AARe : Enhanced

What I am saying is that I feel a modification to submarine combat may be in order.

You may ENGAGE enemy submarines with attacking submarines, however if the defending submarines are UNDETECTED prior to opening fire (and I believe it goes Detection ==> Opening Fire ==> Attacker/Defender ==> Remove Casualties) then the defending submarines have the option to retreat BEFORE opening fire.

This would allow Japan or America to recover after a bad naval engagement because you would have to bring in destroyers to pin their submarines down and force them to stand and fight.  Otherwise, Japan/USA could easily retreat and build more and keep doing that until they have the firepower to defend some surface ships.

Example:

Japan sinks the American fleet in Solomon Island’s Sea Zone 45 with 1 Aircraft Carrier, 3 Damaged Yamato Class Battleships, 2 Jet Fighters and 10 Super Submarines remaining.

America has nothing left, but America does have 56 IPC.

So America purchases 8 Submarines (Naval Industry would reduce the cost to 7 IPC putting America on even footing IPC wise with Japan’s Kaitens)

Japan attacks SZ 55

Detection Phase:  No attacking or defending destroyers present, all submarines are undetected
Defending, Undetected Submarines decide to engage or withdraw
Attacker/Defender Opening Fire
.
.
.

The only change is that the defending submarines are allowed to chose to retreat before opening fire if they are undetected.  This may make them harder to kill until you get a destroyer, but odds are, it will just force you too make sure you have a destroyer or two.

I know, as I mentioned before, I had not really tested this, I was wondering if it had been tested prior to AARe being released, seems it has not.

I’m not sure if it will help or hinder either side really.  It would obviously help the losing side recover if the winning side has not maintained a well rounded fleet.

As for being more or less expensive, we’re only talking 2 IPC difference.  Remember, destroyers are not 12 IPC anymore, they are 10.  Both sides have 7 IPC submarines if they chose the correct NAs, but those lock up one of your NA selections and for America, that could be their only one!

Basically, my hope is that requiring an attacking destroyer to lock defending submarines into combat before opening fire will negate the “pin” maneuver and give the IJN a purpose in life other than going to harass the British. ^_^

But the US can get naval industry and if Japan does not take Kaitens (and with only two selections you get in most games, Kaitens are not always the way to go) it’s only a difference of 1 IPC.

I guess.  I have not yet seen a game where Germany’s submarines are able to take the Atlantic.  Not saying it cannot happen, just that I have not seen it.

I presume it’s Africa Corps + Wolfpacks for Germany and Banzai + Kaitens for Japan.

Countered with Russian Rail for Russia, Radar + Royal Navy for England and Naval Industry for America.

From what I can tell, that means America can pretty much go 100% against Japan in the Pacific allowing England to tie up Germany and, since Germany is putting submarines in the water, Russia can push on Germany’s front.

But that’s just from my limited experience.

If a sub is detected, but no enemy destroyers are present, does it still have all the advantages subs had in LHTR?

I do not believe so.  After opening fire occurs all submarines are considered “detected” and detected submarines don’t get the sneak shot ability, the way I read the rules.

Axis would know more for sure.

Yeah… I really love these rules, but I hate the way subs were handled, so far… it could have been done much simpler, I think.  Honestly, I have no ideas how subs work, even after trying to play through a game… the game is great, and you really do see more Pacific action because if Japan gets Hawaii, Australia, and India, all Germany needs is a single Russian VC and it’s game over… so the Allies actually send ships down there!  It’s just too bad one of the ships (subs) confuse the HECK outta me!  :cry:

So in other words, if I read it correctly, the defender/attacker may not automatically get to return fire with units hit by submarines if they no longer have a destroyer - even though the submarines are “detected” after the first round?

The simplified rules are a lot clearer.  Thanks for those.

If I attack subs with a surface ship and 50 fighters, once that surface ship dies, is combat automatically over?

If I understand it right…

Detection ONLY matters for the first cycle of combat.  After that cycle, disregard everything about detection.

So basically, the addition of detection is not a handicap for submarines, but a pure benefit.

Also about NAs… for NAs like Russian Winter, can you declare that as your NA, but not actually use it until a future turn?

Except sub on sub… huh?

Other than that, it’s pretty clear now.  Thanks again!

Yea, that sub on sub thing still smacks as a method to make submarines too powerful in my, very most, humble opinion.  I’m going to try to talk Mollari into play testing a few games where you have to find a submarine before you can attack it, even if you have submarines with you. (Likewise, enemy submarines then would be allowed to share sea zones with each other since neither could be attacked without a destroyer present.)

Think that might also make convoy raids harder.

As for NAs, there are times you may want to hold your NA selection.  The allies might want to hold their 4th selection until they see what the Axis are doing, this might change the allied strategy from KGF to KJF in which case maybe the allies want Naval Industry instead of Radar.  Likewise, the axis may want to hold on to an NA as well to see what the allies are doing, or how the dice are panning out.  Maybe they don’t need Tokyo Express but could use jet fighters on the cheap so take Tech Advantage instead.

Is the game imbalanced if played with no NAs (so that it is easier to teach to a new player)?