Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns

I could just add, try separate subs groups then let’s talk about it.
You will see the interest and their limit also, since they attack alone and cannot combine either with other ship or plane.

And when they attack a fleet, the defending fleet hasn’t suffer any casualty yet.
The sub combat phase is the first step and must be all resolved before other attacking units can be part of the battle.

So Subs can suffer the most from defending fire.

Going along with not allowing BBs to hit subs,
I like Barons thing about subs not hitting other subs

So BBs can’t hit subs
Subs can’t hit subs
Subs can’t hit aircraft
Aircraft can’t hit subs without DD
(Last 2 are obviously OOB rules)

Subs become a surface ship hunter

This solves the (potential) problem of sub heavy builds

@Uncrustable:

Going along with not allowing BBs to hit subs,
I like Barons thing about subs not hitting other subs

So BBs can’t hit subs
Subs can’t hit subs
Subs can’t hit aircraft
Aircraft can’t hit subs without DD
(Last 2 are obviously OOB rules)

Subs become a surface ship hunter

This solves the (potential) problem of sub heavy builds

You had made a good summarize of those rules. :wink:
I will precise:
So attacking BBs can’t hit subs.

@Uncrustable:

Going along with not allowing BBs to hit subs,
I like Barons thing about subs not hitting other subs

So BBs can’t hit subs
Subs can’t hit subs
Subs can’t hit aircraft
Aircraft can’t hit subs without DD
(Last 2 are obviously OOB rules)

Subs become a surface ship hunter
This solves the (potential) problem of sub heavy builds

There was another rule about Subs and big warships (CV and BB) in the original Expansion rules.
Even before BB and CV get 2 hits in A&A, Schartzer give them both 2 hits.
They were King and Queen of the Sea.

However, to forbid attacking subs first hit to be taken by those warships.
Because it was neither historical (since many DDs and CAs were around them to screen them from subs) and it virtually immune from subs a large fleet with 2 BB and 2CV (4 hits to soak).

In fact, the rule said: against subs all capital ships has only 1 hit. Said otherwise, if someone pick BB or CV as a casuality from 1 single hit, then the unit is sunk.

Needless to say, that when 1 single sub marks a hit, nobody pick BB or CV, the casuality was DD or CA against a warships fleet.

So, according to this rule, sub can hit hard BB and CV.

Historically, there was some rare case of sub vs sub warfare:
I would say that in a strategical level game like A&A it is not so revelant.
That’s why I find the No subs vs subs a fine rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)

On completing trials and working-up, Venturer commenced operations patrolling the Norwegian coast for coastal traffic and U-boats leaving or entering base.

She was successful on several occasions, sinking three Axis vessels during 1944.

She also sank U-771 on 11 November 1944 7 nautical miles (13 km) east of Andenes, Norway, off the Lofoten Islands.

Her most famous mission, however, was her eleventh patrol out of the British submarine base at Lerwick in the Shetland Islands, under the command of 25-year-old Jimmy Launders, which included the only time in the history of naval warfare that one submarine intentionally sank another while both were submerged.

Sent to the Fedje area, Venturer was then ordered on the basis of Enigma decrypts to seek, intercept and destroy U-864 which was in the area. U-864 was carrying a cargo of 65 tonnes of mercury and Messerschmitt jet engine parts to Japan,[2][3] a mission code-named Operation Caesar.

Someone also spot these 2 occurencies:

On 10 April 1940 U-4, a Type II boat under the command of 25 year old Hans -Peter Hinsch sank the 1100 ton British submarine Thistle off Stavanger Norway. Thistle was the first submarine confirmed as being sunk by a U-boat and was the only Allied warship sunk by U-boats during the Norwegian campaign.

1 August 1940 Wilhelm Rollman skipper of U-34 a Type VIIA boat sank the British submarine Spearfish while returning to base with his last torpedo, there was one survivor. This was in Norwegian waters also.

Also found this:

uboat.net - Fates - U-boats sunk by Allied Submarines

Sources; Hitlers U-boat War, Vol 1, by Clay Blair copyright 1996,

u-boat.net

Maybe no subs vs subs is not that historical…

I remember reading that there was an American sub that sank three IJN subs off Midway, one after the other on their picket line. I’ll try to see what I can come up with. Don’t know exact numbers or whether they were submerged or not.

USS Batfish (SS 310) War History & Statistics

http://worldwartwozone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/12637-submarine-vs-submarine-warfare/

USS Batfish (SS/AGSS-310), is a Balao-class submarine, known primarily for the remarkable feat of sinking three Imperial Japanese Navy submarines in a 76-hour period, in February 1945.[5] USS Batfish is the first vessel of the United States Navy to be named for the batfish, a small pediculate fish resembling the stingray.[6]

I think now that the no subs vs subs combat is not necessary at all.

Explaining: subs are considered a separate group inside the navy.
Allowing subs to attack subs still be as OOB rules.
For example, 2 subs can decide to attack another 3 subs with 2 DDs and 2 TTs in a same sea-zone.
If attacker target subs, then the defender had only to decide whether or not his 3 subs will submerge or combat.
Many will prefer to submerge, so there will be no combat.
If defender choose to fight, then it will be 2 subs@2 vs 3 subs@1, as per OOB rule.
So sometimes, but seldom, subs can sink subs as history reveal.