What is the USSR sub useful for?

It was used against me in the Baltic, and unfortunately hit and sunk a ship.

It can also be used to stop a National Objective in the Western Med if necessary. Chances are good the Italian Fleet (if it is still around) will not enter the Western Med fearing the British and/or American Fleet.

In short, the sub is used to fill in any gaps.

Although I recognize those players who believe it is totally useless and they can start without it at the beginning of the game if they prefer.

@Cmdr:

I think your math is off.

7 Cruisers = 84 IPC
3 AC + 4 Fighters = 82 IPC

His maths are fine, he said:
7 cruisers and a BC ( 20 ) for 104  ( which is exactly the fleet you proposed.)
3 AC and 6 fighters for 102

That sub can be fun to use coupled with Russian bombers, as a marauder very late game in the Indian Ocean ( around round 5-6 ). Could even get deadly serious for Japan with 2 more subs and bombers stationed in caucasus.

Anyways, it’s not a very useful peice but can in worst case be played as canon fodder if germany uses subs later on.

Germany needs to be building tanks, not destroyers or ships of any kind.  the DD you start with, plus you buy1 DD, 1 Cruiser, 1 Carrier, and your 2 fighters that you start with, is plenty to deter germany from attacking your british fleet.  The cost is 34 for that.  If germany wants to expend her entire air force destroying my ships, go right ahead, but she is going to lose all of it (and that is only the UK fleet mind you, the USA is still around).  As far as the American fleet goes, I only buy 1 carrier, since you start with 2 DD and 1 carrier plus 4 fighters.  America’s fleet will never be in range of all of germany’s fighters, usually just the fighters in france, so two separate groups of 1DD + 1 Carrier + 2 fighters will work just fine.  Sometimes I do buy 1 Cruiser also as America, but I never spend more than 26 ipcs on America’s warships.  All of that money you guys are spending on warships could be spent on transports and guys.  You should have 4 transports with with 4 inf and 4 tanks flowing out of the UK by turn 3.  You should have a chain of around 8 transports flowing out of the USA by turn 3, and that increases all the way up to 12 by turn 5.  You guys need to buy less ships and more boots.  If Germany does actually buy ships and fighters instead of tanks, then you have to buy some extra ships and fighters/bombers too.  But that is great because now Russia can crush a weakened Germany who has fewer tanks.

It’s completely useless.  I’d rather have the 2 extra infantry in Karelia.

Veqryn:

I don’t think you read the scenario (which is pretty common.)  The allies have one or two nations set up to perform 8 shore bombardments each (so potentially 16 shore bombardments per game round.)  If you figure half of them hit, which is realistic since they hit on a 3 or a 4, then you are looking at the loss of about 8 units a round (since Germany can only build 10 units, that’s almost the entire round’s production!)  That could realistically be as high as 12 or as little as 4, but 8 seems appropriate.

Now, most of us choose infantry first, so let’s assume you have a large stack of infantry and that’s your losses.  8 Hits = 24 IPC worth of units lost.  1 Destroyer = 8 IPC and negates at least one nation’s shore bombardments (since you cannot perform a shore bombardment AND attack naval units in the same turn.)  If you negate one nation, you negate about half the hits.  Therefore, you could expect a destroyer build to save 4 infantry.  That is, an 8 IPC investment into a destroyer saves 4 infantry which is 12 IPC in value AND gives you 4 fodder pieces to defend with!

What I propose is, if you go this route, keep the Russian submarine in range of SZ 5.  This could deter Germany from building the destroyer to stop England’s shore bombardments (usually England engages in this, since America goes Africa, Pacific or Russia).  If they do build the destroyer, you can attack with the submarine, that is otherwise pretty useless, and some air power if you have it (I recommend you buy it!)

EM:

I’d trade the sub in for a tank any day!  But we are given the submarine, so we have to figure out a way to use it!

Used against the German DD as described above would be useful.  I modify my statement to almost completely useless. :-D

Comic relief. It can suck to be Russia some games.

The option suggested by Cmdr Jennifer is a useful and interesting employment for the russian sub.

However, it requires some back up from Russian air force. Usually I do not buy aircrafts with Russia in Anniversary, I buy mix of infantry, tank and artillery.

