I think these rules simplify the key ideas down a lot and incorporate well into the game (Comments on realism?):
-Combat move phase is made just like before.
-The combat phase is now partitioned into 6 different battle types. The following is the order in which the battle types must be resolved (If more than 1 battle of the same battle type, then attacker determines the order of those battles):
Attacking Sub Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking subs share the same SZ space as any defending surface naval units at the end of the combat move phase. (Note that attacking surface naval units and defending subs in that same SZ do not participate in the battle.) Battle continues until either side retreats all remaining units or the attacker submerges all remaining subs. In any battle type, if units retreat then they may not be used in the latter battle types of that combat phase.
Aerial Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking air units share the same SZ or territory with any defending aerial units at the end of the combat move phase. (Note that attacking and defending ground or naval units in that same SZ or territory do not participate in the battle. Battle continues until either side retreats or wins outright. Also note that the winner of this battle with units left and didn’t retreat may have their fighters participate in the latter battle types that follow.
Surface Fleet Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking units (other than subs) share the same SZ as any defending units (other than subs). Note that any surface naval units that won in battle type 1 may participate in this battle type. Note that any attacking fighters that won in battle type 2 above may participate in this battle along with any attacking naval units.
Defending Sub Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking units (other than subs) share the same SZ as any defending subs. Again, if the attacker won battle type 2 and 3 with fighters then those fighters may then particpate in this battle type. If the attacker won battle type 3 with any surface units then they may participate in this battle type. Note that only subs may defend during this battle type.
Ground Warfare: This occurs anytime any number of attacking units share the same territory as any defending units. Note that any fighters surviving battle type 2 may participate in this battle type.
Strategic Warfare: This consists of strategic bombing, sub interdiction, rocket attacks. If a territory is invaded and taken during the previous battle types 1-5, then the strategic combat in that territory is cancelled. This takes place after all other combat so that a territory isn’t bombed and then taken, resulting in unrealistic double damage to the defending territory. Now territories can only either be taken and not bombed, or attacked but not taken and then bombed, but not both taken and bombed (more realistic).
This small set of simple rules organizing combat order fixes a ton of the problems that we’ve talked about… fighter dogfights, air superiority, subs fighting separately from surface fleets and other subs, etc… Let me know what you think.
Thats a way to break it down. Its realistic to be sure and we can tidy up with some bit on how each duty is performed. OK lets move from that point into the specifics of each unique combat action. I think naval should go first.
I believe for phase 1 we should just work on fixing flak and subs. All other combat will definitely fix the game but will require a lengthy set of rules and might put many people off. We should hold off on improving fighter dogfights/escorts/interceptors/realistic naval combat until phase 2.
Method 1 for resolving sub combat (and for resloving flak problem):
Targeting/Detecting: In order for subs to be hit and air units to be hit by flak, they must first be targeted.
Detecting Subs: The opponent rolls 1 die for every fighter and surface naval unit (except destroyers) that are in the same SZ as an enemy sub at the end of a combat move phase. For every roll of a 1 or 2, a sub has seen successfully targeted/detected. Destroyers do not have to roll to target an enemy sub since every destroyer detects 1 enemy sub automatically. Combat then continues as usual, with only detected subs able to be hit.
Include the following new rules with method 1:
-Before combat with subs, the opponent rolls to detect opposing subs. Move all detected subs to the battle board along with all the other units. Hidden subs remain on the game board. Hidden subs may still fire on opposing units like detected subs, but they remain on the game baord to designate that they cannot be hit by opposing units.
-Before actual combat, the player owning the subs may then choose to either submerge or fire at the opponent, but not both. The player may submerge any number of the detected subs on the battle board or any number of the hidden subs still on the game board. If the player chooses to submerge any subs, that player tips those subs on their side to destinguish them from the firing subs. Submerged subs don’t get to fire, but if they survive the combat round they get to escape further combat. Subs that fire on opposing ships do not get to submerge at the end of the combat round.
