Buying and using submarines

[MarshmallowofWar]

@Young:

Right, I forgot about the DD in 111… I just don’t know about leaving 110 because those ships can get to a safe area fast and even help the American fleet flex some muscle later. Can’t justify giving the UK an extra battleship and cruiser to play with just for the possibility of convoying 11 IPCs for one turn (you know the UK will buy at least 1 DD and the Americans would get a couple as well if the Germans have 3 or 4 subs on the board after G1).

If the UK is making Sea Lion preparations and also trying to bolster Egypt with an industrial complex on UK1, that destroyer simply does not get built. If the US is being kept out of the war (a lot of folks favor keeping the US from moving until US4), US destroyers do not matter.

The tradeoff of course would be that Egypt is easier for Italy to conquer if the UK does build that destroyer. Of course, that is yet another circumstance of trading disadvantage for Germany (or Japan if the ships head Pacific) for advantage for Italy.

The surviving UK/French ships from 110 could be slaved to the US fleet for additional protection, dispatched to the Pacific via the Panama Canal (nothing stops the US from allowing them passage), or head into the Med to inconvenience Italy. I actually kind of like the Pacific idea, which means that the US Pacific fleet can be geared more towards attack because it has slaved UK and French vessels that provide additional defense…

So yeah, I also think that letting the fleet in 110 go is a mistake.

Marsh

PS (added after original post): I like sending those ships to the Pacific more than sea zone 92 because the UK does not need them in the Med if it is deploying blockers and building an IC in Egypt on UK1.

[Young Grasshopper]

So I don’t see a viable submarine strategy for Germany past turn 1, they have much higher units on their priority list before submarines, like bombers, tanks, and fighters. Even if Germany can get into a position to make significant convoy disruptions, it won’t last long with allied air units in the area. Also, a SBR strategy on London to go along with some convoy money is a good idea, but it would only allow Moscow the time and freedom to get stronger. If Germany ever got into a situation to hurt the UK with large multiple convoy disruptions, it would likely come from a very odd and rare set of circumstances that can’t be planned going into a new game. Even if there were no allied destroyers around, it would be difficult to justify a sub purchase when a tank is more useful (why buy subs for 6 when you can buy tanks for 6 is the same argument as why buy cruisers for 12 when you can buy bombers for 12?). However, subs are the best unit for taking away the Soviet Union NO National Prestige by sitting in sea zone 125.

[Nippon-koku]

@Young:

So I don’t see a viable submarine strategy for Germany past turn 1, they have much higher units on their priority list before submarines, like bombers, tanks, and fighters. Even if Germany can get into a position to make significant convoy disruptions, it won’t last long with allied air units in the area. Also, a SBR strategy on London to go along with some convoy money is a good idea, but it would only allow Moscow the time and freedom to get stronger. If Germany ever got into a situation to hurt the UK with large multiple convoy disruptions, it would likely come from a very odd and rare set of circumstances that can’t be planned going into a new game. Even if there were no allied destroyers around, it would be difficult to justify a sub purchase when a tank is more useful (why buy subs for 6 when you can buy tanks for 6 is the same argument as why buy cruisers for 12 when you can buy bombers for 12?). However, subs are the best unit for taking away the Soviet Union NO National Prestige by sitting in sea zone 125.

One thing I have done when employing the “eliminate the UK destroyer’s strategy” (never had a good name for it) is purchase 5 subs on G1.  Again, it’s not the strongest move Germany can make, but it’s a lot of fun to do now and then

[Young Grasshopper]

Well you could say that for any unit and call it a fun game if you buy nothing but, however, I’m looking for a solid philosophy or a purposeful awareness to utilizing the submarine to the best of it’s capabilities. Now what about Germany taking the Southern France IC and building 3 subs there per turn? They would be great fodder when helping a German bomber stack hit any American ships that try and park off Gibraltar (mostly for their ability to go through that strait without controlling Gibraltar).

