As for the Pacific, I believe the US waged a far more complete and devastating sub war against Japan than Germany ever did at its peak against the UK. In the games I play, the US player rarely buys subs because they can afford bigger and more useful ships. I don’t know how that matches up with everyone else’s experience. I think if you want to force some naval action in the Pacific, it likewise needs to be a viable strategy for the US to Sub-choke Japan into oblivion. It needs to be economically painful and dangerous for Japan to ignore the Pacific, just as it should be for Britain to ignore U-boats. This threat can prevent Japan from focusing entirely on the cross-asia route.
This sounds very sensible in terms of what actually happened in WWII. I once saw a documentary on the naval history of WWII whose closing line of narration said that, basically, US subs succeeded in doing to Japan what German subs failed to do to Britain. In my opinion, they succeeded for three reasons:
US subs were much better suited to long-range patrols than the prevalent German Type VII U-boat. The US intended for its subs to be able to operate in the Pacific, which is much wider than the Atlantic, so its boats were quite large compared to the Type VII. This meant that they could carry more fuel and more food, and that – by the austere standards of submarines – they were more comfortable for the crew.
Japan’s merchant marine routes were more concentrated than Britain’s. Japan’s imports came mostly from Malaya and the DEI, which are fairly close together and fairly close to Japan. Britain’s imports, by contrast, arrived on routes that originated from North America or followed the African west coast or traversed the Mediterranean – hence from greatly different directions, and along very long routes. British incoming maritime traffic did, of course, have to bunch together when it approached the British Isles…but that’s where the escort ships and Coastal Command aircraft were concentrated to give maximum protection.
For a nation that was so dependent on oil and other imports, Japan didn’t take seriously enough the protection of its merchant traffic. Its devoted less attention than Britain to such things as efficient convoy management and to the use and development of escort ships.
@Young:
I always liked the classic SBR rules where you roll a dice per bomber and take that amount straight from their cash on hand. Off the top of my head, I would do something like… 1 or more warships in a convoy zone allows for 1d6 to take cash.
A crazy idea on Convoy disruption: a 8 IPCs cap per Convoy SZ (cost of one TPs, as refence) but on all of them. The total lost could not be more than what is outside a direct ground route. Riping off the cash on hand is simpler.
Instead of direct combat, roll 1D6 (at no risk) per Sub in a Convoy SZ on the attacker turn could be easy to apply. The danger is the counter-strike on ennemy’s turn.
Sub only defend on regular 1.
Example, UK Europe could lost everything except the 2+6 homeland IPCs.
Germany can only loose what is in Africa or Finland-Norway (as long as there is no terrestrial contact via Vyborg and Leningrad TTs.)
USA can only loose money from Brazil and Islands TTys.
Japan can only save homeland and some chinese TTys directly connected with an IC in Asia.
Italy could only loose what is in Africa.
Etc.
@Baron:
@Young:
I always liked the classic SBR rules where you roll a dice per bomber and take that amount straight from their cash on hand. Off the top of my head, I would do something like… 1 or more warships in a convoy zone allows for 1d6 to take cash.
A crazy idea on Convoy disruption: a 8 IPCs cap per Convoy SZ (cost of one TPs, as refence) but on all of them. The total lost could not be more than what is outside a direct ground route. Riping off the cash on hand is simpler.
Instead of direct combat, roll 1D6 (at no risk) per Sub in a Convoy SZ on the attacker turn could be easy to apply. The danger is the counter-strike on ennemy’s turn.
Sub only defend on regular 1.
Example, UK Europe could lost everything except the 2+6 homeland IPCs.
Germany can only loose what is in Africa or Finland-Norway (as long as there is no terrestrial contact via Vyborg and Leningrad TTs.)
USA can only loose money from Brazil and Islands TTys.
Japan can only save homeland and some chinese TTys directly connected with an IC in Asia.
Italy could only loose what is in Africa.
Etc.
Maybe to get symetrical values, we can gives to surface warships 1D6 IPCs damage raid, and 1D6+2 IPCs to Submarines?
Or 1D6 for warships as a whole and 1D6 per Submarine?