-After the first combat round, all remaining subs (those that didn’t submerge in the first round and survived) are automatically detected for the rest of the battle (subs can only be hidden during the first round).
Example: Attacker sends 1 DD, 1 BB, 1 CV and 2 FTRs to attack 3 subs in a SZ. The attacker rolls 4 targeting dice (1 for the BB+1 more for the CV+2 more for each FTR). Only 1 of the 4 dice is either a 1 or a 2 (roll all 4 dice at the same time since it doesn’t mater which of the 4 units detects the sub). The attacker adds 1 more detected sub due to the DD. The total number of detected subs is therefore 2. Combat continues as normal, except only 2 or the 3 subs may be taken as casualties. The 2 detected subs and 1 hidden sub can each choose to either fire back or submerge but not both (decided before combat but after targeting rolls).
Targeting air units: Anytime any number of enemy air units fly over a hostile territory with an AA gun, the AA gun rolls 1 targeting die for each enemy air unit. For every roll of a 1 or 2, 1 enemy air unit has been successfully targeted. For every targeted air unit, roll 1 die to see if the air unit has been hit (e.g. so if no air units are targeted, then no dice will be rolled the second time). AA guns still only hit on a 1. Repeat this process for enemy air units flying back home over hostile territories during the non-combat move phase. If an enemy air unit is attacking a territory with an AA gun and doesn’t take the territory (a typical case of this would be during a strategic bombing run), then the AA gun will roll to target (and if successful then roll to hit) the air unit both before the combat and on the return trip home during the non-combat move phase.
Odds an air unit will be shot down = (1/3 chance of being targeted) * (1/6 chance being shot down) = 1/18
1/18 chance shot down before combat + 1/18 chance being shot down in non-combat move phase on the way back to the UK = 1/9 chance (this is darn close to the 1/10 chance we wanted)
Method 2 for resolving sub combat:
Before combat involving a sub, each sub always rolls a die during opening fire step no matter if enemy DDs present or not. For every roll of 1 or 2, a sub gets the chance to submerge before the first combat round. Submerging during opening fire step only makes subs invulnerable to non-DD’s. If a sub successfully submerges during the opening fire step of a round, then each DD present may still fire on that sub for only that 1 round only(represents depth charges). As in box rules, any subs surviving at the end of any combat round may choose to submerge to end combat.
Example: 1 DD, 1 BB and 1 FTR attack 2 subs. Both subs roll for initial submerging. Only 1 roll is a 1 or 2 so 1 sub gets to submerge. The other sub is fired upon by the 1 BB and 1 FTR. The submerged sub is fired upon by the DD and can only be taken as casualty if DD hits. Any surviving subs can automatically submerge after the first round, like usual.
Those are the 2 methods for sub combat that I think are simple enough to use. Method 2 is slightly simpler and method 1 ties in nicely with flak so 1 targeting rule can be used in 2 different aspects of the game.
Here is a breakdown of the odds for sub warfare using the 2 methods:
The following format is the number of attacking units against 1 sub and the corresponding odds of hitting that sub in first round.
method 1: (sub decides to submerge on first round instead of firing back)
1 ftr=1/31/2=Â 1/6
2 ftrs=5/93/4= 5/12
1 BB=1/3*4/6=Â 2/9
1 DD=1/2=Â Â Â Â 1/2
1 ftr+1 DD=3/4=3/4
method 2:
1 ftr=2/31/2=Â 1/3
2 ftrs=2/33/4= 1/2
1 BB=2/34/6=Â 4/9
1 DD=1/2=Â Â Â Â 1/2
1 ftr+1 DD=2/33/4 + 1/3*1/2= 2/3
Which set of odds better reflects realism of WWII sub warfare? Which of the few ideas outlined above from each method are realsitic/ unrealistic?
