Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…

[baron Münchhausen]

Wow!!!
Far away different.
A 1 space move, even for Subs, will cripple the interest in such units on a big map such as G40.
It should be better to give 3 spaces moves to warships but only M2 to Subs and Transports.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

2 Optionnal rules for more damage:
Any unobstructed Sub which can roll before the Escort defense roll @1, makes 1D6+2 Convoy Disruption Damage.
A Submarine pinned by Destroyer which can do damage only after the roll @2, makes 1D6 Convoy Disruption Damage.

An additional reward for more damage:
Any surviving Submarine still being On Patrol in Convoy Disruption Sea-Zone during the Collect Income Phase of his opponent makes another Convoy Raiding as in the step 2 through 4 above.

Based on this understanding of Convoy Rule made by Uncrustable:

As it stands, it is not an attack.
It is actually by definition a defense.
Your convoy is attempting to get through a hostile sea zone.
My ships will defend said zone against your incoming convoy.
Each of my ships gets to roll a defensive dice

You roll simply to sea if any convoy survives ‘running the gauntlet’

And I for one love the setup, its simple and makes a lot of sense

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18579

If the rule says you have to chose between SBR or regular attack, according to this principle it means that Submarines, in a given Convoy SZ protected by warships, have to chose between a Convoy attack or a regular attack on warships defending the SZ.

However, once the Subs all alone in this SZ (after destroying enemy’s warships), it becomes a blockade. So, on the Collect Income phase of this enemy’s it is correct that Subs defends the SZ against incoming Cargo Ships “running the gauntlet”. Hence, another opportunity to roll Convoy Disruption damage.

---

The other way of seeing that Convoy Raiding is not SBR is base on the fact that warships are protecting the vulnerable Transports. At the end of combat, if some Subs destroy all warships, the combat rule say that all defenseless transports will be destroyed. Where is the difference between defenseless Military transports and defenseless Cargo ships?
I don’t see much. That’s why in this POV, a Convoy Raiding could be done once all enemy’s Military units are destroyed.

This is an historical understanding and 2 games perspectives.

2 times Convoy Disruption once on offense and once on defense, can even receive two different names:
Convoy Raiding (on offence) and Convoy Disruption or Blockade (on defense).

However, it is simpler to have a single phase for this special Economic warfare.

OOB Convoy Disruption is far more difficult to achieve when it is needed to wait the opponent Income Phase. And it is far more difficult to do by Axis players because more Allies Power can destroyed the Subs On Patrol in a given SZ.
Hence the issue pointed by Builder Chris:

Example: round one of 95% of all games, the UK attacks Italy in sz95. After they win that battle, those units that conducted an attack on the UK turn now get the opportunity to conduct a convoy raid on Italy’s collect income phase of the same round of play; those UK units, in effect, conducted two attacks in the same round.
…

This double attack advantage of units attacking a sea zone and conducting a convoy raid can possibly be done by the axis against the allies but it’s very rarely happening primarily due to turn order and positioning of allied new build locations compared to axis new build locations in relation to their proximity to the convoy zones. For example, on the Europe side of the map, the UK can and often does build destroyers off the coast of Canada (sz) and air units in the UK to rid sz of axis subs. So while the axis can attack sea units and then could conduct a convoy raid there, they are not getting the opportunity to do so because of turn order and those location relations; this is a big part of the reason why the UK players don’t really fear convoy raids (like they should) but Italy gets crippled by convoy raids. Because in the med, and because of turn order, if Italy builds any destroyers to deal with subs in their Mediterranean convey sea zones, those destroyers will get sunk and they will still get raided in the same round by the same UK units. So not only is this not fair play, but it cripples the Axis more in Europe then it does the allies in Europe.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18579

[Der Kuenstler]

@Baron:

However, once the Subs all alone in this SZ (after destroying enemy’s warships), it becomes a blockade. So, on the Collect Income phase of this enemy’s it is correct that Subs defends the SZ against incoming Cargo Ships “running the gauntlet”. Hence, another opportunity to roll Convoy Disruption damage.

For me this will never work. For one, the OOB rules have stated for years that subs don’t block enemy movement. Even defenseless transports can ignore subs as if they aren’t there during movement. Now you are saying that lone subs can “blockade” incoming Cargo Ships and “defend” against them. The Cargo Ships are not attacking anything - they are just trying to get some goods to where they need to go. It is the subs that come along and do the attacking. What if the Germans had said “It was the Lusitania that actually attacked us - we were just sitting here defending our sea zone when it came in.” No one would have bought that. It is not possible that a transport (which is basically a cargo ship) can attack anything and never has been. This goes all the way back to 1984. Transports always attack at “0”.

In my rules, if the subs come into the sea zone during the Convoy Raid phase, they can raid the convoy if there are no matching DDs. If there are matching enemy DDs there, the subs are stopped from convoy raiding and they have the option to attack the DDs - but they cannot do both. Just like a bomber cannot bomb a factory and attack land units in the same turn. It just makes more sense and is therefore simpler to remember.

