The following are my rules for Submarine Warfare (SW) and Convoy Disruption for the AA50 game:

 Axis and Allies naval warfare rules model surface or fleet warfare quite well , but they do not represent submarine warfare (SW) well. A submarine's best defense is not its guns but the ability to hide and not be seen before or after an attack. SW is a series of battles between individual units or small groups of units. These rules are and attempt to model these two facets of SW.

General:
These rules for SW apply only when all of the attacking or defending units in a sea zone are submarines. If there are any surface ships friendly to a submarine in the sea zone, then Fleet Rules (normal Axis and Allies rules) apply.

Offense:
Submarines may enter and leave an enemy controlled sea zone without engaging in combat. The submarine owner chooses whether or not to engage in combat. A destroyer can end the movement of a submarine only if the destroyer can roll a spotting die roll of 3 or less as the sub attempts to leave the the destroyer’s sea zone. If successful, the destroyer cannot conduct any combat, it merely ends the movement of the submarine. Submarines that attack naval units do so using Fleet Rules (normal Axis and Allies rules).

Defense:
If a submarine, that is not part of a surface fleet, is attacked, it must be attacked by SW rules. SW consists of a series of individual unit attacks and ends when all attacking units have completed their attacks or all defending units have been eliminated or the attacker breaks off the attack. Unescorted submarines may be attacked by aircraft and destroyers. Attacks can only occur after a spotting die roll has been made. Destroyers and aircraft can spot submarines on a roll of 3 or less.
Destroyers: If a destroyer spots a sub, then combat begins between that destroyer and sub. A destroyer hit on a 1 or 2, but on an attacking destroyer die roll of 6, the sub may escape and end the combat. Subs defend normally (hit on a 1).
**Aircraft:**When conducting a SW search, aircraft must expend 2 movement points to conduct a search in any sea zone. This means that fighters may conduct Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) only in sea zones adjacent to their base territory. Aircraft that roll a 3 or less, can make a surprise attack on a sub. Historically, aircraft would search the seas to try to find a submarine on the surface and quickly attack before the submarine could submerge. In game terms, aircraft can conduct one round of combat before the submarine can submerge and end the combat. During any round of combat, both the aircraft and the submarine may attack each other. a defending sub may choose to dive and end combat after any combat round is completed.
Combined Arms: An aircraft and a destroyer can work together to attack a submarine. an aircraft that makes its spotting die roll may choose to skip its attack and instead direct a destroyer to attack the sub, This way, the destroyer can use the aircraft as a spotter and the destroyer can do the combat.

Convoy Disruption:
Convoy Disruption occurs in the Collect Income phase as per Global40.2 rules with the following exceptions. Sea zones that are susceptible to convoy disruption (historical shipping lanes) are marked with “Convoy Disruption Limits”, a C1, C2, C3, etc. This represents the maximum number of IPCs that can be destroyed from that sea zone. Land territories are also marked with “Convoy Disruption Limits”, a C1, C2, C3, etc. this is the maximum IPC loss that can accrue to that territory. Convoy disruption is determined for each sea zone first. losses should be marked on the map with a die to record the damage. After all damage has been determined, the amount that accrues to each land territory is decided by the player inflicting the losses.

Convoy Disruption Limits for the AA50 map (partial list):
Sea Zones: Sz1:0 Sz2:C2 Sz3:C1 Sz4:C1 Sz5:C1 Sz6:C1 Sz7:C1 Sz8:C4 Sz9:C1 Sz10:C3 Sz11:0 Sz12:C1 Sz13:C1
The logic behind these numbers is that more highly travelled shipping lanes can have higher Convoy Disruption Limits than less travelled routes.
Territories: Archangel:C1 Norway:C1 England:C8 NWEurope:0 Germany:C1 France:C2 E.Canada:C1 E.US:C4 Morocco:0
The logic for assigning maximum land losses is that territories that are highly dependent on the import of raw materials and the export of finished products are highly susceptible, like England and Japan. Territories that transport most of their raw materials and finished goods by land are much less susceptible, like Germany and the US. Many small territories like Morocco and NW Europe have no susceptibility at all. Territories that are raw material producers , like Borneo and the East Indies, are susceptible 100% loss.

English Susceptibility:
The Germans correctly deduced that England needed 60 million tons of imports annually to survive. This made England uniquely vulnerable to submarine warfare. A loss of the maximum amount possible to convoy disruption would mean not only economic collapse, but also starvation. No democracy can continue a war in the face of even small-scale starvation, so the following rule applies to England only. If England ever sustains the maximum amount of IPC loss (8 IPC) due to convoy Disruption, then England must sue for peace immediately. England, and the British empire, is out of the game. All English territories become neutral.