Maybe this potential use is another positive point of buying a russian fighter or better a russian bomber. I should try! :)

Yea, it does, virtually, require a purchase of air power for Russia, but to be honest, I almost always buy some air power for Russia anyway so I don’t have to spend expensive artillery and armor trading land.  If you use a fighter instead of an artillery in 10 combats, you’ve paid for the fighter, right? (2 Inf + 1 Fig or Inf + Art.)  Not to mention, you have better odds of success!

And yes, as I said, there is a use for it, but how often do you get to use it?  Generally, the submarine sits there as a potential threat convincing Germany not to even build the destroyer and allowing England or England + America to conduct their bombardments.  But even then, is it not serving a purpose?  I mean, since it’s there and we’re kinda stuck with it!

On another note, why did Russia lose the transport after Classic???

@Cmdr:

Yea, it does, virtually, require a purchase of air power for Russia, but to be honest, I almost always buy some air power for Russia anyway so I don’t have to spend expensive artillery and armor trading land.  If you use a fighter instead of an artillery in 10 combats, you’ve paid for the fighter, right? (2 Inf + 1 Fig or Inf + Art.)  Not to mention, you have better odds of success!

And yes, as I said, there is a use for it, but how often do you get to use it?  Generally, the submarine sits there as a potential threat convincing Germany not to even build the destroyer and allowing England or England + America to conduct their bombardments.  But even then, is it not serving a purpose?  I mean, since it’s there and we’re kinda stuck with it!

Agreed! But still I like to buy artillery with Russia, that potentially may be forced to trade up to four territories in a turn and so having a couple of artillery at hand is good in addition to some air force.

Oh, I did not mean to sound like I was dissing the idea of buying artillery with Russia altogether, I do purchase artillery with Russia periodically.  No, what I meant was that Russia REALLY needs to have some air power and it’s not hard to spread the purchases out.

I like Bomber Round 3, Bomber Round 5 which means the first bomber cost 4 IPC a round and the second 6 IPC a round.

Definitely your idea is interesting and worthy to be used.

I agree with comic relief.  I have yet to play the AA50 against a human (because I’m waiting for the reprint).  But in the old school A&A games, we used the sub to crack jokes about.  We called it the Red October and that alone made anything done with it funny.  Also, any time the sub amounts to anything is a cause for mass celebration, if it doesn’t amount to anything, no biggie.

@Scalenex:

I agree with comic relief.  I have yet to play the AA50 against a human (because I’m waiting for the reprint).  But in the old school A&A games, we used the sub to crack jokes about.  We called it the Red October and that alone made anything done with it funny.  Also, any time the sub amounts to anything is a cause for mass celebration, if it doesn’t amount to anything, no biggie.

Why not play here on this forum using Battlemap?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/05/world/AP-EU-Russia-US-Subs.html

It has varying degrees of uses.  If there is a fleet perched by a still living Italian fleet it can be provided as very useful foder.  Also, if the UK decides not to kill the German cruiser UK1 the Sub (particularly if you bought russian air R1) can be used as an attack on the cruiser, this could leave the UK with much better options UK2 and the UK does not risk losing a valuable plane.  It can also slip through the med or the panama canal in some games and screw around with Jap shipping and/or provide the US Pacific fleet (perhaps linked with the UK Aussie fleet) with a potentialy important fodder unit .

Both of those options are semi common.  The sub is certainly not universally useless, nor do I think it’s a fringe piece that provides virtually no value in an overwhelming majority of games.  It is a fairly useful and unique unit so long as the Soviet player wishes to dedicate time and thought into using it (and there is NO reason not to), I am glad the soviets have it.  I wouldn’t be suprised if it would contribute to a definate game winning strat in a few cases.

In games where I have been the U.S.S.R I have used the sub, which I quicky announce to the world as Red October, to tour the world’s oceans. It always ends up in the Pacific awaiting for unescorted Japanese supply ship.

the russian sub is useful for the simple reason that you can attack the german cruiser if it ventures to attack the the UK destroyer on G1. after that, it will be useful on a case by case basis.

if the german cruiser fails to attack the destroyer on G1, then the UK has gained by implication, and the sub can perhaps attack the cruiser on R2 if the UK can’t (or chooses not to) attack the germany navy on UK 1.

interestingly, an attacking sub versus a crusier is a 50-50 battle, despite the 2 to 3 difference in combat values, due to the sneak attack capability.

My last russian sub attacked a Jap. DD in the pacific with the help of a bomber.

This allowed the USA fleet to be unblocked and destroy the Jap. fleet.    :evil: