many fleets of submarines, this one fleet of destroyers can stop all of them from getting a sneak attack? It seems bad from a gameplay and realism perspective. Instead, for every destroyer present, one sub loses it’s opening fire/submerge/submersible abilities. So if you attack a fleet with 3 subs and they only have one destroyer, two subs still get opening fire.
Your rule rule is simple and intuitive; I like it. :)
The only reason is that even without surprise attacks subs for let’s say 24 ipcs (4 subs) beat 24 ipcs of destroyers (3 destroyers) on both offense and defense on average.
Really? It seems to me that 3 destroys on offense would have a higher probability of defeating 4 subs on defense (56% vs 41%).
@TG:
Really? It seems to me that 3 destroys on offense would have a higher probability of defeating 4 subs on defense (56% vs 41%).
I used average numbers. That means not counting full hits, but decimal numbers. Maybe I was wrong, but I believe I did get a little higher probability for the subs to win.
Yeah I never liked the Sub/Destroyer-ASW interaction in revised because of this exact point.
The problem with Submarines in A&A, is that before you get into all the details about how their abilities could/should be countered by other units, first you need to ask: “Why should people buy Subs in the first place?” and perhaps even more important, “Why should the Germans buy them?”
Right now, I just don’t see much point in buying ships as the German player. If subs did economic damage then maybe it would be a different story, but we’ve been down that road before right…
Any thoughts Joe?
:-D
I used average numbers. That means not counting full hits, but decimal numbers. Maybe I was wrong, but I believe I did get a little higher probability for the subs to win.
Just ask yourself this question: Would you use four infantry to attack three infantry?
Right now, I just don’t see much point in buying ships as the German player. If they did economic damage then maybe it would be a different story, but we’ve been down that road before right…
If Germany builds a sub and it doesn’t survive the first round, does it make a sound? It doesn’t matter what you do to subs to make them better (heck, you can make them attack for 4), Germany does not need them. The Atlantic is too small and a IC in France is too risky.
However, I do see a rule like this spicing up Italy/UK, and to a greater extent, Japan/USA. Under this rule, US wolf packs would have a field day sinking Japanese transports in the South Pacific.
I always enjoyed the house rule of the destroyer’s ability to cancel sub’s specials being a 1-to-1 ratio. I.E. a single destroyer cannot stop a vastly larger number of subs. Are the ASW capabilities of the destroyer endless? no matter how many fleets of submarines, this one fleet of destroyers can stop all of them from getting a sneak attack? It seems bad from a gameplay and realism perspective. Instead, for every destroyer present, one sub loses it’s opening fire/submerge/submersible abilities. So if you attack a fleet with 3 subs and they only have one destroyer, two subs still get opening fire.
Heck. Even a 1-to-2 ratio or 1-to-3 ratio would make subs more attractive.
@Silent:
The only reason is that even without surprise attacks subs for let’s say 24 ipcs (4 subs) beat 24 ipcs of destroyers (3 destroyers) on both offense and defense on average.
If the ratio were 1-to-1 maybe the pieces should cost the same?
@TG:
I used average numbers. That means not counting full hits, but decimal numbers. Maybe I was wrong, but I believe I did get a little higher probability for the subs to win.
Just ask yourself this question: Would you use four infantry to attack three infantry?
Right now, I just don’t see much point in buying ships as the German player. If they did economic damage then maybe it would be a different story, but we’ve been down that road before right…
If Germany builds a sub and it doesn’t survive the first round, does it make a sound? It doesn’t matter what you do to subs to make them better (heck, you can make them attack for 4), Germany does not need them. The Atlantic is too small and a IC in France is too risky.
However, I do see a rule like this spicing up Italy/UK, and to a greater extent, Japan/USA. Under this rule, US wolf packs would have a field day sinking Japanese transports in the South Pacific.