@Baron:

The other way of seeing that Convoy Raiding is not SBR is base on the fact that warships are protecting the vulnerable Transports. At the end of combat, if some Subs destroy all warships, the combat rule say that all defenseless transports will be destroyed. Where is the difference between defenseless Military transports and defenseless Cargo ships?
I don’t see much. That’s why in this POV, a Convoy Raiding could be done once all enemy’s Military units are destroyed.

Now you are using the bad “defenseless transport” rule to defend the other rule. One of the staple principles of this game is that “nothing is done without risk” - in other words, dice are rolled and there could be consequences to everything you do. There are no consequences to slaughtering 10 or more defenseless transports or rolling dice to see how much Cargo you destroy with no retaliation possible. These “defenseless” rules should never have been put in the game IMO. In my rules the convoy that was attacked can roll one die for each attacking sub and each “1” kills a sub.

In this game all combat actions are said to happen at the same to time. Knowing this, we can see it is not possible a group of subs to destroy a navy and then have time to convoy raid during the same turn. This would seriously disrupt the timeline of the game. It would be more realistic if we allowed bombers to both bomb factories AND attack ground units in the same turn - at least planes are fast. Subs often had to patrol an area hours or days before finding a Cargo Ships to sink.

We did some testing with my rules last weekend and found that the German subs lasted much longer. They did not disappear as usual in the first round and the German player actually bought a few more subs instead of all ground units for the Eastern front. The submarines were finally a real worry for the British player and the USA actually had to help out in the Battle of the Atlantic. Mission accomplished.

But these are House Rules and I’ve come to believe there is more than one way to do rules. If people are more comfortable with how they see the rules should be in their house, then it’s their house. To me the goal of the game is to have fun, and if you have the most fun with your rules, that’s great. If I’m using a house rule and my friends and I are enjoying it, is it really necessary for me to first get the approval of the rest of the Axis and Allies world? I just put ideas out here in case others like them, and because alternate views help me keep my own views moderated. But to me, rules that make common sense and fall in line with the general principles of the game make the game more enjoyable, because you can spend more time actually playing and less time in confusion.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

@Baron:

However, once the Subs all alone in this SZ (after destroying enemy’s warships), it becomes a blockade. So, on the Collect Income phase of this enemy’s it is correct that Subs defends the SZ against incoming Cargo Ships “running the gauntlet”. Hence, another opportunity to roll Convoy Disruption damage.

For me this will never work. For one, the OOB rules have stated for years that subs don’t block enemy movement. Even defenseless transports can ignore subs as if they aren’t there during movement. Now you are saying that lone subs can “blockade” incoming Cargo Ships and “defend” against them. The Cargo Ships are not attacking anything - they are just trying to get some goods to where they need to go. It is the subs that come along and do the attacking. What if the Germans had said “It was the Lusitania that actually attacked us - we were just sitting here defending our sea zone when it came in.” No one would have bought that. It is not possible that a transport (which is basically a cargo ship) can attack anything and never has been. This goes all the way back to 1984. Transports always attack at “0”.

In my rules, if the subs come into the sea zone during the Convoy Raid phase, they can raid the convoy if there are no matching DDs. If there are matching enemy DDs there, the subs are stopped from convoy raiding and they have the option to attack the DDs - but they cannot do both. Just like a bomber cannot bomb a factory and attack land units in the same turn. It just makes more sense and is therefore simpler to remember.

You make good points on the status of Subs and Transports which cannot block ennemy movement.
I completly forget this OOB game feature. Even if the historical rationalize was sound. Convoy Disruption is not consistent with this rule.
It could only works with Surface warships as doing the blockade.

According to OOB rules, only surface warships can block enemy ships, and only Destroyer can block Subs.
That’s why some find useful the DD strategy to delay some fleet with a few single DD put in different SZs.

---

However, I disagree about your comparison with SBR.

Bombers can do more than just bombing IC.
If there is interceptors, there is a dogfight between them.
Some defending Fgs can be shooted down, as well as some Bombers.

IMO, this should be the same for Subs in your HR.
Destroyers can do the same as intercepting Fighters.

Subs should be allowed a 1 time attack @2 or,
at least, endure a 1 time defense roll of the Destroyers @2.
And if Subs pass through them, then can makes Convoy damage.
Followed by the Escort roll of Convoy @1.

There will be no paralyzed Subs (pinned), waiting the Combat Phase, all alone, looking at his friendly Subs making the intended Convoy Raid.
There will be more actions and risks for both sides.

Convoy Raid should be a 1 time Sub attack @2 & DD defense @2, damage: 1D6, escort roll @1.
Same as SBR:
1 time Bomber attack @1 & Fg defense @2, IC’s AAA @1, Damage: 1D6.

