G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[Flashman]

I’m inclining towards fewer, bigger sea zones; for example the North Atlantic as one giant SZ. Ships crossing the pond therefore cannot simply avoid subs, as any within the NASZ can roll for interception.

Essentially ships would start “in port” in USA/Canada and make a crossing attempt to dock in Europe; all enemy subs present get interception rolls. Similarly, planes and destroyers “hunting” subs would need to make search rolls before engaging them.

Surface fleets hunting each other would also need to make search rolls before they come into contact, modified by such factors as number of planes in the fleet and so forth.

Ships would be allowed to cross just one SZ border within a turn, each port-to-open sea or vise versa move counting as one movement point.

Land based fighters would not be considered to have the range to participate in naval battles except, perhaps, when a fleet is attempting amphibious assault.

[The Hessian]

Hey Folks,

the current discussion has some very good points. Some of the biggest flaws of the original rules concerning Subs are the possibility to detect an unlimited number of Subs with just one single destroyer. In our games we’ve limited this with great success to just three subs that can be detected by each destroyer. (Maybe even this ratio could be reduced to a 1:2 od 1:1 base…)

A second point is the unhistorical capability of Subs to sink other Subs. There was only one case in which a submerged Sub was able to sink another submerged Sub. (And to me this seemed to be a very lucky shot.) So I would appreciate such a change of the rules very much.

To increase the capabilities of submarines I like the idea of Baron Munchhausen: “_When a Sub gets a hit on attack, the attacker can choose as casualty either a Transport or a hit on warships_” but I suggest this should be limited only to successful delivered surprise shot (since in this case DE’s were not able to fulfill one of their main purposes of protecting the transports.)

Greetings,
Lars

[baron Münchhausen]

@The:

Hey Folks,

the current discussion has some very good points. Some of the biggest flaws of the original rules concerning Subs are the possibility to detect an unlimited number of Subs with just one single destroyer. In our games we�ve limited this with great success to just three subs that can be detected by each destroyer. (Maybe even this ratio could be reduced to a 1:2 od 1:1 base�)

Do you use dice roll or an auto  detect rule?
According to Sub rule I suggested, 1 DD can block only 1 Sub. All additional Subs can escape by submerging. If they don’t, they can also be hit.
Is your 3:1 roll different?
Example: 1 DD and 6 planes looking for 4 Subs. 3 Subs auto-detect. But the fourth one can take a free roll against DD too?

@The:

A second point is the unhistorical capability of Subs to sink other Subs. There was only one case in which a submerged Sub was able to sink wanother submerged Sub. (And to me this seemed to be a very lucky shot.) So I would appreciate such a change of the rules very much.

In fact, there was a few more US Submerged Subs killing unsubmerged INJ Subs.
But it is still a rare occurance.

To increase the capabilities of submarines I like the idea of Baron Munchhausen: When a Sub gets a hit on attack, the attacker can choose as casualty either a Transport or a hit on warships but I suggest this should be limited only to successful delivered surprise shot (since in this case DEs were not able to fulfill one of their main purposes of protecting the transports.)

Greetings,
Lars

As per my Sub HR, only attacking Subs have a First Strike @2.
Only attacker can pick either 1 TP or 1 ship within warships group, if he gets a hit.
Since Sub always have First Strike, attacker always choose, but owner’s still select which individual unit is sunk.

[The Hessian]

In our games each DD automatically detects three enemy SS in the same SZ. (Keep it simple… :wink:)

So according to your example (1 DD & 6 Ftr vs 4 SS) the DD detects 3 of the 4 SS; so they can be attacked by the panes. The 4th (undetected) SS has the option either to withdraw from the fight or take his surprise shot against the DD. If any of the SS scores a hit, the DD is sunk and the subs may no longer be attacked by the fighters.

According to your “Pacific” example, I was only refering to submerged subs. (As far as I’ve understood WW2 technology and tactics most subs fought submerged; in contrast to their WW1 predecessors.)