After Action Report (the results of one game of play testing):
As the German player, I purchased 2 subs per turn for the first 5 turns of a game. England destroyed about 2 subs per turn throughout the game. I never managed to get even 3 subs in position around England at any time during the game. A mathematical review of these rules show that Germany needs at least 4 subs in position around England to have even a small, 2% chance, of knocking England out of the war. They need 6 subs to have a reasonable, 30% chance, of knocking England out. Furthermore, German losses in submarine IPC value exceeded English IPC losses in units and Economic Disruption. My original rules had aircraft spotting on a die roll of 4 or less. This was changed to try to balance English and German losses.
The original rules said that SW attacks should be done in random order. This was time consuming and everybody hated it. Don’t try it. Attacker picks the attack order.
We forgot to do the 2 movement point expenditure for planes doing a search pattern every single time. We are just so used to fighters flying out 2 and back 2 spaces that we never did a search pattern expenditure. You decide if you like that rule.

The Big Question: Was it fun?
My best answer is “It depends”. I like variety in my games. I like technology, national advantages, event cards, and all other sources of variation in the game. I enjoyed this game because it was different. SW opens up an entirely new front in the war. England could no longer just sit back comfortably and just build up a larger and larger invasion force.
On the other hand, my opponent likes Axis and Allies as a chess game to be played over and over without variation in order to perfect his timing and strategy. He likes low luck and even extra low luck. He hated this houses rule. It spoiled his plans for Operation Overlord and changed all of his timing. SW rules and a maximum German effort to knock England out of the war would change the main focus of the war from the east front in Russia to the North Atlantic. That makes the game feel entirely different.

 I would love to hear about other peoples' opinions and especially their experiences using these rules.

Howdy. My name is Ken Magnuson (Magnum). I live in Sacramento, California.
My introduction to A&A was through the Iron Blitz computer game 20 years ago. I bought the Revised version about 10 years ago, but never played it until about 3 years ago when I met someone through a meet-up site and began playing once a month.
We now play AA42.2 and mostly AA50. We have only tried AAG.2 twice and AAP.1 twice. We would like the play AAG.2 more often, but the 32" map does not fit on a 30" folding table very well. It is also a long game, and would be best if we had a game room where we could leave the board sitting for a week.
The only customization that we use is an Excel sheet that we can use for tracking IPCs. We find a form for tracking IPCs is much better than cash bills or chips. The human mind wants to fill in blanks on any form, so with this tracking sheet we keep up with not only our purchases but also our opponents spending. This way we are much less likely to “forget” purchases or income. There is room for each country to track Starting IPC, -Purchases, + Income, - Convoy, SBR losses, + NO, and Starting IPC for the next turn.
When it comes to A&A. I love variety in all ways. I like National Advantages, Event Cards, National Objectives, and especially Technology. This is unfortunate because the person that I play against 90% of the time is just the opposite. He views A&A as a chess game, to be played repeatedly with no variation, with low luck, in order to refine ones attacks and defenses. We get along well because he likes the Allies and I like the Axis.
I like your website because it helps me to dream of all the possibilities. We can’t play right now because of COVID-19, but I can read from your website and then spend hours daydreaming about things. Cheers to daydreams!

@andy-palmer What I like- This method makes it more likely that a player will get a technology before the end of a 10 turn game. Average time to get an typical technology is just over 4 turns.
What I don’t like- With this method, you pick a technology. If player’s pick their technology, most will pick the same technology repeatedly. This is rather boring IMO.
What I would prefer- Use a universal target value (about 10 -15), and then roll to see what technology you get, when you reach that target value.
My counter proposal-
Step 1: Buy Research Die (max. 1 per turn)
Step 2: Roll Research Die 1d6-1 = # of turns before you get your technology. A roll of 1 means you get your technology this turn. A roll of 6 means you get your technology in 5 turns.
Step 3: Roll Selection Die to determine which technology you actually get.
Even better- When rolling to see what technology you get, roll 2 dice and choose which of the two techs you want. This prevents players choosing the same tech repeatedly, but allows players some ability to direct their own research.