Here’s a 3rd method that incorporates ideas from the first 2 methods:
Sub Detection: Before combat, the opponent rolls to try to detect the subs (on rolls of 1 or 2). Roll 1 die for every surface naval unit, except DD’s, and 1 die for every fighter. DD’s don’t roll for detection since each DD automatically detects 1 enemy sub. All detected subs moved to the battle board. All hidden subs stay on the game board SZ space. After the 1st combat round is completed, any subs remaining in combat are automatically detected.
Sub Action: The player with the subs then chooses which of the detected subs and which of the hidden subs he wants to either evade the enemy (EV) or engage the enemy (EN) but not both.
Evade: For every detected sub that chooses to evade, roll 1 die. On rolls of a 1 or 2 (1, 2 or 3 for Super Subs), the sub successfully quickly submerged (QS) and is tipped on it’s side designating that it can only be hit by DD’s on the immediate next combat round. On all other rolls, the sub doesn’t QS and can be hit by any opposing unit in the next combat round. At the end of the next combat round all surviving QS subs and non-QS subs submerge and end combat. Once a sub choose to evade at the start of a combat round, that sub does not get to roll in combat against opposing units (it doesn’t matter if the sub QS or not).
Engage: These subs fire like normal in the step 3 below. Subs never fire during the opening fire step (instead, hidden subs are immune from being hit for the first round).
Changes from AAR:
-Note that now hidden subs don’t fire during the opening fire step, but they are immune to being hit in the first round only.
-Note that now 1 enemy DD doesn’t detect unlimited subs and that other naval units/ fighters can detect subs.
-Note that subs decide to submerge at the start of the round, not at the end.
-Note that subs can escape, even if detected, but can still be hit by depth charges.
-Note that subs are much better in that they are much harder to hit but much worse in that they can’t be used to fight along with other types of naval units and they can’t both fire and submerge in the same combat round.
I believe that this is a simple set of rules that accomplishes a lot of fixes (like the victory cities/infantry placement rules), but it’s all for not if they make subs too weak or too powerful when incorporated into the game. Let’s analyze some odds of hitting 1 sub with the following opposing force (assume sub chooses to evade):
1 ftr=(1/3)(2/3)(1/2)=1/9
2 ftrs=(5/9)(2/3)(3/4)=5/18
1 BB=(1/3)(2/3)(4/6)=4/27
1 DD=(1)(1)(1/2)=1/2
1 ftr+1 DD=(1)(1/3)(1/2)+(1)(2/3)(3/4)=2/3
Which set of odds is most realistic? These (method 3) or the odds from method 1 or 2 in the previous post?
This will take time to digest.
I have some related sub interdiction and tech rules that go along with a few of the ideas in this sub warfare. I’ll hold off on posting those until we’re satisfied with the sub warfare rules.
What are your initial impressions of any of those sub interdiction rules? What do you think of the basic idea of having subs much harder to hit, but also much less effective against enemy naval units? Effectively they just end up being used to drain the Allied income.
I believe for phase 1 we should just work on fixing flak and subs. All other combat will definitely fix the game but will require a lengthy set of rules and might put many people off. We should hold off on improving fighter dogfights/escorts/interceptors/realistic naval combat until phase 2.
Method 1 for resolving sub combat (and for resloving flak problem):
Targeting/Detecting: In order for subs to be hit and air units to be hit by flak, they must first be targeted.
Detecting Subs: The opponent rolls 1 die for every fighter and surface naval unit (except destroyers) that are in the same SZ as an enemy sub at the end of a combat move phase. For every roll of a 1 or 2, a sub has seen successfully targeted/detected. Destroyers do not have to roll to target an enemy sub since every destroyer detects 1 enemy sub automatically. Combat then continues as usual, with only detected subs able to be hit.
Include the following new rules with method 1:
-Before combat with subs, the opponent rolls to detect opposing subs. Move all detected subs to the battle board along with all the other units. Hidden subs remain on the game board. Hidden subs may still fire on opposing units like detected subs, but they remain on the game baord to designate that they cannot be hit by opposing units.
