OK, you got some good an valid points, Baron.
What if Subs roll a preemptive surprise strike, and if a hit the casualty sink fast and can not defend.
Then all warships, trannies and aircrafts that survived in that seazone now roll for defense. I believe the usual defense numbers are too high, unless every sub mission is a kamikaze mission, so maybe everybody roll a 1 when defending against attacking subs. The AA gun rolls 1 against planes in the sky, so why not roll 1 against Subs too, they are under water after all. The Destroyer has no special ability when defending against subs. Then surviving Subs can submerge or continue attacking.
The defensive roll is the most problematic issue. If Subs are all alone, it works but when there is other units it becomes schizophrenic for the defending units, which defense value do they get and if it is the higher, then why is it possible to take subs as casualty?
One game System I played makes an independent Submarines attack first, until the attacker retreat his subs. Then, all the other units are going into combat.
This doesn’t work if there is many 2 hits BB or CVs, because Subs won’t be able to sink anything. And Subs becomes as vulnerable without specific rule such as no defense roll on the first combat round against subs.
Maybe we should explore the AAA comparison.
Rule Example broad guidelines:
Subs can attack with other units.
Each Destroyer and plane can roll 1 preemptive attack or defense @1. Remove Subs casualties.
Subs make their attacks @2 or defense @1. Remove immediatly enemy’s casualties.
All other units have regular attacks and defense, including the previous DDs and planes. Remove casualties. But Subs cannot be taken as casualties.
What do you think of this new way of doing things?
Does it worth to explore it?
With all due respect, I don’t think you will get anyone to play a game where Destroyers roll preemptive against subs.
And since the topic is to simplify the interaction, I don’t think a unit should have several different combat values against different enemies or situations. Lets just keep the current value system.
You know that in the real war subs would never cooperate together with surface warships in joint operations because they had short range and low speed. A cruiser could sail at 30 knots, and a submerged sub at 7 knots, forcing the Sub to only do independent operations, alone or with other subs. But in A&A games both Subs and warships have the same range of 2 spaces, and speed during the battle is not an issue. Perhaps if Subs could only move 1 space and warships move 3 spaces, but that is not going to happen.
…or you can google Convoy PQ 17.
Germany would attack the convoy with battleship Tirpitz, lots of Subs, land based Dive-Bombers and Heavy Bombers. UK would defend close with destroyers and frigates, and a fleet of battleships, carriers, cruisers and destroyers.
attached is a pic of the naval battle
With all due respect, I don’t think you will get anyone to play a game where Destroyers roll preemptive against subs.
And since the topic is to simplify the interaction, I don’t think a unit should have several different combat values against different enemies or situations. Lets just keep the current value system.
You know that in the real war subs would never cooperate together with surface warships in joint operations because they had short range and low speed. A cruiser could sail at 30 knots, and a submerged sub at 7 knots, forcing the Sub to only do independent operations, alone or with other subs. But in A&A games both Subs and warships have the same range of 2 spaces, and speed during the battle is not an issue. Perhaps if Subs could only move 1 space and warships move 3 spaces, but that is not going to happen.
I agree. Trying to make Destroyers and Planes as a kind of AA guns against Subs adds more problems.
Mainly, Subs become invincible if all Destroyers and planes are destroyed. I think it is a probably a dead-end.
About move and space representation in game, it is more a matter of range than pure speed.
However, it is clear why Subs were destroying slow Merchant ships mainly.
Maybe an A&A future version will give cruisers a 3 Spaces Move, as in WWI 1914 game.
Thanks for the picture and the Convoy PQ17.
As I far as I understand the story, German’s Submarines were able to attack the same targets as their planes.
It increases my confidence about my Sub Casualty rule which lets Submarine units being used as fodder in a combined attack with aircrafts.
Baron…do you play sometimes…did you ever tried all what you wrote?
Yes indeed, but not enough to my taste.
In my lifetime I played 4 differents kind of Sub rules: Classic, World War II The expansion, Iron Blitz and 1942.1 & 1942.2 OOB.
Some of my ideas are explorations of consequences of others, or ideas inspired by others.
