G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[baron Münchhausen]

This is slightly different cost structure because I try to introduce a Carrier holding 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
I also tried to stick as much as possible to 1914 cost structure (6-9-12), including Fg at 6 IPCs.
I write it here since many ideas came from the last exchanges.
All other ground units are as OOB.

Unit type  
Cost   Combat values
Special abilities

SUBMARINE
5  IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth Move

DESTROYER
6  IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.

TRANSPORT
8  IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.

CRUISER
9 IPCs  A3 D3 M3
Shore Bombard 3
Gives +1 move to 1 surface vessel, paired 1:1

CARRIER
12  IPCs A0 D3 M2, 2 hits,
Carry 3 planes, damaged CV still carry one aircraft

BATTLESHIP
15  IPCs A4 D4 M2, 2 hits,
Shore Bombard 4

FIGHTER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M4
Always hit aircraft first, then AAA, if any available.
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.

TACTICAL BOMBER
8 IPCs A3 D2 M4
Pick any enemy’s ground unit of your choice as casualty.
TBR: A1first strike Damage D6, can do escort mission without bombing AB or NB.

STRATEGIC BOMBER
10 IPCs  A4 D1 M6
SBR:  AA A1first strike up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage :  D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.

All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY
3 IPCs A0 D1 AAx2* M1 CM or NCM, 1 hit,
Taken as last casualty on offence.
*Fire each round @1 first strike against up to two aircrafts, which ever the lesser.
Regular defense @1 if there is no enemy’s plane.

[Black_Elk]

I’m actually pretty intrigued by the 3 plane carrier. I know the standard sculpt can carry 3 fighters if you put them at a 45 degree angle, but 2 fighter and a Tac B will probably tip. I’m not near my board, can we confirm whether a chip can rest on the decks without tipping? If so I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t try the 3 plane concept.

[LHoffman]

@Black_Elk:

I’m actually pretty intrigued by the 3 plane carrier. I know the standard sculpt can carry 3 fighters if you put them at a 45 degree angle, but 2 fighter and a Tac B will probably tip. I’m not near my board, can we confirm whether a chip can rest on the decks without tipping? If so I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t try the 3 plane concept.

In my mind, a 3-plane carrier has more to do with the strategic and cost implications of allowing a third plane on a single carrier. (For one, it means you need less carriers to do the job, which means fewer ships bought.) Their physical ability to fit is less of a concern. Two planes fall off pretty easy anyway and planes in a sea zone = planes on the carrier as far as I am concerned.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

@Black_Elk:

I’m actually pretty intrigued by the 3 plane carrier. I know the standard sculpt can carry 3 fighters if you put them at a 45 degree angle, but 2 fighter and a Tac B will probably tip. I’m not near my board, can we confirm whether a chip can rest on the decks without tipping? If so I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t try the 3 plane concept.

In my mind, a 3-plane carrier has more to do with the strategic and cost implications of allowing a third plane on a single carrier. (For one, it means you need less carriers to do the job, which means fewer ships bought.) Their physical ability to fit is less of a concern. Two planes fall off pretty easy anyway and planes in a sea zone = planes on the carrier as far as I am concerned.

You can easily fit 2 TcBs sculpts but a third one can’t, 3 Fgs fit also, 1 TcB and 2 Fgs can also fit.

Don’t forget that the Fg is not OOB, OOB full CV gets A6 D10, 4 hits, cost 36 IPCs.
The above 3 planes Carrier full Fgs gets
A6 D9, 5 hits cost 30 IPCs
while full TcBs gets
A9 D9, 5 hits cost 36 IPCs.
It is balanced with AACalc to keep a similar ratio between Carrier offense vs Carrier defense than OBB.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

One thing I would like to see is an actual battle of the Atlantic, or more appropriately a real Atlantic campaign with ships from both sides mixing it up. I don’t mean like a round one flash in the pan, where all the ships are destroyed and then the battle devolves to an air umbrella on one side vs carrier stacks on the other, but something that looks a bit more like what happened in the war. You know, with Germany trying to strangle Britain with Uboats, and Allies responding with armed convoys.