-Before actual combat, the player owning the subs may then choose to either submerge or fire at the opponent, but not both. The player may submerge any number of the detected subs on the battle board or any number of the hidden subs still on the game board. If the player chooses to submerge any subs, that player tips those subs on their side to destinguish them from the firing subs. Submerged subs don't get to fire, but if they survive the combat round they get to escape further combat. Subs that fire on opposing ships do not get to submerge at the end of the combat round.
-After the first combat round, all remaining subs (those that didn't submerge in the first round and survived) are automatically detected for the rest of the battle (subs can only be hidden during the first round).Â
Example: Attacker sends 1 DD, 1 BB, 1 CV and 2 FTRs to attack 3 subs in a SZ. The attacker rolls 4 targeting dice (1 for the BB+1 more for the CV+2 more for each FTR). Only 1 of the 4 dice is either a 1 or a 2 (roll all 4 dice at the same time since it doesn't mater which of the 4 units detects the sub). The attacker adds 1 more detected sub due to the DD. The total number of detected subs is therefore 2\. Combat continues as normal, except only 2 or the 3 subs may be taken as casualties. The 2 detected subs and 1 hidden sub can each choose to either fire back or submerge but not both (decided before combat but after targeting rolls).
Targeting air units: Anytime any number of enemy air units fly over a hostile territory with an AA gun, the AA gun rolls 1 targeting die for each enemy air unit. For every roll of a 1 or 2, 1 enemy air unit has been successfully targeted. For every targeted air unit, roll 1 die to see if the air unit has been hit (e.g. so if no air units are targeted, then no dice will be rolled the second time). AA guns still only hit on a 1\. Repeat this process for enemy air units flying back home over hostile territories during the non-combat move phase. If an enemy air unit is attacking a territory with an AA gun and doesn't take the territory (a typical case of this would be during a strategic bombing run), then the AA gun will roll to target (and if successful then roll to hit) the air unit both before the combat and on the return trip home during the non-combat move phase.
Odds an air unit will be shot down = (1/3 chance of being targeted) * (1/6 chance being shot down) = 1/18
1/18 chance shot down before combat + 1/18 chance being shot down in non-combat move phase on the way back to the UK = 1/9 chance (this is darn close to the 1/10 chance we wanted)
I love this format and i fully understand the thinking behind it:
a few points:
the act of firing in combat and non-combat sequence makes the odds of hitting more than one plane is greater than 10%.This is because each plane that flys during the turn has a 10% change of going down, so say if you get 5 planes moving each turn the odds are 50% of at least one plane getting hit. The 10% is a figure that covers the entire war and the ability of Flak batteries to hit planes. Somehow each turn we need a 10% chance so perhaps the anti aircraft fires only once?
the action of anti-aircraft hits in non-combat should be left out to save time and dice rolling. The idea being that the flak rolls are represented as the TOTAL effect of flak artillery on any given turn. So we are duplicating the action somewhat and also go against OOB/LHTR. I think its just adds nothing that could not have allready been represented in combat flak rolls.
The naval interaction is original and accurate. I prefer this method over #2. Lets keep it!
I still want subs to have the opportunity to evade (as you proposed under method 3)
Also sub interaction should be a seperate process. So subs can interact in the following 3 ways:
1-2=one ipc lost
3-4=two ipc lost
5-6=three ipc lost
under no means can the following occur:
also, we have to explain how destroyers can “protect” ships from attacks. Under your system it is not clear how loses are chosen. The subs should be able to “target” the ship they wish to hit, however the presence of a destroyer can “screen” out this target.
another point is we need is a cruiser unit which has special anti-aircraft atributes under aerial attacks. So as you buy destroyers to protect the fleet from subs, you also need cruisers to protect the fleet from planes.
also we need the planes to be able to “target” ships in the same fashion as subs target ships. Something that you made with subs needs to be addressed with areial attacks on surface ships. A cruiser will have a powerful roll in this.
