My bad, I somehow thought it was a Global post…
About subs…
-
I also wanted to comment on your assertion that a navy may be in a better position after performing an ‘air strike’.
In the scenario you outlined where the Japanese have 3 CV, 6 planes, BB, CA, DD against the US 2 CV, 4 planes, 2 DD, 4 SUB, you explain that defensively the US will be in a better position because they traded submarines for planes.
Yet, in that example, the US has greatly weakened both their defensive position as well as their offensive position after the air strike. If the US elects to forgo the air strike and let the IJN attack it, the IJN will have about a 67% chance of winning when both navies are at full strength. However, if the US chooses to perform a preemptive air strike, the remaining IJN force of 3 CV, 4 planes, BB, CA against the US 2 CV, 4 planes will have about a 96% chance of victory.
By performing such an air strike, you have squandered the fodder you desperately need to defend against the superior naval task force.
-
great article
I would agree about the zone of control that Submarines (and equal navies) project.
I also like your idea of making single surface warships be able to stop only a limited number of ships, rather than infinite ships. I would argue that a rate of 1 to 2 would be better than 1 to 1 and that this hold for any kind of ship, that 1 destroyer for example could stop up to 2 subs or other ships from passing under it, or that 1 cruiser could stop up to 2 destroyers/warships from passing through it too, but that all other ships could continue past the single guy. An interesting idea for sure.I will make one point regarding these navy conflicts though. Because fleets are defensive in nature, the Japanese can sit back producing only half of their income on navy while the Americans can produce 100% of their income on navy, and in the end will still not accomplish anything beyond taking back a few islands. Sure, the US can get the Philipines, Solomons, and perhaps a couple other islands. But in the mean time, Japan has their army (even if it is small) taking India, a few Russian northern territories, and all of China. After 2-3 turns, Japan is making more IPCs than America. Meanwhile, Russia and Britain are left to face Italy and Germany all alone. Without American help, Africa will fall by the 3rd or 4th turn. Even without africa, Italy and Germany will out produce Russia and Britain as they both lose territory to Japan. Unfortunately for those people who want to have fun in the pacific with Japan and America, the Pacific is merely a distraction where Japan and America can hold each other off for infinity, while Japan still makes gains in Asia.
My friends and I came up with a cool idea we have yet to try (we have a lot of these). A 5th National Objective for America: If america splits her spent income (within 5 IPCs), between producing in Western US and Eastern US, she gets an additional 10 IPCs during the collect income phase. On top of this, if the US player decides to collect this additional income, any units built in Western US may not travel East of the Central US, and any units built in the Eastern US may not travel West of the Central US.
-
He did mention he left out any bomber support he would have stationed in Hawaii. Adding two or three of those into the naval battle would cause one or two more casualties for the Japanese side. Good article to read!
-
Fantastic article, Kavik Kang! :-D Really nice to see a level of analysis that means something for the game. If we look at the ships actually built during the war, we see destroyers and submarines being extremely dominant, so AA50 really corresponds to reality.
I myself have lamented the sub block rule, my idea was just to drop the DDs block sub move rule altogether. Your idea is more elegant, albeit slightly more complex. Something for the FAQ? I think most players would love Germany being a sub user, it would add another dimension to the game and make it much more difficult for the Allies to calculate the defence of an invasion navy.
PS. Beerbelly, subs cost 3 IPCs per attack point and 6 IPCs per hit point, superior to any naval or air unit. Those cheap hit points mean subs are good to buy even on defence. DS.
-
I also wanted to comment on your assertion that a navy may be in a better position after performing an ‘air strike’.
In the scenario you outlined where the Japanese have 3 CV, 6 planes, BB, CA, DD against the US 2 CV, 4 planes, 2 DD, 4 SUB, you explain that defensively the US will be in a better position because they traded submarines for planes.
