War Plan Orange

[Tirano]

Ok so by the sounds of it YG this is a G40 game with no time limits?

Now, assuming it is then i think this strategy has excellent potential due to the fact attrition most definitely favors US, however if this is a time limited game I’m thinking that maybe US should be playing more mainstream with Carriers and some trans to take back the money isles to prevent Japan from winning off the 125 IPC rule.

Now if its unlimited time i think you could potentially due really well with this by possibly just doing 10subs a turn.  I obviously have not done this myself nor even tinkered with this idea of yours, however if I’m going to be playing this way i need to do it all out.

But how many subs were you thinking of/have tried to do?

Apologies if that does not make sense, I am new to forums… :-D

[WILD BILL]

Great topic.

The point being to get the Japanese to build many dd’s instead of ground units for Asia (make them build sacrificial navy, not allowing them to inflate their starting navy ). Not sure I would drop 10 US subs in the water all at once though because it raises red flags, and kinda tips your hand. Plus you need a steady shuck-shuck of subs going into the kill zone, so building  3-5 a turn would be fine IMO. You will also still need to maintain a defensive fleet (carriers) so you can get into position to deploy your subs probably from Queensland and Hawaii (maybe Caroline’s).

I think that in order for this to work effectively you would need near a 3:1 ratio of allied subs to Japanese destroyers on the board to set up (building a couple more each turn). If the Japanese have 4 dd’s allies need something like 6 ready to flood the fun zone, and another 6 subs in reserve that can shuck-shuck 2-3 more subs per turn into the kill zones.

Sz54 Queensland is obviously a great launch point because you could reach all the DEI. Hawaii can be used as a reinforcement base to Queensland to keep a steady flow of replacements (along with Anz subs coming up). Hawaii should also be sending subs into the Mid Pacific in an attempt to get a few subs into sz19 & sz20 for convoy as well (tying up newly built Japanese dd’s in sz6). It might even be worth building an Anz IC at Queensland to get Anz subs into the mix quicker/deeper. An Anz IC would also allow you to add surface fleet to sure up def, or transports at the point of attack.

As pointed out in earlier posts the US/Anz will build a huge fleet that faces off against with the Japanese but often just jockey’s for position over several turns. Sometimes the epic battle never happens. As the US I generally start off building a defensive fleet (w/Anz). It is very tough to get close to the Japanese possessions when the Japanese take a defensive position at the Phil (w/lots of air power in range). I will build subs and bmrs once the surface fleets are at par. Subs/bmrs either work into my strike force, work as a clean-up crew if I attempt to bait the Japanese into a battle at sea, or simply trade blockers for a while stalling things to a stand still.

Shot gun is defiantly something that could be effective. Overwhelming the Japanese by spreading out subs is a solid strat IMO. They can have the DEI, as long as they don’t get paid for them lol. You just have to keep re-loading the shot gun with a steady flow of buck-shot.

[Young Grasshopper]

@ShadowHAwk:

Japan only starts out with 4 subs you will soon have that number at 0.

I believe Japan only starts with 2 subs, but starts with 4 destroyers.

[baron Münchhausen]

I’m still making suggestion on G40 Redesigned thread.
I’m trying to simplify interactions between Submarines, transports, destroyers and planes.
And to improve Submarine vs Transports warfare by the way.
If some people want to discuss impact of these changes and how it affects such kind of Submarines shotgun strategy if DD and Sub are at 6 IPCs, please follow the link.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1555024#msg1555024

More specifically, there is two points: how much IPCs differential between DD and Sub is necessary to keep this shotgun tactical option?
And how much a change on DD blocking capacity ratio against Sub, from infinite capacity to 1 DD:2 Subs or even 1:1 ratio is a game changer about this tactical option?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1555261#msg1555261

[simon33]

Interesting idea. Once Japan has more DDs than you have subs, the strategy seems toast. The fleet doesn’t really need to escort SZ6 or SZ35 - the airbases and Kamikaze possibilities make reasonable defences in many cases. However when you have a big numerical advantage of subs vs DDs it doesn’t seem very easily stoppable.

A naval base on Wake or Midway strengthens it a little because you can reach SZ19 as well as SZ6 and a single blocker in SZ16 doesn’t prevent reaching SZ6. I’m not sure this base is worth it though.