@Baron:
Fourth rule: Transport are defenseless vs warships but can escape 1 at a time by the end of each combat round. This can probably increase the number of Transports still alive after a U-boats assaults and also be an incentive to buy them instead on relying upon costlier Luftwaffe (and more exposed to TPs AA fire) to sink them. OOB, no Transport survive if 1 U-boat is still alive. Now it can and it makes some units still moving on the board after an attack.
Example: 2 Subs against 1 DD and 1 TP, only 1 U-boat get a hit. The defender can either loose the TP and fight another round or loose the DD and save 1 TP**. It seems an interesting tactical dilemma which never occur in OOB game.**That’s it for now, but there is probably one thing or two which can be said on this units interactions matter. Maybe later…
@Baron:
Unit type
Cost Combat values
Special abilitiesSUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth
Maybe we can give this tactical choice to the Submarine’s commander?
When a Sub gets a hit on attack, the attacker can choose as casualty either a Transport or a hit on warships, the owner still choose which individual unit is taken as casualty.
Interesting ideas. I guess allowing a trprt to escape or die basically allows it to be used as a fodder unit. Since it’s only 1 per rd though, that would prevent it from being abused. Definitely intriguing.
I usually see a fair amount of US subs being built, early to convoy Italy and later to have a offensive punch against Japan. I’m not sure the actual numbers but I believe U-boats sank several more times the tonnage as US subs. Granted they were in the war longer and probably had more targets. IDK the sub/ tonnage sunk breakdown but my impression was the Germans had a higher rate. While possibly more successful tacticaly they definitely lost in the strategic sense.
I’m inclining towards fewer, bigger sea zones; for example the North Atlantic as one giant SZ. Ships crossing the pond therefore cannot simply avoid subs, as any within the NASZ can roll for interception.
Essentially ships would start “in port” in USA/Canada and make a crossing attempt to dock in Europe; all enemy subs present get interception rolls. Similarly, planes and destroyers “hunting” subs would need to make search rolls before engaging them.
Surface fleets hunting each other would also need to make search rolls before they come into contact, modified by such factors as number of planes in the fleet and so forth.
Ships would be allowed to cross just one SZ border within a turn, each port-to-open sea or vise versa move counting as one movement point.
Land based fighters would not be considered to have the range to participate in naval battles except, perhaps, when a fleet is attempting amphibious assault.
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 od 1:1 base…)
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.
To increase the capabilities of submarines I like the idea of Baron Munchhausen: “_When a Sub gets a hit on attack, the attacker can choose as casualty either a Transport or a hit on warships_†but I suggest this should be limited only to successful delivered surprise shot (since in this case DE’s were not able to fulfill one of their main purposes of protecting the transports.)
Greetings,
Lars
@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 od 1:1 base�)
Do you use dice roll or an auto detect rule?
According to Sub rule I suggested, 1 DD can block only 1 Sub. All additional Subs can escape by submerging. If they don’t, they can also be hit.
Is your 3:1 roll different?
Example: 1 DD and 6 planes looking for 4 Subs. 3 Subs auto-detect. But the fourth one can take a free roll against DD too?
@The:
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 wanother 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.
In fact, there was a few more US Submerged Subs killing unsubmerged INJ Subs.
But it is still a rare occurance.
To increase the capabilities of submarines I like the idea of Baron Munchhausen: When a Sub gets a hit on attack, the attacker can choose as casualty either a Transport or a hit on warships but I suggest this should be limited only to successful delivered surprise shot (since in this case DEs were not able to fulfill one of their main purposes of protecting the transports.)
Greetings,
Lars
As per my Sub HR, only attacking Subs have a First Strike @2.
Only attacker can pick either 1 TP or 1 ship within warships group, if he gets a hit.
Since Sub always have First Strike, attacker always choose, but owner’s still select which individual unit is sunk.