The way it works OOB, the battle of the Atlantic is basically an air war. With German bombers on one side, and Allied fighters/carriers on the other, and this just seems a little silly to me.

The best way I can think of to change that dynamic would be to make the cheapest surface ship cheaper. If the destroyer cost 6 instead of 8, and the sub cost 5 instead of 6, I think we’d see more uboats at purchase, and more destroyers to back down the land based air attacks. Add to that some kind of anti air function for the cruiser and I think a more realistic battle of the Atlantic might take shape.

I’m wondering if making ships cheaper is perhaps approaching the problem from the wrong direction.  There’s a modern architectural principle which states that “form follows function” that might be applicable in this context, with some adaptations of course.  If people aren’t buying a particular unit type very much, the root problem may not be with the “form” (i.e. price and combat capabilities) of the unit; the problem may actually be with its “function” in the sense that the unit may not have any important (or specific) job to do, and therefore that it’s not really needed.  Similarly, if people aren’t fighting a proper Battle of the Atlantic, the problem may not be with the capabilities of the units that could be used to fight it; the problem may actually be that there’s not much point (under the OOB rules) of fighting such a campaign.  If so, then the best way to address the problem may not be to tinker with unit capabilities or unit prices; rather, the solution may be to give people a strong incentive to fight a proper Battle of the Atlantic by making its stakes and its outcome very important on a round-to-round basis.  So in this context, “form follows function” would become something along the lines of “need determines usage”.  Or, to use an analogy from economics rather than architecture, think of this approach as focussing on demand (why a unit type (or campaign) is neeeded) rather than supply (what a unit costs and what it’s capable of).

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

One thing I would like to see is an actual battle of the Atlantic, or more appropriately a real Atlantic campaign with ships from both sides mixing it up. I don’t mean like a round one flash in the pan, where all the ships are destroyed and then the battle devolves to an air umbrella on one side vs carrier stacks on the other, but something that looks a bit more like what happened in the war. You know, with Germany trying to strangle Britain with Uboats, and Allies responding with armed convoys.

The way it works OOB, the battle of the Atlantic is basically an air war. With German bombers on one side, and Allied fighters/carriers on the other, and this just seems a little silly to me.

The best way I can think of to change that dynamic would be to make the cheapest surface ship cheaper. If the destroyer cost 6 instead of 8, and the sub cost 5 instead of 6, I think we’d see more uboats at purchase, and more destroyers to back down the land based air attacks. Add to that some kind of anti air function for the cruiser and I think a more realistic battle of the Atlantic might take shape.

Similarly, if people aren’t fighting a proper Battle of the Atlantic, the problem may not be with the capabilities of the units that could be used to fight it; the problem may actually be that there’s not much point (under the OOB rules) of fighting such a campaign.  **If so, then the best way to address the problem may not be to tinker with unit capabilities or unit prices; rather, the solution may be to give people a strong incentive to fight a proper Battle of the Atlantic by making its stakes and its outcome very important on a round-to-round basis.  So in this context, “form follows function” would become something along the lines of “need determines usage”.  **Or, to use an analogy from economics rather than architecture, think of this approach as focussing on demand (why a unit type (or campaign) is neeeded) rather than supply (what a unit costs and what it’s capable of).

Good idea CWOMarc.
I believe that the first function which can explain why, is that Germany is usually going after Russia but must slow down UK and US invasions. The cheapest way (form) is buying a lot of cheaper Ground units which can serve both objectives. Sacrifying a Tank, to buy a Sub which cannot be useful against Russia is far less interesting than buying a costlier plane which can works in both directions. Having a cheaper Sub, invicible against Transport while giving TP an AA capacity only, can make a better incentive to buy Sub over plane and it left 1 IPC more for ground unit purpose. This should imply more DDs investment to better protect against Subs, and because DD is cheaper at 6 IPCs.