It takes some spagghetti on the walls to find which one worth a real play-test.
I made many statistical eval of the 3 actual SBR (Triple A, 1942.2 OOB, G40 OOB) before suggesting 3 slightly differents ones (1 for G40, 2 for 1942.2), which can works and have better incentive, for example.
In my 1942.2 A&A game, I used one of them, which have a better incentive (than 1942.2 OOB SBR) but keeps the better historical background of 1942.2 SBR over Triple A SBR (Interceptors defending @2).
For Subs, I can say I tried to develop HRs at least 4 times before coming to this one.
IMO, it is the better of all my former HRs on Submarines, Destroyers and planes warfare.
I revised my opening post above.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1320853#msg1320853
All the OOB rules are at the end of the post.
You will easily see the modifications and differences which are either bolded (for addition) or strikethrough (for eliminated parts of the OOB rules).
I will really appreciate comments and suggestions for improved formulations.
This OOB Revision included many suggestions from 3 other members, which I credited and gave the link to their first post about the topic.
Maybe this HR can create some shift in the balance of the actual games, but I think this HR is probably one of the few ways to solve the many aberrations created by
1- Defenseless transport rules,
2- Planes needs Destroyer to hit Submarines and
3- 1 Destroyer blocks Surprise Strike and Submerge, etc. of all submarines units.
Hope you will see how it provides a really simplified interactions amongst all these air-naval units.
@Baron:
Thanks for the picture and the Convoy PQ17.
As I far as I understand the story, German’s Submarines were able to attack the same targets as their planes.
It increases my confidence about my Sub Casualty rule which lets Submarine units being used as fodder in a combined attack with aircrafts.
Now if you had googlet that battle you would have noticed that the Germans lost many planes but no subs. It looks like the trannies had aa guns but no anti sub weapons
@Baron:
Thanks for the picture and the Convoy PQ17.
As I far as I understand the story, German’s Submarines were able to attack the same targets as their planes.
It increases my confidence about my Sub Casualty rule which lets Submarine units being used as fodder in a combined attack with aircrafts.Now if you had googlet that battle you would have noticed that the Germans lost many planes but no subs. It looks like the trannies had aa guns but no anti sub weapons
This will add some historical facts behind the idea of reintroducing a Transport, 1 hit value, able to defend @1 in my opening post.
Germany lost around 12 planes on 202 planes. Around 6% casualties.
We did discuss about the problem of giving only an AA gun defense for Transport. In fact, it makes transports a better defensive weapon since the attacker will have no choice and cannot apply any hits against either 6 IPCs Subs or 8 IPCs Destroyers but must destroy either a 10 IPCs Fg or a 12 IPCs StB.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1114302#msg1114302
So a Transport defending @1 is simpler and gives more space to the attacker choice of casualty.
The idea is to simply rationalize the Transport unit as having a few Destroyer escorts (Frigates) with the only Transport ships.
I think it was always the case for Military transport. They never travel by themselves but didn’t always have an extensive cover of Destroyers to protect them.
@Der:
Larry Harris said this about transports in 2007 on his site:
“I will say this… Transports are considered to be lightly defended with escorts. Additional ships provide additional defense and so on.” (Posted: Fri 23.Feb, 2007)
So originally transports were not to be thought of as just transports.
Two maxims of the game have generally been:
1. every decision involves some risk (dice rolls)
2. defender chooses his own casualtiesThe new transport rules violate both.
Since the cheapest unit always will be fodder, why not just change the cost ?
Destroyer cost 8, A2 D2
Submarin cost 9, A2 D2 and submerge
Tranny cost 10, D1
I have advocated my HR of each ship costing 8 IPCs (toblerone77’s “8-8-8” house rule) but each having balancing stats and abilities. With those same stats and all other rules remaining OOB. This resolves the “fodder” problem. Transport are also no longer called transports but “Naval Support Vessels”
Also I have some serious disagreement the argument against the fodder argument, because ultimately to eliminate fodder and really get at the strategic level you would really only use an air, naval and ground unit, but the you basically have Risk!