[Narvik]

This could work if you take advantage of the Turn order, where Japan goes first, followed by USA, UK and ANZAC. A classic can opener situation. To cover it up, US need to buy like only 4 subs in the start, and a fleet of carriers and fighters, and maybe the occasional Bomber. Add a Destroyer for protection too. Move it to Australia. When the US navy is in position, ANZAC use its saved IPC to buy a stack of subs and some fighters too. Maybe even UK India should use its last money before India is taken, to buy subs and some fighters ? When this blockade is moving forward, land some ANZAC fighters on US carriers. When attacking Japanese Destroyers, you should choose your fighters as casualties, since it takes less time to replace a fighter than a slow moving sub. US follow up purchases should be a stack of aircrafts and trannies with inf to take the islands as the Allied blockade move along. Now if this doesn’t strangle the Japs nothing will……

[Young Grasshopper]

I think what’s really needed here is a complete evaluation of every sea zone in the Pacific. Convoy zones being the most valuable of course with those than rated according to how much money can be disrupted. Than moving on to non convoy sea zones which can be rated according to their range of those important convoy zones.

I think the overall fucus of Orange has to be convoying as much Japan IPCs as possible while forcing them to buy destroyers with what they have left. ANZAC should help with sub and fighter purchases like Narvik said, but it would also be their job to jump on a couple islands to break Japan’s island NO.

[WILD BILL]

As stated before, I really like this sub warfare strat for the Pacific. There are plenty of convoy zones for the allies to spread subs out to execute it attached to high IPC valued territories. The rules involving subs/destroyers plus the cost differential of these units make it even more attractive then just straight convoying.

With that said, why in the hell can’t the Germans do something similar on the Euro side, especially early in the game when the UK is vulnerable? This just seems wrong for the power that had the best success convoying the enemy to be so limited in its ability to do so. There are only a handful of convoy zones in the Atlantic, and they can be easily defended by the allies. The best convoy zones are next to production centers, and air bases making them easy to keep clear.

The Germans start out with a good size sub force, but are pretty much forced to throw it away G1 attacking the UK big ships. Even if the Germans build subs, they can’t spread them out like you can in the Pac to get the same desired results (strangle the enemy econ).

You should be able to attack/convoy known shipping lanes in the mid Atlantic as well as the ports IMO. That would allow the Germans to spread out subs in a similar manner to be more cost effective. You might say that the axis have enough of an advantage in this game, but if the Germans build more subs they will have fewer units heading to Moscow.

[baron Münchhausen]

Probably here is another reason from AA50 forum:
@Kavik:

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.

[WILD BILL]

Baron Munchhausen, I agree with the post you sighted about combat, but as much as I like AA50, it doesn’t have convoys. The single destroyer blocker is lame, same for a single inf being able to block mechanized units on land. Another problem IMO is that a single destroyer can spot an infinite number of subs when attacking or being attack by subs (should be some ratio, or detection roll).

G40 gave the ability to target the enemies econ, with convoy, and that was a great first step. Convoy even changed some in the Alpha project, just saying that there should have been some zones added to the Atlantic shipping lanes to make it a more viable strat for Germany.

Don’t really want to side track YG thread anymore, just wish that the Germans could enjoy a little shotgun strat of their own lol. Could have called it “The Black Mamba”

[baron Münchhausen]

Here is a way Convoy Disruption can better suits Germany:
@Young:

During each convoy disruption phase, disruptions are made for both your ships against your enemies territories, and enemy ships against your territories.

It is the Opening post of a thread.

[baron Münchhausen]

@WILD:

Baron Munchhausen, I agree with the post you sighted about combat, but as much as I like AA50, it doesn’t have convoys. The single destroyer blocker is lame, same for a single inf being able to block mechanized units on land. Another problem IMO is that a single destroyer can spot an infinite number of subs when attacking or being attack by subs (should be some ratio, or detection roll).

G40 gave the ability to target the enemies econ, with convoy, and that was a great first step. Convoy even changed some in the Alpha project, just saying that there should have been some zones added to the Atlantic shipping lanes to make it a more viable strat for Germany.

Don’t really want to side track YG thread anymore, just wish that the Germans could enjoy a little shotgun strat of their own lol. Could have called it “The Black Mamba”

Here is a start, follow the link, I would like your two cents on this:
@Baron:

Trying to build a Core rule with 1941 basic map and expanding with further game.
Here is what I get.
I voluntarily not use the Japan SZ, because I don’t think it is relevant to place Convoy in IC’s SZ.

I would prefer to use SZ which also have an Islands Group in it (to more easily add the option of neutralizing Convoy by controlling Islands. SEE EDIT below.)