Once this said, some National Objective should also be defined to create a more convincing Battle of the Atlantic.
Since it involves U-boats destroying Allied shipping, it is easier to provide a positive bonus to Allies clearing the U-boat menace (no German’s sub in Atlantic SZs).
But what can be a positive reward National Objective for Germany to put Subs in the Ocean?

Is it a prestige one? Such as anytime a Sub unit destroy anything above a Destroyer in a given turn, Germany receive 3 IPCs for this turn, due to propaganda after event causing higher recruitment rate?

A direct impact such as -1 IPCs to UKs and US income per Axis Sub patrolling the Atlantic.
This would be in addition to any other kind of Convoy raiding?
Any idea?

[barney]

I agree with CWO that having more of a reason to contest the atlantic is the way to go, although I wouldn’t necessarilly be opposed to a price restructure either.

I’ve been playing for almost a year now with 2 conoy zones in 104 and 124. 104 is UK and they get 2 bucks if there are no axis warships present( I also changed some UK TTs so UK gets a extra buck total with the bonus and one less without it). 124 is Russian and they get 2 bucks if at war with european axis, no axis warships present, own archangel and no allied units. The no allied units might be dropped as suggested for the 125 NO in other threads.

Anyway I’ve found it encourages more battle in the Atlantic and slows Germany down a little by having to invest in 1 or 2 more subs per round if hotly contested. Early on if Germany successfully destroys the Royal Navy in their home waters she can usually negate the 104 bonus for 3 or 4 RDs. She then needs a extra sub for Russia and usually blows off trading with UK/US for 104. While not a lot even at 6 and sometimes 12 extra bucks per turn that doesn’t go to the Eastern Front makes a noticeable difference.

Of course they can ignore 124 if they want, but that gives Russia a extra 2 per turn and they can usually trade Archangel to RD 8 or longer unless Germany goes north which isn’t neccessarilly ideal. It should probably be bumped to 3 or 4 but I give Russia a extra buck for Vyborg, Nenetsia and Bessarabia at the start. Anyway this allows the US and UK to indirectly help Russia with air and DD attacks on German u-boats or increased dough if Germany doesn’t contest.

What’s also cool is both SZs are open ocean with no ABs to support them making German Bmbr/ Carrier air and subs able to counterattack with a decent chance of success. If Germany contests it usually means one less US DD for the Pacific along with a Bmbr in UK. Of course the US/UK has the option not to contest either.

Sorry to ramble but to sum up it creates more options which can subtly effect a large area of the map.

Edit: To Baron’s idea of a pro Grerman bonus I might try making both SZs worth 3 to whoever controls them. That ought to stir up some action :) Although that might be to big of a early boost to Germany

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

This is slightly different cost structure because I try to introduce a Carrier holding 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
I also tried to stick as much as possible to 1914 cost structure (6-9-12), including Fg at 6 IPCs.
I write it here since many ideas came from the last exchanges.
All other ground units are as OOB.

Unit type  
Cost   Combat values
Special abilities

SUBMARINE
5  IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth Move

DESTROYER
6  IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.

TRANSPORT
8  IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.

CRUISER
9 IPCs  A3 D3 M3
Shore Bombard 3
Gives +1 move to 1 surface vessel, paired 1:1

CARRIER
12  IPCs A0 D3 M2, 2 hits,
Carry 3 planes, damaged CV still carry one aircraft

BATTLESHIP
15  IPCs A4 D4 M2, 2 hits,
Shore Bombard 4

FIGHTER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M4
Always hit aircraft first, then AAA, if any available.
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.

TACTICAL BOMBER
8 IPCs A3 D2 M4
Pick any enemy’s ground unit of your choice as casualty.
TBR: A1first strike Damage D6, can do escort mission without bombing AB or NB.

STRATEGIC BOMBER
10 IPCs  A4 D1 M6
SBR:  AA A1first strike up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage :  D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.

