Subs… what's the point?

One other nice thing about subs is you can use the DD block in the sea as easily as you can an inf block, you must watch out for this vs Japan as many times i have simply DD blocked or been blocked in the pacific.

One interesting thing about that situation, if only i could figure out how to use it, is this.  SZ 51 can only be accessed from the sea of japan by 1 SZ.  Is there a way for the US to buy subs only and use a DD block to prevent the cheap air strike from Japan?  With a UK bomber or two in range you also force Japan to block with more than 1 DD if you have the offensive advantage.

But subs are best for Japan I believe, as the US must come to you at some point in the pacific, and you will get to strike the US before they strike you if desired and a small group of subs can make that difficult.  It also adds a lot of punch to your defensive starting fleet.  Just try to get a G bomber over there to can opener for ya!

OOL = Order of Loss.

Typically people lose the cheap units first and on land this is easy, Inf, then Rt, then Arm, then Ftrs but in naval battles your order of loss will depend much more on what is used to attack and how many rds of combat you anticipate the battle to go.  For example if a group of 6 Subs attack 2 Destroyers, a Cruiser, and a loaded Carrier, and the subs get 2 hits the defender may have to choose to lose a destroy and the cruiser b/c if the attacker survived the counter and the defender lost the 2 destroyers instead then the surviving subs would get a free shot at the cruiser and AC and perhaps sink the whole fleet.  So the attacker can go into the battle with the idea of strafing or just seeing how the battle goes and if the get 2-3 hits the defender has some real tough choices (which have to be made before the defender even rolls their dice).

I have employed a sub strategy successfully multiple times. This has been done primarily as the USA against Japan. Japan’s significant air force is useless against them unless they have destroyers. The key is that you need a lot of them. Don’t buy one or two. Buy a stack of 8. Then another stack of 8. Then another. That 1-2-3 punch is difficult to deal with and puts Japan in fits. Sprinkle in one or two destroyers (purely as blockers in key situations) and one or two transports (on the backside of the front lines) to pick off islands and you’re set. You can keep them in a stack if they are out of range of a destroyer (hint: use a blocker) or you can spread them all over the pacific right before a key attack. Japan will only be able to attack as many spaces as he/she has destroyers. Even if they have a lot, they’re splitting up their navy, and you’ve got a big 2-3 punch to deliver.

I’m not saying it is guaranteed to work, but I have found it to be very effective. I can recall three times that I have gotten to the point (relatively quickly) where Japan no longer has any ships and there is a stack of USA subs just offshore to prevent the building of any. Game over. The people I play always sigh and grumble when I do it, which to me, is the hallmark of an effective strategy. If anything Japan is constantly buying destroyers and expensive capital ships.

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

I can recall three times that I have gotten to the point (relatively quickly) where Japan no longer has any ships and there is a stack of USA subs just offshore to prevent the building of any. Game over.

Subs don’t prevent building in a sea zone. It was true in Classic, but no more since Revised

Think that, it that were as you say, it would be a (another) game bug, because it would be no way of killing the subs or building something able of killing them. You could end in a situation were no winner would be possible: if axis secure all Eurasia and Africa but allies fill the shores with subs after killing all axis navies -> axis cannot exit from the land mass, so they cannot take 15 VCs but allies cannot make a serious foothold because axis would have economic advantage! Japan could even build ICs on their remaining islands just to be sure of never losing them (fill them with inf)

A weird puzzle  :-D

@Funcioneta:

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

I can recall three times that I have gotten to the point (relatively quickly) where Japan no longer has any ships and there is a stack of USA subs just offshore to prevent the building of any. Game over.

Subs don’t prevent building in a sea zone. It was true in Classic, but no more since Revised

I’m sorry, the stack of subs isn’t in the Japan sea zone, it is within two spaces of the seazone and has enough subs to take out a one or two turn ship build. That is to say, if Japan chooses to build all ships and puts them in the water, the USA sub stack can attack and knock them out before they have a chance to do anything.