Cruiser unit:
attack 3 defend 3 move 3, takes 2 hits gets a prelininary roll against planes if they attack ships that travel with cruiser. I am not sure what the cost should be, but i like BB price moving down to 20 IPC. thus:
BB= 4/4/2/20 ( 2 hits)
CA=3/3/3/15 (2 hits)
DD=2/2/2/10 ( one hit)
TR= 0/1/2/8
SS=2/2/2/8
Carriers should be 1/2/3/16 and take 2 hits
If we add “naval fighters” to the phase 1 project i propose we go with 2/2/4/9 for the values
the land based fighter values are for land based attacks only. So the 3/4 are the values against land targets. WE need a new set of air combat/ sea combat values. AS you have mentioned you have 6 types of combat and while land combat occurs, if both sides have air planes then they should engage each other each round seperately untill one side is retreated or destroyed. But while in the air the combat values cannot be attack at 3 defend at 4 because the entire airforce would be chewed up in a few rounds. That is why we need aerial combat values for air and sea combat.
proposal:
new aerial combat values: ( attack/defense)
Fighter: 1/2
Bomber: 0/1
against naval targets use regular values, except ships thatv are targeted get to fire first as follows:
BB=1-2
CA=1-3
DD=1
CV=1
TR= no firing back at planes
note that each ship gets to fire first at each plane so if 4 planes attack 3 DD, then 3 DD roll 4 times and get like 1 hit then only 3 planes are attacking. Also each cruiser and destroyer should be able to screen out the hit allocated by a plane on a carrier or battleship on a 1/1 basis.
I just have a feeling that there enough people out there that would want to play the game with just the victory cities/infantry placement + sub interdiction/sub warfare + fighter movement/strategic bombing rules to make it worth it to hold off on all the other rules until phase 2. I’m afraid of making phase 1 such a big change and so long that it will put people off. Since the rules are so dependent on each other it’s hard to find a place to divide the rules into separate phases, but I think I nice partition exists here by leaving all the other rules for latter phases. Do you agree?
I think we need to include the 3 aforementioned areas of rule changes together because they play such a fundamental role in bringing a ton more realism to all of the fronts around the world and bringing much better balance to the game. I think these 3 can stand on their own, separate from all other rules, and I think we should take advantage of that.
Don’t get me wrong, a ton of people we love the new combat rules, but I’m just saying that enough people want the old combat rules to necessitate keeping them separate in phase 2.
Ok thats fine, but we need to add neutrals into phase one. That is a glaring problem that is brushed under the carpet too long. I maintain as you do as the idea is not to scare people away. Lets keep what we got for VC and sub, ASW rules, but add something for neutrals… I think we are basically done with phase one however, where do you feel the idea for a cruiser or mech infantry should go into phase 2?. I suggest we also install a phase 3 option that will finish the job and provide the ultimate varient.
Phase 1:
Victory Conditions, Construction rules, Anti-Aircraft, ASW, Sub interaction, Convoy rules, Minor nations
Phase 2:
New units, Italy, lend lease, additional air missions, change in turn sequence, new Historical NA’s
Phase 3: New land and sea combat sequence ( including defender retreats), possible oil rules (resource model), terrain and weather rules, Technology changes
anything else just add…
- the act of firing in combat and non-combat sequence makes the odds of hitting more than one plane is greater than 10%.This is because each plane that flies during the turn has a 10% change of going down, so say if you get 5 planes moving each turn the odds are 50% of at least one plane getting hit. The 10% is a figure that covers the entire war and the ability of Flak batteries to hit planes. Somehow each turn we need a 10% chance so perhaps the anti aircraft fires only once?
I like your idea of just rounding the percentages to the nearest 10% for the purposes of making the conversation easier so I’ll stick with that.
Minor point, but if each plane has a 10% chance of being hit, and you have 5 planes, then the chance of at least 1 being hit is not (10%)*5=50%. It’s = 1 - (prob. of none being hit) = 1 - (90%)^5 ~ 40%.