Interesting SZs (IMO) for Convoys 1941 /1942.2/ AA50 /G40

JAPAN (1941 Japan SZ 45) (1942.2 Japan SZ 60 & SZ 62) (AA50 Japan SZ 62) (G40 Japan SZ 6)

1941
SZ 46 (Coastal China SZ, Formosa on map SZ but not a TT)
SZ 38 (Philippine Islands and Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 31 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ)

1942.2
SZ 61 (Coastal China SZ,Formosa 0 IPC TT on map SZ)
SZ 48 (Philippine Islands SZ)
SZ 50 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ)

AA50
SZ 61 (Coastal China SZ,Formosa 1 IPC TT SZ)
SZ 60 (Okinawa SZ 1 IPC TT)
SZ 50 (Philippine Islands SZ, US original TT)
SZ 51 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (French Indo-China Thailand Eastern SZ, Hainan Island on map but not a TT)

1940 Global
SZ 20 (Coastal China SZ, Formosa 1 IPC TT on map SZ)
SZ 35 (Philippine Islands SZ)
SZ 34 (Palau Island SZ)
SZ 33 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (Hainan Island 0 IPC TT)
SZ 37 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ) But it is a UK TT on initial set-up.

---

PACIFIC RUSSIA (1941 SZ 47 : Soviet Far East and Siberia / SZ 45, Siberia shared with Japan)
(1942.2 & AA50 SZ 62, Buryatia SSR shared with Japan)

1941
SZ 43 (Midway SZ)
SZ 47 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Siberia)
SZ 48 (Alaska SZ)

1942.2
SZ 57 (Midway SZ)
SZ 63 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Buryatia S.S.R.)
SZ 64 (Alaska SZ)

AA50
SZ 57 (Midway SZ)
SZ 63 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Buryatia S.S.R.)
SZ 64 (Alaska SZ, Bering Strait SZ)

1940 Global
SZ 25 (Midway SZ) Much lower on the south
SZ 8 (Aleutian Islands SZ) More on the way toward Russian Coastal TTs.
SZ 2 (Alaska SZ)
SZ 3 & SZ 4 (Coastal Soviet Far East)
SZ 5 (Amur, Siberia and Soviet Far East SZ)

---

UNITED KINGDOM

1941 (INDIA ICs SZ 29 & AUSTRALIA ICs SZ 33 )
SZ 27 (French Madagascar SZ)
SZ 28 (Middle East, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 29 (India SZ)
SZ 33 (Australia SZ)
SZ 37 (New Guinea & Solomon Islands SZ)

1942.2
(INDIA ICs SZ 35 & AUSTRALIA SZ 38, SZ 39, SZ 45 & SZ 46 )
SZ 28 (French Madagascar, near Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 34 (Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 35 (India SZ)
SZ 48 (New Guinea SZ) [A less interesting choice for Convoy SZ, since it is less in line with US shipping line.]
SZ 49 (Solomon Islands SZ) [OOB Japanese occupied TT]

AA50
(INDIA ICs SZ 35 & AUSTRALIA SZ 39, SZ 40, SZ 41 & SZ 47 )
SZ 28 (French Madagascar, near Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 34 (Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 35 (India SZ)
SZ 48 (New Guinea SZ) [A less interesting choice for Convoy SZ, since it is less in line with US shipping line.]
SZ 46 (Solomon Islands SZ) [OOB UK TT]

1940 Global
SZ 72 (French Madagascar SZ)
SZ 71 (Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 76 (Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia & British Somaliland SZ)
SZ 79 (Western India SZ)
SZ 80 (Eastern Persia, Persia, Irak & Saudi Arabia SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]

SZ 39 (India SZ with Ceylon Island)
SZ 37 (Malaya SZ)

---

AUSTRALIA (SZ 54, 55, 56 , 61 and 62)

1940 Global
SZ 46 (New Guinea SZ) [Not an australian Convoy SZ but an Australian TT]
SZ 49 (Solomon Islands SZ) [Not an australian Convoy SZ but an Australian TT]
SZ 53 (New Hebrides SZ) [Not an australian Convoy SZ but an French TT]

SZ 54 (Queensland SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]
SZ 62 (Sydney, Victoria SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]
SZ 63 (New Zealand SZ)  [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]

---

UNITED STATES of AMERICA
West Coast (1941 SZ 42) (1942.2 & AA50 SZ 56) (1940 Global SZ 10)

1941
SZ 39 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB US TT]
SZ 40 (Hawaiian Islands SZ)

1942.2
SZ 52 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB JAPANESE TT]
SZ 53 (Hawaiian Islands SZ)

AA50
SZ 52 (Wake Island SZ, 0 IPC TT)
SZ 53 (Hawaiian Islands SZ, 1 IPC TT)

1940 Global
SZ 31 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB US TT]
SZ 26 (Hawaiian Islands SZ) [OOB USA Convoy SZ]
SZ 25 (Midway SZ) [This island location is not interesting for plausible Russian Convoy lines.]
SZ 30 (Johnston Island SZ) [OOB US TT] [Could be a USA Convoy SZ since it is a direct line of travel from Australia.]

