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

@Cmdr:

@Uncrustable:

Sounds like you need to go to A&A minis, war at sea

Either that, or design your own game from scratch

Toying with designing one and sending it to Larry for approval and implementation, lol.  Axis and Allies: Atlantic or some such.Â

Why Atlantic?
In Pacific, there was much more japanese convoy destroyed by USA subs than Allies convoys by U-Boat.
Kind of Bushido code, don’t need to protect the weak or feeble. A warrior is made to fight warships (“knight”), not to protect cargo from subs.

I was serious about this way to generate more little fleet in the ocean.
For starter, you should read about these rules: probably someone can provide you a copy of World War II Expansion rules 1 for Axis and Allies from David Schwartzer. He was a real visionnary, he creates destroyer, destroyer escort and convoys for TTs, cruiser, anti-sub mission for them, air patrol mission against subs, and much more.

During these games, there was many different fleets: many subs in many sea-zone, at least 1 big warship fleet and many escorted transport groups.

@Cmdr:

Baron,

Splitting it up like that is an interesting idea, but I can see the complaints from others already: "too complicated!"  (which was the primary complaint behind revising the tech trees into poor technologies building into better technologies.  Like tech A + tech B open up tech C as an option, etc.)

It might be easier to just limit naval engagements so that only the first 20 naval units with up to 10 fighters/bombers + any number of strategic bombers can engage the enemy.  So if you have 30 defending ships with 4 fighters on carriers and an airbase only 20 of those ships but all of those aircraft can defend.  If you have 20 aircraft carriers with 40 fighters, no matter what, only 10 of those fighters can defend, but all the carriers can since they are in the same sea zone and less than the 20 unit limit.

That would be for both attacker and defender.  So you could still put 50 naval units in a sea zone, but if you lost the battle, the 30 that did not engage would be forced to retreat one sea zone.  That might encourage divided fleets while not preventing players from keeping their units together?

I first think along this line. But then, I forsee many battles with the maximum ship in each fleet. How fix this maximum? According to which criterias? You say 20, but why not lower or higher? Why a larger group cannot gain advantage over a smaller one? Etc.

Then I remember unofficial Expansion Rules.
Separating subs and transports seems complicated but is not.
It is a way of creating “different sea-zone” in the same sea-zone instead of splitting it in 4.
Subs and transport have already different rules.
It is just a step further without creating a totally different game. The same pieces played just a bit differently.

@Cmdr:

Because there’s already an Axis and Allies: Pacific.� � :P

Atlantic could be interesting as well, maybe prevent the allies from making submarines altogether to really focus on the German U-boat supremacy?� �

As for limit of 20, it was arbitrary mostly, but I could see 10 aircraft being a nice maximum and if those are half the warships involved then 20 is okay.� � 20 Really is a decent sized fleet too, come to think of it.� � 20 warships would be akin to 3 battleships, 5 cruisers, 8 destroyers, 4 submarines (since Aircraft Carriers have no attack value, you wouldn’t choose to bring them, right?)� � Add in 10 fighter/tactical bombers and unlimited strategic bombers and you have a really good attack fleet right there.

Why not just 1 unit of each kind of ship: 1 Sub, 1 DD, 1 Cruiser, 1 Carrier, 1 Battleship, 2 planes.
Here is a basic task force.
Maybe we can had 1 sub and 1 DD for additionnal protection and cheap fodder.
Sum: 7 ships + 2 planes.
If you have escort carrier, then 8 ships + 3 planes.
Any battle can add planes from nearby airbase for extra offensive punch.
No limit here for attacker. Scramble limit for defender.

We can rationalize that more units are too hard to coordinate.

So every group of warship is present, (don’t forget, each unit is standing for many similar ships).

It will be also an incentive to buy Cruiser and Battleship to get a complete Task Force.

That is a less arbitrary number because it is based on this rule: all type of units are part of a complete Task Force.
If you get large battle, you oppose full Task Force vs full Task Force and remaining ships vs remaining ships, all in the same turn.
So, it will be possible that ships from both sides survive after the battle.

Addendum:
If any task force is under 7 ships, then smaller one can be substitue for larger ship unit who is missing.
Example: 1 battleship is missing, but there is another cruiser in the sea-zone, then the Task Force will be: 2 Subs, 2 DDs, 2 CAs, 1 CV, 2 planes.

Actually, with 7 ships + 2 planes, it is near the 10.
Maybe we can limit the fleet to up to 10 units, never more than 2 of the same kind of unit.
It can be another way to get almost the same result.

This discussion has officially reached low-earth orbit lol

@Uncrustable:

This discussion has officially reached low-earth orbit lol

Always the right word.  :-D

The prime question is : is this a real problem ?
Big massive armada waiting for a massive slaughter with another one massive armada.

Do we really want more little fleet over the board and not just those big and long awaiting battle between 1 axis and many allies joined together?

@Cmdr:

I want more little fleets on the board.  Actually a limit on number of units per territory and sea zone makes sense, just how many armadas can you shove into 1 square nautical mile anyway?