The Convoy Raid sequence would be all the way similar to SBR, except for the order of defense roll at the end.

This time, all Subs doing Convoy Raid can makes a 1 time attack roll @2 while, I suggest, all Destroyers doing Patrol can roll a 1 time defense @2.
3 Subs against 2 DDs = 3 roll@2 against 2 rolls @2.
2 Subs against 3 DDs= 2 roll @2 against 3 rolls @2.

---

Maybe is it too much and must be kept on a 1:1 basis?
Additionnal Subs or Destroyers cannot roll attack nor defense?

---

When no destroyer, there is only the damage and the Close Escort defense @1.

The regular combat is different because there is many more combat rounds, as much as the attacker wish or have units left.
And also because all others defending units will be part of the battle, but were excluded of the Convoy Raid sequence.

And because of this two points, the Convoy Raid can give a better odds of survival for Subs than a direct regular Combat.

However, the surviving Destroyers will be part of any regular combat coming after Convoy Raid by any other units, such as planes or surface warships or Subs which didn’t do Raid.

What do you think of this?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

We did some testing with my rules last weekend and found that the German subs lasted much longer. They did not disappear as usual in the first round and the German player actually bought a few more subs instead of all ground units for the Eastern front. The submarines were finally a real worry for the British player and the USA actually had to help out in the Battle of the Atlantic. Mission accomplished.

I just put ideas out here in case others like them, and because alternate views help me keep my own views moderated. But to me, rules that make common sense and fall in line with the general principles of the game make the game more enjoyable, because you can spend more time actually playing and less time in confusion.

When you played did you used Knp 1 time attack against Subs before allowing them to submerge?

That is how I saw the interest for sharing ideas on HR. It provides differents angles to suggest improvement. Or another way of viewing the issue at hand.
Of course, we always have more motivation to try our own babys rule than of the others (better fit our character and the way we see the game).

But also, sharing creates some Frankeinstein HR and sometimes, it’s ALIVE!!! :-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

One issue:
about the Subs being pinned: these Subs are useless for Convoy and probably are not enough numerous to make an attack, @2 which is better than a defense.
So this aspect of your Convoy Disruption is like wasting some good opportunity to used Subs to do something significant for the turn.
This will create an indirect incentive toward combat move (in which all Subs can have a part) with available Subs as long as their is enemy’s warships within range.

In addition, the “Sub pinned situation” is more like at tactical level of combat, than the theatre of operation-level of A&A.

A third reasons, is that the result is always predictable. Which is as boring as the auto-kill of defenseless transport.

Read my next post for another way of viewing “Submarine being pinned”.

Thanks for sharing your rulebook.
It is an heavily Houseruled version as you said somewhere else.
I will just comment on the Convoy pinned sub.

I still maintain what I said in my quote above.
Subs raiding against DD and being pinned is a predictable result.
There should be risks on both sides.
These are two points you made about defenseless TPs.
So I know you care about this.

In Convoy Raid, Subs pinning creates a draw, a kind of no result event.
It needs more action.

It also contradicts the Subs do one mission per turn: combat or Raid.
In this case, the owning player put Subs in Convoy Zone telling they all raid but knowing that, in fact, all pinned will go into combat and/or retreat.
Everyone will know that you must declare one thing to maximize raiders units while the pinned will do combat instead.
Strange gamey procedures.
3 Subs vs 2 DDs, you declare 1 Sub will raid while the others attack.
But the raider is pinned so all the 3 subs finally attack the two DDs and make no Convoy Raid at all.

Even if it is consistent with DD block enemy movement, I still think this part is not top nutch.
Find any mechanics which imply die rolls, and a way for pinned subs of still doing their Raid somehow.
It is the weak point of your HR. But it is not broken.

Once this said, it is your game and own set of rules with your accustumed players.

The rulebook and Nation’s cards are nicely done and very easy to follow.
Nice work.

[Der Kuenstler]

@Baron:

Subs going Raiding against DD and pinned is a predictable  result.
There should be risk on both sides.

Glad you like the cards and some of the rules - thanks!

Although risk is found in much of this game, there has to be some kind of balance between risk and playability, or the dice rolling would get out of control. For example, during a strategic bombing raid, there would realistically be a chance that the bombers would never find the target. Or that the interceptors would not find the bombers. Harsh weather might ground all planes. There is also a risk that all mechanical units could break down, run out of fuel, etc. But none of that is considered in the OOB rules. Every chance you introduce means another die roll, and there comes a point where tedium overcomes the desire for realism.

Sure, you could put in another die roll for “did the destroyer actually pin this sub?” but IMO it adds more complication - and the sub is already the most complicated piece on the map as it is.

Perhaps the pinning DD could roll a die @ 1 to try to sink the pinned sub before it can escape?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

@Baron:

Subs going Raiding against DD and pinned is a predictable result.
There should be risk on both sides.

Every chance you introduce means another die roll, and there comes a point where tedium overcomes the desire for realism.

