Subs question

[critmonster]

exactly tim, and that is my biggest gripe. if i want to let my subs stay on the surface to engage the enemy and get sunk by planes i should be allowed to. i look at it as the first strike/submerge ability. planes can’t hit subs because they submerge in first strike (opening fire) phase, not because they have a magical antiairforcefield. conversely, if i don’t submerge then they are vulnerable to air (soak hits for my capitol ships)

[Veqryn]

Honestly, I think it is a good rule.  It is the attackers choice if they want to attack surface ships or not.  If they only want to attack surface ships, then only bring planes (and only lose planes).  If they want to sink subs, bring a destroyer.  It should not be the defenders choice at all.  I’m ordering my planes to attack ships, not subs.

[Romulus]

I think the sub are better modeled in Anniversary than in any preceding A&A. To still improve the modeling we should have that sub could be hit only by DD, and DD allows CA and aircrafts to hit subs. BB and AC have no depth charges or torpedoes for attacking the sub. Thay may only maneuver for avoding subs torpedoes or trying to ram a surfaced sub.
Submerged sub may not be hit by the guns of the surface ship. So the better defense for sub is to submerge. No any sub in a real battle stay on the surface for being attacked by ship guns or aircraft bombs.

In the real fleets it does not esist the “escort submarine”. It exist the escort DD, or the escort AC etc.
Submarine operate separated from the rest of the fleet, in autonomous operation.

They were not around during fleet engagement they were too much slow for staying togheter with a battle fleet. They cannot maneuver nor stay in formation with ships that have, at least, the double of their speed.
They were specialized attack vessel, which task has been lurking around to hit passing ships.

DD and aircrafts had the task of dealing with subs.

When Bismark was sunk in battle with the Home Fleet there were a lot of Uboote around the battle area, they arrived just in time to disturb the UK DD rescuing of the Bismark survivors, after the battle.

In the battle of Midway there were a lot of Japanese subs around the islands with the task of intercepting and attacking the USA ships. Before the battle the saw and attacked nothing.
Yorktown, heavily damaged, and on the way for the Hawaii was sunk, after the battle, by one of the japanese submarine still patroling the sea.

[Gallo Rojo]

thanks about your answers guys

so basically that’s the rules: planes can not hit subs unless a destroyer is present, period.

got it

now about the rationality of the rule…

@Veqryn:

Honestly, I think it is a good rule.  It is the attackers choice if they want to attack surface ships or not.  If they only want to attack surface ships, then only bring planes (and only lose planes).  If they want to sink subs, bring a destroyer.  It should not be the defenders choice at all.  I’m ordering my planes to attack ships, not subs.

like I could order my tanks to attack enemy tanks and not enemy infantry  :wink:

I think it should be defenders’ choice
places sink subs during ww2 when they caught them on the surface – not sure how often, but just watch German film  “Das Boot”

I could be ordering my planes to attack enemy Battleships and Carriers and ignoring those annoying destroyers too

my point is: is there any rationality for not considering subs a ‘regular’ escort ship?

(note: I can understand that you have to take down the infantry before getting the tanks, because that was usually the case during battles – meaning tanks that were isolated from their infantry were easily killed. Same about bombers and fighters. Is it arguable that submarines role within fleets was different in terms that they were not escort ships? I guess you could argue that … but then why planes only can not take them down first?)

tnx

[Gallo Rojo]

ops! I posted before reading Romulus post!  :|

Thanks for the info Romulus; great stuff. Fully agree. good karma for you

[critmonster]

romulus, while i agree completely with your line of reasoning, as a game mechanic why cant planes target tanks over infantry unless an AA is present wouldnt they do this in real life? and doesnt this fit with your logical sequence?

by the way, loved the anecdotal information

[Romulus]

Thanks Gallo Rojo and Critmoster! (+1 for both of you! :-D)

I think that all is related on how much complicated the battle resolution is.

The actual combat resolution is more abstract and simplified. I like the sub rules of anniversary more than the rules of revised even if I would like to have some other modification. And I agree with you that some aspect seems strange when related to other units behaviour.

Your ideas are also interesting, they may be realized using a different approach to combat resolution allowing specific targeting of the enemy units or selection of the opponent casualties on particular result of the dice rolled.
I think there are house rules that allows that.

[critmonster]

I agree that the sub rules are much improved.
The difference makes them more useful when operating independently, which makes them more historical in their in-game usage.

I also agree that A&A uses a degree of abstraction during battle that lends itself favorably to playability and have no desire to complicate it.
Other games allow targeted casualties and they are fun, but A&A should remain, well, A&A!
I tend to avoid house rules with my group, the only one I have put forward is starting the game with China and ending the round with USA, we are going to try this next game.

[Corbeau Blanc]

Found an interesting article

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq39-1.htm#anchor521073

Seems USA lost more subs than I tought due to air planes attack and many cases does not involves a destroyer…

So, I really don’t see either why you could not take subs as casualties.

[mojo]

the sub debate has gone all the way back to classic, and still has not been resolved.  i have the OOB rules from aa50 and it states "whenever a round of combat starts and a sub is in combat with only aircraft, it CAN submerge ( before aircraft fire).
it states CAN submerge,  which to me gives the defender the choice.  it does not state it must submerge.  now we have these updated rules all over the place.  which change the OOB rules.  :?

[Jennifer]

@Corbeau:

Found an interesting article

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq39-1.htm#anchor521073

Seems USA lost more subs than I tought due to air planes attack and many cases does not involves a destroyer…

So, I really don’t see either why you could not take subs as casualties.

I believe Americans used Sonar Bouy’s dropped by bombers to locate submarines and sent fighters in to sink them, thus, negating the need for floating sonar platforms (aka destroyers.)

I could be wrong.  WWII history is not my strong point!

[Lynxes]

Subs being sunk by aircraft only happened in the war, especially in the Bay of Biscay when the German subs were transferring to the Central Atlantic, but given the scale of the game it’s good that it’s omitted. We also see shore batteries and mines sinking subs on the link posted, but that’s not in the game? Bringing a DD is easy to do and it introduces more strategy in the game and builds matching the opponent, works very well.

Only thing I’d like to change is 1) subs move being blocked by DDs (since this pretty much kills German sub builds in Baltic) 2) subs not being able to block movement of unescorted transports. After that, subs are perfect!  :wink:

[Romulus]

@Lynxes:

Subs being sunk by aircraft only happened in the war, especially in the Bay of Biscay when the German subs were transferring to the Central Atlantic, but given the scale of the game it’s good that it’s omitted. We also see shore batteries and mines sinking subs on the link posted, but that’s not in the game? Bringing a DD is easy to do and it introduces more strategy in the game and builds matching the opponent, works very well.

Only thing I’d like to change is 1) subs move being blocked by DDs (since this pretty much kills German sub builds in Baltic) 2) subs not being able to block movement of unescorted transports. After that, subs are perfect!  :wink:

I agree on both ideas.

And I suggest two more: 3) BB and AC not able to hit the subs; 4) SUBs defending at 2.
Maybe too much?  :-D

[mojo]

hey 1 more question.  if a sub attacks an AC + 2 fig,  the figs will not be able to defend, only the AC, correct.  but if  defender has a dd the figs would be able to defend.  correct?

[Romulus]

Yes, the DD cancel the sub ability Cannot Be Hit by Air Units and so the defending fighters may hit the attacking sub.

[WILD BILL]

Yea so if you catch an AC out at sea with out a DD you may get the ftrs too if they can’t land within 1 space.