“_Since Sub always have First Strike_” I thought only undetected subs have the “first strike option” (@2 in attack & @1 while defending) while detected subs fire along with all other vessels. At least this is the way we handle this in our games…

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

I think there are two or three aspects of Axis & Allies in particular which makes sub building difficult to foster (particularly for Powers with a minimal naval presence):

2. Decreasing Entropy:  Players know that there is strength in numbers and the smart ones make a point to limit the ability for the enemy to intercept weaker fleets or individual ships. The beginning game setup reflects a large degree of entropy (randomness) among navies. This is why Britain gets torched on Turn 1. Their ships are spread out and highly vulnerable. This entropy rapidly collapses upon itself once players have control over things. As the game progresses, ships are more tightly packed and there are precious few that are vulnerable as targets of opportunity.

3. Subs are too vulnerable (disposable) OOB:   Baron’s rules do much to enhance the survivability of subs. With OOB rules, a single destroyer along with a cruiser and a fighter can decimate a bunch of subs because the subs cannot escape. This is not entirely true to life and if we want subs to be more survivable and therefore useful, I think we need to revisit the destroyer-sub interaction. Baron has already done this and addressed it pretty well. Subs are still vulnerable because they are low cost and poor on defense, but the ability to get away from a battle is their only advantage which I think should be more prominent. Combine this with the ability to shoot at passing ships (Interdiction as suggested by Cmdr. Jennifer) when not your turn, and I think we will have made subs more useful for Germany.
   The question becomes how Germany (or the US in the Pacific) can employ subs effectively. The current situation allows for Germany to be effective with their sub fleet for Turn 1 and usually Turn 2, depending on how many survive. After that, they are fighting an uphill battle against the UK in terms of naval production. It should be tough for Germany to keep the U-boat war going, but they need some significant motivation. I think it really needs to be painful for Britain too.

As for the Pacific, I believe the US waged a far more complete and devastating sub war against Japan than Germany ever did at its peak against the UK. In the games I play, the US player rarely buys subs because they can afford bigger and more useful ships. I don’t know how that matches up with everyone else’s experience. I think if you want to force some naval action in the Pacific, it likewise needs to be a viable strategy for the US to Sub-choke Japan into oblivion. It needs to be economically painful and dangerous for Japan to ignore the Pacific, just as it should be for Britain to ignore U-boats. This threat can prevent Japan from focusing entirely on the cross-asia route.

You unveiled some valid points, here too.
Axis and Allies on water can become a kind of Risk staking strategy. In PTO, US vs Japan, I don’t know if there is a way to not come to this strategy with Dead-zoning many SZs with 1 big stack of warships.

About Jen Sub rule, I don’t believe this situation occurs so often. And it occurs mostly because TPs and Subs cannot control SZ and affect each other (except now, with OOB 2nd Ed rule, which forbid unescorted TP to unload in a Sub infested SZ.
If changing for allowing each Sub to make a single roll @1 against trespasser in their SZ would probably put an end to the maneuver above and become a direct attack on Subs on the path.
2 or 3 Subs can become virtual blockers.

I’m not against it, I only wonder if adding this not so complex rule is aiming at the goal. You are a more experienced player than I am, so I let it to your judgement. If you think so, then I agree.

[The Hessian]

@The:

As far as I’ve understood WW2 technology and tactics most subs fought submerged; in contrast to their WW1 predecessors.

But maybe I’m wrong with this assumption. In this case, please ignore what I’ve wrote about Subs vs Subs… :-)

[baron Münchhausen]

@The:

“_Since Sub always have First Strike_” I thought only undetected subs have the “first strike option” (@2 in attack & @1 while defending) while detected subs fire along with all other vessels. At least this is the way we handle this in our games…

OOB, you are right Sub cost 6, A2 D1 and gets Surprise Strike if no DD is present.

In my redesign Sub suggestion, DD cost 6 and block 1:1 Sub’s Submerge and Stealth Move, but can’t affect the Sub’s Surprise Strike (at 5 IPCs vs 6 IPCs, A2 first strike vs D2, the IPC ratio already put DD at the same OOB AACalc odds of 6 IPCs vs 8 IPCs, A2 vs D2)

OOB odds: 88% vs 11%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=8&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=6&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Redesign odds: 88% vs 12%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=6&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=5&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Simpler to let Sub, cost 5, attack A2 First strike all the time, but defend @1 regular.
Anyway, you would need Destroyer as fodder and to attack Sub, because they can Submerge, if their is no DD.

@Baron:

Unit type
Cost   Combat values
Special abilities

SUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth Move

DESTROYER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.

TRANSPORT
8 IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.