All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY
3 IPCs A0 D1 AAx2* M1 CM or NCM, 1 hit,
Taken as last casualty on offence.
*Fire each round @1 first strike against up to two aircrafts, which ever the lesser.
Regular defense @1 if there is no enemy’s plane.

I wonder if such cost structure 5-6-9-12-15 is agreed upon, does it imply a cost redux for Air Base and Naval Base?
OOB they are at 15 IPCs. Would they be put around 12 or 10 IPCs?

With A2 D2 Fighters, AB would allow up to 4 planes to scramble and gives +1 Def to 1 plane, to keep balance vs 3 OOB Fgs.

[Young Grasshopper]

There’s a lot of good stuff here… +1 if you think I should sticky this thread.

[LHoffman]

@barney:

Edit: To Baron’s idea of a pro Grerman bonus I might try making both SZs worth 3 to whoever controls them. That ought to stir up some action :) Although that might be to big of a early boost to Germany

On a humorous note… back when we were young rookies starting out on Revised, my cousins got the original A&A Europe for Christmas. They played with the convoy zones as though they were territories where the holder got the money. This meant Germany fanned subs out all over and hauled in like 30 IPCs more per turn than they should have. Oh the ignorance of youth. Naturally they thought Germany was a blast to play with.

I am not saying that is the best method, or in any way accurate, but getting money is a far better motivator than simply denying it to the enemy.

(We also used to differentiate whether or not we were playing with “IPC loss” or not, in a given game. The reason being when we started playing Revised, we just kept starting incomes steady throughout the game… you never lost income as you lost territories, you only ever gained money if you took more territories. At some point we discovered that was not the intended way to play and for a time had the declaration before starting of which method we were playing with. Obviously we look back on this now as preposterous, but we were dumb.)

Back on the Battle of the Atlantic issue… Ultimately, I think there has to be some intrinsic motivation for Germany to reach out into the Atlantic. Simply giving them more money to spend or reducing the cost of subs probably will not be enough reason to make them buy more. As it stands, the war will still be decided against the Soviet Union (Moscow). If there is a viable strategic gain to be had, such as strangling the UK or subs utilized to buy time against an invasion, then maybe a Battle of the Atlantic would take place.

Also, it looks like HBG has overhauled the Convoy Disruption System. I am not sure what can be done with it if you still plan to use the G40 map, but on HBG’s new GW game it looks like there are lines around the oceans denoting convoy routes. (You have to look closely and zoom in.) I don’t know how they have structured the mechanic, but it looks nicer, IMO.

[Young Grasshopper]

I always liked the classic SBR rules where you roll a dice per bomber and take that amount straight from their cash on hand. Off the top of my head, I would do something like… 1 or more warships in a convoy zone allows for 1d6 to take cash.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

Back on the Battle of the Atlantic issue… Ultimately, I think there has to be some intrinsic motivation for Germany to reach out into the Atlantic. Simply giving them more money to spend or reducing the cost of subs probably will not be enough reason to make them buy more. As it stands, the war will still be decided against the Soviet Union (Moscow). If there is a viable strategic gain to be had, such as strangling the UK or subs utilized to buy time against an invasion, then maybe a Battle of the Atlantic would take place.

Also, it looks like HBG has overhauled the Convoy Disruption System. I am not sure what can be done with it if you still plan to use the G40 map, but on HBG’s new GW game it looks like there are lines around the oceans denoting convoy routes. (You have to look closely and zoom in.) I don’t know how they have structured the mechanic, but it looks nicer, IMO.

You touched some interesting points.
About how units values impact the Atlantic Submarine Warfare, there is some features added in previous discussion (on Subs, DDs and TPs) and put in my roster which can provided favorable circumstances.

First rule: No Sub vs Sub can create a similar situation in ATO (Atlantic Theatre of Operation) because US and UK will not buy Sub to fight U-boat, for sure.
OOB, it was possible to buy a few cheaper Subs to use as cheap fodder (for DDs and TPs) against U-boats.
Now, it is clear that UK and US Destroyers only can protect TPs against them.