[MarshmallowofWar]

The best use for subs is in the Pacific, punching up the US fleet for its attack on the Japanese fleet. Being relatively cheap, they force Japan to defend or abandon sea zone 6. If you spread them out, Japan can easily lose strategic focus while “swatting flies” as I like to call it.

Marsh

[baron Münchhausen]

I thought that the way to use Sub in an offensive manner was to combine with Air only attack, that way Subs can be use as cheaper fodder while air hits cannot be allocated on defender’s subs.
It is better if defender have Destroyer on his side, so defending planes hit can be allocated to attacker’s Subs.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

I thought that the way to use Sub in an offensive manner was to combine with Air only attack, that way Subs can be use as cheaper fodder while air hits cannot be allocated on defender’s subs.
It is better if defender have Destroyer on his side, so defending planes hit can be allocated to attacker’s Subs.

I was also thinking that, subs with bombers especially… we’ve all seen how even 2 subs in 111 can absorb the hits from big ships and protect an entire Air Force in minimal combat round situations.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

@Baron:

I thought that the way to use Sub in an offensive manner was to combine with Air only attack, that way Subs can be use as cheaper fodder while air hits cannot be allocated on defender’s subs.
It is better if defender have Destroyer on his side, so defending planes hit can be allocated to attacker’s Subs.

I was also thinking that, subs with bombers especially… we’ve all seen how even 2 subs in 111 can absorb the hits from big ships and protect an entire Air Force in minimal combat round situations.

Such strategy imply to buy in advance each round a few subs for future battle 2 or even 3 rounds later. Having 2 or 3 six IPCs Subs to take hits before losing 12 IPCs StratBs seems a sound tactic.

[koala]

@Baron:

I thought that the way to use Sub in an offensive manner was to combine with Air only attack, that way Subs can be use as cheaper fodder while air hits cannot be allocated on defender’s subs.
It is better if defender have Destroyer on his side, so defending planes hit can be allocated to attacker’s Subs.

But isn’t it better for the defender, if he has also no destroyer present, so his planes also hit the costly attacking units instead of all the subs?

[MarshmallowofWar]

Defending ships can still hit subs without a destroyer present. So, all the defender has to do is take destroyers as the first hits and then every hit in the second round from air defenders ignores subs.

Marsh

[taamvan]

The sub isn’t a bad unit, its a bad STACK.

You can have 1-2 of the sub in any fleet or tooling around the board, because of the destroyer and “canal” rules, the subs can utilize the board in a different way than the other units, and are effectively invulnerable to an enemy without a destroyer.

The problem is that you can’t just buy a bunch of subs and call that a strategy.  They don’t block movement, they cant hit planes, and in the face of a single destroyer (with help) the entire stack would come crashing down.  Combined with their weak defense, it means that there are much more beneficial ways to use your money than buying subs, and if you only have 1 shot at beating the allies, a big stack of transports or tanks does the job much more clearly.

“Well you could say that for any unit and call it a fun game if you buy nothing but, however, I’m looking for a solid philosophy or a purposeful awareness to utilizing the submarine to the best of it’s capabilities. Now what about Germany taking the Southern France IC and building 3 subs there per turn? They would be great fodder when helping a German bomber stack hit any American ships that try and park off Gibraltar (mostly for their ability to go through that strait without controlling Gibraltar).”

It seems pretty cool, but it takes risk and time to get these subs in the water turn 2 and fighting turn 3.  You could also do Yugo or Romania and get the subs out nearly as early.  Unf, the subs at either factory med are very ill placed to strike out into the Atlantic.    We see a lot of games where UK dominates the Mediterranean, but using german $$ to stop this domination doesn’t really alter the strategic game.  Every $$ you spend on those subs is a tank that will not be rolling against Moscow.  Subs aren’t enough to stop a dedicated invasion force, or to clear the med without the Italians helping.

Now, if that stack of subs (whether its off the skaggerak or in the med) can attack the US/UK invasion stack sitting outside Gibraltar, that’s worth something.  Usually the US under commits that first invasion stack, and with only 1 AC and 1CA + 1 DD, a sub stack could ward off the invasion.  If the US cant move forward, it cant really do anything.