Undecided: Submarine’s Stealth Move and No Control of Sea Zone still afford 1 single shot @1 per Submarine unit against any warships or transports passing by in the same SZ.

[baron Münchhausen]

@The:

In our games each DD automatically detects three enemy SS in the same SZ. (Keep it simple… :wink:)

So according to your example (1 DD & 6 Ftr vs 4 SS) the DD detects 3 of the 4 SS; so they can be attacked by the planes. The 4th (undetected) SS has the option either to withdraw from the fight or take his surprise shot against the DD. If any of the SS scores a hit, the DD is sunk and the subs may no longer be attacked by the fighters.

Thanks for your answer.
So, your DD blocks/detects on 1:3 ratio, while mine is at the lower 1 DD:1 Sub ratio blocks/detects.

And as OOB, in the example, if all 6 Fighters and 1 DD gets 4 hits, even if there is 3 detected Subs and 1 unsubmerged but undetected sub, it would be sunk too. Right?

[LHoffman]

@The:

@The:

As far as I’ve understood WW2 technology and tactics most subs fought submerged; in contrast to their WW1 predecessors.

But maybe I’m wrong with this assumption. In this case, please ignore what I’ve wrote about Subs vs Subs… :-)

It depends what you mean by submerged… Even in WWII, the vast majority of the submarines used were not truly underwater vessels. They spent a great deal of time on the surface using diesel engines to recharge the electric motors they used when submerged. This is why the default status of a sub in Axis and Allies is surfaced and not submerged. This would contrast with today’s submarines which are totally underwater vessels and stay submerged for months at a time.

Most of a sub’s combat was conducted either at periscope depth or when effectively surfaced. This made them vulnerable to detection, but was the only reliable way of targeting enemy shipping. Sonar was less reliable and visual contact was essential.

[The Hessian]

@Baron:

So, your DD blocks/detects on 1:3 ratio, while mine is at the lower 1 DD:1 Sub ratio blocks/detects.

Yes, but maybe we are going to change this ratio to 1:1…

@Baron:

And as OOB, in the example, if all 6 Fighters and 1 DD gets 4 hits, even if there is 3 detected Subs and 1 unsubmerged but undetected sub, it would be sunk too. Right?

Not necessarily, but in this case, yes.
Since aircraft can only score hits on detected subs, you have to seperate the rolls of the DD and the fighters. A hit caused by the DD can be taken by any SS (owner of the SS’s choice) and a’Ftr-hit’ may be assigned only to the three detected Subs.
(According to the way A&A is played in our Group, the ‘Ftr-hit’s’ must be assigned first.)

[barney]

My understanding was subs preferred to take out merchant ships with their deck gun so they could preserve torpedos. When facing a warship they would attack submerged. I’m sure there were exceptions.

So if the non detected sub scores on it’s first strike the DD dies and it and the planes can’t shoot at anything ? Otherwise the planes get at least one round to shoot at the other 3 ?

[baron Münchhausen]

Here is a schematic NO which can be use for either Germany or USA:
+5 IPCs if at least 1 enemy’s Convoy SZ is disrupted.
+10 IPCs if 2 different enemy’s Convoy SZ is disrupted. Not two SZs from the same enemy.
Example: Germany disrupting 1 UK and 1 US SZ gives 10 IPCs. US disrupting Japan and Italy gives 10 IPCs.
At 5 IPCs, it can replace 1 lost Sub.

Another NO for PTO, Japan and USA.
+3 IPCs per Pacific islands conquered during the turn.
Basically an incentive to do continuous Island hopping.

Maybe all these NO can become universal objectives bonus?
So Anzac and UK pacific can also do them.
Or UK and Italy on Convoy raiding.

[barney]

Island hopping NO sounds interesting. Would that be for the valueless islands only or all ? I would think the former as the latter already have incentive to be attacked. You could add the 1 dollar ones too.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

You unveiled some valid points, here too.
Axis and Allies on water can become a kind of Risk staking strategy. In PTO, US vs Japan, I don’t know if there is a way to not come to this strategy with Dead-zoning many SZs with 1 big stack of warships.

I think there is a better chance of fostering this in the Pacific, mostly because there are more sea zones to use and (possibly) more objectives to cover. This could necessitate the spreading of forces. I don’t know how it would work out though.