Sure, you could put in another die roll for “did the destroyer actually pin this sub?” but IMO it adds more complication - and the sub is already the most complicated piece on the map as it is.

Perhaps the pinning DD could roll a die @ 1 to try to sink the pinned sub before it can escape?

I agree, it shouldn’t be a spotting die roll.
Why did you choose to totally paralyzed a pinned sub?

Why it is different from regular CM and also different from SBR?
In regular CM, DD blocking (enemy’s movement) a SZ will translate into combat against it. There will be a fight and the attacking Sub knows it.
In your Convoy Raiding, DD blocking do nothing neither for the Subs nor the DD.
It will lead to a fight but Sub can chose to retreat before DD rolls his defense.

In SBR, any bombers and interceptors are fighting each other for 1 single round. (Risk is low, but still there.)
Then Strategic bomber proceed over IC and submit to AAA fire. (Risk still present.)
Why your Convoy Raiding allows no fight between Subs and DDs, as in SBR?

I suggested 3 ways in previous posts.
1- Subs make no attack against DD but submit to a defense roll @2 (instead of @1) and then roll for Convoy damage.

2- Subs makes 1 rnd attack @2 against DDs defense @2, if survive rolls for Convoy damage, then Convoy Escort @1.

3- Each single Sub makes no attack (being pinned by DD) against each single DD but submit to a defense @2. If survives then rolls for Convoy damage, then Convoy Escort @1.

4- I think about this one: same as number 3 plus each unpinned Sub doing a Convoy Raid can make 1 rnd attack @2 against DDs pinning Subs to give a hand to a friendly Subs.

There is probably other possibilities to change this unrisky feature of Sub pinning, so there will be a challenge on both parts and some stakes.

I have the impression that #4 will be more to your taste because it is nearer a tactical Subwarfare and it gives an incentive for Wolf-Pack (outnumbering the DDs).

#3 is somewhat a very risky procedure for Subs, just for a single damage roll D6 submit to 2 rolls (1@2 and 1@1). The reward is very low.

Even in 1942.2 OOB SBR where damage are D6, when interceptor defend @2, all Fgs and StBs attack @1 preemptive.
And as my statistical table reveals it is the worst rewarding method of SBR compared to Triple A and G40 SBR.

[Der Kuenstler]

@Baron:

Why did you choose to totally paralyzed a pinned sub?

In the official rules, ALL subs that move into the same sea zone as one destroyer are paralyzed - they all must stop. Then on the DD owner’s turn he can decide whether to attack them or retreat. In my rules, the sub is only pinned in the Strategic Move phase. Then in the next phase, the Combat Move phase, it can move away or attack.

@Baron:

Why it is different from regular CM and also different from SBR?

Combat movement must result in combat. The subs are not seeking out combat in the convoy raid phase, but rather seeking convoys to sink. In a SBR there is a quick dogfight before the actual bombing. But, as I shared before, we’re talking air and water here. A DD could hold a sub down for hours or days - in the meantime the other subs would be able to raid or move on by.

@Baron:

In your Convoy Raiding, DD blocking do nothing neither for the Subs nor the DD. It will lead to a fight but Sub can chose to retreat before DD rolls his defense.

Well the sub is stopped from its raiding mission, and the DD stops it from raiding a convoy, so something is done. The DD doesn’t roll a defense because it wasn’t being attacked by the sub - the sub was trying to raid convoys, and was blocked. If the sub attacks the DD in the next phase, the DD can then roll for defense.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

@Baron:

Why did you choose to totally paralyzed a pinned sub?

In the official rules, ALL subs that move into the same sea zone as one destroyer are paralyzed - they all must stop. Then on the DD owner’s turn he can decide whether to attack them or retreat. In my rules, the sub is only pinned in the Strategic Move phase. Then in the next phase, the Combat Move phase, it can move away or attack.

If the Subs are stopped by the Destroyer, they are not paralyzed.
The attacker choose whether to do it during Combat Move (to try to sink the DD) or Non-Combat Move (to just put Subs in the SZ).
In your Convoy Rules, the pinnned Sub is automaticaly unable to Raid and must Retreat or Combat.
That’s what I call paralyzed. In fact, the offender is not able to do is special Raid, even if he wishes to.

Combat movement must result in combat. The subs are not seeking out combat in the convoy raid phase, but rather seeking convoys to sink.

I’m only talking about game mechanics, here:

In a Convoy Raid, a single Sub, attack @2 against 1 Destroyers protecting a Convoy SZ, defending @2, is not, strictu sensu, a regular combat.
It is a special attack, same as in SBR Dogfight when interceptors rolls against incoming Air Raiders.
During SBR, the Bombers & Tac Bombers, the ground units doesn’t roll. Only the defending Fighters got a one chance to roll against the Air Raiders.

In this given SZ, you could have more than destroyers in it: carriers, planes, cruiser, etc. But in your Convoy raid, none of them will get a roll.