If there is a 10% chance of all planes being shot down, and 10% of 5 planes is between 0 or 1 plane, then isn’t between 0 and 1 plane being shot down realistic? I’m not seeing what you mean by these rules not being realistic. Isn’t 10% chance of a plane being shot down (like it is in these rules) the best way to model that 10% of all planes should be shot down (like in history)?
I want to point out that the worst case scenario of a plane being shot down is 10%. That’s when it has to fly over an enemy AA gun in both the combat and non-combat move phases. Also, since AA guns fire during non-combat in the box rules, there wouldn’t be any extra rolling exept when appling to an AA gun in the same territory as the one being bombed.
Most tactical combat missions won’t be this bad because if the fighters are attacking a territory with no AA gun then generally they won’t have to fly over one to get there. If instead the fighters are tactically attacking a territory with an AA gun, then they will probably end up taking the territory and thus only have a 5% of being shot down since the taking of the territory makes it so that AA gun can’t fire in the non-combat move phase.
Generally, only when bombers are strategically bombing are they fired on both the combat and non-combat move phases. This is because territory isn’t taken and the territory being bombed has an AA gun. Historically, bombers were at greater danger of being shot down on the return trip because of the lack of escorts then. This is why I think it’s important to have them fired on in the non-combat move phase as well. I also like the fact that this allows bombers to be shot down and the bombers still do economic damage (unlike in the box rules).
- The naval interaction is original and accurate. I prefer this method over #2. Lets keep it!
I still want subs to have the opportunity to evade (as you proposed under method 3)
Method 1 plus the ability to evade is just method 3 anyway, so you like method 3 better than method 1?
I like method 3 the best, but my only fear was that it might be viewed as too complex because it involves a lot of rolling. First opposing units roll to detect the sub, then those subs that are detected get to roll to evade if they choose to, then combat begins. I think people could get used to it, but I’m not sure.
under no means can the following occur:
- subs taking off hits from other subs
- subs taking hits and involved in interaction in naval combat or taken as loses from surface naval combat ( no fodder)
I agree. This was the main reason why I came up with the 6 types of combat rule. I think it’s the easiest way to make the restrictions, much better than having a million seemingly arbitrary combat restrictions for 1 type of combat.
under no means can the following occur:
also, we have to explain how destroyers can “protect” ships from attacks. Under your system it is not clear how loses are chosen. The subs should be able to “target” the ship they wish to hit, however the presence of a destroyer can “screen” out this target.
Do we really need this? I’m really asking, not trying to imply that we don’t. This is my thinking:
On defense I don’t think subs should be able to choose their targets, after all, realistically didn’t subs generally just try to evade the attackers anyway? This goes well with the rules I came up with because mathematically subs should almost always try to evade on defense.
On offense I don’t think subs should try to attack a surface fleet, unless it consists on a single weak unit. How many times did subs attack a surface fleet that wasn’t part of a convoy? Didn’t subs just tried to attack merchant shipping while avoiding opposing military units? That’s what I went for with my rules… It’s mathematically advantageous with my rules for Germany to build subs and move them out to the Atlantic only for the purposes of draining Allied income while trying to avoid combat.
I think that since subs are trying to avoid combat, we shouldn’t give them the advantage of being able to choose hits. It would then make subs try to gang up on BB’s and carriers far too often IMO.
another point is we need is a cruiser unit which has special anti-aircraft attributes under aerial attacks. So as you buy destroyers to protect the fleet from subs, you also need cruisers to protect the fleet from planes.
also we need the planes to be able to “target” ships in the same fashion as subs target ships. Something that you made with subs needs to be addressed with aerial attacks on surface ships. A cruiser will have a powerful roll in this.