Well considering one game square equals thousands of nautical miles…

Honesty iplay a lot of42 and I spectate alotofG40…
I see many skirmishes both land and sea
Involving DDs, CAs, and SS

Certainly far more skirmishes than the huge battles you talk of

@Uncrustable:

@Cmdr:

I want more little fleets on the board.� � Actually a limit on number of units per territory and sea zone makes sense, just how many armadas can you shove into 1 square nautical mile anyway?

Well considering one game square equals thousands of nautical miles…

Honesty iplay a lot of42 and I spectate alotofG40…
I see many skirmishes both land and sea
Involving DDs, CAs, and SS

Certainly far more skirmishes than the huge battles you talk of

That’s why I rather prefer a small split between three types of navy:

If you want more little fleet and not just the big massive armada waiting for a massive slaughter with another one, here is what I can suggest, inspired by World War II Expansion rules form Phillip Schwartzer (which I played many times, instead of revised rule, before cruiser and destroyer appear in A&A).

Split naval groups in 3 different groups. A-Surface warships, B- subs, C- escort ships and transports.

So, even if those 3 groups are in the same sea-zone, attacker have the following options:

First, Subs operate alone (attack and defense) and can no longuer serves as cheap fodder for warships. Attacking subs only is a combat group in itself.
Second, when Subs attack, they choose between TTs & escort or warships.

Third, when warships attack, they can choose to attack warships only, or warships + TTs & escort.

Fourth, planes group choose between TTs & escort (plus planes from warships group which can intercept attacking planes and defend TTs) or warships.

TTs can be escorted by DD and real CVE (slow escort carrier A0D1M2C? ASW + 1 plane)
You can also create DE Destroyer escort, if you wish (A1D2M2C8 +1 defense when paired with CVE).

That is the basic. Let’s think if it can get the result intended.

(By the way, now Subs operating alone should stay at 6 IPCs.)

To develop this idea, I will start with the most historically base element (and already touched earlier), (it is a slight variation of Schwartzer rules):
Subs operating as a separated group.
Subs cannot protect TTs or warships.

When subs attack, they choose target between warships or TTs and escort ships,
they cannot choose other subs.
It is a special subs combat phase which is previous to any others, so no other units can attack with them, specially planes.

After all subs attack are resolved, then warships and planes can follow as regular OOB combat rules.

During this subs combat phase, if sub get a hit, each successful specific sub unit get 1 option:
a) immediate submerge and cannot be retaliate � by defender (except by ASW like DD) or
b) stay for another round taking all defending shots along with other unsuccesful subs.

Of course as OOB, if no ASW present, the casuality cannot be part of the defending rolls against others unsuccesful subs.

To attack them, it is a declared action call: Antisub mission and air patrol.
Only DDs, cruisers and planes can do it, and Escort carrier, if created as ASW.

Planes to do it, as OOB, need to be with ASW like DD or CVE/CVL.

Cruiser can make it alone, but they cannot block the First Strike from subs like DD can.

AntiSub Mission is a one shot attack, unless subs decides to fireback instead of submerging.

Subs can defend at “1” only if they were hit, or the defending player decide to stay in the battle an additionnal round.

In which case, all attacking units get another round of firing if attacker choose, because as OOB he can rather retreat.

After there is a special move allowed, if the attacking group has 1 move left, it can either return to his previous sea-zone, or go to another adjacent one from the actual sea-zone in which he conduct Antisub mission and Air Patrol.
In this manner, DDs, Cruisers and Escort carriers can return within a group of warships or Transports to keep them protected while on defense.

One consequence of this Antisub Mission rule is keeping one large group of subs was not a good strategy against it, so there was many sea-zone occupied by 1 or 2 subs only.

It was the way to prevent a massive slaughter from 1 succesful combined attack of air and sea units. So, unless you split your attack against them (reducing your chance of destroying them), the defender may loose only 1 or 2 subs at once.

Another consequence, is a rising number of DDs to destroy subs and to protect TTs and warships groups.

Rise the question of how to protect vulnerable transport.
In the original rules, there was a special token unit: _destroyer escort A1D2M2C8, defend @3 when paired with 1 TT._
And all additionnal DE defend @2 unless paired with 2 TTs.
So, 2 DE @3 when protecting 3 TTs. 3DE@3 for 5TTs, etc.
TTs were able to defend @1 against Air unit only.

What can be develop to distinguish DD escorting TT from those escorting warships?
Single A2D2M2C8, is it enough to defend OOB TT taken last?
Many aspects has to be work out.

Maybe we can keep everything the same, except for subs rules.

Keeping 1 fleet of all other surface ships.
So, it can be as simple as:
when subs choice is to attack TTs, all warships defend subs, except BB and Carrier.
Only DDs, Cruisers, [CVE/CVL also], and planes [if DD present as OOB rule] will be part of the defense.

If Subs attack warships, then if at the end they destroy all of them, then they get to destroy all TTs as OOB rule of Taken last.

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]