Can submarines use a narrow strait if they don’t own it?

@Panther said in Submarine Surprise Strike:

@SS-GEN In either of them (Pacific first ed. page 16/17).

OK. I know there was a topic about it. Thanks

I think you should re read the rules. They’re clear.

Thanks Witt.

It came up during a strategy meeting our group had. I said yes of course you can, but then looked deeper into the situation and thought, there must be a consequences on a fall back using a surprise attack.

But good to know an answer.

BH

The Aussies have lots of IPCs and even an operational aircraft carrier.

@Narvik:

@Der:

Really, with tactical bombers now available, they should take on the role that the old bombers had - attacking along with infantry & tanks, etc. The Strategic bombers should only wreck infrastructure and economy and perhaps lower morale.

No, I don’t think a unit should be limited too much. As you know, subs did sink battleships too, even if cargo ships were the main target. And heavy Bombers did carpet bomb soldiers on the ground and warships, even if bombing of infrastructure were the main purpose. I just think, that since we now got all this new units, they could get more special abilities.

Submarines should be stronger in attacking convoys, but for that to happen, only destroyers should be able to hit subs. If not, then no sub will survive the 1 Destroyer + stack of Bombers combo.

And, slightly off topic, I think the new Tactical should cost 10, att 3 and def 4. Special ability, target Tanks and Mechs before other casualties.
The fighter should cost 6, att 1and def 2. Special ability, target other aircrafts in dog-fights before taking land unit casualties. The St Bomber should cost 12, att 4 and def 1. Special ability, do SBR against ICs

On 1942.2, play-tested a similar unit of Fg at the same cost but attack @1 on first strike.
The Bomber and Cruiser were at 10 IPCs, also. Tactical Bombers (A3-4 D3-4 M4) were at 9 IPCs.

Such a Fighter unit makes a too big competitive buying against submarines.
Same price, can do the same cannon fodder in Naval Combat and better on defense but also useful in ground battle. That’s seems a problem.

Everyone around the table agree that all the changes shifts the balance toward Allies, mostly due to cost decrease.

Did you introduce a three planes aircraft carrier? If not the case, this have a very big downgrading impact on the defensive strength of the combined units Carrier+2Fgs.
In addition, in Naval Combat, the special ability of Fgs have far less significance since, at 6 IPCs, it is always amongst the first casualty taken.
Destroyer (A2 D2 Cost 8 ) have a better combat value.

Maybe this last point is still more historical since many Fgs were destroyed and damaged in Naval combat, often in PTO, there was Battle between ennemy’s aircrafts against warships but not warships against warships.

If you also play-tested it, leave me some feedback.

I really appreciate that Cow

I’m not looking for a rule change but they did fly ���� over the Himalayas. I’m tempted to get out my grandpa’s US Army Air Force stuff from the war and scan and post it. He was there and they did do it. Â

One reason to use them on land would be to take FRA, WFR, and SFR all at once … but it probably doesn’t outweigh the strategic advantage of sinking an extra SZ of Allied ships.

Though you have me thinking now about how many land units you can safely free up (i.e. start moving toward Russia early) by using significant air over Paris and how much difference that would make against the USSR.  This would only make sense if you only do Sea Lion opportunistically and you plan an early Barbarossa.