However, this only buys you 1-2 turns against a decisive euroinvasion, which is time you can also buy using Italian Infantry that cost you nothing…

That is the problem with this subrush strategy; making it offensive.  At best, its a standoff strategy.  You cant control the Atlantic with subs, you cant do with a few like the allies can.

The abs best use of the sub isn’t in combat at all; its buying and preserving them early game so that by J4/I4 you are blocking substantial income from the axis and forcing them to waste time hunting you all over the board.  This however, isn’t decisive either as Germany only has 5 income to take.  Japan has lots to take, but lots of sub hunters.  Italy has plenty to take, but its income is irrelevant to victory by that juncture.  its a long game plan.

[Nippon-koku]

I can’t agree with that Taamvan.  A large stack of subs by itself may not be the best way to go.  However, a large stack of subs along with an already strong naval presence?  Absolutely a good buy.

[Young Grasshopper]

I had a game this past weekend where I was spending over 80% of my US economy gearing up for, executing, and than maintaining a beach head on Spain. Therefore, there was not much income left to fight a good fight against the Japanese in the Pacific… however, I purchased lots of subs with a few bombers, and with ANZAC also buying a few subs and bombers, I spread them all over the Pacific with only one sub per empty sea zone. Japan had to buy and use a lot of destroyers to get rid of them, however… once they realized what was happening, they couldn’t keep up with the amount of subs because even if they ventured to take out 1 sub in one sea zone with 1 destroyer… there were Allied bombers in range to mop up any lone destroyers. I remember I had 2 subs in sea zone 6 and got lucky with a convoy disruption taking 10 IPCs in one turn, if anything my strategy took Japan by surprise like a swarm of mosquitos his warships just couldn’t swat away.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Nippon-koku:

I can’t agree with that Taamvan.  A large stack of subs by itself may not be the best way to go.  However, a large stack of subs along with an already strong naval presence?  Absolutely a good buy.

Mr Roboto once said that a Carrier group should be escorted with 5 Subs and 2 DDs to be optimal.
I would like to know the assumptions on which this rely.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@Young:

I had a game this past weekend where I was spending over 80% of my US economy gearing up for, executing, and than maintaining a beach head on Spain. Therefore, there was not much income left to fight a good fight against the Japanese in the Pacific… however, I purchased lots of subs with a few bombers, and with ANZAC also buying a few subs and bombers, I spread them all over the Pacific with only one sub per empty sea zone. Japan had to buy and use a lot of destroyers to get rid of them, however… once they realized what was happening, they couldn’t keep up with the amount of subs because even if they ventured to take out 1 sub in one sea zone with 1 destroyer… there were Allied bombers in range to mop up any lone destroyers. I remember I had 2 subs in sea zone 6 and got lucky with a convoy disruption taking 10 IPCs in one turn, if anything my strategy took Japan by surprise like a swarm of mosquitos his warships just couldn’t swat away.

Dude, I said that. Look up like four posts.

Marsh

[Young Grasshopper]

@Marshmallow:

@Young:

I had a game this past weekend where I was spending over 80% of my US economy gearing up for, executing, and than maintaining a beach head on Spain. Therefore, there was not much income left to fight a good fight against the Japanese in the Pacific… however, I purchased lots of subs with a few bombers, and with ANZAC also buying a few subs and bombers, I spread them all over the Pacific with only one sub per empty sea zone. Japan had to buy and use a lot of destroyers to get rid of them, however… once they realized what was happening, they couldn’t keep up with the amount of subs because even if they ventured to take out 1 sub in one sea zone with 1 destroyer… there were Allied bombers in range to mop up any lone destroyers. I remember I had 2 subs in sea zone 6 and got lucky with a convoy disruption taking 10 IPCs in one turn, if anything my strategy took Japan by surprise like a swarm of mosquitos his warships just couldn’t swat away.

Dude, I said that. Look up like four posts.