Hi toblerone,
you are talking about this one, isn’t it?
@toblerone77:
Here’s my take. 86 all the specialized rules for subs, destroyers and transports. Treat them like any other unit. Allow subs to make an “SBR” in convoy zones. Allow Destroyers in those zones to act as “AAA” if applicable.
First bump the sub defense back up to 2.
In the case of non-global games use SZs adjacent to ICs as convoy zones. Keep the sub’s range the same but allow them to return to a friendly SZ after a “commerce raid”, remember they must have range just like an aircraft unit.
Allow planes to take out subs and allow subs to fire back assuming they would have AAA capability, which not exactly historical, but did happen and is somewhat plausible. Same for TRNs.
Let TRNs defend at 1 all other OOB rules apply.
To balance it out let DDs support amphibious assault for one round 1:1 infantry, CAs 1:2, and BBs 1:3. All other OOB rules would apply.
Third, let APs, DDs, and SS just be one price 8 IPCs. Their abilities and advantages amongst each other at the same price-point (IMO) negate much of the debate of “fodder/balance/etc.” BS.
Just my take. Have at it guys :-)
So, your Transport is the same as the one in the opening post (A0 D1 M2 C8, taken last)?
But Subs are very different.
Yep.
According to your HR combat values, the Sub will be more popular than Destroyer. No need to buy them, just planes for 2 more IPCs to kick out Subs.
Subs are more dangerous than the OOB DD, since it shoots down planes.
The less important historical feel can be disturbing for my part.
I could live with Subs defending @1 against all units, but @2 vs planes I couldn’t.
Maybe we should discuss about the impact or no consequences of the naval Cannon fodder effect.
Most ASW of the time was the good old Mark I Mod zero eyeball. WWII subs were surface ships that could submerge. They spent the majority of their time on the surface. The electric engines used when submerged had a very limited speed and run time before the sub had to surface to recharge the batteries. Ariel observation was what lead the Germans to develop the snorkel a device for running the diesels while underwater.
Submarines also could and did engage aircraft. The preferred method however was to dive. Not because the deck guns mounted on the subs could not adequately engage the aircraft but that once spotted other aircraft and if close surface vessels would be called in. By diving the sub could flee the area.
This page has the loses by cause for u-boats. Note that almost HALF or to aircraft.
http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm
Baron,
What is your subpen rule if you have one. Thought I seen you post once. Can’t seem to locate it.
I don’t have any.
What is yours?
How does it become an important aspect of the subs rules?
Its posted in Global War title under Major complexes.
Thanks.
It’s adding another element of complexity for those which are found of historical background games.
For now it is outside the scope of this actual thread on simplifying things to improve the overall A&A experience.
I keep your Sub pen rules in my backpocket. It may be useful.
I don’t think you can make rules that is both simple and historical correct. The hex and counter games have search rolls and sequenced fire, which make the games complex, not simple and fast to play. Xenon World at war have search rolls, and that makes sense. The ocean is a vast place, and the enemy is moving around behind that foggy horizon, so you need to roll a search roll before you find him, but then the enemy too can roll a search roll to avoid you. But if you find each other, then roll for combat. Land combat is different, you know the enemy is dug in behind that hill or city. So maybe a search roll will difference naval combat from land combat. Aircrafts will of course make for automatic find. But it will be a game in the game.
Another and more simple way is to differ the movement values.
Subs move 1, and can submerge from combat, but not retreat to another seazone.
Tranny move 2, and can not retreat to another seazone. If the escort retreats, the trannies are sittin ducks
Surface warships move 3, and can retreat to another seazone.
This model the importance of speed and range in naval operations.
To avoid trannies being fodder, let them cost 10 and defend on 1 against air.
And do you really want to use a sub as fodder when it move 1 space only in a turn, and a Destroyer move 3 spaces ? I know I wouldn’t.
I also think you should have search planes to find ships.
Small searchplane C10 A0 D2 M4 1d6 roll of 3 or less finds ships.
Big searchplane C12 A0 D2 M6 1d6 rol of 3 or less finds ships.
