A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941

@Tarling:

Fair enough on the points on weaker techs, but I kind of think auto-hitting bombers would be neat, sort of represents the complete saturation from increased payloads.

Yes, but even heavy bombers in reality missed their targets on occasion. And the nature of the game makes it impossible to even come close to accurately representing World War 2 realism. Our goal is to keep the game playable. You want to make techs worth investing in, but you want to try to prevent some techs from being able to turn the game upside down.

A unit that auto-hits would still turn the game upside down. It guarantees that you would always be able to trade a territory without a chance that you could lose the battle. [1 bmb, 2 inf v. any 1 unit] is an automatic win. Nothing should be automatic.

A defense of 2 is useless on something that really never ever should have to defend anything.

Have you even been attacked in a territory where you had to choose whether to lose the bomber first to save an infantry or risk keeping the bomber and it’s pathetic defensive value? I have, quite a few times. As a matter of fact, it happens to Germany in most games and in 42’ it happens to Russia since they start with a bomber, too.

It doesn’t happen every game or to every country, but if it happens to you, you’re begging for your bomber to hit as well as an infantry so you can push it further up the OOL list.

I’m with Perry on the Heavy Bombers problem. It’s just too strong to have 2 dice. I think, I’m not alone on this I know, that this will mean techs will be less used which is a shame now that we finally have a really good tech system.

My fix for H BMBs: if you play with optional rule interceptors: attack on ‘5’, 2d6 SBR damage. If you don’t: attack on ‘5’, 1d6+2 SBR damage.

I’m fine with techs being unequal, I just don’t think one tech should be triple the value of other techs as it is now (Jet fighters: 33% increase attack value, H BMBs OOB: 100% increase attack value, PLUS SBR boost).

The problems with HB:s , is their power vs fleets…

Imagine 3 HB:s VS 2 ftr 1 CV (the most bang for defensive bucks)

attacker

36 ipcs in unitcost
3 ‘hitpoints’
6 dice @4  = 24 attackpower

defender

36 ipcs in unitcost
3 hitpoints
2@4 1@3 = 11 defendpower

It will be really difficult to keep a fleet in the water, when faced with an opponent with HB:s…

Perry that statement is totally flawed as it is using Revised prices and defense stats for the fleet.

HBs can hit a fleet hard. However they do not stand up real well to the counter-fire. You also have to have a landing zone for the bombers.

3 tanks have a 14.9% chance of successfully attacking 5 infantry, yet I don’t hear anyone lamenting how weak tanks are on offense or how over powered infantry is on defense.

Thanks for alerting me!  :-)

Ok, so the numbers are:

attacker

36 ipcs in unitcost
3 ‘hitpoints’
6 dice @4  = 24 attackpower

defender

34 ipcs in unitcost
3 hitpoints
2@4 1@2 = 10 defendpower

But that really does not change the picture, does it?
My point is that HB:s are terribly effective VS fleet, and that you need to spend more IPCs, then a potential attacker, in order to defend against a HB threat.

Sure , landingspace must be taking into consideration. But I do not really think that it does change the calculus that much.

Now lets remove this from the accounting sheets to the game board.

What nations have fleets?
The German Navy is usually gone after UK1 and isn’t all that important anyway.
The Italian Navy is on borrowed time as well.
The Japanese start with a huge fleet.
The Americans have to have a fleet to go anywhere.
The British also for most intents and purposes have to have a fleet as well to go anywhere.
What Nations will normally acquire Heavy Bombers?
The US normally starts working chart 2.
Japan normally starts working chart 2.
The UK sometimes works chart 2.
Germany normally works chart 1.
Italy normally works chart 1.
Russia normally works chart 1 and if they are buying bombers and working chart 2 why is the game still in progress?  :-D
Where will targets for Heavy Bombers be found?
The Atlantic/Mediterranean theater is cleared early and easily enough of Axis ships to negate discussion of such.
With the potential strength of Japan I think a pure KGF is folly in the extreme so I will conclude limited Allied ships in the Atlantic(mostly UK).
The Japanese are strong in the Pacific at the start.
The US should be pressuring Japan in the Pacific.