---

Looking up for USA Pacific Convoy SZ for 1941, 1942.2, AA50 and G40,
I think Hawaiian SZ (a US TT on all 4 maps) could be preferred over Wake Island because in 1942.2 it is controlled by Japan.
Unless we want to play optional Convoy neutralized by Island Controlled of SZ 52, so in 1942.2,
US Convoy in Wake SZ 52 could be neutralized by Japan until it is liberated, it would be a similar scenario to Solomon Islands SZ 49 which would be under Japanese control but can have a UK Convoy in this SZ 49.

This would create a bigger incentive to go Pacific for US and to conquer both Islands, so to relieve Convoy under Japanese grasp.

---

EDIT: If Islands group are treated as Subs or BBs and, on enemy’s player combat phase, can be used to flip downside all NCMs in SZ, then it can be possible to let NCMs in SZ 52 and SZ 49 face up in the 1942.2 set-up.
Japanese players would have to declare Convoy Disruption via Island Base on his turn.
This make Wake Island an interesting SZ to put Convoy in it, and would provide a game motive for Japanese player to do the same as Japan did in december 1941.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

[My preferred choices are bolded.]

GERMANY (1941, 1942.2 & AA50 Baltic SZ 5) (G40 Baltic SZ 113 & 114)
ITALY (1941, MED SZ 16) (1942.2, MED SZ 15) (AA50, MED SZ 14) (G40, MED SZ 95, 97)

1941
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ / Northern UK Atlantic SZ)
SZ 15 (West Med Sea SZ)
SZ 16 (Central Med Sea SZ)

1942.2
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 14 (West Med Sea SZ)
SZ 15 (Central Med Sea SZ)

AA50
GERMANY
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 13 (West Med Sea SZ)

ITALY (AA50, MED SZ 14)
SZ 14 (Central Med Sea SZ)

1940 Global
GERMANY
SZ 113 (Western Baltic SZ)
SZ 114 (Central Baltic SZ)
SZ 112 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 125 (Norway Sea SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ for Norway]
SZ 126 (Northern Norway Sea SZ)

ITALY
SZ 95 (Sardinia and Sicily SZ)
SZ 97 (Adriatic SZ) [OOB Italy’s Convoy SZ]
SZ 93 (Southern France SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 94 (Algeria and Tunisia SZ)
SZ 96 (Malta SZ, UK’s controlled)
[This SZ 96 could be an optional Italy’s Convoy SZ which is neutralized as long as Malta is not captured.]

---

ATLANTIC RUSSIA (1941, 1942.2 & AA50 SZ 4 : Karelia and Archangel)
(Global 40 SZ 127 : Karelia, Novgorod, Archangel and Nenetsia)
[My preferred choices are bolded.]

1941
SZ 3 (Iceland SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)

1942.2
SZ 3 (Iceland SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)

AA50
SZ 2 (Iceland and Greenland SZ)
SZ 3 (Northern Norway SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)

1940 Global
SZ 123 (Iceland SZ)
SZ 124 (North East Atlantic SZ)
SZ 125 (Norway coast SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ for Norway]
SZ 126 (Northern Norway SZ)
SZ 127 (Coastal SZ of Karelia, Novgorod, Archangel and Nenetsia)

---

UNITED STATES of AMERICA
East Coast (1941 & 1942.2 SZ 11) (AA50 SZ10) (1940 Global SZ 101)

1941
SZ 22 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 12 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 0 IPC)

1942.2
SZ 22 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 18 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC)
SZ 12 (Mid-Atlantic SZ, near East Cost SZ)

AA50
SZ 18 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 19 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC)
SZ 11 (Mid-Atlantic Azores SZ, between East Cost SZ and Gibraltar SZ)

1940 Global
SZ 85 (South Brazil SZ)  [OOB Convoy SZ for Brazil and Argentina]
SZ 86 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 88 (British and French Guinea SZ, Up North Brazil SZ)
SZ 89 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC) [OOB Convoy SZ for Central America, Southeast Mexico and WI.]
SZ 102 (Mid-Atlantic SZ, near East Cost SZ)