In our games each DD automatically detects three enemy SS in the same SZ. (Keep it simple… :wink:)
So according to your example (1 DD & 6 Ftr vs 4 SS) the DD detects 3 of the 4 SS; so they can be attacked by the panes. The 4th (undetected) SS has the option either to withdraw from the fight or take his surprise shot against the DD. If any of the SS scores a hit, the DD is sunk and the subs may no longer be attacked by the fighters.
According to your “Pacific†example, I was only refering to submerged subs. (As far as I’ve understood WW2 technology and tactics most subs fought submerged; in contrast to their WW1 predecessors.)
“_Since Sub always have First Strike_†I thought only undetected subs have the “first strike option†(@2 in attack & @1 while defending) while detected subs fire along with all other vessels. At least this is the way we handle this in our games…
I think there are two or three aspects of Axis & Allies in particular which makes sub building difficult to foster (particularly for Powers with a minimal naval presence):
Decreasing Entropy: Â Players know that there is strength in numbers and the smart ones make a point to limit the ability for the enemy to intercept weaker fleets or individual ships. The beginning game setup reflects a large degree of entropy (randomness) among navies. This is why Britain gets torched on Turn 1. Their ships are spread out and highly vulnerable. This entropy rapidly collapses upon itself once players have control over things. As the game progresses, ships are more tightly packed and there are precious few that are vulnerable as targets of opportunity.
Subs are too vulnerable (disposable) OOB: Â Baron’s rules do much to enhance the survivability of subs. With OOB rules, a single destroyer along with a cruiser and a fighter can decimate a bunch of subs because the subs cannot escape. This is not entirely true to life and if we want subs to be more survivable and therefore useful, I think we need to revisit the destroyer-sub interaction. Baron has already done this and addressed it pretty well. Subs are still vulnerable because they are low cost and poor on defense, but the ability to get away from a battle is their only advantage which I think should be more prominent. Combine this with the ability to shoot at passing ships (Interdiction as suggested by Cmdr. Jennifer) when not your turn, and I think we will have made subs more useful for Germany.
The question becomes how Germany (or the US in the Pacific) can employ subs effectively. The current situation allows for Germany to be effective with their sub fleet for Turn 1 and usually Turn 2, depending on how many survive. After that, they are fighting an uphill battle against the UK in terms of naval production. It should be tough for Germany to keep the U-boat war going, but they need some significant motivation. I think it really needs to be painful for Britain too.As for the Pacific, I believe the US waged a far more complete and devastating sub war against Japan than Germany ever did at its peak against the UK. In the games I play, the US player rarely buys subs because they can afford bigger and more useful ships. I don’t know how that matches up with everyone else’s experience. I think if you want to force some naval action in the Pacific, it likewise needs to be a viable strategy for the US to Sub-choke Japan into oblivion. It needs to be economically painful and dangerous for Japan to ignore the Pacific, just as it should be for Britain to ignore U-boats. This threat can prevent Japan from focusing entirely on the cross-asia route.
You unveiled some valid points, here too.
Axis and Allies on water can become a kind of Risk staking strategy. In PTO, US vs Japan, I don’t know if there is a way to not come to this strategy with Dead-zoning many SZs with 1 big stack of warships.
About Jen Sub rule, I don’t believe this situation occurs so often. And it occurs mostly because TPs and Subs cannot control SZ and affect each other (except now, with OOB 2nd Ed rule, which forbid unescorted TP to unload in a Sub infested SZ.
If changing for allowing each Sub to make a single roll @1 against trespasser in their SZ would probably put an end to the maneuver above and become a direct attack on Subs on the path.
2 or 3 Subs can become virtual blockers.
I’m not against it, I only wonder if adding this not so complex rule is aiming at the goal. You are a more experienced player than I am, so I let it to your judgement. If you think so, then I agree.
@The:
As far as I’ve understood WW2 technology and tactics most subs fought submerged; in contrast to their WW1 predecessors.
But maybe I’m wrong with this assumption. In this case, please ignore what I’ve wrote about Subs vs Subs… :-)
@The:
“_Since Sub always have First Strike_†I thought only undetected subs have the “first strike option†(@2 in attack & @1 while defending) while detected subs fire along with all other vessels. At least this is the way we handle this in our games…
OOB, you are right Sub cost 6, A2 D1 and gets Surprise Strike if no DD is present.
