AARe : Enhanced

I’d be less displeased if we took Dive Bombers out of Navy Battles and reduce AA Fire on UK BBs to 1 then just nerfing England.

Honestly, I’d keep them both the same, maybe buff Japan to equalize the sides.  Although, IMHO, the Axis don’t need help in AARe as formulated, but the allies could use some assistance…like maybe making Norway a Victory City so that the pressure isn’t on America all the time to grab the 10th VC away from the Axis.

yeah I like more VCs too
the more the merrier up to a certain point
AARe is below this point

especially Africa

it guess its easier if we don’t need “equal number per nation”

oh yeah we got side tracked
lets get back to it

still got to answer this

@Cmdr:

BTW, please tell us WHERE the power rankings are to compete in.  Not that I’m worthy of the top spot, but I’d like to practice against more opponents.

I had a thought, having played this rule set quite a number of times now, that maybe it would be more in line with the concept of submarines if you could not hunt a submarine with another submarine without a destroyer present?

This would, of course, make some fundamental changes.  For one, if you attacked a submarine with a submarine and destroyer, it would only be possible for the defending submarine to attack the destroyer in opening fire because it could not attack the attacking submarine until it decides to stay (and thus become automatically detected.)

But it would also allow you to put your submarines in CR range and force your opponent to deal with the loss of income or build more expensive destroyers instead of just dropping half a dozen submarines and forcing you to retreat or attack them.

Just an idea.

In WW2, there was only one case of a submerged sub sinking another submerged sub.  On February 9, 1945, the HMS Venturer, a British V-class submarine, sank the U-864 in an attack in which both submarines were submerged.  See the following site for more information on the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)

All other submarines in WW2 that were sunk by other submarines were sunk while running on the surface.  There were also a number of “friendly fire” losses.  Submarines are now considered a good anti-submarine weapon because of the ability to use passive sonar from the optimum sub-surface location, giving them extremely long detection ranges.  This has been developed since the end of the war.

@axis_roll:

@timerover51:

In WW2, there was only one case of a submerged sub sinking another submerged sub.  On February 9, 1945, the HMS Venturer, a British V-class submarine, sank the U-864 in an attack in which both submarines were submerged.  See the following site for more information on the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)

All other submarines in WW2 that were sunk by other submarines were sunk while running on the surface.  There were also a number of “friendly fire” losses.  Submarines are now considered a good anti-submarine weapon because of the ability to use passive sonar from the optimum sub-surface location, giving them extremely long detection ranges.  This has been developed since the end of the war.

Enhanced is about game play balance MUCH more than historical realism.

Play bu AARHe is you want that sort of game.

Quite a few submarines were sunk in WW2 by other submarines, but all of those sinkings occured while the one sub was running on the surface.  Until the development of the snorkel, subs spent most of their time on the surface, so subs being able to attack other subs without a destroyer present is quite reasonable.  In actuality, having a destroyer attack an enemy sub with friendly subs present has a fairly good probability of the destroyer sinking a friendly sub rather than the enemy.

I don’t know if making submarines immune from each other until detected would make them more or less powerful.  Honestly, my thought on the process was that this would allow America/Japan to put submarines in the water with immunity if the other side did not build destroyers to stop them.  This could turn the tide of a battle or at least force both sides to have destroyers in order to prevent the other side from doing CRD.

But as I said, I don’t KNOW if it will unbalance the game.  I’ve never tried it.

The best counter to a sub in WW2 was a surface escort, be it corvette, sloop, frigate, older destroyer modified for escort duty, or a destroyer.  You should have to deploy destroyers to counter subs.  Subs by themselves were not enough in WW2.  If you want to force the deployment of destroyers, have subs attack other subs on 1, and give the attacked sub a saving throw of 1-3.  Subs can still attack other subs without detection, but do not do it as well as destroyers.

I just dont understand how submarines find other submarines.  Other submarines should at least get the option to retreat from attacking submarines before the attacker gets to fire.  This would still allow you to displace submarines engaging in CRD but still not make your submarines better than destroyers.  After all, was it not the purpose of all these submarine detection rules to help encourage more destroyers to be purchased?

The principal way that US submarines were put onto Japanese subs in WW2 was via Magic radio intercepts and codebreaking.  Royal Navy subs were positioned on exit and return routes for U-boats and their bases.  A large amount of luck was required as well, especially in the North Sea and the Mediterranean, where the British never did succeed in breaking the Italian naval codes.

While subs did sink subs in WW2, the primary ASW ship was and should be for game purposes the destroyer.

But that’s how it is currently.  10 Super Submarines in SZ 52 basically negates any American pressure in the Pacific.  However, if America could purchase submarines in SZ 55 that would require Japan to purchase Destroyers to sink, then America could seed a fleet in SZ 55 for one round before Japan could attack it. (5 Submarines on Round 1, say 4 Destroyers on Round 2, assuming you have Naval Industry and can afford that.)  That’d be good enough to defend with decent damage to Japan if they did have 10 super submarines and a destroyer.

I guess I am just confused as to what you mean by a sub pin.  Perhaps you could upload a map with Japan submarines in the appropriate spots so my blond little brain can understand it?

(That’s an attempt at humor, the map would help though.)

I just don’t see how the Japanese can be easier to pin the Americans with just submarines if America needs a destroyer to kill them.  America would still be able to attack the sea zone without one, with surface ships, forcing the defenders to submerge just as before.  The only difference I am thinking of is that submarines would not be allowed to sink enemy submarines without a destroyer BEFORE giving the defender the option to retreat first.

To clarify.

Japan has 5 Submarines in SZ 55 (all they need for 10 CRD.)

America builds 5 Submarines on its turn (40 IPC, should be easy enough to accomplish, 35 IPC with Naval Industry which means they can do it almost any round they want too.)

Japan decides they want to attack the American submarines because he has Super Submarines (for arguments sake, so does America.)

In the current rules, Japan attacks 5@3 and America defends 5@2.  However, under the change I want, America says “Okay, I decide to retreat before I am engaged since you have no destroyer present to find and fix my location.”  America is allowed to retreat one sea zone, but all submarines must retreat to the same sea zone. (Obviously there has to be a neutral or friendly sea zone to actually retreat too!)

On America’s turn, America can do the same thing to Japan forcing their submarines to retreat and thus reduce the CRD from 10 IPC to 5 IPC.  However, no submarines have been sunk at this point.

Basically, we treat submarines like surface ships.  They can engage enemy submarines, but cannot fire on them until the defending, undetected, submarines chose to stand and fight or turn tail and run.

That’s the point.  The Japanese cannot “pin” America since they cannot sink the American submarines without their own destroyer.

Now you have 10 Japanese submarines in SZ 52 (which basically means you have no army or navy anywhere else on the board since you spent everything on submarines) and America has 5 Submarines in SZ 55.

You attack, America retreats to SZ 54 and builds 5 more submarines.  You attack and America retreats to SZ 55 building 4 Destroyers.  Now it’s 10 American Submarines, 4 American destroyers vs 10 Japanese submarines.

However, as it is now:

Japan has 10 Submarines in SZ 52.  America builds ANYTHING in SZ 54/55 and it’s sunk, probably without loss to Japan.  Game over.  Winner Japan.  No possible solution since America cannot build a fleet to push the enemy away eventually.