Buying and using submarines

The best use for subs is in the Pacific, punching up the US fleet for its attack on the Japanese fleet. Being relatively cheap, they force Japan to defend or abandon sea zone 6. If you spread them out, Japan can easily lose strategic focus while “swatting flies” as I like to call it.

Marsh

I thought that the way to use Sub in an offensive manner was to combine with Air only attack, that way Subs can be use as cheaper fodder while air hits cannot be allocated on defender’s subs.
It is better if defender have Destroyer on his side, so defending planes hit can be allocated to attacker’s Subs.

@Young:

@Baron:

I thought that the way to use Sub in an offensive manner was to combine with Air only attack, that way Subs can be use as cheaper fodder while air hits cannot be allocated on defender’s subs.
It is better if defender have Destroyer on his side, so defending planes hit can be allocated to attacker’s Subs.

I was also thinking that, subs with bombers especially… we’ve all seen how even 2 subs in 111 can absorb the hits from big ships and protect an entire Air Force in minimal combat round situations.

Such strategy imply to buy in advance each round a few subs for future battle 2 or even 3 rounds later. Having 2 or 3 six IPCs Subs to take hits before losing 12 IPCs StratBs seems a sound tactic.

@Baron:

I thought that the way to use Sub in an offensive manner was to combine with Air only attack, that way Subs can be use as cheaper fodder while air hits cannot be allocated on defender’s subs.
It is better if defender have Destroyer on his side, so defending planes hit can be allocated to attacker’s Subs.

But isn’t it better for the defender, if he has also no destroyer present, so his planes also hit the costly attacking units instead of all the subs?

Defending ships can still hit subs without a destroyer present. So, all the defender has to do is take destroyers as the first hits and then every hit in the second round from air defenders ignores subs.

Marsh

The sub isn’t a bad unit, its a bad STACK.

You can have 1-2 of the sub in any fleet or tooling around the board, because of the destroyer and “canal” rules, the subs can utilize the board in a different way than the other units, and are effectively invulnerable to an enemy without a destroyer.

The problem is that you can’t just buy a bunch of subs and call that a strategy.  They don’t block movement, they cant hit planes, and in the face of a single destroyer (with help) the entire stack would come crashing down.  Combined with their weak defense, it means that there are much more beneficial ways to use your money than buying subs, and if you only have 1 shot at beating the allies, a big stack of transports or tanks does the job much more clearly.

“Well you could say that for any unit and call it a fun game if you buy nothing but, however, I’m looking for a solid philosophy or a purposeful awareness to utilizing the submarine to the best of it’s capabilities. Now what about Germany taking the Southern France IC and building 3 subs there per turn? They would be great fodder when helping a German bomber stack hit any American ships that try and park off Gibraltar (mostly for their ability to go through that strait without controlling Gibraltar).”

It seems pretty cool, but it takes risk and time to get these subs in the water turn 2 and fighting turn 3.  You could also do Yugo or Romania and get the subs out nearly as early.  Unf, the subs at either factory med are very ill placed to strike out into the Atlantic.    We see a lot of games where UK dominates the Mediterranean, but using german $$ to stop this domination doesn’t really alter the strategic game.  Every $$ you spend on those subs is a tank that will not be rolling against Moscow.  Subs aren’t enough to stop a dedicated invasion force, or to clear the med without the Italians helping.

Now, if that stack of subs (whether its off the skaggerak or in the med) can attack the US/UK invasion stack sitting outside Gibraltar, that’s worth something.  Usually the US under commits that first invasion stack, and with only 1 AC and 1CA + 1 DD, a sub stack could ward off the invasion.  If the US cant move forward, it cant really do anything.

However, this only buys you 1-2 turns against a decisive euroinvasion, which is time you can also buy using Italian Infantry that cost you nothing…

That is the problem with this subrush strategy; making it offensive.  At best, its a standoff strategy.  You cant control the Atlantic with subs, you cant do with a few like the allies can.