Yet, in that example, the US has greatly weakened both their defensive position as well as their offensive position after the air strike. If the US elects to forgo the air strike and let the IJN attack it, the IJN will have about a 67% chance of winning when both navies are at full strength. However, if the US chooses to perform a preemptive air strike, the remaining IJN force of 3 CV, 4 planes, BB, CA against the US 2 CV, 4 planes will have about a 96% chance of victory.
By performing such an air strike, you have squandered the fodder you desperately need to defend against the superior naval task force.
But if the US player is trying to gain naval dominance of the Pacific then he has more destroyers and subs arriving at the end of the turn. In this case, it was a turn 3 strike on the IJN based on what I would have at Hawaii at the end of my turn 2 if I were going all out to take over the Pacific (which the US can do). What I would have arriving from turn 3 builds would actually be a 3rd CV and a destroyer. So what the rememnants of the IJN would actually be facing on their turn would be 3 CVs, 6 fighters, and 1 DD. They can’t attack that and must return to Japan to build navy. To catch back up, which means they are not building ground units for India. I also would actually attacked with 2 more bombers from Hawaii and probably hurt the IJN even more than in the example. I was being as conservative as possible in estimations like that. If the US is set up like this and uses a sacrificial transport to take Phillipines on turn 2, Japan can’t take it back that turn. It might look like they can, but the air strike will lose them the pacific 2 or 3 turns down the road if they do. The air strike is very powerful against an “unprotected” fleet.
I agree with the poster who said that DDs are better defensive units than Subs. The US focuses more on subs, while Japan should be more focused on destroyers… but Japan should match a sub to each plane, to theaten their own air strikes as well. “Fleet subs” are simply a part of the carrier strike wing, at least that’s how you should think of them. They are defensive during an airstrike, but almost useless cannon fodder when the full fleets meet in the same space. You might actually think of “Fleet Subs” as your carrier’s torpedo bombers, and the fighters as the dive bombers.
Finally, not just in navy but in ground combat as well, IPCs are not the whole story. Position and situation are equally important to economics. The US trading a sub for a fighter with Japan, for example, is worth a lot more to the US than the 4 IPC difference that trade represents. The US can afford to build lots of subs, Japan cannot afford to build lots of planes. The US has no pressing goal other than defeating the IJN, Japan needs to save Germany through India or their side will probably lose. Japanese units are just more valuable that US units are, due to the situation. Another example of this concept can be found in Germany. Germany’s greatest difficulty in defeating Russia is a lack of Infantry on the front lines (this is why I consider Mech Inf the best tech Germany can get). An infantry in East Poland is simply worth more than an infantry in Germany is. I’d say as a rule-of-thumb guideline you might say that, too Germany, and infantry is worth +1 IPC for each space between it and Germany.
The fleet is a lot more important to Japan than it’s actual IPC value, so anytime the US is killing Japanese naval units they are hurting Japan much more than the IPC value of the units destroyed. This is not the case with the US, who’s only pressing goal is to gain naval dominance in the pacific and get the UK’s NO’s for them. All they want to build is navy, Japan hopes to build as little navy as possible. This makes trading naval and air units a good deal for the US, such a good deal for them that it is usually worth it to the US to lose 4 units if it means Japan will lose 2.
-
I rarely build submarines. I believe destroyers are better suited as the ‘infantry’ of the seas. For 2 extra IPC you have a superior defensive unit.
In your hypothetical ‘air strike’, the Japanese navy loses a destroyer and 2 planes. The US navy loses 2 destroyers and 4 submarines in the air strike. I would say the US comes out negatively in that battle. The Japanese lose 28 IPC while the US loses 40 IPC. The US hasn’t really strengthened their position.
I agree that navies are defensive in nature. However, I disagree with your statement that if two navies are the same size they cannot move within range of each other. Navies can move as close as they want to each other if they are the same size. They just can’t initiate an attack.
Because navies are so defensive in nature, I feel that works against the strength of submarines.
EDIT: I wanted to add that my responses are only meant in the context of the A&A game. Many of the points you make may very well apply to real naval combat.
