I know this has been a talked about topic for a long time and I don’t claim any of these ideas as my own, I just want to throwout there how I think sub warfare should go. The fundimental idea is kinda like the separate air battle that happens during SBRs.
Transport cost modification = 6
Submarine cost modification = 7
Destroyer cost modification = 7
Cruiser cost modification = 10
Aircraft Carrier cost modification = 15
Battleship cost modification = 18
1. Air units and submarines can’t hit one another… ever.
2. When attacking or defending, all submarines and destroyers must pair up against each other. This will create a separate marine warfare apart from all other units within that sea zone. Any additional submarines or destroyers must wait to get “tagged” before joining marine warfare.
All submarines not paired with an enemy destroyer may pass through the sea zone to attack elsewhere during the same combat movement phase.
During this special marine warfare, submarines attack and defend @1, and destroyers attack and defend @3.
Submarines and destroyers not engaged in special marine warfare, and are in general combat, each attack and defend @2 (including suprise attacks for defending subs).
Multiple destroyers may attack fewer subs, however, additional destroyers must wait until an enemy sub is not paired before joining the fight (tagging available units on standby) in the next combat round. As well, multiple submarines may attack fewer destroyers, however, additional submarines must wait until an enemy destroyer is not paired before joining the fight (tagging available units on standby) in the next combat round.
Marine warfare ends when one side has zero subs or destroyers left. All surviving submarines or destroyers may join general combat within the same sea zone once marine warfare has ended.
All rounds of marine warfare are resolved before general combat begins.
I’m quite doubtful.
I can see you are going in a completely other direction than where I was aiming.
Nonetheless, to understand your solution, I need to know what is the issue from your POV.
You want to fix something but what it is?
What is broken in the game from your POV and that of your fellow players (it is probably lot of A&A experiences)?
A few questions:
Does your cost structure is an intrinsic part of your DD-Sub interaction mechanic or not?
Can we consider it for itself? And have a separate discussion on the pros and cons?
Your complex interactions between DD & Sub vs DD and Sub in excess against other naval units seems to be base on an historical POV at a tactical level.
I believe you should explain or describe the general view and how you see WWII Anti-Subwarfare.
In a complementary way, why planes are totally put out of the equation this time?
This seems also based on an understanding of WWII.
Or is it based on some game loophole you met somehow?
For me, it is so far away of my concentric thinking (some might say obsessive :-D) that I can’t provide any advice until I better understand where you start, so I can clearly see what purpose is in this new game mechanics you suggest here.
Cheers,
I will read with great attentions your answer.
Thanks BM, I will answer in depth later tonight when I have some time.
Cheers.
So here is a brief explaination of these rules, I’m not saying that any of these are better than what’s out there… I just imagine what a different combat system might look like.
Transport cost modification = 6
I’ve never liked the idea of a transport ship being more expensive than a submarine, it just doesn’t make sence to me. A submarine maybe slightly smaller, but it has sensitive advanced weapons and systems for submerging and evading that a simple cargo ship just doesn’t have.
Submarine cost modification = 7
Destroyer cost modification = 7
I like the fact that 2 units that effect each other directly cost the same. In my combat system below, submarines and destroyers both have pros and cons that equal each other IMO, although I don’t have the true math to support it.
Cruiser cost modification = 10
The idea for a cheaper cruiser has been around for a long time, and now that some submarines can get through destroyers and suprise attack, thier value has decreased even further from oob.
Aircraft Carrier cost modification = 15
Most common sea unit purchase goes down 1 IPC
Battleship cost modification = 18
Most uncommon sea unit purchase goes down 2 IPCs
1. Air units and submarines can’t hit one another… ever.
The current submarine warfare dynamics are somewhat complexed (not as much as some would think, but the most FAQs about G40 are mostly about submarines). I have eliminated the use of air units against submarines because of simplicity game play reasons. Maybe some histroical reasons as well, as I’ve read many times here that a plane destroying a submarine in the war was rare.
2. When attacking or defending, all submarines and destroyers must pair up against each other. This will create a separate marine warfare apart from all other units within that sea zone. Any additional submarines or destroyers must wait to get “tagged” before joining marine warfare.
I have created a special preliminary battle that will force fodder to fight fodder, and big ships to fight big ships. It is like the sea combat phase during an amphibious assault, or the air battle before a strategic bombing raid.