Given these parameters I think it would be safe to state that most HB vs Navy engagements will be fought in the Pacific. Most of the HB vs Navy engagements will be between Japan and the US. This is WHY I brought up the issue of landing zones for the bombers. Without long range utilizing air assets in the Pacific can be a major headache requiring a fleet to go forth and acquire territory for a landing zone. That right there is money taken away from the pure purchase of HBs. Without working in coordination with Destroyers the HBs cannot touch subs which can neutralize the fleet required for the aforementioned landing zone issue. The aforementioned subs can be dispersed further complicating the issue of pinning them with destroyers.

I am aware in your example you were trying to provide an equal IPC equation to illustrate the fleet killing abilities of heavy bombers. I would not consider a lone fully loaded carrier a fleet nor would you either I suspect. Look at what happens when a well rounded fleet anchored by two or three battleships that can freely soak hits is attacked by a pack of heavy bombers. Watch how quickly the striking power of the heavy bombers goes down as units are lost. Again keep in mind the points I made above about the need to acquire landing zones so I suspect the fleet and air armada of Heavy Bombers will not be comprised of an equal IPC amount of units.

Summary of a long wall of text. Yes Heavy Bombers are nice for attacking fleets but I do not believe they are the be all end all that some people are mentally projecting them to be.

I am not 100% certain but I am gaining the feeling that I would spot the US having Heavy Bombers on round 1 if I could have Paratroopers with Germany on round 2.

Subs are pretty uber.  Even on defense, they cost less per HP than any other unit, and their first strike ability only amplifies that.  They are most vulnerable to Fighters, but their effectiveness against Carriers offsets that.

For 24 IPCs
4 Subs: 8 Attack, 4 Defense, 4 HP
3 Destroyers: 6 Attack, 6 Defense, 3 HP

Even when attacking, Destroyers will only win that battle 55% of the time, but on defense, they win a mere 18% of the time.

I agree that heavy bombers is the best technology.  With their range and attack value, bombers are already the best offensive unit in the game.  Heavy bombers doubles their offensive capability.  No other unit can come close to the attack value of a heavy bomber in relation to its price.

Germany, Britain, Japan, and USA can all afford to purchase a bomber a round in addition to their normal allocations.  After 4-5 rounds, the offensive capabilities of a stack of heavy bombers is sickening.  In every game I’ve played thus far, where one of these 4 nations got heavy bombers early, they have won.

@OleOneEye:

I agree that heavy bombers is the best technology.  With their range and attack value, bombers are already the best offensive unit in the game.  Heavy bombers doubles their offensive capability.  No other unit can come close to the attack value of a heavy bomber in relation to its price.

Germany, Britain, Japan, and USA can all afford to purchase a bomber a round in addition to their normal allocations.  After 4-5 rounds, the offensive capabilities of a stack of heavy bombers is sickening.  In every game I’ve played thus far, where one of these 4 nations got heavy bombers early, they have won.

Have you had any games where both an Axis and Ally nation get it?

Also, another aside regarding Subs.  Fighters can’t attack Subs unless a Destroyer is present.  Hence, if you scatter your Subs, the enemy can’t attack them effectively unless they mass Destroyers, which are in turn useless for ground support.  If America masses Subs and starts doing this, things could prove problematic for Japan.

@Cmdr:

Okay, but first we need to realize that the chances of getting Heavy Bombers is 1 in 36 where as the chances of being able to have 2 fighters and a carrier is 100%.

Where are you getting these odds?
You must be assuming that you only roll 1 weapon die, if so, then this is true.

If America and Britain both get 2 Tech Dice on Chart 2, there is a 52% chance that one of them will get a tech, and a 8.7% chance it will be Heavy Bombers.  In short, with a reasonable investment, they give themselves an 8.7% chance of hitting the “I WIN” button turn 1, and a 52% chance of getting something, of which the other techs will either pay themselves off, or be major boosts themselves.