In my redesign Sub suggestion, DD cost 6 and block 1:1 Sub’s Submerge and Stealth Move, but can’t affect the Sub’s Surprise Strike (at 5 IPCs vs 6 IPCs, A2 first strike vs D2, the IPC ratio already put DD at the same OOB AACalc odds of 6 IPCs vs 8 IPCs, A2 vs D2)
Simpler to let Sub, cost 5, attack A2 First strike all the time, but defend @1 regular.
Anyway, you would need Destroyer as fodder and to attack Sub, because they can Submerge, if their is no DD.
@Baron:
Unit type
Cost  Combat values
Special abilitiesSUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth MoveDESTROYER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.TRANSPORT
8 IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.
Undecided: Submarine’s Stealth Move and No Control of Sea Zone still afford 1 single shot @1 per Submarine unit against any warships or transports passing by in the same SZ.
@The:
In our games each DD automatically detects three enemy SS in the same SZ. (Keep it simple… :wink:)
So according to your example (1 DD & 6 Ftr vs 4 SS) the DD detects 3 of the 4 SS; so they can be attacked by the planes. The 4th (undetected) SS has the option either to withdraw from the fight or take his surprise shot against the DD. If any of the SS scores a hit, the DD is sunk and the subs may no longer be attacked by the fighters.
Thanks for your answer.
So, your DD blocks/detects on 1:3 ratio, while mine is at the lower 1 DD:1 Sub ratio blocks/detects.
And as OOB, in the example, if all 6 Fighters and 1 DD gets 4 hits, even if there is 3 detected Subs and 1 unsubmerged but undetected sub, it would be sunk too. Right?
@The:
@The:
As far as I’ve understood WW2 technology and tactics most subs fought submerged; in contrast to their WW1 predecessors.
But maybe I’m wrong with this assumption. In this case, please ignore what I’ve wrote about Subs vs Subs… :-)
It depends what you mean by submerged… Even in WWII, the vast majority of the submarines used were not truly underwater vessels. They spent a great deal of time on the surface using diesel engines to recharge the electric motors they used when submerged. This is why the default status of a sub in Axis and Allies is surfaced and not submerged. This would contrast with today’s submarines which are totally underwater vessels and stay submerged for months at a time.
Most of a sub’s combat was conducted either at periscope depth or when effectively surfaced. This made them vulnerable to detection, but was the only reliable way of targeting enemy shipping. Sonar was less reliable and visual contact was essential.
@Baron:
So, your DD blocks/detects on 1:3 ratio, while mine is at the lower 1 DD:1 Sub ratio blocks/detects.
Yes, but maybe we are going to change this ratio to 1:1…
@Baron:
And as OOB, in the example, if all 6 Fighters and 1 DD gets 4 hits, even if there is 3 detected Subs and 1 unsubmerged but undetected sub, it would be sunk too. Right?
Not necessarily, but in this case, yes.
Since aircraft can only score hits on detected subs, you have to seperate the rolls of the DD and the fighters. A hit caused by the DD can be taken by any SS (owner of the SS’s choice) and a’Ftr-hit’ may be assigned only to the three detected Subs.
(According to the way A&A is played in our Group, the ‘Ftr-hit’s’ must be assigned first.)
My understanding was subs preferred to take out merchant ships with their deck gun so they could preserve torpedos. When facing a warship they would attack submerged. I’m sure there were exceptions.
So if the non detected sub scores on it’s first strike the DD dies and it and the planes can’t shoot at anything ? Otherwise the planes get at least one round to shoot at the other 3 ?
Here is a schematic NO which can be use for either Germany or USA:
+5 IPCs if at least 1 enemy’s Convoy SZ is disrupted.
+10 IPCs if 2 different enemy’s Convoy SZ is disrupted. Not two SZs from the same enemy.
Example: Germany disrupting 1 UK and 1 US SZ gives 10 IPCs. US disrupting Japan and Italy gives 10 IPCs.
At 5 IPCs, it can replace 1 lost Sub.
