Basic principles of a new Sub Warfare House Rule (nSWHR), for review

@SS:

I like the idea if a plane is going to attack a sub, it must first roll a die to try to find it just like my reconnaissance plane has to find fleet before you can attack with your navy. Kills the sub on a roll of maybe a 3 or less. Misses, sub dives.

Give a attacking sub first shot, pieces removed and then the sub has to stay for a round of combat.
Is it different from the OOB Surprise strike ? I don’t see the difference.
Just makes the sub worth more and if you need adjust it.

The game I played with Classic have a rule that required to spot them (“1” and “2” on D6= 1/3 odds) before firing at them (“1”, “2”, “3” on D6 = 1/2 odds).

Even if it is historically sound and accurate, A&A is not a tactical game level but a strategical one.

I decided to simplify this rule and harmonized to regular combat OOB: when you combine 1/3 X 1/2 = 1/6 odds to destroy a sub, the basic “1” roll.
That’s why this nSWHR give all planes A1.
In a certain way, the A1 includes the search and destroy Anti-Sub aircraft’s operations.

@toblerone77:

I like your idea uncrustable and is a good idea for a “fix”. I think Baron’s idea is not so much to “fix” anything as it is to make subs more interesting with a more advanced game mechanic. I think both are good ideas and leave options for multiple levels of gameplay.

I couldn’t agree more with you.
You saw where I was going.

Actually, I’m mixing 3 games mechanics together:
1- OOB 1940, 1942
2- Classic OOB
3- World War II The expansion I for A&A,  from David Schwartzer.

To create a more integrated Subs rule which could be more of a chess game for Naval Warfare between Subs, planes, warships (CA, CV, BB), escorts ASV (DD and a new CVE) and transports.
All having a specific role with strength and weakness.

One HR I have yet to develop is that Subs have 2 options when all these surface vessels are in the same SZ:
1- attack escort and warships
2- attack escort and transports (each TT unit having a 1 hit value but D0), letting the defending player choosing casualties between DD, CVE and TT.

I hope to better reenact Atlantic/Pacific naval battles, especially with the Escort Carrier unit.
For me it was necessary to let plane attack Subs without any help.
Hence, drop the requirement for DD presence to allow planes attack vs Subs.
(IMO, many problems are generated by this OOB rule.)

@knp7765:

One thing I see as a problem is the different ways that planes can attack subs vs. how planes attack other warships or planes. You mentioned before that planes can attack subs by themselves @ 1 or with ASV @ 2, yet they attack all other warships and planes at normal values (fighter @ 3, tac & strat bombers @ 4).  :-)

In somewhat limited engagements it probably won’t be a problem, but if you have a clash between two sizable fleets with a mixture of all types of vessels, it could get fairly complicated and perhaps a bit tedious. You would have to separate planes that are attacking subs from planes that are attacking other units.  :-)

I understand the idea that the owner of the attacking planes has to decide what planes to commit to subs and what planes to commit to warships/other planes. :wink:

I guess I am wondering how you could take casualties.

For example: say in this big fight, you have 4 fighters attacking. You decide to send 2 after subs and 2 after the rest of the fleet.

Now, let’s say the defender’s warships or planes gets a hit against one your fighters.

Can you pick one of your sub attack fighters as a casualty NO or must it be one of the fighters engaged against other warships? YES

Suppose the defender gets 3 hits, and you choose fighters, can one of those hits take out a sub attack fighter NO or do you have to choose a different unit of yours? YES

The system I used doesn’t create much problem.
Anti-Sub Mission is played first until all rolls are resolved (1 roll for both sides usually).
Then these planes go home.

After, you play the other attack against warships and other enemy’s aircrafts.

You treat the two groups as if they were in a different SZ.
Subs cannot hide behind warships, neither warships behind subs.

In your example, any overkill from either side doesn’t affect the other.

As OOB, Subs have no SZ of control. After the warships battle, even if there is still some surviving defender’s Subs the remaining attacking ships can stay in the same SZ.

On the reverse, if defender’s warships survived, any DD (and other ships) on AntiSub Mission must retreat 1 SZ from where they came because it was a SZ already controlled by enemy warships.

This part of the nSWHR stay simple.
It just needs to clearly understand the implications of this Subs groups treated separately from the other Naval units.

For example, it implies that an attacker cannot throw 2 Subs and 2 Fighters in the same wave against 1DD, 1CV, 2Fgs.

FIRST WAVE (Subs only)
First, all Subs attack are rolled and concluded.
Then the 2 Fgs will attack what remains of the preceding Subs battle, on the second wave.

ROUND 1
Let’s suppose Subs get 2 lucky First Round Sneak attack.
Only DD will get a defence roll.
The defender allocates 1 hit on CV and sunk DD.

Both Subs can submerge even before DD fires back, if they do the Subs battle is over.
If it is the case then CV is crippled and cannot land any plane on it.
If the attacker see that there is no landing place for Fgs, he can decide to abort the 2 Fgs attack.
So the result is 2 additional planes will be lost at sea and 1 CV is damaged.

Let’s suppose both Subs remain for the second round and decide not to submerge & withdraw.
DD roll his defence and sink a Sub.

ROUND 2
Sub get Surprise Strike since there is only 1 damaged CV at sea and no ASV such as DD.
Sub miss, then all 3 units can have defence rolls: 1CV D2, 2Fgs D4.
If Sub get a surprised hit on CV, then there is only 2 Figs D4 left to roll for defence.

SECOND WAVE
Once Subs battle done, attacker choose if he prefer or not to send the second wave of Warships and Aircrafts: the 2 Fgs in the example.

In the Original Post, some additional specific points written in red are covered to take account all Subs naval warfare situations vs Cruisers and vs Subs.
Please read them and tell me if you see some issues or you think about other uncovered aspect.
Thanks everybody,
Baron.

I made a small but significant modification (written red) in the first post about Subs vs Battleship in 1942 version to increase balance toward the new Subs and for historical reason.

Battleship in G40 and 1942 seems the same at first glance but are far more potent in 1942:
BB A4D4M2C20, takes 2 hits, can bombard @4.

In 1942, Battleship unit recover from damage after any attacking player’s turn. So, in a whole 5 players turn. They could recover up to 4 times from a battle.
The owning Axis player’s attack turn and the 3 Allied attack turns.

In G40, BB can only be repaired once in a whole turn, at the beginning of the owning player’s turn. In addition, you need to move it near a Naval Base before it can be repaired in another turn. So, in this case, it becomes fully operational only 2 turns after being damage.

Compared to the 1942 BB immediate recovery in any Sea-Zone.
G40 BB is clearly a much weaker unit.

By the way, that’s another reason why I consider that BB cost for G40E should be put at 18 IPCs when Cruiser is put at 10 IPCs.

In addition, all BattleCalc simulations show clearly that a balance battle between BB, CA, DD imply this ratio: 1 BB vs 1 CA+1 DD