All submarines and destroyers are paired together, any remaining submarines may then pass through the sea zone if attacking, or submerge if defending. Any remaining destroyers or subs that have not submerged or passed through are waiting to be “tagged”. If a submarine or destroyer is removed from the battle board, a corasponding unit must be tagged and must enter the battle to be paired against the remaining unit. This special combat phase continues until only 1 side has either submarines or destroyers remaining. All submarines that survived the fodder fight get suprise strike capabilities, and all destroyers that survived the fodder fight may join general combat if any other units besides subs or destroyers exist.
To make the fight realistic, I have changed the attack and defense values of both destroyers and submarines when fighting each other, but have reset them during general combat.
After the fodder fight, submarines defence value is 2 instead of 1 when destroyers are not present.
Multiple destroyers may attack fewer subs, however, additional destroyers must wait until an enemy sub is not paired before joining the fight (tagging available units on standby) in the next combat round. As well, multiple submarines may attack fewer destroyers, however, additional submarines must wait until an enemy destroyer is not paired before joining the fight (tagging available units on standby) in the next combat round.
Marine warfare ends when one side has zero subs or destroyers left. All surviving submarines or destroyers may join general combat within the same sea zone once marine warfare has ended.
All rounds of marine warfare are resolved before general combat begins.
As promised, here is a start:
First, I found your “fodder combat” very original and kind of “out of the box thinking”.
I need more times to adjust about it.
My first impression is that, based on a glimpse of some commentaries about how reluctant you fellow players can be about making transport working like the other unit with weaker combat value than Classic TP, I’m not sure they will jump on eagerly on this new mechanics.
If I reverse role, I would never suggest to you and your team such a combat mechanic, which seems that complex, at first glance.
One point I’m wondering is about glameflow, how much impact on speed of play can have this combat mechanics on a game like G40?
However, enthusiasm, friendship and being the Creator of a HR makes for a lot of “why not try it? Let’s try, it could be funny.”
Probably what would happen at the Cliffside Bunker house.
About your cost structure,
I believe you would have to explain to your friends why you don’t use the known Improved Shipyards as the basis with an increase for Subs?
Here is this Tech cost structure:
Battleship: 17 IPCs (you suggested 18 IPCs)
Aircraft Carrier 13 IPCs (you suggested 15 IPCs)
Cruiser 9 IPCs (you suggested 10 IPCs)
Destroyer 7 IPCs
Transport 6 IPCs
Submarine 5 IPCs rised to 7 IPCs (to be a match with DD)
From a few observation and calc simulations, I can say Cruiser in this Tech structure gets better odds and seems to be put at the right place to be competitive with other units on IPCs basis ratio vs Combat value.
At 10 IPCs, it seems to duplicate the 12 IPCs Cruiser in the OOB cost structure and keep their relative weakness compared to Destroyer, Sub and Battleship.
This thread can be challenging about warships cost structure:
1940 Cheaper Boats
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34687.msg1339369#msg1339369
That’s only a start.
I will try to better assimilate your DDs vs Subs combat mechanics to make better comments on their specifics. :wink:
In the GLOBAL 39 game that Tigerman developed, submarines and destroyers do pair off. Now the combat is still at the same time and “extra” subs do get to proceed through the sea zone unimpeded. The subs are unseen unless there is a corresponding destroyer. For instance, if the German has 6 subs and is passing through a sea zone with four destroyers, four of the subs must stop and fight the four destroyers while the remaining two may pass through the sea zone or stay in the sea zone and have a sneak attack on any additional naval units in the sea zone. They are unseen without a destroyer. In Global 39, aircraft can attack a sub if a destroyer is present to see it. The destroyer is able to direct aircraft and fight the sub if you will just like the OOB rules. It makes the opposing forces develope destroyers to at least match any subs that are built.
@Young:
1. Air units and submarines can’t hit one another… ever.
Here is one of my post with links to historical depictions of the Aircrafts and Anti-Subwarfare relations.
Exploring this subject lead me to the other direction than OOB on planes against Subs.
About your HR, I can add that I was influenced by your DD vs Sub pairing when I develop some game mechanics on Convoy Raiding for 1942.2 first, then G40 with the help of Black_Elk.