@derek I like the Idea of a towed AT Gun: A2 D2 M1 C4 that can target enemy armor (Tanks & Mechs) on a 1. Self-propelled AT Guns: A2 D2 M2 C5 that can target enemy armor are good too.
I have not heard anybody address the issue of whether or not Armored units can target the AT guns. Both are line of sight firing units, so it stands to reason that both could target each other.
Also, does one Tank activate the targeting ability of more than one AT Gun? That is, If one tank is part of an attack where the defender has 4 AT guns, can all four target the tank? What if 2 hits are rolled? Is the extra hit wasted? AT shot would have no effect on Infantry.
Another way of giving the AT gun a special ability is to give them a +1 whenever enemy tanks are present. This ability would be “activated” on a 1 to 1 basis. This method is not as satisfying or realistic, but it is faster, and fits in with the A&A system better.
Has anybody done any playtesting on this or are we all just arguing hypotheticals?

I would make the escort carriers 7 IPC, but with only 1 movement as they only travelled at 19 knots, not 33 knots like the big fleet carriers.

@gen-manstein You are correct. If all defending units are subs, then these rules apply. If the only attacking units are subs, they cannot hit because they have no spotting die roll. Therefore they cannot see the sub.

@gen-manstein 1) In our playtesting, we had no subs left at the end of 43 (about turn 6).
2) Your other predictions on how sub spotting would change things sounds very accurate.
3) If you have to spot subs first, then you should have fewer Subs on setup.
4) Does it hurt UK by using fighters to find subs? These fighters are huge for defending scrambles.
Answer: These rules were made for AA50 which does not have defensive scrambles. If you are playing a Europe40.2-based game, I believe that UK fighters can scramble during the German player turn and also attack during the UK player turn. You may need to do some adjusting to make these rules fit your Europe40.2 game.

Players would use suicide missions only when they pay off financially.
Since land units are cheaper than aircraft, suicide attacks would almost never be used against land units. Suicide attacks would never be used for strategic bombing because the damage caused is less than the value of the strategic bomber that would be lost. In other words, it would not “pay off”.
The only units which are more expensive than aircraft, are naval units. So, suicide attacks would be used exclusively against naval targets. In real life, air attacks were never made against naval units more than 2 spaces away (about 400 miles) because navies could not “see” naval units that were farther away, neither with radar nor with scout planes. Opposing naval forces could be scouted with submarines, but subs could not keep up with fast surface fleets and sending radio reports was dangerous because it could give away your location. Visually spotting fleets was dangerous for subs late in the war because it put the sub within sonar range of any destroyers.
In short, players never make insane attacks. They only make calculated attacks. Suicide attacks would not break the game, but they would make the game less historical.
I would rather see the game go in the opposite direction and say that strategic bombers cannot attack naval forces more than 2 spaces removed from any friendly units or territories. Bombers can move 6 spaces, usually 3 out and 3 back, but they can’t SEE naval forces at range 3 to make the attack.

@gen-manstein 1) In our playtesting, we had no subs left at the end of 43 (about turn 6).
2) Your other predictions on how sub spotting would change things sounds very accurate.
3) If you have to spot subs first, then you should have fewer Subs on setup.
4) Does it hurt UK by using fighters to find subs? These fighters are huge for defending scrambles.
Answer: These rules were made for AA50 which does not have defensive scrambles. If you are playing a Europe40.2-based game, I believe that UK fighters can scramble during the German player turn and also attack during the UK player turn. You may need to do some adjusting to make these rules fit your Europe40.2 game.

@gen-manstein You are correct. If all defending units are subs, then these rules apply. If the only attacking units are subs, they cannot hit because they have no spotting die roll. Therefore they cannot see the sub.

The following are my rules for Submarine Warfare (SW) and Convoy Disruption for the AA50 game:

 Axis and Allies naval warfare rules model surface or fleet warfare quite well , but they do not represent submarine warfare (SW) well. A submarine's best defense is not its guns but the ability to hide and not be seen before or after an attack. SW is a series of battles between individual units or small groups of units. These rules are and attempt to model these two facets of SW.

General:
These rules for SW apply only when all of the attacking or defending units in a sea zone are submarines. If there are any surface ships friendly to a submarine in the sea zone, then Fleet Rules (normal Axis and Allies rules) apply.

Offense:
Submarines may enter and leave an enemy controlled sea zone without engaging in combat. The submarine owner chooses whether or not to engage in combat. A destroyer can end the movement of a submarine only if the destroyer can roll a spotting die roll of 3 or less as the sub attempts to leave the the destroyer’s sea zone. If successful, the destroyer cannot conduct any combat, it merely ends the movement of the submarine. Submarines that attack naval units do so using Fleet Rules (normal Axis and Allies rules).