The abs best use of the sub isn’t in combat at all; its buying and preserving them early game so that by J4/I4 you are blocking substantial income from the axis and forcing them to waste time hunting you all over the board.  This however, isn’t decisive either as Germany only has 5 income to take.  Japan has lots to take, but lots of sub hunters.  Italy has plenty to take, but its income is irrelevant to victory by that juncture.  its a long game plan.

I can’t agree with that Taamvan.  A large stack of subs by itself may not be the best way to go.  However, a large stack of subs along with an already strong naval presence?  Absolutely a good buy.

@Nippon-koku:

I can’t agree with that Taamvan.  A large stack of subs by itself may not be the best way to go.  However, a large stack of subs along with an already strong naval presence?  Absolutely a good buy.

Mr Roboto once said that a Carrier group should be escorted with 5 Subs and 2 DDs to be optimal.
I would like to know the assumptions on which this rely.

@Young:

I had a game this past weekend where I was spending over 80% of my US economy gearing up for, executing, and than maintaining a beach head on Spain. Therefore, there was not much income left to fight a good fight against the Japanese in the Pacific… however, I purchased lots of subs with a few bombers, and with ANZAC also buying a few subs and bombers, I spread them all over the Pacific with only one sub per empty sea zone. Japan had to buy and use a lot of destroyers to get rid of them, however… once they realized what was happening, they couldn’t keep up with the amount of subs because even if they ventured to take out 1 sub in one sea zone with 1 destroyer… there were Allied bombers in range to mop up any lone destroyers. I remember I had 2 subs in sea zone 6 and got lucky with a convoy disruption taking 10 IPCs in one turn, if anything my strategy took Japan by surprise like a swarm of mosquitos his warships just couldn’t swat away.

Dude, I said that. Look up like four posts.

Marsh

I sure like this idea, of being a pest all over the S. Pacfic with subs from ANZAC and US.  But I’m not sure how my main US fleet is going to cope with its subs being spread out, rather than as part of that stack.

For offensive striking power, the sub doesn’t have an equal.  We’ve already run the odds for that and it has encouraged me to build more.  But I’d really like to see a pacific strategy that isn’t either “all US at one base in one stack” nor “too spread out and picked off piecemeal”.

Mr. Nippon;

Yes, a big pile of subs are too badass to ignore.  I was mostly responding to YG’s challenge to rationally build a strategy (for Germany, possibly japan or UK) that is heavy heavy subs, unf it seems impractical.

Mr. Marsh;

You have too many good ideas, that’s why we keep stealing them without giving you credit.

@Young:

For sure Marsh, sorry for not mentioning that… I’m curious if you think the extreme nothing but subs and bombers in the Pacific is a one and done gambit, or if you think it is a threatening strategy to pull off even if Japan knows it’s coming?

I don’t know that the bomber/sub combo actually works at all except in highly specialized situations. To me it seems like a response to bad play and is otherwise substandard (if you’ll forgive the pun).

The sub swarm does work for the US if Japan does not react properly. Japan does not have the income to keep swapping destroyers for subs. If Japan decides to start swatting the subs, it has to build multiple destroyers each turn. Lone destroyers that killed subs can be picked off with sub/bomber combos (usually leaving the sub behind), and each time the US wins the exchange economically.

(The correct Japanese response to the sub swarm, in my opinion, is to swat only enough to make a US attack not workable and otherwise concentrate on your strategic objective. Then, when it’s time, you take the entire IJN and go kill the Allied fleet – remember they have been buying subs, not defense, and careful purchasing while doing restrained swatting of subs can give you fleet superiority. Yes, you take a short term convoy disruption hit when doing so, but the only other response you have is going totally defensive and that is Axis death!)

Marsh

@taamvan:

I sure like this idea, of being a pest all over the S. Pacfic with subs from ANZAC and US.  But I’m not sure how my main US fleet is going to cope with its subs being spread out, rather than as part of that stack.

There is a risk – you have to make sure Japan does not gain an advantage that it can use to destroy your fleet. You can’t build just subs and spread them out and call it done.