(In addition for PTO, US and ANZAC can throw Sub at Japan, while IJN can do the same against UK, US and ANZAC. There is an increase possibility that US & Allies can recreate their historical Convoy Raiding against Japan, if IJN have not enough DDs.
OOB, IJN Subs could protect TPs against Allied Subs.)

Second rule: Sub’s A2 first strike, on a 1 Sub vs 1 DD, U-boats are better now than OOB and let the player feels each Sub have a better offensive capacity (in fact, on same IPC basis, 6 Subs A2fs vs 5 DDs D2 keep a similar combat odds as OOB 8 Subs Attacking @2 vs 6 Destroyers defending @2). Still the first strike ability increase the Submarine survivability because the defender cannot retaliate.

Third rule: DD blocks on a 1:1 basis Stealth Move and Submerge for first round only. Now, a single DD blocker cannot freeze U-boats in Baltic Sea. An Axis player can move beyond first DD blocker and play a cat and mice game with an improved stealth move (or a less effective blocking capacity).
Also, a many aircrafts and only 1 DD combined attack on many Subs defending @1 can no more result in a U-boats slaughter. Only 1 Sub would be trapped and unable to submerge. In addition, it would be a one shot attack since DD blocks only submerge for the first round. All this would increase the U-boat survivability.

Fourth rule: Transport are defenseless vs warships but can escape 1 at a time by the end of each combat round. This can probably increase the number of Transports still alive after a U-boats assaults and also be an incentive to buy them instead on relying upon costlier Luftwaffe (and more exposed to TPs AA fire) to sink them. OOB, no Transport survive if 1 U-boat is still alive. Now it can and it makes some units still moving on the board after an attack.
Example: 2 Subs against 1 DD and 1 TP, only 1 U-boat get a hit. The defender can either loose the TP and fight another round or loose the DD and save 1 TP. It seems an interesting tactical dilemma which never occur in OOB game.

That’s it for now, but there is probably one thing or two which can be said on this units interactions matter. Maybe later…

@Baron:

Unit type
Cost   Combat values
Special abilities

SUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth Move

DESTROYER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.

TRANSPORT
8 IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.

[LHoffman]

I think there are two or three aspects of Axis & Allies in particular which makes sub building difficult to foster (particularly for Powers with a minimal naval presence):

1. Size of the board:  The limited number of sea zones, even in G40, allows players to group their ships very easily. Combining this with the Naval Base +movement and you have a situation where it is usually not difficult to link up fleets. Building off of this…

2. Decreasing Entropy:  Players know that there is strength in numbers and the smart ones make a point to limit the ability for the enemy to intercept weaker fleets or individual ships. The beginning game setup reflects a large degree of entropy (randomness) among navies. This is why Britain gets torched on Turn 1. Their ships are spread out and highly vulnerable. This entropy rapidly collapses upon itself once players have control over things. As the game progresses, ships are more tightly packed and there are precious few that are vulnerable as targets of opportunity.

3. Subs are too vulnerable (disposable) OOB:   Baron’s rules do much to enhance the survivability of subs. With OOB rules, a single destroyer along with a cruiser and a fighter can decimate a bunch of subs because the subs cannot escape. This is not entirely true to life and if we want subs to be more survivable and therefore useful, I think we need to revisit the destroyer-sub interaction. Baron has already done this and addressed it pretty well. Subs are still vulnerable because they are low cost and poor on defense, but the ability to get away from a battle is their only advantage which I think should be more prominent. Combine this with the ability to shoot at passing ships (Interdiction as suggested by Cmdr. Jennifer) when not your turn, and I think we will have made subs more useful for Germany.

The question becomes how Germany (or the US in the Pacific) can employ subs effectively. The current situation allows for Germany to be effective with their sub fleet for Turn 1 and usually Turn 2, depending on how many survive. After that, they are fighting an uphill battle against the UK in terms of naval production. It should be tough for Germany to keep the U-boat war going, but they need some significant motivation. I think it really needs to be painful for Britain too.