The sub/fighter/bomber airstrike is what keeps them from moving within range, and especially Japan who can’t afford to lose ships and planes while the US loses submarines. If the US fleet is comprised well it will take the lead in the race for naval supremacy if Japan allows it’s fleet to be hit by an “air strike”. The IJN needs at least 4 “protecitve” units (destroyers or subs) to safely take an air strike. Destroyers are better on defense, but the subs are really your “torpedo bombers” and are vaulable for that purpose. Then, they can also die in a fight as long as the enemy has a destroyer present.
The most effective airstrike does not send destroyers, only subs and planes, because then all air hits must be taken on ships or planes and the target fleet cannot choose subs as casualties while the attacker loses all subs. This really works very well. Part of my point was that, as most others, your impression is not correct. Fighters defend at 4 and attack at 3, so on the surface it appears that equal fleets cannot attack each other. But early on the fleets are not equal. Japan has a lot of expensive naval units, but no protection for them. Until they have at least 4 escorts a well comprised US fleet will wreck the IJN with an airstrike. This means that during the early turns a well comprised US fleet can cover most sea zones in the pacific from Hawaii, which importantly reaches both Phillipines and Australia in one turn. You can re-take all 3 NOs from Hawaii and only Aus can be re-taken by Japan without being exposed to the airstrike. Until the IJN has some protection, a well composed US fleet will hurt it bad if it comes within range.
The US can only be this strong so early, of course, by almost completely ignoring the Atlantic. But if they can get Englands NO’s early like this, then they didn’t need to really be there anyway. England can do more sooner than you would have done if you can get their 2 Pacific NOs early in the game, and the US can usually afford to start helping a couple turns later.
-
great article
I would agree about the zone of control that Submarines (and equal navies) project.
I also like your idea of making single surface warships be able to stop only a limited number of ships, rather than infinite ships. I would argue that a rate of 1 to 2 would be better than 1 to 1 and that this hold for any kind of ship, that 1 destroyer for example could stop up to 2 subs or other ships from passing under it, or that 1 cruiser could stop up to 2 destroyers/warships from passing through it too, but that all other ships could continue past the single guy. An interesting idea for sure.I will make one point regarding these navy conflicts though. Because fleets are defensive in nature, the Japanese can sit back producing only half of their income on navy while the Americans can produce 100% of their income on navy, and in the end will still not accomplish anything beyond taking back a few islands. Sure, the US can get the Philipines, Solomons, and perhaps a couple other islands. But in the mean time, Japan has their army (even if it is small) taking India, a few Russian northern territories, and all of China. After 2-3 turns, Japan is making more IPCs than America. Meanwhile, Russia and Britain are left to face Italy and Germany all alone. Without American help, Africa will fall by the 3rd or 4th turn. Even without africa, Italy and Germany will out produce Russia and Britain as they both lose territory to Japan. Unfortunately for those people who want to have fun in the pacific with Japan and America, the Pacific is merely a distraction where Japan and America can hold each other off for infinity, while Japan still makes gains in Asia.
My friends and I came up with a cool idea we have yet to try (we have a lot of these). A 5th National Objective for America: If america splits her spent income (within 5 IPCs), between producing in Western US and Eastern US, she gets an additional 10 IPCs during the collect income phase. On top of this, if the US player decides to collect this additional income, any units built in Western US may not travel East of the Central US, and any units built in the Eastern US may not travel West of the Central US.
This is actually what led me to look at what the US can do to Japan to keep them from hitting Russia so fast. As things currently stand, as I mentioned in another post, there is nothing that can prevent Japan attacking Caucusus on turn 5 with 25-30 units. They can do it every game and there is nothing that can be done to even slow them down in any way. So I looked to the pacific to see if I was missing something else that might prevent them from doing that. There isn’t. The initial setup is broken and Japan can hit Cauc too hard on turn 5 every time, they can even afford to just run and hide down near India and their air force if the US presses hard and still get that turn 5 attack on Cauc off before they absolutely need to turn to face the full-bord KJF USA. While this is a broken setup, I still believe everything I wrote in the India post after working this out, I think I have found a way to cut off any follow up from Japan after they initially easily take Cauc on turn 5.