My full evaluation of techs below:

0 means this tech is worthless to the nation, 1 means it will pay itself off at the very least, though it might require some rethinking, 2 means this tech is a good boost, though it still might require some rethinking, 3 means its a major boost, probably effecting a unit that the force has a lot of, and 4 means that other if this is the only tech researched in the game, your side will have very high chances of winning, all of these keep in mind each sides relative incomes, and assumes that the tech is grabbed within the first third of the game:

Chart 1    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
War Bonds[–1–][–1–][–1–][–1–][–2–][–2–]
Mech-Inf  [–0–][–1–][–[b]4–][–3–][–0–][–2–]
Rocket     [–2–][–2–][–3–][–1–][–1–][–2–]
Adv Art    [–1–][–1–][–2–][–1–][–3–][–1–]
Manufactu[–0–][–3–][–[b]4–][–3–][–2–][–2–]
Paratroop [–3–][–3–][–3–][–3–][–1–][–2–]

Chart 2    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
Jet Fight  [–3–][–3–][–3–][–[b]4–][–0–][–1–]
Radar      [–0–][–2–][–3–][–2–][–2–][–2–]
Heavy Bo [–[b]5–][–[b]4–][–[b]4–][–[b]4–][–3–][–3–]
Shipyard  [–3–][–3–][–2–][–2–][–0–][–3–]
Spr Sub   [–2–][–2–][–2–][–2–][–0–][–2–]
LRA        [–[b]4–][–3–][–3–][–[b]4–][–1–][–2–]

Looking at germany, How in the world do you rank War Bonds in the first 1/3 of the game just a 1 but Super Subs a 2??  After the first turn, germany generally doesn’t ever get an attacking shot off with a sub.  Even if they get the tech, they are rarely in position to safely build more.  The same applies to shipyards.  It would take a HUGE additional investment to be able to take advantage of that (an IC somewhe other than the baltic, or a MAJOR fleet dedication) and I still don’t know if I’d build any ships.  I’d put SHipyards at 0 and Subs as a 0 for germany unless they’re on the first turn and then give them a 1.  War bonds should pay on average 3.5 ipcs per turn for at least 2/3 of the game, which should do more than just "pay itself off’ unless you dropped 20ipcs to get that tech.

@TimTheEnchanter:

Looking at germany, How in the world do you rank War Bonds in the first 1/3 of the game just a 1 but Super Subs a 2??   After the first turn, germany generally doesn’t ever get an attacking shot off with a sub.  Even if they get the tech, they are rarely in position to safely build more.  The same applies to shipyards.  It would take a HUGE additional investment to be able to take advantage of that (an IC somewhe other than the baltic, or a MAJOR fleet dedication) and I still don’t know if I’d build any ships.  I’d put SHipyards at 0 and Subs as a 0 for germany unless they’re on the first turn and then give them a 1.  War bonds should pay on average 3.5 ipcs per turn for at least 2/3 of the game, which should do more than just "pay itself off’ unless you dropped 20ipcs to get that tech.

War Bonds is unpredictable and slow, and it never really gives you the kind of boost that the other techs can.

Subs are perfectly useful and long lasting.  Subs are immune to aircraft unless a Destroyer is present.  With the help of the Luftwaffe against the initial British fleet, a fleet of Subs should have relatively little difficulty sinking any fleets built by Britain before they get a chance to use them, or to work in concert with their air fleets.  If they build Carriers, they will get sunk easily.

While admittedly, this gambit isn’t always going to work, the possibility of permanently disabling Britain’s ability to produce naval units makes it well worth it.

Also, does anyone have the full list of rules regarding Subs?  Its very confusing and changes from game to game.

You advocate a strategy focused on subs, and how the supersub tech is a good boost for germany, but then tell us you don’t even understand the rules for how they work?!?

@TimTheEnchanter:

You advocate a strategy focused on subs, and how the supersub tech is a good boost for germany, but then tell us you don’t even understand the rules for how they work?!?

I was pretty sure I knew the rules, but didn’t have a rulebook handy.  I then found one and read up, to confirm that I was correct.

@wodan46:

My full evaluation of techs below:

0 means this tech is worthless to the nation, 1 means it will pay itself off at the very least, though it might require some rethinking, 2 means this tech is a good boost, though it still might require some rethinking, 3 means its a major boost, probably effecting a unit that the force has a lot of, and 4 means that other if this is the only tech researched in the game, your side will have very high chances of winning, all of these keep in mind each sides relative incomes, and assumes that the tech is grabbed within the first third of the game:

Chart 1    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
War Bonds[–1–][–1–][–1–][–1–][–2–][–2–]
Mech-Inf  [–0–][–1–][–[b]4–][–3–][–0–][–2–]
Rocket     [–2–][–2–][–3–][–1–][–1–][–2–]
Adv Art    [–1–][–1–][–2–][–1–][–3–][–1–]
Manufactu[–0–][–3–][–[b]4–][–3–][–2–][–2–]
Paratroop [–3–][–3–][–3–][–3–][–1–][–2–]