Another NO for PTO, Japan and USA.
+3 IPCs per Pacific islands conquered during the turn.
Basically an incentive to do continuous Island hopping.
Maybe all these NO can become universal objectives bonus?
So Anzac and UK pacific can also do them.
Or UK and Italy on Convoy raiding.
Island hopping NO sounds interesting. Would that be for the valueless islands only or all ? I would think the former as the latter already have incentive to be attacked. You could add the 1 dollar ones too.
@Baron:
You unveiled some valid points, here too.
Axis and Allies on water can become a kind of Risk staking strategy. In PTO, US vs Japan, I don’t know if there is a way to not come to this strategy with Dead-zoning many SZs with 1 big stack of warships.
I think there is a better chance of fostering this in the Pacific, mostly because there are more sea zones to use and (possibly) more objectives to cover. This could necessitate the spreading of forces. I don’t know how it would work out though.
@Baron:
About Jen Sub rule, I don’t believe this situation occurs so often. And it occurs mostly because TPs and Subs cannot control SZ and affect each other (except now, with OOB 2nd Ed rule, which forbid unescorted TP to unload in a Sub infested SZ.
No, I don’t think it occurs often either. Transports are rarely left unprotected or even under-protected. However, I would modify Jen’s rule to allow shots at any passing ships (not just transports). This would be a one-shot per sub. The passing ships may only defend with any destroyers present in their fleet (again, just one shot). Those subs that survive simply submerge and the fleet continues on. This makes subs more useful, dangerous and doesn’t subject them to being totally wiped out by engaging a larger fleet and letting all the ships defend. This does not mean that subs become blockers because the ships continue on their mission as if nothing happened. It is kind of like AA fire, but in the water. Amphib assaults could still be made in a SZ containing enemy subs, you just do this combat first.
@Baron:
If changing for allowing each Sub to make a single roll @1 against trespasser in their SZ would probably put an end to the maneuver above and become a direct attack on Subs on the path.
It could. Meaning it might make people want to group ships even more to defend against this ability. But subs won’t get an all out attack; it will only ever be 1 shot per sub. So the net effect will be the same if you have 2 ships in your fleet or 20 ships. We could even say, not to exceed the number of ships in the passing fleet. So if you have 3 subs and there are only 2 enemy ships, the subs only get 2 shots. I don’t know.
@Baron:
2 or 3 Subs can become virtual blockers.
Virtually, I suppose. It will be up to the other person to decide if it is worth the risk. The point is that they are not legitimate blockers and passage is still possible. Again, I liken it to AA shots for the water. Although it is more like the old way of playing with AA; any territory you flew over could shoot, not just the one you were attacking. That isn’t realistic for air combat, but it is realistic on the water. This may foster more destroyer buying since destroyers will be the only ones that can defend.
@Baron:
I’m not against it, I only wonder if adding this not so complex rule is aiming at the goal. You are a more experienced player than I am, so I let it to your judgement. If you think so, then I agree.
Depends what the goal is. If it is to make subs more useful then I definitely think this is the way to go. However, if people generally think they are fine with the mechanics as they stand OOB then there is no reason to adopt the rule. Interdiction is a rule that will help Germany and the US in particular. It could have larger effect for Italy because they are a maritime power who is cash strapped. Since a sub is the cheapest option, this may be a huge boon to their war effort assisting Germany.
As for my experience… I have been playing for 11 years or so, but I am definitely not a guru. I haven’t “scienced the $#!&” out of this game like some people have, I tend to just make observations based on personal experience. But I like tinkering with the rules in hopes of improving something. Ultimately, adoption for a lot of these modifications will have to be on an individual basis. There are few things that everyone will agree on as something they want to use.
My understanding was subs preferred to take out merchant ships with their deck gun so they could preserve torpedos. When facing a warship they would attack submerged. I’m sure there were exceptions.
I think it depended on the tactical situation at hand, but yes. My point was that even at periscope depth (for attack) a sub was not truly submerged. They were still very near the surface, could be seen, depending on the conditions and were therefore more vulnerable to attack.
