On the matter of attacking subs and defending ships/fighters.
Pg. 29 - Additionally, your aircraft may attack enemy submarines.
This says nothing about defense.
Pg. 30 - This special attack only happens once at the
start of the attacking units fire step. Then, the combat sequence continues normally.
This says to me, the sub rules are somewhat comparable to the previous versions. A sub gets a special attack. A sub may submerge if opting not to attack or defend. Subs may be ATTACKED when there is a Destroyer to find them. Ships/Fighters may DEFEND against a sub attack as usual. A sub is not an invincible unit unless there is a destroyer!
If this is not understood to be the accurate assesment of the rules, please consider, the alternative is making a pretty good unit (as intended), the sub, into a dominating unit (not intended) and the whole game kinda silly.
To think otherwise, is like saying, “Oh my gosh, they built one sub, my entire fleet is dead unless I buy a destroyer?” Or “What was that? A torpedo! Good thing it missed. Uh-oh, here comes another one. What do we do?”
There’s a lot of confusing and unfortunate wording in the sub rules. The word “attack” being used interchangeably with the word “hit” is a prime example. The FAQ makes an effort to correct this.
I disagree with your assertion that the inability of defending fighters to hit attacking subs without a defending destroyer makes subs too powerful. It does make subs very powerful, but this power can be largely negated with the purchase of a single destroyer. IMHO, this nicely abstracts the cost of submarine economic attacks by forcing the power threatened by subs to purchase a destroyer or two just to protect against enemy subs. Also, fleets without destroyers aren’t completely helpless against subs. Carriers are really vulnerable (as they should be), but battleships and cruisers can provide a fairly good sub shield for fleets, also.
Krieghund,
First of all I respect you for your commitment to the game and for Larry, I’m a big fan. The rules for subs are vague, indeed. Personally, I feel you have set a rule here that has a tremendous impact on all naval operations for every country with a boat. A cheap group of subs leads to a massive escalation of defending destroyers and subs. This is power.
To say, just buy one Destroyer is not enough. A fleet of subs are capable of irradicating a surface group even with a destroyer, seeing that they can only hit surface units. So, who cares if I lose 6 subs(36 ipc) if I can take down a surface group worth 60+ ipcs. The only way to avoid this is to escalate more destroyers per surface group, or buy subs myself, to take hits?
Now I should attack that fleet of subs, with the advantage of having a Destroyer, but that requires at least a second Destroyer to stay home with my surface group in case any subs survive.
This is how my boards are looking, in both the Atlantic and Pacific. And under these rules, even with a Destroyer, Subs are king of the sea.
Some suggestions -
Return subs to their status of being “exposed” when attacking even without a Destroyer so the surface group can defend themselves.
Reduce subs to a one roll attack/defense and force submerge at the start of Round 2, unless they are defending with an attacking Destroyer present.
These make a sub fleet strong still, but not a cheap and easy underwater game changer.
@Capt.:
Okay. Let’s go with subs being undetectable and therefor undefensible when they are attacking a fleet without a destroyer. Here’s my problem with that. If subs cannot be destroyed, why would they ever leave the battle? Surface ships would be completely helpless, and any accompanying aircraft would ultimately look for a friendly landing spot or be scuttled. It would be like taking pot-shots. IMO, the most affordable naval unit should not have this kind of power. All this creates is an esclation of destroyers, and more subs, and so on.
Nobody said that subs were undetectable if you don’t have a destroyer. Sea units can hit subs regardless - it’s only air units that can’t hit subs without a destroyer. Surface ships are only helpless if they’re hit. Their ability to take two hits makes battleships a potent defense against lone subs, or even small groups.
@Capt.:
And, on your position, let’s say there is a destroyer defending a fleet. If the fleet is attacked by say, 6 subs, and hits the subs make (without sneak attack) cause me to send carriers and cruisers to casualty, to ensure my destroyer stays alive to give the fighters a second chance, well that’s an enormous amount of power. Isn’t it?
If the enemy has built up six subs, you probably need to have more than one destroyer to deal with them. At any rate, on average only two of the subs will hit in the first round, and a fleet of any size will have a good chance at making sure that most of them don’t get a second chance.
The bottom line is that you need destroyers when there are subs prowling about. In general, you need less destroyers than there are subs. The offensive power of subs is considerable when there are no destroyers to thwart them, but this is offset by the fact that they are pretty easy to kill when there are destroyers around. The real power of subs is that they force your opponent to spend IPCs on destroyers, and I don’t see a problem with that. It seems pretty historical to me.
@Capt.:
Okay. Let’s go with subs being undetectable and therefor undefensible when they are attacking a fleet without a destroyer. Here’s my problem with that. If subs cannot be destroyed, why would they ever leave the battle? Surface ships would be completely helpless, and any accompanying aircraft would ultimately look for a friendly landing spot or be scuttled. It would be like taking pot-shots. IMO, the most affordable naval unit should not have this kind of power. All this creates is an esclation of destroyers, and more subs, and so on.
Nobody said that subs were undetectable if you don’t have a destroyer. Sea units can hit subs regardless - it’s only air units that can’t hit subs without a destroyer. Surface ships are only helpless if they’re hit. Their ability to take two hits makes battleships a potent defense against lone subs, or even small groups.
