AA50-Is there something we're missing about SUBs??

The sub-problem is not only about subs being obsolete in AAR and AA50, it’s most about the battle of the Atlantic missing completely both in AAR and AA50. Even with subs attacking at 3 defending at 2 if it still costs only 6 ipc, I wouldn’t buy subs with Germany.
Also if subs cost 3 ipc I wouldn’t buy subs with Germany.
What the designers should do is something more radical. Maybe German subs attacking @3, subs cannot be attacked unless detected by DD’s, although all naval units (except transports) should still be able to defend against subs.
Or only DD’s can attack and defend against subs.
Maybe even ports should be implemented.

This is actually not true. For 24 IPCs you could get 4 Subs or 3 Destroyers. The 4 subs would actually beat the 3 destroyers both on offense and defense given average rolls. However, since subs cannot be hit by planes they are still a pretty mediocre fodder unit.

Destroyers protect transports from air and subs do not.
Destroyers negate subs and subs defend at 1
Destroyers can hit air units, subs cant.

To keep a fleet alive nobody is buying subs anymore 4 ones is nothing to 3 TWOS.

The only reason to buy subs is to move thru enemy fleets and attack transports not protected by destroyers.

Subs cant be hit by planes as long as you have a destroyer, making destroyers, not subs even more effective. IN every case destroyers are the unit that either negates, defends fleets better, protects transports better, kills planes batter. Ill take destroyers any day over subs at 2-1.  Subs cant even sub stall anymore making them even more useless.

I’m kind of disappointed that AA50 may just be AA Revised on steroids, as opposed to actually changing the gameplay…

@Imperious:

yes thanks for following the rules!

To not upset those against house rules threads,

They are directed to the proper section, because its easier to find stuff in the long run if related info is in one place and not all over every section. Its not upseting, but its messy way of doing business to have unrelated information in every thread and every section.

Why aren’t the House rules threads for each version of Axis and Allies in Child Boards inside of each of the different versions?  If I only play 1 or 2 versions of Axis and Allies, and I want to look at House Rules, then I must wade through all of the House Rules for each version all on the 1House Rules Board.  Of course, having someone go through all of the House Rules threads to determine under which version it belongs would be a little time-consuming, but it would be quite rewarding in the end.

@Bardoly:

@Imperious:

yes thanks for following the rules!

To not upset those against house rules threads,

They are directed to the proper section, because its easier to find stuff in the long run if related info is in one place and not all over every section. Its not upseting, but its messy way of doing business to have unrelated information in every thread and every section.

Why aren’t the House rules threads for each version of Axis and Allies in Child Boards inside of each of the different versions?  If I only play 1 or 2 versions of Axis and Allies, and I want to look at House Rules, then I must wade through all of the House Rules for each version all on the 1House Rules Board.  Of course, having someone go through all of the House Rules threads to determine under which version it belongs would be a little time-consuming, but it would be quite rewarding in the end.

I like this idea.  Instead of going through old ones, just put the old ones in an “old” house rule forum, where new topics are locked.  The posters can then transfer.

Why aren’t the House rules threads for each version of Axis and Allies in Child Boards inside of each of the different versions?  If I only play 1 or 2 versions of Axis and Allies, and I want to look at House Rules, then I must wade through all of the House Rules for each version all on the 1House Rules Board.  Of course, having someone go through all of the House Rules threads to determine under which version it belongs would be a little time-consuming, but it would be quite rewarding in the end.

because its a bad idea: their is no need for a separate house rules section for each game. Its not hard to click and find what you need for a specific game because it is labeled as such. You can extrapolate that same argument of yours for ANYTHING.

examples:

whys is their no separate child board for X?

X could equal:

KJF threads
KGF threads
G1 strategy
Allied Strategy
What to buy?
forever…

hell no. forget such an idea. never.

@Imperious:

This is actually not true. For 24 IPCs you could get 4 Subs or 3 Destroyers. The 4 subs would actually beat the 3 destroyers both on offense and defense given average rolls. However, since subs cannot be hit by planes they are still a pretty mediocre fodder unit.