England has to go for Africa and must build ICs in SAF and Eygpt. They can’t afford to use their fleet to harrass Germany, they have to take Africa strong in a race to Persia. They build SAF IC turn 2, and Egypt turn 3 (as the Royal Navy destroys the Italian Navy in the Med). The British need to race Japan to Persia so they can cut it off and force the Japanese units in Cauc to attack back into Persia instead of holding Cauc for Germany. Then the British and Japanese can fight in Persia to keep Japan out of Cauc. But the British need to mess with Germany, too, so the US needs to force Japan to buy ships. The US can force Japan into a naval arms race but trying to invade the island of Japan. The US must do this. They set up at Hawaii in a full bore KJF opening, but then move their base from Hawaii to Iwo Jima on turn 3. The bombers relocate there to strategic bomb Japan and support the fleet in an attack. The US builds all ships until gaining the upper hand navy wise, then switches to all transports to take the island.
Japan has no choice but to abandon the fight for Persia to defend the home island after getting the initial Cauc attack off. With the US threatening Tokyo, the British will easily win the fight for Persia and could finally, around turn 6 or 7, turn their attention to Germany.
This is the only counter I have been able to come up with to the 30 unit slam into Cauc Japan is capable of having in place at the end of turn 4… and I think it would leave Germany so powerful they wouldn’t need Japan’s help. Right now India really is broken, Japan can’t be allowed to roll over India as if the Allies aren’t even there as a part of their opening move. Too many Japanese transports can reach India on turn 2.
-
If your scenario occurs on turn 3, then you must also account for any additional Japanese naval units that it would have been built in response to US Pacific builds. It’s hard to say what the actual fleet would be composed of. I was just commenting on the specific example you provided. In that example, the battle cost the US more in IPC than Japan, and resulted in the US remnant fleet to be less capable of both offense and defense. Sure if you brought additional reinforcements over after the battle then the fleet would be more difficult to defeat. But that would still be the case even if you chose not to perform the air strike at all. I would argue the US would have been in an even better position without the air strike.
IMO, the US does not need naval dominance in the Pacific. It need only to build a fleet that Japan cannot sink (or sink with almost total loss). Once built, the US can move to liberate some of the Pacific Islands.
Finally, much of the value of plane/sub attack depends on the opposing fleet to be ‘unprotected’. Meaning that the opposing fleet will have an inadequate screen for their capital ships and carriers. I just don’t think that relying on the opposing player to inadequately defend their fleet is reliable enough for me to invest in submarines.
-
A much easier counter is to have 30+ russians there. Now I do agree though that subs are the key to the US in the pacific and I do like your ideas. To add to this though, there should usually be atleast 1 UK aircraft in the pacific (bomber preferably) if the US is going to use alot of subs, as they can can opener a DD block. The other thing that is easy for japan to use in defense of the ocean is the fighter buildup. With 3 ACs turn 1, they can afford to have up to 12 figs that can be used in airstrikes if the US gets too close, very scary. And as far as defense, i feel subs are extremely powerful in a skilled Japan player’s hands, even more so than DDs as the US must move within range of Japan in some sort to initiate a showdown in the pacific.
I know I didn’t contribute much as I as well am debating a viable KJF.
-
It is a lot more complicated than the first glance. I have been testing out different fleets fighting against each other, and it really seems like once fleets get big, destroyers are a major liability.
If the enemy has a good number of subs, along with some planes or high value ships, then the you would be better off without any destroyers.
So when is it good to have a destroyer? If the enemy has few or no high value ships and few or no planes, then you will want the destroyer to negate the subs first strike ability. (or if the engagement is very small, like 1-4 units total, you may want it to make sure you are just outright killed).
So in other words, avoid building destroyers until you see what your enemy is building for a couple turns. And most likely you should never build them in the pacific.thx Kang,
- veqryn
Suggested Topics