If it was a regular combat, Submarine units will not have a single roll and they may not be all alone, planes and others friendly units can be doing the combat for more than 1 single combat round.
But in Convoy Raid, it is a single round attack, because it is not the aim to destroy combat units, only destroy Merchant Ships. (As in SBR, it is to make IC’s damage, not to destroy Fgs.)

About historical background of rules, a ship-to-ship level can provide some tactical feels for developping rules but the game is about many units, making many raids during a given 3 to 6 months period.

---

If your not convince there is an issue behind such a gamey procedures:
3 Subs must all “pretend to raid”, against 2 DDs, just to get, in fact, 1 Sub making the Raid while the 2 others pinned Subs will make the regular combat (as long as they want, with as many friendly units),
but
doing the thing straight: announcing “2 Subs will attack the Subs while the other Sub will Raid” doesn’t work (because none will raid, since the last one will be pinned),

and if the parallel with SBR mechanics, compared to regular combat, isn’t appealing to introduce a similar mechanics in Convoy Raid,

and if the other kind of procedures suggested, aren’t up to your taste,
I cannot go further, it is your house rules.

[Der Kuenstler]

Baron - Nothing is set in stone for me - I haven’t had a chance to extensively test any of these ideas - it could be I end up using some of your ideas, which are not bad - just different - thanks for sharing them!

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

Baron - Nothing is set in stone for me - I haven’t had a chance to extensively test any of these ideas - it could be I end up using some of your ideas, which are not bad - just different - thanks for sharing them!

That’s OK.
I just believed that a theorical “paper experiment” would allow to agree on this issue on “pinned subs”, which I perceived as a weakness.

This point on Pinned Subs doesn’t seems to bother you.
So, as long as it is not really an issue for you and since you provides more reason on its behalf.
The only way to really figure it out if it really suits you and your friends, will be playtesting.

I have no specific HR on Convoy Raid.
We are simply not there in my play group. Maybe someday.
I hope because its seems the best way to describe the real impact of Subs in WWII.
It wasn’t combat, it was far more Merchant’s ships destruction.

Keeps us posted if there is any feedback on all your rules and mechanics.

[crusaderiv]

I have no specific HR on Convoy Raid.
We are simply not there in my play group. Maybe someday.
I hope because its seems the best way to describe the real impact of Subs in WWII.
It wasn’t combat, it was far more Merchant’s ships destruction.
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s why we introduced merchant marine rule in our game.
We have merchant marine piece on the game board and when submarine sink a merchant ship the owner get a penalty.

[Der Kuenstler]

@crusaderiv:

That’s why we introduced merchant marine rule in our game.
We have merchant marine piece on the game board and when submarine sink a merchant ship the owner get a penalty.

Is this the house rule where you have to constantly move each country’s merchant marine ships around the map making deliveries and pickups? That does not sound like fun to me….

[crusaderiv]

It takes few second to move it during non combat move. 3 zones.
It’s more realistic than ghost convoy and/or image on the game board.
Also if you don’t want to loose IPC players must protect those convoy with destroyer and escort so more historical than attack the Kriegsmarine with 20 destroyers in the middle of the Atlantic…

AL.

[Der Kuenstler]

@crusaderiv:

It takes few second to move it during non combat move. 3 zones.
It’s more realistic than ghost convoy and/or image on the game board.
Also if you don’t want to loose IPC players must protect those convoy with destroyer and escort so more historical than attack the Kriegsmarine with 20 destroyers in the middle of the Atlantic…

AL.

If I’m reading your rules right here (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17827.0)
There are 33 Merchant Marine pieces in the setup. Then each one may need an escort, right? So you are moving 40-60 ships around each round? And all must be moved every round. That still sounds like a lot of book keeping to do. Guess I’d have to actually see what you are doing to get it fully.

IMO this game is a WAR game primarily, in which war is waged. It is not a shipping game. This is why I think invisible “virtual” convoys are most appropriate for this scale. They give you the concept of Convoy Raiding without cluttering up the map. Notice on land there are no actual train or truck pieces that bring raw materials to the industrial complexes. All of that is assumed to be going on but is not visible.

[crusaderiv]

Merchant marine is really important in our game because of lend lease.
US player can send materials to UK, commonwealth, China and later to USSR.
UK player can send materials to commonwealth,China and later USSR.
Only 1 units per boat. (Tank, airplane, artillery).
Once the boat arrived to his destination, the new owner change the units for his own.
After that, the convoy return to his home to get new unit.
The convoy move during non combat move.

AL.

[Der Kuenstler]

@crusaderiv:

Merchant marine is really important in our game because of lend lease.
US player can send materials to UK, commonwealth, China and later to USSR.
UK player can send materials to commonwealth,China and later USSR.
Only 1 units per boat. (Tank, airplane, artillery).
Once the boat arrived to his destination, the new owner change the units for his own.
After that, the convoy return to his home to get new unit.
The convoy move during non combat move.