Chart 2    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
Jet Fight  [–3–][–3–][–3–][–[b]4–][–0–][–1–]
Radar      [–0–][–2–][–3–][–2–][–2–][–2–]
Heavy Bo [–[b]5–][–[b]4–][–[b]4–][–[b]4–][–3–][–3–]
Shipyard  [–3–][–3–][–2–][–2–][–0–][–3–]
Spr Sub   [–2–][–2–][–2–][–2–][–0–][–2–]
LRA        [–[b]4–][–3–][–3–][–[b]4–][–1–][–2–]

Your chart is pretty interesting, and I agree with most of it.  (Of course, it begs the question why USA and Japan are rolling on chart 1, or why Germany and Russia are rolling on chart 2.)  I would modify the following:

War Bonds – 0 Japan
Mechanized Infantry – 1 USA, 3 Russia
Rocket – 1 USA, 0 Japan
Advanced Artillery – 0 USA/Brit/Japan, 1 Germany/Russia

Jet Fighters – 1 Russia
Radar – 0 Japan
Shipyard – 1 Germany R1, 0 Germany R2+, 3 Japan
Super Subs – 1 USA/Japan/Germany R1, 0 Britain/Italy/Germany R2+

@OleOneEye:

War Bonds – 0 Japan

War Bonds will generally pay off its cost with interest, so its always at least decent.

@OleOneEye:

Mechanized Infantry – 1 USA, 3 Russia

America doesn’t use Tanks much, and when they do, they are almost always moving 1 space.  I question the wisdom of Russia buying that many Tanks at all.  F

@OleOneEye:

Rocket – 1 USA, 0 Japan

Japan can grab the AA in India and bombard Russia.  It can also move its other AA to Alaska or Midway.  America can move an AA to Britain and Algeria to bombard the Axis powers.  Also, can multiple Rockets bombard the same IC on the same turn so long as they are in different territories? That makes a significant difference in their power levels.

@OleOneEye:

Advanced Artillery – 0 USA/Brit/Japan, 1 Germany/Russia

I think you are under-rating their usefulness.  They allow you to have an Infantry force that is almost as good on the offense as it is on the defense.  Given that Russia starts with 35 Infantry and Germany with 19, its well worth it for them.  Less so for the powers that operate mainly at sea and/or away from ICs.

@OleOneEye:

Jet Fighters – 1 Russia

Fighters are useful to Russia, but they really can’t afford them if Germany goes all out.  They are more useful for long games.

@OleOneEye:

Radar – 0 Japan

Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack.  That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.

@OleOneEye:

Shipyard – 1 Germany R1, 0 Germany R2+, 3 Japan

I agree with the Japan value.  However, Germany can build Sub fleets inexpensively.  Subs are generally safe from UK’s air force, and unless Britain has a Destroyer close by when they are built, will remain so.

@OleOneEye:

Super Subs – 1 USA/Japan/Germany R1, 0 Britain/Italy/Germany R2+

Super Subs are again quite uber.  USA can use it to clear the pacific and keep it cleared, Japan can use it to keep USA at bay, Germany and Italy can dominate the Atlantic, Britain can counter-dominate.  Britain and Italy, I think should be reduced to 1.

Chart 1    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
War Bonds[–1–][–1–][–1–][–1–][–2–][–2–]
Mech-Inf  [–0–][–1–][–4–][–3–][–0–][–2–]
Rocket    [–2–][–2–][–3–][–1–][–1–][–2–]
Adv Art    [–1–][–1–][–2–][–1–][–3–][–1–]
Manufactu[–0–][–3–][–4–][–3–][–2–][–2–]
Paratroop [–3–][–3–][–3–][–3–][–1–][–2–]

Chart 2    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
Jet Fight  [–3–][–3–][–3–][–4–][–0–][–1–]
Radar      [–0–][–2–][–3–][–2–][–2–][–2–]
Heavy Bo [–5–][–4–][–4–][–4–][–3–][–3–]
Shipyard  [–3–][–3–][–2–][–3–][–0–][–3–]
Spr Sub  [–2–][–1–][–2–][–2–][–0–][–1–]
LRA        [–4–][–3–][–3–][–4–][–1–][–2–]

@wodan46:

@OleOneEye:

War Bonds – 0 Japan

War Bonds will generally pay off its cost with interest, so its always at least decent.

