@aardvarkpepper said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
I feel those suggested changes may have come out of discussion for another version of Axis and Allies. The changes are just way too good for Allies in 1942 2nd edition.
I’m not saying 20 IPC battleships are a GOOD thing either. But I expect 14 is too much of a good thing.
Yeah I shouldn’t have posted that table in this discussion or forum; it’s off-topic (cheaper/rebalance boats in general) and more directed at the larger/more open-ended games like G40.
@aardvarkpepper said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
But again, we’re looking at submarines submerging, or submarines sort of leaping out of the ocean, and if a simple rule is to be made universal, which should be chosen? Or what other simple solution should there be?
relevant RAW for subs in 42.2 is
Cannot Be Hit by Air Units:
When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines unless
there is a destroyer that is friendly to the air units in the battle.
I think the simplest fix for the situation the OP describes is to make the following change:
Cannot Be Hit by Air Units:
When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines unless
there is a destroyer that is friendly to the air units in the battle and there are no surface
warships friendly to the submarines remaining that can have those hits assigned to them.
The two situations would then be
So subs could still be hunted and hit by A/C+DD groups, but they could no longer soak hits from aircraft in a mixed battle because in such a case they would now always be hit last. They retain their current ability to soak hits from surface ships and other subs, however.
A problem with this change would be a case where an attacking group of ships and planes would want to hit subs before hitting enemy destroyers/other surface ships. Have you guys encountered such a case?
@vodot said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
@aardvarkpepper said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
But again, we’re looking at submarines submerging, or submarines sort of leaping out of the ocean, and if a simple rule is to be made universal, which should be chosen? Or what other simple solution should there be?
relevant RAW for subs in 42.2 is
Cannot Be Hit by Air Units:
When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines unless
there is a destroyer that is friendly to the air units in the battle.The effect of this change would be that subs can still be hunted and hit by aircraft + DD groups, while not allowing them to soak hits from aircraft in a mixed battle because they will always be hit last in such a case. They retain their current ability to soak hits from surface ships and other subs.
What do you mean by they will always be hit last ? Subs ?
The problem is destroyers cost to much and subs to cheap.
@general-6-stars said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
What do you mean by they will always be hit last ? Subs ?
I mean that under my proposed rule change subs would always be hit last by any aircraft that could hit them. Subs could only be assigned hits from enemy aircraft if there were no surface ships eligible to receive those hits.
Going back to the 1DD + 2FTR attacking 1BB + 6SS example, the defending subs could still be hit by the attacking aircraft - but only after the BB has been sunk (and providing the DD has survived that long).
Currently per RAW, subs can soak aircraft hits as long as there’s also an enemy destroyer present (the gist of the original complaint from @Megatron). The attacker in the above example is forced to sub-hunt first (because of A&A’s defender-chosen Order-of-Loss (OOL) rules) - while the ignored BB shoots his sub-hunting planes out of the sky. If the attacker leaves his DD behind, this combat is suddenly correct - the fighters duel with the BB and ignore the subs.
To rephrase the OP again, there shouldn’t be a case where an attacker is de-incentivized from bringing DDs into combat with subs out of fear that their DDs will enable the enemy’s subs to “leap out of the waves” (as @aardvarkpepper put it) to absorb hits from their attacking aircraft!
My rule change represents what I think is a best of both worlds with one simple change - let the subs be hit by aircraft+DD groups while preventing them from soaking the damage from the aerial portion of a large combined air/naval battle.
Making it based on OOL (order of loss) works well, I think, because OOL is not really relevant in the one situation where an a/c+DD group would WANT to hit subs - when sub-hunting/clearing sub groups. OOL isn’t important if subs are the only defending units!
Does that make sense?
At attacker that brings a DD + planes into a SZ with only enemy subs probably wants to sub hunt. That’s the RAI; he should be able to do that just like the OOB rules. However, an attacker bringing a DD + planes into a SZ with subs and a bunch of surface warships is definitely not sub-hunting - he is attacking a surface fleet! Sure, once he wipes out the fleet he will want to hunt the subs too; but that’s the correct OOL: he will want to hit the surface ships first. We shouldn’t penalize him for buying the DD by forcing every attack that contains a DD+A/C to sub-hunt before attacking the surface fleet.
@general-6-stars said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
The problem is destroyers cost to much and subs to cheap.
I think thats the essence of the problem. In real life submarines are far more expensive than destroyers. But then their role is also less impactful in the game which kinda justifies the low cost.
Giving surface ships AA capabilities would put more pressure on air units in naval battles. This would also reflect reality a bit better since ships were outfitted with countless anti air guns.
If subs cost more then destroyers then they should be not cheaper. Not basing it on let’s give them less cost because there weren’t that many.
I have played with different sub, destroyer and plane rules for a long time now. Plus Cruisers having aa capability. But a different topic.
Try subs cost 8 and destroyers cost 7. But allow the sub to dive with destroyer present and destroyer getting a depth charge shot.
@vodot said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
@general-6-stars said in [1942 2nd ] Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:
What do you mean by they will always be hit last ? Subs ?
I mean that under my proposed rule change subs would always be hit last by any aircraft that could hit them. Subs could only be assigned hits from enemy aircraft if there were no surface ships eligible to receive those hits.
Going back to the 1DD + 2FTR attacking 1BB + 6SS example, the defending subs could still be hit by the attacking aircraft - but only after the BB has been sunk (and providing the DD has survived that long).
Currently per RAW, subs can soak aircraft hits as long as there’s also an enemy destroyer present (the gist of the original complaint from @Megatron). The attacker in the above example is forced to sub-hunt first (because of A&A’s defender-chosen Order-of-Loss (OOL) rules) - while the ignored BB shoots his sub-hunting planes out of the sky. If the attacker leaves his DD behind, this combat is suddenly correct - the fighters duel with the BB and ignore the subs.
To rephrase the OP again, there shouldn’t be a case where an attacker is de-incentivized from bringing DDs into combat with subs out of fear that their DDs will enable the enemy’s subs to “leap out of the waves” (as @aardvarkpepper put it) to absorb hits from their attacking aircraft!
My rule change represents what I think is a best of both worlds with one simple change - let the subs be hit by aircraft+DD groups while preventing them from soaking the damage from the aerial portion of a large combined air/naval battle.
Making it based on OOL (order of loss) works well, I think, because OOL is not really relevant in the one situation where an a/c+DD group would WANT to hit subs - when sub-hunting/clearing sub groups. OOL isn’t important if subs are the only defending units!
Does that make sense?
At attacker that brings a DD + planes into a SZ with only enemy subs probably wants to sub hunt. That’s the RAI; he should be able to do that just like the OOB rules. However, an attacker bringing a DD + planes into a SZ with subs and a bunch of surface warships is definitely not sub-hunting - he is attacking a surface fleet! Sure, once he wipes out the fleet he will want to hunt the subs too; but that’s the correct OOL: he will want to hit the surface ships first. We shouldn’t penalize him for buying the DD by forcing every attack that contains a DD+A/C to sub-hunt before attacking the surface fleet.
Hi Vodot,
you got it right. A few months earlier, I got the same issue on a DK’s treads.
A few houserules can provide for keeping Destroyer as seafodder, even with C8 higher relative cost to Subs at 6 IPCs.
In addition to
I agree 8 IPCs is high for naval fodder, but in a game with higher economy like G40, it remains reasonable and yet more pieces make for a longer game. So, in 1942.2, 8 IPCs can be useful to keep in check pieces junkies who wants more units on board and aiming at a 12 hours game.
@Megatron it is a large drawback, which is why subs are the cheapest naval unit.