Destroyers protect transports from air and subs do not.
Destroyers negate subs and subs defend at 1
Destroyers can hit air units, subs cant.

To keep a fleet alive nobody is buying subs anymore 4 ones is nothing to 3 TWOS.

The only reason to buy subs is to move thru enemy fleets and attack transports not protected by destroyers.

Subs cant be hit by planes as long as you have a destroyer, making destroyers, not subs even more effective. IN every case destroyers are the unit that either negates, defends fleets better, protects transports better, kills planes batter. Ill take destroyers any day over subs at 2-1.  Subs cant even sub stall anymore making them even more useless.

Maybe I should have used the word cheap instead of mediocre to avoid any confusion, English is not my first language. Against other sea units Subs are better fodder units than Destroyers simply because of their lower price tag.

Unfortunately, as you mention, the Subs ability to avoid getting hit by planes is often more of a problem than a benefit as it effectively destroys their to function as a decent fodder unit against planes. I would not buy a sub in the Atlantic, maybe in the Pacific.

All I have to say is that the new sub IS extremly much better than it used to be.

-No auto-death due to a single fighter/bomber  -> A LOT safer subs

-They cost 6 IPC. (25% reduction in price)

-Without destroiers, fleets may be extremly wounderable. Examples of battles:
2 subs versus 2 Carriers 4 fighters. Fighters cannot defend and the subs fights only the 2 carriers which fights with 2 twos.->
The subs got opening fire-> sub advantage. And they can destroy the entire fleet with 2 simple subs.

-Another issue would be ‘kill submarines’ or protect your ‘transports’. Can you do both? Not neccesarily, as
3 transports protected by 1 destroyer would be a tasty meal for fighters/bombers

-One sub versus 1 destroyer and 1 transport. 50/50 fight. However:
if you loose, you lost 1 sub. If you win you kill a destroyer AND a transport!
Conclusions: Subs can strike down BOTH unprotected transports AND poorly defended transport!

Another senario
-3 subs at defence versus 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and 1 carrieer.
Autowin for the attacker? Not neccessarily.
Lets say that the subs kill 1 unit and the ofensive player kills 2 subs. The attacker won the battle?
Not so fast? What do you do? Take out the destoryer and leave 1 carrieer to fight versus 1 sub? Not a god option is it.
Do you kill your carrieer and keep on fighting with 2 fighters and 1 destroyer? This attack is in no way a risk free auto win battle. You risk loosing everything with only moderate unluck. In this senario it is somewhat under 50% to loose your carrieer,
and the fleet remain is one single destroyer, which is a poor defence for your transports.

–-
Ok, Uk will probably seldom buy subs, but:

As Italy i would love to buy a sub now and then. Whenever a british or US navy comes close, I can strike first!
Often as italy you know that your subs cannot be striken down in defence there. And ofensivly subs is the best buy. You can kill whatever tries to come close.

If japan dont build destroyers, US should build a few subs just to potentialy wreck havoc.

Germany might build a few subs in the beginning cuz I doubt UK will be able to strike down their navy in the first round.

I’m feeling a shift in my opinions about subs.  Maybe they will be useful - for the loss i defense, the fact that they can’t be hit by planes without a destroyer is actually pretty big.

To keep a fleet alive nobody is buying subs anymore 4 ones is nothing to 3 TWOS.

This is simply incorrect!
I did not do the math to prove it (I dont bother), but I did a small dice test.
attacker: 3 destroyers:
Defender: 4 submarines
–-
The subs won 7 out of 10 times!

This does not prove this statement

This is actually not true. For 24 IPCs you could get 4 Subs or 3 Destroyers. The 4 subs would actually beat the 3 destroyers both on offense and defense given average rolls. However, since subs cannot be hit by planes they are still a pretty mediocre fodder unit.

but it atleast proves that saying that 4 ones is NO match for 3 twos is completly incorrect.

I’m feeling a shift in my opinions about subs.  Maybe they will be useful - for the loss i defense, the fact that they can’t be hit by planes without a destroyer is actually pretty big.