As for the Pacific, I believe the US waged a far more complete and devastating sub war against Japan than Germany ever did at its peak against the UK. In the games I play, the US player rarely buys subs because they can afford bigger and more useful ships. I don’t know how that matches up with everyone else’s experience. I think if you want to force some naval action in the Pacific, it likewise needs to be a viable strategy for the US to Sub-choke Japan into oblivion. It needs to be economically painful and dangerous for Japan to ignore the Pacific, just as it should be for Britain to ignore U-boats. This threat can prevent Japan from focusing entirely on the cross-asia route.

[CWO Marc]

@LHoffman:

As for the Pacific, I believe the US waged a far more complete and devastating sub war against Japan than Germany ever did at its peak against the UK. In the games I play, the US player rarely buys subs because they can afford bigger and more useful ships. I don’t know how that matches up with everyone else’s experience. I think if you want to force some naval action in the Pacific, it likewise needs to be a viable strategy for the US to Sub-choke Japan into oblivion. It needs to be economically painful and dangerous for Japan to ignore the Pacific, just as it should be for Britain to ignore U-boats. This threat can prevent Japan from focusing entirely on the cross-asia route.

This sounds very sensible in terms of what actually happened in WWII.  I once saw a documentary on the naval history of WWII whose closing line of narration said that, basically, US subs succeeded in doing to Japan what German subs failed to do to Britain.  In my opinion, they succeeded for three reasons:

• US subs were much better suited to long-range patrols than the prevalent German Type VII U-boat.  The US intended for its subs to be able to operate in the Pacific, which is much wider than the Atlantic, so its boats were quite large compared to the Type VII.  This meant that they could carry more fuel and more food, and that – by the austere standards of submarines – they were more comfortable for the crew.

• Japan’s merchant marine routes were more concentrated than Britain’s.  Japan’s imports came mostly from Malaya and the DEI, which are fairly close together and fairly close to Japan.  Britain’s imports, by contrast, arrived on routes that originated from North America or followed the African west coast or traversed the Mediterranean – hence from greatly different directions, and along very long routes.  British incoming maritime traffic did, of course, have to bunch together when it approached the British Isles…but that’s where the escort ships and Coastal Command aircraft were concentrated to give maximum protection.

• For a nation that was so dependent on oil and other imports, Japan didn’t take seriously enough the protection of its merchant traffic.  Its devoted less attention than Britain to such things as efficient convoy management and to the use and development of escort ships.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

I always liked the classic SBR rules where you roll a dice per bomber and take that amount straight from their cash on hand. Off the top of my head, I would do something like… 1 or more warships in a convoy zone allows for 1d6 to take cash.

A crazy idea on Convoy disruption: a 8 IPCs cap per Convoy SZ (cost of one TPs, as refence) but on all of them. The total lost could not be more than what is outside a direct ground route. Riping off the cash on hand is simpler.
Instead of direct combat, roll 1D6 (at no risk) per Sub in a Convoy SZ on the attacker turn could be easy to apply. The danger is the counter-strike on ennemy’s turn.
Sub only defend on regular 1.
Example, UK Europe could lost everything except the 2+6 homeland IPCs.
Germany can only loose what is in Africa or Finland-Norway (as long as there is no terrestrial contact via Vyborg and Leningrad TTs.)
USA can only loose money from Brazil and Islands TTys.
Japan can only save homeland and some chinese TTys directly connected with an IC in Asia.
Italy could only loose what is in Africa.
Etc.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Young:

I always liked the classic SBR rules where you roll a dice per bomber and take that amount straight from their cash on hand. Off the top of my head, I would do something like… 1 or more warships in a convoy zone allows for 1d6 to take cash.