@Capt.:
And, on your position, let’s say there is a destroyer defending a fleet. If the fleet is attacked by say, 6 subs, and hits the subs make (without sneak attack) cause me to send carriers and cruisers to casualty, to ensure my destroyer stays alive to give the fighters a second chance, well that’s an enormous amount of power. Isn’t it?
If the enemy has built up six subs, you probably need to have more than one destroyer to deal with them. At any rate, on average only two of the subs will hit in the first round, and a fleet of any size will have a good chance at making sure that most of them don’t get a second chance.
The bottom line is that you need destroyers when there are subs prowling about. In general, you need less destroyers than there are subs. The offensive power of subs is considerable when there are no destroyers to thwart them, but this is offset by the fact that they are pretty easy to kill when there are destroyers around. The real power of subs is that they force your opponent to spend IPCs on destroyers, and I don’t see a problem with that. It seems pretty historical to me.
Oh Man, I’ve been totally playing this wrong. Destroyers for Aircraft, not Destroyers for All Ships. New rules mistake on my part. Please, I beg your pardon.
So I can attack a sub fleet with a surface group without having a Destroyer, just no planes? That’s huge!!!
@Capt.:
So I can attack a sub fleet with a surface group without having a Destroyer, just no planes? That’s huge!!!
Well, not exactly. If you try to attack without destroyers, the subs can submerge before you fire if they want to. However, it will be a lot easier to defend against subs than you originally thought.
I think there is another consideration regarding the optimum sub/destroyer ratio. Since transports can no longer be taken as hits to protect a fleet, I use DD’s not only for sub defense, but as fodder for battle.
It’s great to have a DD along with the rest of your fleet, but if a group of 2-3 enemy subs gets just one hit and you only have 1 DD and no BB along, then you have a difficult choice to make. If you lose the sub, you lose the protection against a surprise strike next combat round. If you don’t lose the DD, then you are giving up a more valuable ship. Of course, a sub could also be used for fodder, but for the extra 1 IPC, I’d rather have the DD. Also, DD’s can be fodder for aircraft attacks while subs can’t unless there is an enemy DD in the attack force.
So my general rule is that when I have a large fleet to protect with subs on the prowl, I always take at least two DD’s along, maybe more depending on the attack force I’m potentially facing.
Good point, Ogrebait. Destroyers are very useful for other purposes in addition to sub defense, so you’re definitely not wasting IPCs by buying them.
Having destroyers play an important role in fleet battles was part of the reasoning behind the changes in the naval combat rules in AA50. It’s much more realistic to have destroyers be the front-line units at sea than either transports or subs, as was the case in previous incarnations of A&A.
Subs have the following advantages when enemy Destroyers are NOT present:
1. They can’t be attacked by Air.
2. Their attack’s hits resolve before non-Sub units roll.
3. On Offense, they may submerge once they’ve completed their attack, before the other side can return fire
4. On Defense, they may submerge before being attacked at all.
Note that Subs also have the disadvantage that they do not block sea zones, you can have 1000 subs in a sea zone and the opponent can still move a transport through it.
On the other hand, without Destroyers, you can’t destroy Subs unless the owner chooses to let them participate in combat.
Oh, and ogrebait, Destroyers cost 2 more IPCs than a Sub, meaning that Destroyers cost 33% more than Subs, which adds up to the point that 3 Destroyers only beats 4 Subs 55% of the time when they are the ones attacking, meaning that the Subs are defending at a 1 with no special powers.
3. On Offense, they may submerge once they’ve completed their attack, before the other side can return fire
4. On Defense, they may submerge before being attacked at all.
is this true?
I have been playing it wrong.
@Imperious:
3. On Offense, they may submerge once they’ve completed their attack, before the other side can return fire
4. On Defense, they may submerge before being attacked at all.is this true?
I have been playing it wrong.
3. On Offense, they may submerge once they’ve completed their attack, before the other side can return fire
False. They may fire or submerge, not fire and submerge. If they fire, anything that isn’t hit can fire back. If there are no attacking destroyers, defending subs fire back even if they are hit, since they also get a Surprise Strike.
4. On Defense, they may submerge before being attacked at all.
True.
False. They may fire or submerge, not fire and submerge. If they fire, anything that isn’t hit can fire back. If there are no attacking destroyers, defending subs fire back even if they are hit, since they also get a Surprise Strike.
ok i thought it was false. I was playing it correctly.
Very good Ogrebait, “prodigious breeding at a ratio of say, 10 females to 1 male.”
On the matter of multiple detroyers for fodder, why not bring more subs instead of more destroyers? I figure a fleet should have at least one destroyer for the fighters, and 3 subs protecting. Subs also give you attack possibilities, where a couple Destroyers will most likely stick with the fleet. Of course these subs do you no good against a pure airstrike, so it depends on the positions.
I love the new sub defending at 1 and costing 6. Great attack, great fodder or submerge.
@Capt.:
On the matter of multiple detroyers for fodder, why not bring more subs instead of more destroyers?
Because then your fleet would be susceptible to an aerial attack (without an attacking destroyer of course). It’s interesting that there are some instances where you DON’T want to have a destroyer.
So…. when you have a fleet of mixed subs/surface warships being attacked by only planes, you CANNOT take the subs as casualties?
So…. when you have a fleet of mixed subs/surface warships being attacked by only planes, you CANNOT take the subs as casualties?
No, they can not be taken as casualties. Only if the attacker sends a destroyer with his planes can your subs be removed by air attacks.