Great :) Cuz subs are far better this time around than any other verson of A&A.
The navy part of A&A is not perfect, but atleast the new submarine are more interesting than they used to be.  In my view the biggest problem is that BIGGER navies will autokill SMALLER navies.

You could run the test easily on Frood.  Run 3 Artillery attacking 4 Bombers and you get: 56.3% chance your destroyers (Artillery) survive and 41.2% chance your submarines (Bombers) survive.  That means a 2.5% chance of mutual destruction give or take, over 10,000 battles with 3@2 vs 4@1.

In otherwords, 3 destroyers attacking 4 submarines is a crap shoot.  A toss up if you will.

That said, I will again point out that you can look at the individual ability of a unit to sink another to get an alternative representation.  The biggest problem I have had with dice calculators is that they are too rigidly set on the binomial distribution.  For them you can only pass or fail.  They cannot take into account the odds of each result passing on a more subjective basis (which is why I am known as the fleet killer by some.)  When it comes to fleet battles in particular (because its the only place you have units that can be hit and not die) it becomes necessary to look at just how likely it is you could get more or less hits.  Or, in other words, how wide is that variance from the mean?

A destroyer rolling at 2 or less is going to have a flatter, wider bell curve than a submarine defending at 1 will.  Even more so if you start adding in battleships to absorb hits, etc.  On the flip side, you can get more units and more chances with submarines than with destroyers.

Anyway, just thought I would check the numbers, then I started to ramble.

With AA50 subs now having a first strike capability in each round of combat (if no enemy destroyer is present) at only 6 IPCs I think they do have a purpose. This sub will absolutely declaw the 2-hit battleship. And the bomber/sub combination can lay waste to capitol ships at a relatively low cost (assuming you always retreat when your subs are gone). ~ZP

Since nobody is ever going to buy subs as germany, maybe germany should get 1 free sub per round! ;)

As for subs not being able to be used as fodder, it doesnt make much sense, if you order a sub to the surface to fight the good fight, it should do as its told!

@ShredZ:

Since nobody is ever going to buy subs as germany, maybe germany should get 1 free sub per round! ;)

As for subs not being able to be used as fodder, it doesnt make much sense, if you order a sub to the surface to fight the good fight, it should do as its told!

I am puzzled frankly, we have just completed our 4th, 4 player AA50 house game. 
The Allies won for the first time.  After action;
Analysis, the German player did not buy subs, until it was too late. 
In the previous games, Germany had bought a Min of 1 sub per turn.  Axis won all three games.  The German player decided he lost because,
he forgot to by a sub each round, like previous games and  the Allies made it a real two front war and he lost. 
Are we getting different results? 
We have already decided, a normal buy in our games, min. Germany must have 6 INF, 1 Sub each turn, then whatever else you need with remainder of IPC’s.
Again, disclaimer we use Sub Stealth Rule. 
Our results seem to show Subs manditory for Germany.
  A strong sub fleet, combined with airpower, keeps opponent Fleet defense very busy.
Are you finding USA, forced to defend Pacific every game?  We are, Japan is huge.
note, USA also, buying subs to go with his air units.  He was watching the German player’s effectiveness and started the same, one sub per round thing. 
Its, now getting tougher on the Japanese player.
Why would you not use subs?
Would you not trade a 5 or 6 IPC sub unit for more expensive units, all day? 
Its a winning economic trade.
Defend with subs-no, attack-definitely.  Best defense, is a good offense…
Where the hell are those subs!! should be the question of the day.

Bluestroke, you ever go all out KGF?  As in, America and UK dedicate 90% of their resources to dominating Europe ASAP, and managing to sack Berlin before the Axis get Moscow or USA?

@Rakeman:

Bluestroke, you ever go all out KGF?  As in, America and UK dedicate 90% of their resources to dominating Europe ASAP, and managing to sack Berlin before the Axis get Moscow or USA?

