Submarines being able to attack land

Ya. AA50. Ok. Then never mind.

My idea is that the attacker gets to roll 1(or 2) dice and what ever the number is is how many disabled defending infantry which means that they can’t fire back.

Yeah, I actually agree with you that using carriers to soak up 2 hits in a battle does seem ridiculous.  After all, carriers are capital ships and one SHOULD be protecting them, not throwing them in as fodder.  Unfortunately, this is a tactic that I often find myself using, particularly as USA because of their greater income can more easily replace the carriers than other nations.  Many times I have sent a fleet into a large battle and rather than taking hits on pieces that can still shoot the enemy, I will take a hit or two on the carrier. 
This usually happens in two cases: 
1=the first round of US hits didn’t go so well and there are still a lot of enemy targets to destroy.  In these cases, I usually intend on taking the planes that would have landed on the carrier as future casualties because I know I will be getting more casualties in the 2nd or 3rd round of combat.
2=the attack is taking place adjacent to a friendly territory, in which case I know my planes will still have a landing space.  Also, there will still be many enemy targets going into the 2nd round of combat.

So, while it may not be a sensible tactic, nevertheless it is one that I often find myself using.

Cmdr,

TG:

In anniversary, the only way to have a submarine threat is to have your submarines scattered about.  So far it has been my experience that usually you are attacking from at least two different sea zones, this would encourage you to attack from three or more to get the wolfpack bonus.

I disagree.  One of the best reasons to buy subs is that they’re cheap and can take hits during a naval battle.  If you’re subs are scattered in different sea zones, you negate this fodder ability in a defensive battle.

Secondly, I’m all about simplicity.  Forcing the player to attack from 3 Different Sea Zones adds an unnecessary complexity to the game.

Weren’t we trying to make subs A LOT better, as you claim they are “Bogus?”

3)  Submarine captains spent long times lining up shots in the security of knowing they were not seen and had plenty of time.  They could be choosier.

Okay, you clarified it for me.

tekkyy,

well both principles (1. a ratio whatever it is 2. each destroyer roll one die) encourages players to build more destroyers
the actual numbers can be tuned

I like ratio better because it doesn’t add to the combat sequence
its also something players are used to (from placing infantry on 1 or 2 on the battle board)

Agreed.

Joe,

I would think if you’d want to fix the role of submarines, then fixes should be directed to possibly to biggest impact subs had on the war - attacking shipping and supply lines.

How about a “SBR-type” rule for subs in key sea zones?  Maybe against shipments to UK and Japan only since they were most dependent on outside resources?  Destroyers protecting these sea zones get a “AA” type role to defend so that subs have a chance to live and there is incentive to build subs?  I would think that this could open up the Atlantic and Pacific a little more for something more than just sea unit stacking.

Seconded.  +1 for an inventive idea.

That reminded me of a new idea i really like for AARHE:

‘night bombing’ where you SBR at 1/2 effective rate and forgo both AA rolls, and enemy counterair ( interceptors)

Ok I’ll make it more precise.

I am touching up the the player aids atm.

I think it would make things too easy for the allies. Question, though: Britain calls an allied attack on Finland, they and the Russians move in, would those Russians get to non-combat back to Karelia on t2?

It makes more sense now that I it’s been fully explained. One of the challenges here would be protecting E. U. S. from a sudden German attack, but it would probably be easy enough to destroy any German transports.