I’ll start thinking about cruisers when we’re done with phase 1. I don’t want to get too ahead of myself. I already worked on a set of rules where fighters attack and defend at 2 instead of 3/4 but get to choose their targets. I think they ended up working really well, not too powerful or anything. We can employ all those new combat rules in phase 2.
Good…
first off i think thats great about the phase 2 ideas regarding targeted attacks by air units. Like subs this would be the perfect way to simulate the power of air forces. I think in both cases the rules should be reflexive. In this sence the rules we come up with are basically very similiar for both forms of combat.
On defense I don’t think subs should be able to choose their targets, after all, realistically didn’t subs generally just try to evade the attackers anyway? This goes well with the rules I came up with because mathematically subs should almost always try to evade on defense.
On offense I don’t think subs should try to attack a surface fleet, unless it consists on a single weak unit. How many times did subs attack a surface fleet that wasn’t part of a convoy? Didn’t subs just tried to attack merchant shipping while avoiding opposing military units? That’s what I went for with my rules… It’s mathematically advantageous with my rules for Germany to build subs and move them out to the Atlantic only for the purposes of draining Allied income while trying to avoid combat.
I think that since subs are trying to avoid combat, we shouldn’t give them the advantage of being able to choose hits. It would then make subs try to gang up on BB’s and carriers far too often IMO.
My thought was to create some balancing issues that would reflect the need to buy destroyers, cruisers and Battleships all for different reasons. The destroyer will assume the role of a perfect ASW unit. The cruiser will be the primary escort for Carriers due to its anti-aircraft defenses against aerial attacks. The battleship is the powerhouse that can tacke major fleet engagements with its long range guns. The issue becomes how to best encapsulize the value that each piece brings to the game, so a player will invest in a number of different options with naval purchases in order to combat the emeny with any success.
I do like your third method, but its just a highter level of complexity. WE surely can use it, but i liked the easy way you settled the realism issues. I do love the ability of subs to evade detection. Reminds me of that movie “run silent, run deep” with john wayne.
Anyway if you feel strongly … lets just use method 3 as you want. I am working on some simple “neutral nations” rules for phase one.
The other issue you brought up was my proposal regarding the “screening” action of destroyers and cruisers. My intention was to provide some credable exception to demonstrate how these ships role was to protect either a convoy or a fleet from submarine or aerial attacks. Notably a fleet will come under attack by planes, but a cruiser will provide a wall of AA fire to disipate and draw off attacking planes, while destroyers usually surround a convoy in a specific pattern to ward off potential sub attacks.
The other thought was to in general lower the cost of many naval units to promote a real sea battle. IN revised as you know these pieces are allways a secondary purchase and even with a KJF strategy.
I’ve tested out the 3 methods I talked about earlier, and they are all pretty well balanced. Giving subs the extra ability to choose their targets when a destroyer isn’t present might make them too powerful. As method 3 stands now, it will be mathematically advantageous for Germany to buy 1-2 subs a turn. The Allies would be lucky to sink 1 sub a turn, which will create a buildup of subs in the Atlantic and allow the Axis to have the upper hand there (all realistic). I know tech improvements are important to the Battle of the Atlantic, but we can wait to add techs until phase 2. Back to my main point, which is that with Germany having all these subs, adding any small new advantage like subs getting to hit carriers instead of transports when a destroyer is not there would be too powerful for all those subs. We need to make it disadvantageous for all those subs to gang up on the surface fleet. I only want it to be advantageous for all those subs to drain a lot of IPCs. Let’s playtest phase 1 without the subs able to choose targets and see how it plays out balance-wise. If we feel we can add in the new choose target rule, then I’m all for it. I want to add that rule, but I don’t think we can.
We can wait and introduce techs and NAs in phase 2. I have some good ideas to improve techs so that an opponent can counter tech once a player gets a certain tech. More on this later, I don’t want to add new tech material until we’re more done with phase 1.
Yep ok.
A ton of good info here to help us design commerce interdiction rules:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/submarines/centennial/wwii-campaigns.html
oh wow that will be helpful…