Of course, that has been standard move forever(or at least twenty years.)
  Its the standard move in most games I’ve played.  Its not working so, far in our AA50 games.  I note, someone stated in a thread,
" the Axis have the advantage in most new setups." 
They have the hardware deployed.  It takes a little longer to learn, Allies strats.
Allies have to buy and deploy, giving Axis two complete turns, unopposed really.
I remember, when A&A(classic) first came out.  The Axis always won.  Until, we figured out how to play the Allies.  Now, you have to have bids to keep the Axis in the game.
So, Axis have taken 3 out of 4 games.  We stumbled across this by accident, in the first AA50 house game;item:Germany got shipyards on its first turn tech roll.  He began buying 5 IPC subs with his INF buys and trading them with the Allies, before we knew it the Allies were having trouble supporting their shuck shuck ops in Europe.
Meanwhile, Japan left alone ran wild…  nuff said.
  Its too early, to make the broad judgements I am reading.  I am simply asking, why your not deploying sub/airpower combos against aggressive play. 
We have found its slows fleet deployment considerably.
We also note, Italy is much stronger in the Med and Africa then Germany ever was. 
Hell, by the fourth game the USA had begun pulling in subs with his bomber buys and stopped japan for the first time-LOL.
  Either way, we shall see, by the first of the year, different play styles, will have employed variable approaches to the common KGF strat.  We will have an answer.
Do you find this to be the same game as AAR, we find it different, more fluid?

@cousin_joe:

@Bluestroke:

Again, disclaimer we use **Sub Stealth Rule. **
Note: we use the hidden rule-where subs orders are written down on paper and you only see them when a destroyer finds em or you attack out of the blue… and at 6 IPC there are a lot of subs(add improved ship yards Tech at 5 IPC the wolf pack is back.)

Bluestroke,

You are playing an entirely different game here
If the DDs don’t know where the SUBs are, then yes, SUBs will be viable

We are talking about OOTB rules here though
DDs know exactly where SUBs are, and what support units they will need to bring in to finish them off
SUBs are near useless in such a combat system

Short of having to write where hidden units are on paper (which will never fly in online play), I think the simplest way to replicate what you’re doing, is not to have detection of SUBs by DDs automatic.  Instead, have each DD roll a “Detection Roll” to see if SUBs are detected or not…

SUB Detection Rolls and DD-to-detect values
-All attacking and defending SUBs are “Undetected” at the start of Combat. Each SUB has a DD-to-detect value, which is 3 at baseline, and represents the likelihood of being detected (a higher value means more likely to be detected)
-Only DDs can “Detect” SUBs. In the first cycle of combat, prior to Opening Fire, EACH DD in the attacking and/or defending force rolls a SUB Detection Roll. If at least ONE SUB Detection Roll is less than or equal to an opposing SUB’s DD-to-detect value, Those specific enemy SUBs are considered “Detected”.
-If none of the rolls are less than or equal to a SUB’s DD-to-detect value, Those SUBs remain “Undetected.” If there are no opposing DDs, then all SUBs would remain “Undetected”.
-Undetected SUBs may submerge on Opening fire and thus avoid further combat

This would greatly increase SUB survivability and make them much more likely to be used (especially in conjunction with some Convoy Raiding Rules).

Joe, What you say is true.  We are not OOB.  That is why I denote our game,
" AA50 House rules, " and include mention of Sub Stealth.

We do not use Sub detection.  Its OOB Automatic detection  when a DD is in the Sea Zone.  The Sub Stealth only modifies OOB, the fact, you don’t see subs until the DD shows up.  OOB rules except, when your submerge, no one sees the sub, until you pop up or a DD shows up in your Sea Zone.  This is simple and very powerful. 
Your path to attack is hidden.  Its how subs operate, ambush attackers.
Though, I like your detection rules.  I will present them to the guys and see if we can adopt them.  The are very KISS orientated, its hard to get new stuff into our game.
Hell, I try every game to get something in-LOL.

Even if, we did not use this rule, I find subs a useful cheap unit under OOB  rules.  Especially when combined with airpower.  Have you used this combination? 
True, We don’t play online, its face to face 4 player games. 
Face to Face, its the way the game was designed. 
I like the instant interaction of board game play.
I know, Online play would be used by me, if I did not have players readily available.
I could see where management of sub stealth would require a modification of online protocols.