@Baron:
Once this said, I think TacB is the newest (except for AAA guns) unit introduced and can have a better place and much more historical feel in relation to SBR escort and intercept (air vs air combat) rules, and vs regular combat: ground and naval.
(As for now, I’m just thinking that TacBs should have a combat value against Subs (not Fighters), even without DDs, they represent Dive and Torpedos bombers after all.)I was curious to look what was the historical background and basis of this assumption about TacB against Fg vs Subs.
I was surprised that my intuitive thinking have some truth behind:
I just discovered that the Fighter F4F Wildcat was part of Antisubmarine Warfare and was able to sink 21 Submarines U-boats but never by itself. All of them were credited to another aircraft also.Service in the Atlantic Ocean
Best known for their contributions in the Pacific, the Wildcats and Martlets also gave reputable service in the Atlantic. This usually took the form of operating from an escort carrier attached to a convoy or a hunter-killer group. These Wildcats were responsible for intercepting German bombers and, in conjunction with other types, finding and attacking U-boats. The six-gun armaments of the F4F-4, Martlet II, and Martlet IV were particularly effective in suppressing the anti-aircraft guns of the U-boats so that larger, slower bombers could more safely attack with depth bombs or homing torpedoes. The threat of strafing by a Wildcat would often persuade a U-boat to submerge, reducing the chance of catching a convoy. Additionally, the Wildcats could summon bombers and surface escorts to engage U-boats. Known to be rugged and forgiving, the Wildcat’s performance limitations were not a significant handicap in the Atlantic, where there were no enemy fighters to contend with.
U-boats lost to Wildcat/Martlet aircraft
(When fighting U-boat Wildcat normally shielded her larger sister the Avenger while the latter dropped depth charges or acoustic torpedoes. Both planes were given credit in such cases.)
http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/wildcat.htm
On the contrary, TBF Avenger were clearly part of Submarine killing:
Service in the Atlantic Ocean
In the Atlantic, the Avenger was the obvious choice for use aboard British and American escort carriers in screening convoys and hunting down U-boats. Avengers would sight surfaced U-boats, and swoop down on them in a glide bombing approach, releasing multiple 250-pound, 325-pound, or (most often) 500-pound depth bombs. If the U-boat put up accurate flak, the Avenger pilot might choose to circle out of range wait for other aircraft to assist. Grumman Wildcat fighters, with either four or six heavy machine guns, were often effective at subduing the U-boat’s flak battery so that the Avengers could more safely make their attacks. Later the Avenger’s arsenal included rockets for use on surfaced U-boats and, after mid-1943, a super-secret anti-submarine homing torpedo known as the Mark 24 Fido (also called Zombie). Various versions of the Avenger were fitted with radar for finding submarines or surface ships, with sonobuoys to track submerged submarines, and with flares and searchlights for illuminating potential targets at night. Avengers were known to carry combinations of these devices, such as two 500-pound depth bombs, one Fido, radar, flares, and sonobuoys.
American escort carrier air groups sank, or assisted in sinking, 35 submarines in the Atlantic. Most, perhaps all, of these kills must have been made by Avengers. To this total must be added the achievements of British Avengers. Additionally, Avengers flew anti-submarine patrols from land bases, and laid mines.
http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/avenger.htm
This means to me that, from an historical POV, against submarine unit, a TacB unit should be better over the Fg unit.
So I think there is room to improve the historical representation of TcB and Fg units in A&A G40.
Maybe TacBomber unit should have (along with StBs) a specific capacity against Submarine unit.
Or
While giving Fgs an Anti-aircraft capacity, at the same time, making them unable to destroy Submarine unit.
This could better reenact somehow the historical difference amongst these 2 G40 sculpts and sharpen the role of this new TcB unit, given each a more clearer identity, even with a strategical game level such as A&A G40.
As a side note, here someone talking from first hand:
Here is a canadian !!! :evil: CVL HMCS Magnificent (a Majestic-class CVL-21) Launch in nov. 1944 but only commissionned 1948.
25 knots, 12 000 nmiles, 37 planes on board.
Around 4min. 40s. the captain of this Light Carrier unit says:
He had 2 types of planes on board:
anti-submarines aircrafts ASW (Avengers) and
fighters aircrafts against planes to protect the carrier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zvnz06-MRc