@Baron:

About Jen Sub rule, I don’t believe this situation occurs so often. And it occurs mostly because TPs and Subs cannot control SZ and affect each other (except now, with OOB 2nd Ed rule, which forbid unescorted TP to unload in a Sub infested SZ.

No, I don’t think it occurs often either. Transports are rarely left unprotected or even under-protected. However, I would modify Jen’s rule to allow shots at any passing ships (not just transports). This would be a one-shot per sub. The passing ships may only defend with any destroyers present in their fleet (again, just one shot). Those subs that survive simply submerge and the fleet continues on. This makes subs more useful, dangerous and doesn’t subject them to being totally wiped out by engaging a larger fleet and letting all the ships defend. This does not mean that subs become blockers because the ships  continue on their mission as if nothing happened. It is kind of like AA fire, but in the water. Amphib assaults could still be made in a SZ containing enemy subs, you just do this combat first.

@Baron:

If changing for allowing each Sub to make a single roll @1 against trespasser in their SZ would probably put an end to the maneuver above and become a direct attack on Subs on the path.

It could. Meaning it might make people want to group ships even more to defend against this ability. But subs won’t get an all out attack; it will only ever be 1 shot per sub. So the net effect will be the same if you have 2 ships in your fleet or 20 ships. We could even say, not to exceed the number of ships in the passing fleet. So if you have 3 subs and there are only 2 enemy ships, the subs only get 2 shots. I don’t know.

@Baron:

2 or 3 Subs can become virtual blockers.

Virtually, I suppose. It will be up to the other person to decide if it is worth the risk. The point is that they are not legitimate blockers and passage is still possible. Again, I liken it to AA shots for the water. Although it is more like the old way of playing with AA; any territory you flew over could shoot, not just the one you were attacking. That isn’t realistic for air combat, but it is realistic on the water. This may foster more destroyer buying since destroyers will be the only ones that can defend.

@Baron:

I’m not against it, I only wonder if adding this not so complex rule is aiming at the goal. You are a more experienced player than I am, so I let it to your judgement. If you think so, then I agree.

Depends what the goal is. If it is to make subs more useful then I definitely think this is the way to go. However, if people generally think they are fine with the mechanics as they stand OOB then there is no reason to adopt the rule. Interdiction is a rule that will help Germany and the US in particular. It could have larger effect for Italy because they are a maritime power who is cash strapped. Since a sub is the cheapest option, this may be a huge boon to their war effort assisting Germany.

As for my experience… I have been playing for 11 years or so, but I am definitely not a guru. I haven’t “scienced the $#!&” out of this game like some people have, I tend to just make observations based on personal experience. But I like tinkering with the rules in hopes of improving something. Ultimately, adoption for a lot of these modifications will have to be on an individual basis. There are few things that everyone will agree on as something they want to use.

[LHoffman]

@barney:

My understanding was subs preferred to take out merchant ships with their deck gun so they could preserve torpedos. When facing a warship they would attack submerged. I’m sure there were exceptions.

I think it depended on the tactical situation at hand, but yes. My point was that even at periscope depth (for attack) a sub was not truly submerged. They were still very near the surface, could be seen, depending on the conditions and were therefore more vulnerable to attack.

[The Hessian]

@LHoffman:

It depends what you mean by submerged… […] Most of a sub’s combat was conducted either at periscope depth…

This is exactly what I mean by “submerged”.
Since the best (or only) way to detect a submerged sub is by sonar, such a sound impulse would warn a targeted sub and only gave them two choices: to dive as deep as possible or to go on an Evasion course; both in the hope of not being hit by the enemy. Since it is not very easy to hit a submerged sub by a depth charge, I assume it nearly impossible to kill it by a Torpedo.

According to the possibility that a sub could be seen if it operates on periscope depth, I bet they would break off the action due to their vulnerability to surface ships, especially destroyers, and their depth charges. (Always depending upon the tactical situation, of cause.)

Maybe my view about submarine-warfare in WW2 is influenced a bit too much by the movie “Das Boot”.

[LHoffman]

@The:

Maybe my view about submarine-warfare in WW2 is influenced a bit too much by the movie “Das Boot”.

That is definitely not a bad thing. Das Boot has the reputation of being the most realistic cinematic portrayal of WWII submarine warfare. It is a great movie to be sure. It has been a while since I watched it, but I believe that both of our statements reflect how they fought battles: either periscope depth or on the surface. As I recall the only time they were really submerged in battle is when they were running or hiding from enemy destroyers. I think they would fire torpedoes from periscope depth and then dive to avoid any approaching ships. They would listen for timed explosions to know if they hit their targets.