AL.

Interesting ideas!

[crusaderiv]

And you get a penalty of 5% for each cargo you lost so you’ve better to protect it.
In the case of UK, the player has 9 cargo.
You lost all your boat? You’ll get a penalty of 45%…
But of course you can buy new cargo. (5$ for each).
And next you won’t suffer anymore penalty.

That why you have to protect it with destroyer and escort. (yes we have both).

AL.

[baron Münchhausen]

I found this post in another thread of AA50, in which Defenseless Transport and DDs blocking all Subs was introduced:

I will try to make some spaces for easier reading.
Kavik Kang was amongst the first to suggest the 1 DD :1 Sub ratio but for movement blocker only.
This example show how to use so called Fleet Submarines tactics to maximized their potential as sea-fodder units.

@Kavik:

I’ve been learning AA50 by playing it and trying out different openings offline and watching other people play and what they do. One thing I’ve noticed in watching other people play is that almost nobody, even the very best players, seems to understand the ramifications of how subs work within the new AA50 rules. I’m an old man for a gamer and I’ve been playing games for over 30 years. My favorite games have always been naval combat games, and AA50’s new sub rules are based on how subs work in certain other, more complex games. So I already have a lot of experience with the concept, and a pretty good understanding of naval combat. So I thought I would provide this little primer on subs and naval combat within AA50 in the hopes that Japanese players will stop sailing within range of my well composed US fleet thinking that they are safe just because they have 1 more carrier than I do and then dying to the AA50 version of a carrier air strike.

First, the main sub users in AA50 are USA and Japan. England generally has little use for subs, other than maybe for a single attack on the Italian navy. Italy might build some fleet subs as cannon fodder in their fleet, but without carriers have no real need for subs. Japan also only has a need for fleet subs (which I will explain later), but has much more of a need for them than Italy does because they have carriers. Once you truly understand how subs work in AA50, you’ll understand why they are such an essential part of any fleet.

Subs are defensive units and they are the infantry of the sea. The most important thing to keep in mind about subs is that, if a destroyer is present, they can’t safely move within range of enemy units. One destroyer and as many planes that can reach will get to take one round of shots at your subs (more rounds if the destroyer survives the first round) and they will attack your subs, which only defend at a 1. You can’t move within range of enemy destroyers or you will die. But if your subs are supported by air units the enemy fleet can’t move within range of your subs, either. That last point is the crux of the issue.

The point most seem to be missing is that subs are meant to die. It doesn’t matter that they only attack at a 2, subs are defensive attacking units.
The best example are what I call fleet subs within AA50.
Fleet subs are subs that travel with a carrier fleet. Their sole purpose is to die in an air strike on an enemy fleet.
In the real world carrier planes fly out great distances to hit enemy fleets, they don’t sail up and get into a close range fight with them. This is actually how carriers work in AA, as well, except that the carrier planes need to be escorted by subs. The subs are only there to die, and you would ideally have as many subs as hits you believe you will take in one round of combat with the enemy fleet (against the IJN, this means 4- 6 subs). This has a huge impact on the stand-off between two fleets such as the US and Japanese fleets in the Pacific.
Let’s look at a typical stand-off between two typical carrier fleets and what happens to one of them if it allows an air strike supported by subs from the opposing fleet.

Let’s say that the Japanese fleet is, as usual, more powerful than the US fleet. The Japanese fleet is more powerful, so the Japanese player moves within 2 spaces range of the US fleet at Hawaii believing that he is safe. The Japanese fleet consists of 3 carriers (with 6 fighters), 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, and 1 destroyer. The US fleet consists of 2 carriers (with 4 fighters), 2 destroyers, and 4 subs. The US fleet performs an air strike with 4 subs, 2 destroyers (using them because he didn’t have enough subs to send in this instance, and 4 fighters. The carriers stay in Hawaii. The battle calculator will tell you that we will lose this fight badly, but the battle calculator isn’t taking everything into account AND assumes that we will stay for multiple rounds of combat. We won’t be. We are the attacker and we can retreat whenever we want. In this particular example they will almost certainly have to take one shot and leave because all the subs will die in round 1.