Defense:
If a submarine, that is not part of a surface fleet, is attacked, it must be attacked by SW rules. SW consists of a series of individual unit attacks and ends when all attacking units have completed their attacks or all defending units have been eliminated or the attacker breaks off the attack. Unescorted submarines may be attacked by aircraft and destroyers. Attacks can only occur after a spotting die roll has been made. Destroyers and aircraft can spot submarines on a roll of 3 or less.
Destroyers: If a destroyer spots a sub, then combat begins between that destroyer and sub. A destroyer hit on a 1 or 2, but on an attacking destroyer die roll of 6, the sub may escape and end the combat. Subs defend normally (hit on a 1).
**Aircraft:**When conducting a SW search, aircraft must expend 2 movement points to conduct a search in any sea zone. This means that fighters may conduct Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) only in sea zones adjacent to their base territory. Aircraft that roll a 3 or less, can make a surprise attack on a sub. Historically, aircraft would search the seas to try to find a submarine on the surface and quickly attack before the submarine could submerge. In game terms, aircraft can conduct one round of combat before the submarine can submerge and end the combat. During any round of combat, both the aircraft and the submarine may attack each other. a defending sub may choose to dive and end combat after any combat round is completed.
Combined Arms: An aircraft and a destroyer can work together to attack a submarine. an aircraft that makes its spotting die roll may choose to skip its attack and instead direct a destroyer to attack the sub, This way, the destroyer can use the aircraft as a spotter and the destroyer can do the combat.

Convoy Disruption:
Convoy Disruption occurs in the Collect Income phase as per Global40.2 rules with the following exceptions. Sea zones that are susceptible to convoy disruption (historical shipping lanes) are marked with “Convoy Disruption Limits”, a C1, C2, C3, etc. This represents the maximum number of IPCs that can be destroyed from that sea zone. Land territories are also marked with “Convoy Disruption Limits”, a C1, C2, C3, etc. this is the maximum IPC loss that can accrue to that territory. Convoy disruption is determined for each sea zone first. losses should be marked on the map with a die to record the damage. After all damage has been determined, the amount that accrues to each land territory is decided by the player inflicting the losses.

Convoy Disruption Limits for the AA50 map (partial list):
Sea Zones: Sz1:0 Sz2:C2 Sz3:C1 Sz4:C1 Sz5:C1 Sz6:C1 Sz7:C1 Sz8:C4 Sz9:C1 Sz10:C3 Sz11:0 Sz12:C1 Sz13:C1
The logic behind these numbers is that more highly travelled shipping lanes can have higher Convoy Disruption Limits than less travelled routes.
Territories: Archangel:C1 Norway:C1 England:C8 NWEurope:0 Germany:C1 France:C2 E.Canada:C1 E.US:C4 Morocco:0
The logic for assigning maximum land losses is that territories that are highly dependent on the import of raw materials and the export of finished products are highly susceptible, like England and Japan. Territories that transport most of their raw materials and finished goods by land are much less susceptible, like Germany and the US. Many small territories like Morocco and NW Europe have no susceptibility at all. Territories that are raw material producers , like Borneo and the East Indies, are susceptible 100% loss.

English Susceptibility:
The Germans correctly deduced that England needed 60 million tons of imports annually to survive. This made England uniquely vulnerable to submarine warfare. A loss of the maximum amount possible to convoy disruption would mean not only economic collapse, but also starvation. No democracy can continue a war in the face of even small-scale starvation, so the following rule applies to England only. If England ever sustains the maximum amount of IPC loss (8 IPC) due to convoy Disruption, then England must sue for peace immediately. England, and the British empire, is out of the game. All English territories become neutral.

After Action Report (the results of one game of play testing):
As the German player, I purchased 2 subs per turn for the first 5 turns of a game. England destroyed about 2 subs per turn throughout the game. I never managed to get even 3 subs in position around England at any time during the game. A mathematical review of these rules show that Germany needs at least 4 subs in position around England to have even a small, 2% chance, of knocking England out of the war. They need 6 subs to have a reasonable, 30% chance, of knocking England out. Furthermore, German losses in submarine IPC value exceeded English IPC losses in units and Economic Disruption. My original rules had aircraft spotting on a die roll of 4 or less. This was changed to try to balance English and German losses.
The original rules said that SW attacks should be done in random order. This was time consuming and everybody hated it. Don’t try it. Attacker picks the attack order.
We forgot to do the 2 movement point expenditure for planes doing a search pattern every single time. We are just so used to fighters flying out 2 and back 2 spaces that we never did a search pattern expenditure. You decide if you like that rule.