True that it is never worthless.  However, since Japan is typically the wealthiest player in the game, a couple extra IPC a turn is less important for Japan than any other player.  The crippling factor is the opportunity cost of not getting some other technology.  Of course, what is Japan doing rolling on chart 1 in the first place?

@wodan46:

@OleOneEye:

Mechanized Infantry – 1 USA, 3 Russia

America doesn’t use Tanks much, and when they do, they are almost always moving 1 space.  I question the wisdom of Russia buying that many Tanks at all.  F

Mechanized Infantry for USA is pretty much only good for re-conquering Africa for the Allies, and then, keep shuttling troops through the Middle East toward Japan.  The utility it gives in Africa makes it worth the money.

I don’t understand the way you play Russia.  It pretty much only purchases infantry and tanks in every version of Axis and Allies I have ever played (along with just enough aircraft to get the job done) – and AA50 is no exception.  Russia absolutely needs offensive ground units that can take a land and hold it, with the Russian tank force often rivaling Germany’s after several rounds.

I am very curious on what you spend Russian IPCs if not tanks and infantry.

@wodan46:

@OleOneEye:

Rocket – 1 USA, 0 Japan

Japan can grab the AA in India and bombard Russia.  It can also move its other AA to Alaska or Midway.  America can move an AA to Britain and Algeria to bombard the Axis powers.  Also, can multiple Rockets bombard the same IC on the same turn so long as they are in different territories? That makes a significant difference in their power levels.

Multiple Rockets owned by the same player may not bombard the same Industrial Complex on the same turn.  Germany’s Industrial Complex could, however, be Rocketed by Russia, Britain, and USA once each.  Both USA and Japan have to invest quite a bit of effort to get a Rocket in position to attack.

@wodan46:

@OleOneEye:

Advanced Artillery – 0 USA/Brit/Japan, 1 Germany/Russia

I think you are under-rating their usefulness.  They allow you to have an Infantry force that is almost as good on the offense as it is on the defense.  Given that Russia starts with 35 Infantry and Germany with 19, its well worth it for them.  Less so for the powers that operate mainly at sea and/or away from ICs.

Heavy artillery production has been a fool’s gambit.  Slow units that don’t attack any better than the defending infantry is a recipe for disaster.  Have you won many games against an equal opponent when focusing on artillery?

@wodan46:

@OleOneEye:

Jet Fighters – 1 Russia

Fighters are useful to Russia, but they really can’t afford them if Germany goes all out.  They are more useful for long games.

In any game that is not decided in the first 2-3 rounds, Russia needs to have purchased at least a fighter or two.  They must be able to trade territories on the eastern front.

@wodan46:

@OleOneEye:

Radar – 0 Japan

Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack.  That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.

If USA is in a position to strategically bomb Japan, the game is over and the Axis should forfeit.

@wodan46:

@OleOneEye:

Shipyard – 1 Germany R1, 0 Germany R2+, 3 Japan

I agree with the Japan value.  However, Germany can build Sub fleets inexpensively.  Subs are generally safe from UK’s air force, and unless Britain has a Destroyer close by when they are built, will remain so.

UK spends the majority of the game with its fleet positioned to attack the Baltic Sea.  It will crush subs as soon as Germany places them.  If necessary, it can afford a 1 destroyer screen to be left in SZ6 while the fleet does other things.

There are situational times when purchasing a German fleet can work, and certainly if you start from the first round.

@wodan46:

@OleOneEye:

Super Subs – 1 USA/Japan/Germany R1, 0 Britain/Italy/Germany R2+

Super Subs are again quite uber.  USA can use it to clear the pacific and keep it cleared, Japan can use it to keep USA at bay, Germany and Italy can dominate the Atlantic, Britain can counter-dominate.  Britain and Italy, I think should be reduced to 1.

We clearly have a difference of opinion on the utility of submarines.  I do enjoy the humor of Russia’s Red Oktober who has spent many games leisurely sailing around the world, visiting different ports of call.