So we shoot and get 4 hits (average), 1 sub and 3 other hits.
The Japanese player takes the free hit on the battleship from the sub, loses the destroyer and then must chose between a plane, cruiser, carrier, or battleship for the other 2 hits.
He probably kills 2 planes.
The Japanese fleet shoots back and gets 6 hits (1 better than average) the US kills the 4 subs and destroyers and then retreats all 4 of his planes from the battle (if a DD lived retreat it as a blocker). The US fleet in Hawaii is 2 carriers with 4 fighters.
The remains of the Japanese fleet are 3 carriers, 4 fighters, 1 battleship, and 1 cruiser.
The US mostly lost only subs which contribute very little defensively too the fleet other than dying instead of better units, the Japanese lost fighters, the primary defense of the fleet.
They have to withdraw and rebuild expensive fighters.
The US just needs a couple more subs and destroyers which if they are in a stand off with the Japanese navy are probably already arriving from the west coast at the end of this turn allowing the US fleet to remain in Hawaii. We lost 2 more units (we lost 4-6) than the Japanese navy did, but due to the nature of the combination of subs and airplanes attacking, in the grand scheme of things, we clearly won the fight. Had the Japanese player had subs and destroyers protecting his planes and larger ships all we would have done was whittle down each others sub/destroyer forces a little. The US fleet in this instance had a superior composition with its combination of subs and fighters so the larger Japanese fleet comes out on the short end of the stick. This is actually even worse for the IJN because the US would actually also have 2 heavy bombers attacking from Hawaii that I intentionally left out to show just the matchup between the fleets alone.

The key factor is the effect that and air strike has in relation to the defensive strength of the fleet. If you trade subs for fighters with an enemy fleet, when the battle is over your fleet is stronger defensively than the opposing fleet was before the fight. You lost subs, they lost fighters. There is a chance that the enemy fleet is too weak to withstand yours now, and if not the next air strike will probably achieve that. As soon as the enemy fleet has been sufficiently weakened you can eventually forget the air strikes and move your whole fleet in for the final battle. Every time you trade a sub for a plane, cruiser, or battleship you are altering the balance of power between the two fleets in your favor. In an air strike, the more subs you have the more rounds of combat you can fight. You usually only have enough subs for 1 round of combat, but later in the game it is possible that you have enough subs to protect your planes for multiple rounds of combat. In these cases you can do serious damage to the enemy fleet without exposing your own to any real danger. Subs are the infantry of the sea, there is little difference between 8 Infantry and 4 fighters in Moscow and 8 Sub and 4 Fighters in Hawaii. The main difference is that the Infantry and fighters in Moscow will sit there and wait to be attacked, while the subs and fighters will attack the enemy as soon as he comes within range. The combination of subs and airplanes are defensive attackers.

You Japanese players need to trade some of those ground units for destroyers and subs to protect your fleet. I can’t count the number of times I have watched the IJN sit there with the US player having the power to hurt it bad, sitting with within range, but not realizing that was the case. The initial Japanese fleet will get hurt badly by the turn 3 US navy if it doesn’t add some protection on turn 2. All those nice ships and planes need at least 2 destroyers and 2 subs for protection (Japan eventually wants at least 4 destroyers and at least a number of subs equal to the number of fighters on their carriers). The starting Japanese navy is essentially naked, and most players just leave it that way. This is why the IJN usually loses when they finally fight. The US player built a lot of protective ships early on out of necessity, so when the fleets finally meet those 3 or 4 extra escorts make all the difference and the Japanese player is left insisting he must have rolled bad because he had an extra carrier. The way the dice actually play out, once you’ve got 3 or 4 carriers involved then subs and destroyers actually become more useful in the big fleet battle than an extra carrier. They keep the big numbers rolling longer where the less protected fleet begins losing the big numbers early. Once you have enough protection, relative to the size of the enemy fleet and land-based air that is within range, then adding more carriers again becomes better than more escorts.

Fleets are highly defensive in nature. When two fleets are equal in size they cannot enter within range of each other. If the fleets are well designed, the one who enters range first loses. This means that fleets exert a strong zone of control within a 2 space radius of where they are, due to the strike range of their subs/destroyers and planes. Another way of putting it is that a carrier fleet provides coverage of spaces within that range.
So, for example, with this US fleet in Hawaii facing the 3 carrier IJN fleet in the above example, the US could safely retake the Philippines (if it is empty) and probably hold it for a turn or 2 or maybe for the rest of the game.
All they need to do is sacrifice a transport to get 2 inf there.
To retake it the Japanese would have to sacrifice 2 transports, or have a bomber in range to help 1 transport, because any naval units they send there will die to the air strike we just covered. In fact, attempting to re-take Philippines is usually what causes the air strike we went over above they get it back, and lose their naval superiority for the rest of the game.