Marsh

For sure Marsh, sorry for not mentioning that… I’m curious if you think the extreme nothing but subs and bombers in the Pacific is a one and done gambit, or if you think it is a threatening strategy to pull off even if Japan knows it’s coming?

[taamvan]

I sure like this idea, of being a pest all over the S. Pacfic with subs from ANZAC and US.  But I’m not sure how my main US fleet is going to cope with its subs being spread out, rather than as part of that stack.

For offensive striking power, the sub doesn’t have an equal.  We’ve already run the odds for that and it has encouraged me to build more.  But I’d really like to see a pacific strategy that isn’t either “all US at one base in one stack” nor “too spread out and picked off piecemeal”.

Mr. Nippon;

Yes, a big pile of subs are too badass to ignore.  I was mostly responding to YG’s challenge to rationally build a strategy (for Germany, possibly japan or UK) that is heavy heavy subs, unf it seems impractical.

Mr. Marsh;

You have too many good ideas, that’s why we keep stealing them without giving you credit.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@Young:

For sure Marsh, sorry for not mentioning that… I’m curious if you think the extreme nothing but subs and bombers in the Pacific is a one and done gambit, or if you think it is a threatening strategy to pull off even if Japan knows it’s coming?

I don’t know that the bomber/sub combo actually works at all except in highly specialized situations. To me it seems like a response to bad play and is otherwise substandard (if you’ll forgive the pun).

The sub swarm does work for the US if Japan does not react properly. Japan does not have the income to keep swapping destroyers for subs. If Japan decides to start swatting the subs, it has to build multiple destroyers each turn. Lone destroyers that killed subs can be picked off with sub/bomber combos (usually leaving the sub behind), and each time the US wins the exchange economically.

(The correct Japanese response to the sub swarm, in my opinion, is to swat only enough to make a US attack not workable and otherwise concentrate on your strategic objective. Then, when it’s time, you take the entire IJN and go kill the Allied fleet – remember they have been buying subs, not defense, and careful purchasing while doing restrained swatting of subs can give you fleet superiority. Yes, you take a short term convoy disruption hit when doing so, but the only other response you have is going totally defensive and that is Axis death!)

Marsh

[MarshmallowofWar]

@taamvan:

I sure like this idea, of being a pest all over the S. Pacfic with subs from ANZAC and US.  But I’m not sure how my main US fleet is going to cope with its subs being spread out, rather than as part of that stack.

There is a risk – you have to make sure Japan does not gain an advantage that it can use to destroy your fleet. You can’t build just subs and spread them out and call it done.

Marsh

[Young Grasshopper]

If I can get the Americans to attack my Japanese fleet, I’m ahead of the game because I would make sure it’s in a sea zone where I can scramble 3 fighters and use my kamakaze tokens. Also, when the time comes for such an attack, I believe the Americans need their ships more than Japan, and for that reason I see the Americans delaying this attack as they attempt to raise their odds to a more comfortable level. Sometimes they wait too long and the game ends without the American units doing anything at all. This is the problem I see with a huge American fleet yo yoing back and forth trying to get position while absorbing new ships built in San Fran whenever they can. That being said, I don’t think I will ever want to play the US again with this school of fish mentality, I would like to find a medium between having a good sized surface fleet off Caroline or Queensland while I get my single subs spread out all over Wake, Midway, Hawaii, Marianas, Iwo Jima, Alaska, and Tokyo with a stack of at least 5 bombers in Caroline or Midway (if safe enough to be there). This should give the Japanese many fits because they can’t use their blockade to control where the US fleet goes, but rather they’re nervous because they’re the ones getting forced into options they don’t want. These uncomfortable options include buying more destroyers (whether to dwindle down all the subs or block the surface fleet), not to mention splitting up their fleet, or worst… staying in one spot due to unsafe waters or the fear of creating a weak spot in their blockade. I’m very curious as to whether or not this US strategy will force the Japanese ships away from their protective coastal sea zones to fight a more open Pacific war where America can use many sea zones to their advantage. Of course this American threat is only useful if established well before Calcutta falls, after that… Japan’s income can fully lean on the Pacific waters.