@OleOneEye:

True that it is never worthless.  However, since Japan is typically the wealthiest player in the game, a couple extra IPC a turn is less important for Japan than any other player.  The crippling factor is the opportunity cost of not getting some other technology.  Of course, what is Japan doing rolling on chart 1 in the first place?

As you said yourself, there really isn’t much of an opportunity cost cause chart 1 is weak for Japan anyways.  However, if Japan is not careful, a British IC in Australia combined with an aggressive USA could result in them having less money than you might think.

@OleOneEye:

Mechanized Infantry for USA is pretty much only good for re-conquering Africa for the Allies, and then, keep shuttling troops through the Middle East toward Japan.  The utility it gives in Africa makes it worth the money.

I suppose it would let them blitz into Russia/East Asia pretty fast, but shouldn’t America be targeting one of the Axis members directly with their forces rather than liberating their distant holdings?

@OleOneEye:

I don’t understand the way you play Russia.  It pretty much only purchases infantry and tanks in every version of Axis and Allies I have ever played (along with just enough aircraft to get the job done) – and AA50 is no exception.  Russia absolutely needs offensive ground units that can take a land and hold it, with the Russian tank force often rivaling Germany’s after several rounds.

I am very curious on what you spend Russian IPCs if not tanks and infantry.

Even if Russia intends to take territory and hold it, why would they need to transport Infantry to get there?  Also, I don’t really see any advantage to Russia building Tanks rather building solely Infantry.  Both of them are really just delay tactics until Germany gets reamed from behind by someone, anyways.  Germany won’t have enough forces to break into Moscow until turn 5 if Russia masses Infantry, and that requires them to be neglectful elsewhere.

@OleOneEye:

Multiple Rockets owned by the same player may not bombard the same Industrial Complex on the same turn.  Germany’s Industrial Complex could, however, be Rocketed by Russia, Britain, and USA once each.  Both USA and Japan have to invest quite a bit of effort to get a Rocket in position to attack.

Not really.  The Indian AA is already in range of Russia.  The Japanese AA can be moved into Alaska on the first turn, in theory, putting it in range of West US.

@OleOneEye:

Heavy artillery production has been a fool’s gambit.  Slow units that don’t attack any better than the defending infantry is a recipe for disaster.  Have you won many games against an equal opponent when focusing on artillery?

Fair enough.  Still think that Russia can get some use out of it though.  They have 30+ Infantry to start, getting a bunch of Artillery can allow them to push back Germany more cheaply than with the vulnerable Tanks.

@OleOneEye:

In any game that is not decided in the first 2-3 rounds, Russia needs to have purchased at least a fighter or two.  They must be able to trade territories on the eastern front.

Perhaps I’m just bad at estimating the long game.  I’ve played mainly Revised, and most games get decided by turn 3.  However, if Russia builds a fighter or two, then it makes it more likely that the game is decided in those first rounds, because if their front forces got demolished without any backups, gameover.

@OleOneEye:

@wodan46:

Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack.  That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.

If USA is in a position to strategically bomb Japan, the game is over and the Axis should forfeit.

If Japan has radar AND masses Subs, there is no feasible way for USA to threaten Japan period, regardless of how well or poorly the game goes for Japan.

@OleOneEye:

UK spends the majority of the game with its fleet positioned to attack the Baltic Sea.  It will crush subs as soon as Germany places them.  If necessary, it can afford a 1 destroyer screen to be left in SZ6 while the fleet does other things.

Destroyers have a move of 2, as do Subs.  If Germany builds a group of them on second turn and Britain does not already have a Destroyer nearby, they simply sink any Destroyer that comes into range (air support is nice), or for that matter any naval unit, and with luck can dominate the Atlantic.  If Britain wises up and places a Destroyer blocking the exit to the Sea AND another one behind it, then the Subs should kill the Destroyer, then spread out into 3 different Sea Zones.

Also, in countering my other posts, many people have suggested that Britain build mostly Bombers turn 1.  Airforces will do nothing against a Sub fleet.

@OleOneEye:

We clearly have a difference of opinion on the utility of submarines.  I do enjoy the humor of Russia’s Red Oktober who has spent many games leisurely sailing around the world, visiting different ports of call.

Subs are just hard to use, because they are the most different unit in the game.  However, they can potentially have incredible yield, completely denying access to whole oceans if you are fortunate.