Well, that’s different. Then Japan could buy dds from FIC or India ICs. Ok, I saw the point, the idea is good  :-)

I agree with Texcap as I have used subs in a similar manner multple times. Not only effective for US but Japan can do the same to the US by building their sub fleet to add to the starting ships and moving in so as to be two sea squares away from Western US sea square. This forces US to concentrate on the Pacific and eliviates Germany from dealing with three on one tactics. Japan should concentrate on the land battle but should never neglect the sea as ultimately it will be their downfall if they do not protect their sea spaces. I have won with both US and Japan by forcing the envelope with subs. Germany can buy subs but must insure that it is not a waste of time and money, it will force UK to build Destroyers and Germany can counter with subs and planes before UK can use their destroyers staying one step ahead; but only if Russia is contained and losing ground. If Germnay manages to gain control of the Atlantic they will most likely win. A good trick is for Germany to purchase an IC on France and build transports and subs in the Med after Italy has moved its fleet to sea square south of France to protect transports, that way Germany can assist Italy and vise versa. This is for the AA50 game on course. This way Germany can defend against allied naval wanting access to the Med and can re-inforce Italy in the Middle East and hit Russia and India from there. Also this will help Italy secure its bonus money. Once the combined fleet is large enough you can move it into the Altantic adjacent to France, so it can reach UK and so you can add new untis to it and stay ahead of the Allies, thus rulling the Atlantic. Remember subs are a compliment to the rest of your naval force and are the cheap units you want to protect your expensive investments. You do not feel bad “trading pieces” with an opponent who is loosing more expensive pieces in return.  :-)

Subs….What’s the point?

War…What is it good for?

good god y’all!

The great thing about modern versions of Axis and Allies, is that there is no one “simple” way to win every single game on a certain side.

Now mixed armies, combined arms, and mobility focus, are what rule the day.

Subs are another tool in the box, To be used according to ones need, They have their very special place.

Take a look at this current game vs DM

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13870.195

This is how the odd sub or two, and good management of local starting pieces and Aircraft, can Keep Japan at bay, while still focusing on the European Campaign.

Nomination for most worthless piece:  Russian sub!

Axis-Roll??!! !?? Are you kidding me?

Perhaps nomination for the most Annoying piece of all time, but certainly not useless,  Too many games I’ve seen have come down to clutch battles involving the russian Sub :S  Definetly not useless,  I wouldn’t trade it for 3 inf or 2 arm on R1 in any version :P (Well maybe Europe :D )

@Gargantua:

Nomination for most worthless piece:  Russian sub!

Axis-Roll??!! !?? Are you kidding me?

Perhaps nomination for the most Annoying piece of all time, but certainly not useless,  Too many games I’ve seen have come down to clutch battles involving the russian Sub :S  Definetly not useless,  I wouldn’t trade it for 3 inf or 2 arm on R1 in any version :P (Well maybe Europe :D )

Hmmm

I think you’re being sarcastic, but I can not tell for sure

either way, I stand by my statement.  Russian sub: worthless.
Unless you are in a longer game (6+ rounds) to get it to the pacific or thru the canal to the indian ocean in combination with some Russia planes… then it MIGHT make the japanese player notice one extra sub.

Certainly not a game difference maker.

Ask Tim The Enchanter if that sub matters at all, and see what he has to say :P

In 1942 russia starts with a fighter and a bomber.  Combined with the sub, you can get some interesting results.

In a recent game, i used them to take out the italian fleet after the yanks weakened it with an airstrike.  While it was a negative result in material terms, it locked down africa nicely for the allies.

You could even plop another russian sub or two in sz16 at about round 3 (provided the italians havent bought a destroyer yet) and you have a mean little threat going on in the med.  Depending on the situation, it could be well worth it passing on a few inf at that point if you can chase out the italian fleet.

The russian sub is also really useful for beefing up the british navy on defence in early rounds when its vulnerable to german combined air/navy strikes.  Might let you buy another transport instead of a destroyer.

@General:

In every game of axis and allies AA I have played… Subs havebeen useless.  Nobody has ever bought any subs.  Destroyers are so esily obtained and massed with a fleet they provide cover from subs.  Germany was famed for its “wolfpack” but in AA germany doesnt even get to build a fleet unless the allies are losing hard.

Can anyone advocate the use of subs for any power in the game?

I can’t.

Sorry if I repeat someone but here goes:

Point of Submarines:

If you build a significant number of them before the enemy, and the enemy cannot keep up with destroyers, you can have a cheaper win.

Odds of Success:

Minimal at best.  Your opponent would have to be pretty dense to let you amass a huge fleet of submarines without having at least 50% that number in defensive destroyers/bonus hits on battleships to soak them.

Realistic Outcome:

Either no one has submarines, or everyone has submarines and no one has a surface fleet.  It just seems that’s where things pan out.  This is awesome since no one can really win the game without surface ships since both sides have an island capitol.