The Big Question: Was it fun?
My best answer is “It depends”. I like variety in my games. I like technology, national advantages, event cards, and all other sources of variation in the game. I enjoyed this game because it was different. SW opens up an entirely new front in the war. England could no longer just sit back comfortably and just build up a larger and larger invasion force.
On the other hand, my opponent likes Axis and Allies as a chess game to be played over and over without variation in order to perfect his timing and strategy. He likes low luck and even extra low luck. He hated this houses rule. It spoiled his plans for Operation Overlord and changed all of his timing. SW rules and a maximum German effort to knock England out of the war would change the main focus of the war from the east front in Russia to the North Atlantic. That makes the game feel entirely different.

 I would love to hear about other peoples' opinions and especially their experiences using these rules.

@andy-palmer Would it work OK if a player rolled 2 or 3 selection dice, and picked which of the 2 or 3 that they want. This would allow players to avoid most of what they don’t want, but not let them pick the same thing repeatedly.

I would make the escort carriers 7 IPC, but with only 1 movement as they only travelled at 19 knots, not 33 knots like the big fleet carriers.

Howdy. My name is Ken Magnuson (Magnum). I live in Sacramento, California.
My introduction to A&A was through the Iron Blitz computer game 20 years ago. I bought the Revised version about 10 years ago, but never played it until about 3 years ago when I met someone through a meet-up site and began playing once a month.
We now play AA42.2 and mostly AA50. We have only tried AAG.2 twice and AAP.1 twice. We would like the play AAG.2 more often, but the 32" map does not fit on a 30" folding table very well. It is also a long game, and would be best if we had a game room where we could leave the board sitting for a week.
The only customization that we use is an Excel sheet that we can use for tracking IPCs. We find a form for tracking IPCs is much better than cash bills or chips. The human mind wants to fill in blanks on any form, so with this tracking sheet we keep up with not only our purchases but also our opponents spending. This way we are much less likely to “forget” purchases or income. There is room for each country to track Starting IPC, -Purchases, + Income, - Convoy, SBR losses, + NO, and Starting IPC for the next turn.
When it comes to A&A. I love variety in all ways. I like National Advantages, Event Cards, National Objectives, and especially Technology. This is unfortunate because the person that I play against 90% of the time is just the opposite. He views A&A as a chess game, to be played repeatedly with no variation, with low luck, in order to refine ones attacks and defenses. We get along well because he likes the Allies and I like the Axis.
I like your website because it helps me to dream of all the possibilities. We can’t play right now because of COVID-19, but I can read from your website and then spend hours daydreaming about things. Cheers to daydreams!

@derek I like the Idea of a towed AT Gun: A2 D2 M1 C4 that can target enemy armor (Tanks & Mechs) on a 1. Self-propelled AT Guns: A2 D2 M2 C5 that can target enemy armor are good too.
I have not heard anybody address the issue of whether or not Armored units can target the AT guns. Both are line of sight firing units, so it stands to reason that both could target each other.
Also, does one Tank activate the targeting ability of more than one AT Gun? That is, If one tank is part of an attack where the defender has 4 AT guns, can all four target the tank? What if 2 hits are rolled? Is the extra hit wasted? AT shot would have no effect on Infantry.
Another way of giving the AT gun a special ability is to give them a +1 whenever enemy tanks are present. This ability would be “activated” on a 1 to 1 basis. This method is not as satisfying or realistic, but it is faster, and fits in with the A&A system better.
Has anybody done any playtesting on this or are we all just arguing hypotheticals?

Magnum - If I was playing with a Heavy Tanks house rule like this, I would let my opponents build them, but I would not build them myself. The 10 IPC cost is too much for me. I would not buy them unless the cost was dropped to about 7 IPC. I also disagree with the fear rule. “Fear” is not cancelled by any aircraft in the area. “Fear” is cancelled by holding a weapon in your own hands that can be used to kill that tank. Panzerfausts, bazookas, and magnetic mines abounded at the end of the war. Infantry feared Pz. IIs more at the start of the war than they feared King Tigers at the end of the war.

@andy-palmer What I like- This method makes it more likely that a player will get a technology before the end of a 10 turn game. Average time to get an typical technology is just over 4 turns.
What I don’t like- With this method, you pick a technology. If player’s pick their technology, most will pick the same technology repeatedly. This is rather boring IMO.
What I would prefer- Use a universal target value (about 10 -15), and then roll to see what technology you get, when you reach that target value.
My counter proposal-
Step 1: Buy Research Die (max. 1 per turn)
Step 2: Roll Research Die 1d6-1 = # of turns before you get your technology. A roll of 1 means you get your technology this turn. A roll of 6 means you get your technology in 5 turns.
Step 3: Roll Selection Die to determine which technology you actually get.
Even better- When rolling to see what technology you get, roll 2 dice and choose which of the two techs you want. This prevents players choosing the same tech repeatedly, but allows players some ability to direct their own research.