@coorran:
Realistically… not a super good idea, in my opinion.
There are SOOOOOOO many variables that come into play that digging this deep will just make the game too complex.
The current rules mimic the “abilities” of a sub well enough, so that, apart from modifying the basic stats, there is no need to add another layer of rules. Maybe make them a 3/0 unit.
well i dunno, the rules give the sub the right abilities but still i don’t think the gameplay that those rules promote reflect the reality of sub combat at all. instead of being a powerful offensive force subs in A&A seem to be more likely used for fodder.
i do agree about adding deeper mechanics would probably be bad. what about stripping it down more though? make them a one shot sneak attack 3/3 (i think a defending sub should be just as capable and likely to sneak attack while defending a sea zone as attacking one), and once they’ve fired their shot they auto-submerge. destroyers would mitigate the damage by removing the sneak attack ability (thereby allowing ships hit by the sub to return fire) and then enabling the fleet to destroy the defenseless sub instead of allowing it to escape. i think this would reflect actual use of subs as attack vessels. they gain destructive potential, and as an offset the destroyer is a harder counter and the subs won’t really function as extra hit points any more.
this one would probably be too much of a game changer to implement, but i’ve also thought that it’s kind of silly that when a ship moves into a sea zone occupied by a sub that the intruding ship decides whether to engage the sub or not. in real life wouldn’t the sub, hiding under the waves, be the one to decide whether or not to engage?? absent a destroyer of course. still, not being able to block a fleet is a disadvantage of the sub that should probably remain.
open to feedback! i think i’d like to try these rules sometime.
hobbes:
yeah, the information i was looking at said the same about focusing on U-Boats almost exclusively, although i guess whether or not that was a mistake could be open to interpretation. by the estimate i looked at, every dollar germany spent on U-Boats forced the allies to spend 10 dollars avoiding or compensating the destruction by the submarine force. i’m not an expert but it seems conceivable to me that this was the best way they could have spent their money in the atlantic, and if they hadn’t then the wehrmacht would have been absolutely flattened in much shorter time, ceteris paribus. then again, they may have just been dumping money into a strategy that had stopped working that they could have spent better elsewhere.