USA subs did just that to Japan in WW2 while Ger. faded with the Allied convoy system
I think the best option is to re-implement Convoy zones/routes that can be disrupted by submarines. Thus the sub can literally cripple the war effort of nations like Britain & Japan.
yes these are in house rules section already for aa50
By all means if you have house rules regarding submarines, post them.
The best way for a convoy system to work is if you made North Atlantic Ocean into a series convoy zones (similar to A&A:Europe). However, once you done that, you’ve made it very difficult for Germany to access these zone. It already takes one turn for a German U-boat to reach the English channel.
Here are possible fixes:
1. Place a Naval IC in France, representing the German sub pens at Lorient. This would have the specific clause of being a navy only IC (you can only build ships from it), even after the Allies take it.
2. Add a National Objective for Germany/USA/UK stating if there are U-boats in certain sea zones that player gains/loses some number of IPCs (I’m guessing 5/10). I feel this is better than physically adding convoy zones to the map.
3. Destroyers only cancel sub abilities at a 1-to-1 basis (as discussed before).
Pros:
Gives German U-boats a real chance of surviving at least one round of combat and moving into the North Atlantic the following turn.
Cons:
Fixes 1 and 2 feel like very “specific” rules tacked on to confuse new players (kind of like the 2324324 China rules). Part of the homogeneity of A&A is lost.
The Atlantic is still too small. There isn’t sufficient room for maneuver or force the Allied player into a goose chase.
Anyways, adding convoy zones to the South Pacific looks more juicy. These occupied sea zones could have the effect of negating some of Japan’s NOs. And unlike the Atlantic, the Japanese player has to make a real effort to send out anti-submarine patrols to hunt down American subs in the Java Sea.
If you wanted to do a limited build IC in France for naval units, Xeno games does offer a Sub Pen piece that would work perfectly with your suggestion.
I swear, other people keep on stealing my ideas! :lol:
But alas, I fear that specializing A&A will make the game into what it never was: a wargame.
A&A is a more serious version of Risk, and when you start giving each nation it’s own special ability, you’ve entered a slippery slope, my friend. Soon players will start asking for German tanks that attack for 4, Russian infantry that can be bought for 2 IPCs, and a rulebook the size of the Enterprise’s flight deck. When that happens a certain casualness of the game is lost.
So true……
As others have said before probably, Destroyers counter subs on a 1 to 1 basis and allow undetected subs to choose transports as targets. This was there goal anyway.
Here’s a house rule that we used to use back in the the day:
attack 2
defend 2
defend 1 against air units when no surface units present
special attack: commerce raid against coastal ics similar to strategic bombing raids
the alternative is that you can do the same attack against frieghters but with no actual loss of the frieghter and the destroyer acting as an anti sub similar to an aa gun.
historically subs did fend off air attack but usually losing.
I think subs are underestimated…
I like them a lot more than the Cruiser for instance. The extra cost of 6 IPC’s doesn’t make up for the shore bombardment and extra punch.
Now, let’s take a look at their advantages:
-subs are CHEAP! 6 IPC’s for a naval hit is dirt cheap!
-subs are invulnerable to lone enemy aircraft => this allows them to swim around Europe/Pacific avoiding those German/Japanese ftrs.
-subs can’t attack airplanes, and apart from DD’s, other sea units are more expensive than airplanes. As a result, if a fleet has got only 1 DD, it won’t stand a sub attack, because the expensive carriers, cruisers, and battleships will be the first to get hit. This is often underestimated!
-subs have a greater mobility than other fleet units because they can’t be attacked without an enemy DD.
disadvantages:
-1 defense is little, even for 6 IPC’s. Don’t count on subs to stand tall against an organized attack.
-subs can’t hit air, but air with DD can hit subs
-subs don’t like a lot of DD’s (a single DD is seldom a problem)
To summarize: I like subs a lot the way they are implemented now. And I think Germany building a sole sub fleet is a viable strategy. If you just don’t let the British navy too close, the subs+air will keep the baltic.