Marsh

Hello Young Grasshopper (Fellow Canadian player here)

I always preferred a Sub/bomber strat with the US in the Pacific with Japan as well.
Not only can the US win economically trading subs for Jap destroyers, if you put enough of them in different convoy zones you can start hurting their economy more as well.
With Anzac poking into the money islands or helping with subs as well I find it starts to create to many targets for Japan at once.

@taamvan:

The sub isn’t a bad unit, its a bad STACK.

You can have 1-2 of the sub in any fleet or tooling around the board, because of the destroyer and “canal” rules, the subs can utilize the board in a different way than the other units, and are effectively invulnerable to an enemy without a destroyer.

The problem is that you can’t just buy a bunch of subs and call that a strategy.   They don’t block movement, they cant hit planes, and in the face of a single destroyer (with help) the entire stack would come crashing down.  Combined with their weak defense, it means that there are much more beneficial ways to use your money than buying subs, and if you only have 1 shot at beating the allies, a big stack of transports or tanks does the job much more clearly.

“Well you could say that for any unit and call it a fun game if you buy nothing but, however, I’m looking for a solid philosophy or a purposeful awareness to utilizing the submarine to the best of it’s capabilities. Now what about Germany taking the Southern France IC and building 3 subs there per turn? They would be great fodder when helping a German bomber stack hit any American ships that try and park off Gibraltar (mostly for their ability to go through that strait without controlling Gibraltar).”

It seems pretty cool, but it takes risk and time to get these subs in the water turn 2 and fighting turn 3.   You could also do Yugo or Romania and get the subs out nearly as early.   Unf, the subs at either factory med are very ill placed to strike out into the Atlantic.    We see a lot of games where UK dominates the Mediterranean, but using german $$ to stop this domination doesn’t really alter the strategic game.   Every $$ you spend on those subs is a tank that will not be rolling against Moscow.   Subs aren’t enough to stop a dedicated invasion force, or to clear the med without the Italians helping.

Now, if that stack of subs (whether its off the skaggerak or in the med) can attack the US/UK invasion stack sitting outside Gibraltar, that’s worth something.   Usually the US under commits that first invasion stack, and with only 1 AC and 1CA + 1 DD, a sub stack could ward off the invasion.   If the US cant move forward, it cant really do anything.

However, this only buys you 1-2 turns against a decisive euroinvasion, which is time you can also buy using Italian Infantry that cost you nothing…

That is the problem with this subrush strategy; making it offensive.   At best, its a standoff strategy.   You cant control the Atlantic with subs, you cant do with a few like the allies can.

The abs best use of the sub isn’t in combat at all; its buying and preserving them early game so that by J4/I4 you are blocking substantial income from the axis and forcing them to waste time hunting you all over the board.   This however, isn’t decisive either as Germany only has 5 income to take.  Japan has lots to take, but lots of sub hunters.  Italy has plenty to take, but its income is irrelevant to victory by that juncture.  its a long game plan.

I think that submarines are great in many ways.
1. They are very cost effective
2. they are the best convoy units in the game
3. they can move around easier
4. They can be great for soaking up hits
5. Their surprise strike is devastating
6. It forces the enemy to buy destroyers and forcing the enemy to do anything keeps you ahead of the game

I know a lot of people probably have talked about this, but the entire thread is tldr for me.

In short, I agree with all of the heavy sub-buyers. A fleet has to be strong enough to defend itself from all attacks (air only, no dds and everything)

When I fight a pacific war, I never buy any BBs or CRs. I have some when I begin, and dont need any more. For fighting the main fleetbattles I buy a mix of CVs, DDs and subs Each of them have their own advantage

CV + ftrs: most versatile unit, the planes can be used in landcombat too. worst figthingpower per ipc
DD: can shoot at airplanes
subs: usually best figthingpower per ipc offensivly and defencivly, at least until it is about 40% of your fleet (40% ofIPC)

This means that my us and japanse fleet buy ALOT of subs in the beginning. I can have 30+ new subs by round 5 with USA and it is usually a great thing.