SUBS Overpowered -and- SUB Clarificaitons

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.

@americancyco:

@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.

Ok, if it is sub on sub and no other ships in the battle then which unit would get the first strike?  This is why sub on sub there is no first strike.

In a multi-ship naval battle, when subs hit on their first strikes, can the defender choose a sub as a casualty that cannot fire back.  Or, since subs do not have first strikes on one another, the defender must choose a surface ship as the first-strike casualty?

Will make a rule change that Battleships can attack/defend against detected subs

If you are taking suggestions Tigerman, I like the rule that battleships cannot strike back at submarines.  Battleships were designed to draw enemy fire, and lots of it, and to bombard prior to and during naval assaults.  They were not built to take on submarines; hence all the wonderful destroyer and cruiser escorts.  I vote that battleships not be able to strike back at submarines.  If you are thinking of increasing the power of battleships, how about three strikes to sink (and four for the Yamato battleships).  Maybe increase the cost by a few IPCs to retain value in cruisers.

Make a house rule for detection and make all subs off board units unless detected.
Destroyers and subs detect on a roll of 8 or less
Cruisers detect on a roll of 4 or less