SUBS Overpowered -and- SUB Clarificaitons

I really need to reread the rules again.  Garg, destroyers do not negate sub first strike at all or just 1 to 1 on an enemy sub?

Tigerman77, a sub+cruiser attacking another sub….the attacking cruiser cannot attack a defending sub without a 1-1 destroyer so the only reason to bring it along is for fodder?

I could see if the attacker took of the sub foolishly…then the NEXT round the sub would get a first strike IF the attack were pressed a second round even tho the cruiser could not hit the sub, kind of like attacking a second round when the only thing remaining is transports where all the attack units were lost?

It still makes subs a bit too good of a bargain for me.  No longer do you need destroyers to pick of marauding subs but a swarm of cheap subs yourself.  It could easily devolve into a war of attrition with subs.  Perhaps not a bad thing….  In any event, it changes many things.

Chill a little Garg!  Let me explain my earlier senario. First: who would attack 1 sub with a sub and a cruiser??  A very inexperienced player.  Second: I should have stated that afte the attacking sub is lost the round is over and the cruiser may retreat….and he should. I was just using this as an example of he subs not being included in detection for other vessels!  If the sub and cruiser were to attack another sub and cruiser and the attacking sub was taken as a loss, then on the next round of combat if the cruiser choose to stay and fight then the sub would get a first strike before the attacking cruiser.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I really need to reread the rules again.  Garg, destroyers do not negate sub first strike at all or just 1 to 1 on an enemy sub?

Tigerman77, a sub+cruiser attacking another sub….the attacking cruiser cannot attack a defending sub without a 1-1 destroyer so the only reason to bring it along is for fodder?

I could see if the attacker took of the sub foolishly…then the NEXT round the sub would get a first strike IF the attack were pressed a second round even tho the cruiser could not hit the sub, kind of like attacking a second round when the only thing remaining is transports where all the attack units were lost?

It still makes subs a bit too good of a bargain for me.  No longer do you need destroyers to pick of marauding subs but a swarm of cheap subs yourself.  It could easily devolve into a war of attrition with subs.  Perhaps not a bad thing….  In any event, it changes many things.

If 1 destroyer attacks 1 sub, there is no first strike for the sub. 
If 1 destroyer attacks 2 subs, 1 sub gets a fist strike on a roll of a 2 or less(not very strong)
If 1 destroyer is attacked by 2 subs, 1 sub gets a first strike on a roll of 4 or less(5 or less for Germany)

The object is to keep your Capitol ships surrounded by DD’s and CA’s
This also keeps the US from buying 10 transports per turn and pounding Germany or Japan with just infantry!

@Gargantua:

@Tigerman77:

Chill a little Garg!� � Let me explain my earlier senario. First: who would attack 1 sub with a sub and a cruiser??� � A very inexperienced player.� � � Second: I should have stated that afte the attacking sub is lost the round is over and the cruiser may retreat….and he should. I was just using this as an example of he subs not being included in detection for other vessels!� � If the sub and cruiser were to attack another sub and cruiser and the attacking sub was taken as a loss, then on the next round of combat **if the cruiser choose to stay and fight then the sub would get a first strike before the attacking cruiser.**� �

So the cruiser can attack a submarine? because the sub becomes and undetected AFTER it fires?

So basically, there is NO SUCH THING as combat with -undetected- submarines, unless it’s sub on sub.

WOW - THANK YOU!

Yes!

@Gargantua:

@Tigerman77:

The object is to keep your Capitol ships surrounded by DD’s and CA’s
This also keeps the US from buying 10 transports per turn and pounding Germany or Japan with just infantry!

That said, there is absolutely no point in building capitol ships in this game. Especially battleships, ever.

I disagree with not buying carriers!  Specially the US!!  Battleships I can see your point, but remember the battleship was made obsolete by the carrier!

The axis can’t afford to do that!

For the record, I think the submarine rules are balanced.  Germany’s strengths are tanks and submarines.  Remember in our last game Garg, I had about 12 subs in the Atlantic at one point.  I still lost them all as they are quite poor in defence (which is how they were easily destroyed), have poor maneuverability (can only move two spaces as opposed to the allies who can move three virtually all the time because of the plethora on naval bases they have in the Atlantic) and have no naval bases from which to defend from enemy aircraft.  Submarines are Germany’s only advantage in the Atlantic.  Without them, the allies would be able to conduct amphibious assaults on a whim.

Remember, during WWII, Canada had one of the world’s largest navies.  They built no capital ships, one cruiser, and many, many destroyers.

As for the Pacific, I would not be purchasing subs for the Japanese.  I would be purchasing aircraft carriers and expensive planes because planes are required to supplement naval assaults.  Japanese mech, artillery, and tanks are too expensive for their bang, forcing Japan to buy infantry and aircraft.

And I won’t even go into the inferiour and expensive troops for Italy.

The game, in my opinion is very balanced and just needs a minor tweak for the Dutch East Indies.

The sub rules are not all that different from normal Axis and Allies.

Planes can only attack subs if a destroy is present in AA.
So scrambling isn’t really that great in normal AA either unless you have a destroyer.

Subs get first strike if there are no destroyers present.
After a sub makes his first strike he is open to return fire from enemy ships.
These two are standard AA rules

Now Im not a huge fan of the one on one ratio for Destroyers to Subs
Also Im a little confused why a sub would negate another sub’s sneak attack but whatever.

This is why I use standard AA rules when it comes to subs, just easier.

Too bad Garg, I also agreed with Moose 11, no balancing needed.

German subs almost starved UK out of the war and had the Allies to put in all their forces togheter to wipe out the Unterseeboot menace. I think by the time you put a 100 ipc worth of german subs in the Atlantic, from two to three turns plus the time to move them out of Europe etc,etc, the Allies will have more than triple that worth of ipc in ASW units and they will be near their home bases for fast movement in case of attacks/counterattack.

Maybe the wolfpack will be winning, as they usually do, at the beginning of the game, as was in the real war, but they can’t last for ever even with a lot of reinforcement, the Allies have only to overmatch it and they have the ipc to do it. Germany has its land warfare to keep rolling too.

This is my 2�.? cents

J. 8-)

Americancyo, you wrote:

Now Im not a huge fan of the one on one ratio for Destroyers to Subs
Also Im a little confused why a sub would negate another sub’s sneak attack but whatever.

I don’t think subs negate each other’s sneak attacks.  Both friendly and enemy subs can sneak attack as long as there are more subs than destroyers, regardless of how many subs each side has.  That is my understanding of the rules.

@Tigerman77:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Submarines can always hit undetected submarines.

So a sub is almost as a good as a destroyer other than it cannot vector planes or battleships onto the undetected enemy sub and cost/firepower ratio is different?

Yes.  Also when a sub attacks another sub it is normal combat(no first strikes).

According to Tigerman when a sub attacks another sub it is normal combat (no first strike).
I do not understand or agree with that rule, that is why I said I use the standard AA sub combat rules.