---

UNITED KINGDOM
(1941 & 1942.2 : SZ 6, 7, 8 )
(AA50 : SZ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 )
(1940 Global : SZ 109, 110, 111 & 119)

1941
SZ 9 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 10 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland SZ)
SZ 14 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 23 (French West Africa SZ)

1942.2
SZ 9 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 10 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland SZ)
SZ 13 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 23 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 17 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ)

AA50
SZ 8 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 9 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland, Iceland SZ)  [As an IC’s production SZ, it is a little less interesting.]
SZ 12 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 17 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 15 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ)

1940 Global
SZ 117 (East Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 118 (West Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 106 (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia: Halifax SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 121 (Greenland SZ) [Too far out of the shortest shipping line on the Europe map.]
SZ 91 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 87 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 83 (South French West Africa SZ)
SZ 82 (Nigeria & French Equatorial Africa SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 98 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 99 (Cyprus & Greece SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]

[simon33]

@Baron:

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.

Interesting idea. Presumably it would be applied to ground combat as well. Gets rid of the notion of blockers, more or less.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Just so we’re clear, this is absolutely nothing like the real War Plan Orange.

Marsh

[taamvan]

the real War Plan Orange works out as “the dance” in axis and allies because the geometry of the board prevents the US from wandering over to Guam or the Philippines with out getting smack-a-whacked by every Japanese plane and ship they’ve got.

This one is “Unternehmen U-boot-sandwich”

[baron Münchhausen]

@ShadowHAwk:

@simon33:

@Baron:

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.

Interesting idea. Presumably it would be applied to ground combat as well. Gets rid of the notion of blockers, more or less.

At sea you can justify removing the use of blockers as those are vast areas of ocean and a sub can be anywhere.
On land on the other hand it is much easier to find and block your opponent. Roads are important so are bridges you cannot simply take a tank and drive it from point A to point B you have to use the exising roads.

On operation market garden a handfull of germans kept back the advance for 1 day if i recall correctly. On the very first day.

I agree that Subs at sea are different than land units.
My main concern and question is quoted below.

@Baron:

@The:

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 or 1:1 basis.)

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.
…
Greetings,
Lars

**How many Submarines should be blocked (both Submerged and Stealth Move) by a single Destroyer unit to keep balance?
The IJN blocker strategy can be doomed if the rate is 1 for 1.
All additional Submarines would be able to attack behind the blocker SZ, is it too OP?
Should 1 DD:2 Subs blocking ratio be better balanced?
IDK.
I hope some of experienced players will share on this point.

If you follow the link from the post title you can read a collection of posts on Destroyer blocking capacity.
Feel free to comment on the other Redesigned thread; thanks to not derail this one from YG with secondary discussion involving possible HRs.**

[RougeOne]

I played a game about a week ago where I was USA and I started your war plan Orange idea.
It was at my friends house where he was playing against himself. The Axis had all of Russia and were poised to take Cairo but since he is a somewhat inexperienced player he didn’t know how to play Japan so they were crippled with the last of their fleet in sea zone 6. So as the USA it was the perfect time to rest this submarine theory. After a few rounds I had over 10 subs all in separate sea zones within two spaces of sea zone six and a large stack of bombers on hawaii.
The game ended before I could really start convoy disrupting seazones and trading destroyers for subs but it seems like a good strategy

[Ozymandiac]

If you mean War Plan Orange is a fancy name for spamming subs, then yes I’ve tried it and liked it.

During the start of the game, subs are concentrated with the main Pacific USA fleet. Purpose: to conserve the main fleet.
-present subs would be sacrificed as fodder (but Japan won’t attack)
-new subs built 1-2-3 turn ago will deter the Japanese player from attacking the main fleet because anything sent to deal with the main fleet will be annihilated by these new subs.

During the middle game, the USA main fleet will survive The Naval Battle even when large number of subs are located elsewhere. So, large numbers of subs will approach the entire Japanese mainland territories.

During the end game, something’s gotta give.

I haven’t seen a proper response yet. Don’t forget, it does cost the USA 180IPCs or so to get reach naval equilibrium, then outbalance it and then keep the convoys going. It shouldn’t be surprising this strategy works considering the large investment. The important part is that it seems to be very cost effective.

On a side note: another aspect of this strategy I haven’t seen yet is the psychological effect is has on Japan :-D Look careful at your opponent when you announce you will purchase 8 subs for the 2nd time. There’s some serious despair when it hits him that this is his live now.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Plan Orange is sounding like a solid strategy and I was wondering how many subs should be bought each round.
What is the sub purchasing strat for WPO YG?