Once a defensive position like this has been established the player with the coverage over the islands is free to re-take them with sacrificial transports. If you have enough destroyers, you can cover the landings with 2 destroyers if the Japanese don’t have any subs to strike with their planes, hoping to kill planes with your destroyers, otherwise just sacrifice the transports to take any islands you want. This effect can also be achieved with a combination of subs and bombers. Once in place, it just isn’t safe to approach such a position without at least 4 subs and/or destroyers defending the fleet. The Japanese don’t have this early on, so a US player going KGF can cause great difficulty for Japan early by placing 6 subs and 4 bombers in Hawaii. You can get by in the Pacific with subs and bombers in Hawaii, and a few transports to re-take island that this force covers. This relatively small force can seriously harass Japan for most of the game at relatively little cost. This can’t be done if the Japanese destroyer is alive and in range at the end of turn 1, but it almost always dies to the battleship. As long as the destroyer is not there, the 5 subs and 3 bombers the US can land in Hawaii on turn 2 will cause Japan problems all out of proportion to their cost to the US player. A single transport can take Philippines as soon as they are in place, for example, and the Japanese will have a hard time taking it back any time soon without sacrificing at least 1 transport to do it (or by sacrificing a significant portion of his fleet). This is a very cheap way of focusing almost all of your attention on Germany, if that is your plan, while still causing some serious problems for Japan during the early turns AND forcing them to buy at least 2 destroyers and 2 subs for the pacific fleet. It takes several turns for Japan to build enough protective subs/destroyers to safely get within range to threaten your subs unless they are willing to not build a lot of things they would normally build during the early turns. When he finally does move within range, suicide the subs into him and fly the bombers back to West US and on to Germany from there (assuming you are still going KGF).

The effect of destroyers in a fleet battle deserves mention as well. The important aspect of destroyers in a fleet battle is that the presence of an enemy destroyer means that his planes can hit your submarines. In a fleet battle this actually works against the enemy fleet as it allows you to take subs as casualties from airplanes. If no destroyer was present, all air hits would have to be taken on airplanes, but because an enemy destroyer is present all hits can be taken on the subs. There is no way around this, fleets must have destroyers, it is just the way it works and it works well, actually. This is another advantage of the sub supported air strike… you have no destroyer present, so the enemy must take all of your air hits on his planes while you can take air hits on subs because his destroyers are in the fight. Sometimes, though, such as the US have an opportinty to hit the Japanese fleet on turn 2, you have no choice and have to send your destroyers in too… but Japan probably doesn’t have any subs on turn 2 anyway so it doesn’t matter in that case.

Do this experiment with the battle calculator. Enter a typical US airstrike on the IJN. The US has a defensive position of 6 subs and 4 bombers at Hawaii and the (still not completed with subs and destroyers) turn 3 IJN foolishly enters range. We actually have a chance of winning this fight outright, which allows you to see something in the battle calculator that might surprise you.

US 6 subs and 4 bomb v IJN 2 carrier, 4 fig, 1 batship, 1 cruis = US win 15%.
US 6 subs and 4 bomb v IJN 2 carrier, 4 fig, 1 batship, 1 cruis, 1 destoyer = US win 35%.

If you add a 1 destroyer to the Japanese fleet Japan has a 20% greater chance of losing because that extra ship is there. This is because with the destroyer present the US can now take hits from the defending fighters rolling a 4, on subs that roll a 2, instead of on bombers that roll a 4. But this doesn’t mean you don’t want destroyers in your fleet, it just means that you want several of them. Start adding DDs in the battle calc and watch the percentage drop back down. More importantly, consider the trade on hits you will now make if you suffer an air strike. At least 2 destroyers and 2 subs are required for the protection of any fleet and this is very realistic.

A Note About German U-Boats:
Unfortunately, Germany is not a sub user. So close, and yet so far.
With a single small rule change subs would become a vital part of Germany’s arsenal in keeping the British navy away.
If Germany could keep 4-6 subs in SZ 5, which they can afford to do, they could cover SZs 3, 6, & 7 and keep the British navy out of those SZs. It would be really cool, and make subs a vital weapon for Germany as they should be. But the nature of subs is that they must be outside of range of enemy ships beforehand, so that enemy ships cannot enter within their range. They cannot enter range of an enemy fleet to attack, the enemy fleet must come to them.
This almost works for Germany, they can get into position in SZ 5 with 3 subs and their air force on turn 1 and keep the British navy out of important sea zones (3, 6, and 7).
It all falls apart with the unrealistic ability of a single ship to block an infinite number of ships in AA50.
This means the British can simply place a single destroyer in SZ 6, blocking the German subs, and put their navy in attack range.
The subs can’t reach the navy, so they can’t attack.
And on the following turn the British navy enters SZ 5 and destroys all of the subs.
This means that it would be a huge waste of money for Germany to try and use subs because all England has to do is sacrifice a single destroyer to kill the entire German U-Boat fleet.

This would be simple to fix with a simple rule from other naval combat games.
Instead of a single ship being able to block an infinite number of enemy ships, which is ridiculous, blocking ships should only be able to block an equal number of ships.
This rule works much better and would correct several different problems associated with blocking naval units within AA50.
With this rule if the British tried to block SZ 5 with a single destroyer the Germans would simple be required to leave a single sub behind to fight it (they could leave more if they wanted, but must leave a number of ships equal to enemy blockers as they pass through that SZ) while the rest of the subs continue on to attack the UK fleet. The blocking rule is the only major problem remaining in A&A naval combat, and it alone prevents subs from being useful to Germany.

With the picket force rule in place, naval combat in A&A would work very, very well and Germany would be buying subs every game.

@Veqryn:

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.