A crazy idea on Convoy disruption: a 8 IPCs cap per Convoy SZ (cost of one TPs, as refence) but on all of them. The total lost could not be more than what is outside a direct ground route. Riping off the cash on hand is simpler.
Instead of direct combat, roll 1D6 (at no risk) per Sub in a Convoy SZ on the attacker turn could be easy to apply. The danger is the counter-strike on ennemy’s turn.
Sub only defend on regular 1.
Example, UK Europe could lost everything except the 2+6 homeland IPCs.
Germany can only loose what is in Africa or Finland-Norway (as long as there is no terrestrial contact via Vyborg and Leningrad TTs.)
USA can only loose money from Brazil and Islands TTys.
Japan can only save homeland and some chinese TTys directly connected with an IC in Asia.
Italy could only loose what is in Africa.
Etc.

Maybe to get symetrical values, we can gives to surface warships 1D6 IPCs damage raid, and 1D6+2 IPCs to Submarines?
Or 1D6 for warships as a whole and 1D6 per Submarine?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

Fourth rule: Transport are defenseless vs warships but can escape 1 at a time by the end of each combat round. This can probably increase the number of Transports still alive after a U-boats assaults and also be an incentive to buy them instead on relying upon costlier Luftwaffe (and more exposed to TPs AA fire) to sink them. OOB, no Transport survive if 1 U-boat is still alive. Now it can and it makes some units still moving on the board after an attack.
Example: 2 Subs against 1 DD and 1 TP, only 1 U-boat get a hit. The defender can either loose the TP and fight another round or loose the DD and save 1 TP**. It seems an interesting tactical dilemma which never occur in OOB game.**

That’s it for now, but there is probably one thing or two which can be said on this units interactions matter. Maybe later…

@Baron:

Unit type
Cost    Combat values
Special abilities

SUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth

Maybe we can give this tactical choice to the Submarine’s commander?
When a Sub gets a hit on attack, the attacker can choose as casualty either a Transport or a hit on warships, the owner still choose which individual unit is taken as casualty.

[barney]

Interesting ideas. I guess allowing a trprt to escape or die basically allows it to be used as a fodder unit. Since it’s only 1 per rd though, that would prevent it from being abused. Definitely intriguing.

I usually see a fair amount of US subs being built, early to convoy Italy and later to have a offensive punch against Japan. I’m not sure the actual numbers but I believe U-boats sank several more times the tonnage as US subs. Granted they were in the war longer and probably had more targets. IDK the sub/ tonnage sunk breakdown but my impression was the Germans had a higher rate. While possibly more successful tacticaly they definitely lost in the strategic sense.

[Flashman]

I’m inclining towards fewer, bigger sea zones; for example the North Atlantic as one giant SZ. Ships crossing the pond therefore cannot simply avoid subs, as any within the NASZ can roll for interception.

Essentially ships would start “in port” in USA/Canada and make a crossing attempt to dock in Europe; all enemy subs present get interception rolls. Similarly, planes and destroyers “hunting” subs would need to make search rolls before engaging them.

Surface fleets hunting each other would also need to make search rolls before they come into contact, modified by such factors as number of planes in the fleet and so forth.

Ships would be allowed to cross just one SZ border within a turn, each port-to-open sea or vise versa move counting as one movement point.

Land based fighters would not be considered to have the range to participate in naval battles except, perhaps, when a fleet is attempting amphibious assault.

[The Hessian]

Hey Folks,

the current discussion has some very good points. Some of the biggest flaws of the original rules concerning Subs are the possibility to detect an unlimited number of Subs with just one single destroyer. In our games we’ve limited this with great success to just three subs that can be detected by each destroyer. (Maybe even this ratio could be reduced to a 1:2 od 1:1 base…)

A second point is the unhistorical capability of Subs to sink other Subs. There was only one case in which a submerged Sub was able to sink another submerged Sub. (And to me this seemed to be a very lucky shot.) So I would appreciate such a change of the rules very much.

To increase the capabilities of submarines I like the idea of Baron Munchhausen: “_When a Sub gets a hit on attack, the attacker can choose as casualty either a Transport or a hit on warships_” but I suggest this should be limited only to successful delivered surprise shot (since in this case DE’s were not able to fulfill one of their main purposes of protecting the transports.)

Greetings,
Lars