[CWO Marc]

@LHoffman:

@The:

Maybe my view about submarine-warfare in WW2 is influenced a bit too much by the movie “Das Boot”.

That is definitely not a bad thing. Das Boot has the reputation of being the most realistic cinematic portrayal of WWII submarine warfare. It is a great movie to be sure. It has been a while since I watched it, but I believe that both of our statements reflect how they fought battles: either periscope depth or on the surface. As I recall the only time they were really submerged in battle is when they were running or hiding from enemy destroyers. I think they would fire torpedoes from periscope depth and then dive to avoid any approaching ships. They would listen for timed explosions to know if they hit their targets.

WWII German diesel-electric subs, like most subs of that era, were “diving boats” or “submersible boats” rather than true submarines.  They submerged when it was useful for them to do so – chiefly to escape enemy destroyers or enemy aircraft – but there were many factors which encouraged them to operate on the surface as much as possible.  First, they had to do so to recharge their electric motors (unless they had a snorkel, a device which created problems of its own).  Second, they were faster on the surface than submerged (unlike modern nuclear subs, whose hydrodynamic shape makes them faster submerged than surfaced).  The speed disadvantage of being submerged made it more difficult for them to line up for a torpoedo underwater; a surfaced U-boat was often faster than a cargo ship, but not necessarily a submerged one.  Third, as has been mentioned, surface attacks against defenseless transports (to, um, coin a phrase) gave the U-boat commander the option to use his deck gun rather than an expensive torpedo…though crewmembers were always glad to unload a bulky torpedo because they were so squeezed for space.  Fourth – and this is where the British ran into serious trouble in the early years of the war – nighttime surface attacks by U-boats were very hard to defend against prior to about 1942.  The British had assumed prior to WWII that ASDIC (aka sonar) would solve the submarine problem…but that was based on the assumption that U-boats would attack convoys while submerged.  Doenitz realized that a surfaced U-Boat could not be detected by sonar (whether by day or by night) and that a surfaced U-Boat could not be detected visually at night (unless a convoy starts firing star shells, which of course no convoy commander in his right mind would do unless he’s already under attack because it would give away the convoy’s position).  And crucially, early long-wave British radars were too coarse to pick the small echo of a surfaced U-boat out of the surrounding surface clutter of the waves.  It was only around 1942, when centimetric radar became more widely available, that escorts were finally able to detect a surfaced U-boat at night.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

Island hopping NO sounds interesting. Would that be for the valueless islands only or all ? I would think the former as the latter already have incentive to be attacked. You could add the 1 dollar ones too.

If all islands on Pacific map can be fight for 3 IPCs plus any regular IPCs value on the TTy, this can create much more skirmishes at sea also: less 1 pack only fleet.

And maybe a small Task force such as 2 Cruisers, 1 Transport and 1 Destroyer, able to move 3 spaces anywhere can be useful to fight over lesser strategic objectives, but still worth some economic reward, such as 3 IPCs per conquered island each turn.

Note: any unconquered or uncontested island gives nothing more than TTy value to the owner.

I prefer 1 general rule over exception such as money islands worth x, 1 IPCs island worth y and 0 IPC island worth z.

[Jennifer]

Been a bit since I could go through the thread…sorry.  Few ideas based on what I skimmed:

What if we gave Aircraft Carriers AA abilities (after all, they were bristling with AA Guns.)  Each carrier gets 3 AA Gun shots per normal AA Gun rules (so if you have radar, that’s @2, else it’s @1, first round only, opening fire.)  Boost the cost of the Carrier if need be to balance it out.

Transports:  Cost 7, Move 2, Attack 0, Defend 0, Must be last units selected as casualties after all other potential units are hit (if you bring them in with attackers - as you would for amphibious - then any defense shots in excess of what is needed to sink the accompany ships MUST be applied to any transports until all shots are accounted for or there are no units left to assign them to.)

Carry:  1 Artillery, Armor or Mechanized Infant AND 2 Infantry (*yes they are carrying more units.)  This will make 1 transport missions have bigger impact, allow for navies to need fewer transports, and scale the transport’s ability up to account for more IPC on the map, and help with expanded distances.