Posts made by Narvik

@Baron:

In addition, Planes cannot hit submarines without Destroyers, makes the Carriers very vulnerable against Submarines.
While, historically, Escort carriers were specifically used in submarine warfare.

I don’t think the carriers went on sub hunting alone. I believe they were accompanied by some destroyers too.

But, to your case.
I think the sub should roll a preemptive first strike against the carrier.
Then the planes should roll against the sub, and the carrier if it survived should roll too.
With OOB rules only a surviving carrier is allowed to roll against the sub, the planes are not.

The problem with your house rule is that 2 fighters that defend on 4 or less are likely to kill that sub, and that will probably prevent the sub from attacking, and making destroyers obsolete. A combo with 1 battleship, 1 carrier and 2 fighters, which is all allowed to kill that sub, will turn it into a suicide mission for the sub. And of course, who wants to buy destroyers anymore ?

Imagine the sub move 1 space, and is always submerged. And there is no way your destroyer can find and sink that sub as long as it is submerged. When submerged, it don’t block your moves, even a lone tranny can sail over it, embark or debark. The sub moves slow through the ocean, but survive as long it is submerged. But when the sub break the surface and attack a convoy box or a fleet, then you see him. The sub fire a preemptive sneak attack shot, and if a hit, the convoy box take damage, or a ship sink without returning fire. Then all surviving ships and planes in that seazone fire against the sub. If misses, then the sub have a free choice to submerge again. But after it submerged, all present destroyers in that zone get a one time free anti-sub-weapon roll against that sub. If misses, then the sub stay submerged and invisible until next time.

Since a sub only got a movement of 1 space, it can not retreat to another seazone, only submerge where it is.
A sub is not allowed to attack other subs or aircrafts. Hits from subs can not be allocated to enemy subs or aircrafts.

To avoid subs being fodder in big naval battles, I suggest
-Trannies only defend on 1 against aircrafts.
-Subs can only hit surface ships
-Aircrafts should be able to target specific ships. If a kamikaze can target capital ships, why not every aircraft ?
-Let subs be very strong in convoy raiding, stronger than Bombers in SBR. When a sub attack a convoy box, let it roll a dice and the number is IPC lost. If one sub can inflict as much as 6 IPC damage to the enemy economy at less risk than a Bomber, you don’t use it as fodder

@SS:

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.

What part of #Simplifying# is it you don’t understand ?

Besides of that, I love your idea  8-)

Yes, Builder got some valid points. When you attack a seazone with a convoy box in it, and it is protected by a fleet or planes, then maybe the Subs should be able to make a choice if they want to target the convoy or the fleet ? The intercepting destroyers will of course be able to sink them, much like the AA guns hit planes even if the planes don’t shoot at them, but in this case the sub inflict damage before they are sunk, and not before as is the case with AA fire

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.

@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

…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.

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.

Attacking a Sub is another matter. I think only Destroyers should be able to hunt and attack Subs. To keep it historical correct, the Destroyer should attack at 2 and the Sub defend at 1

This is the most simplified system I can think off

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

so, there is a reason the old World at War is never played. When the rules got too specialized and difficult, people don’t play it

@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

@ShadowHAwk:

D-Day saw a lot of strategic bombers dropping bombs all over the place.
Strategic bombers where used as mobile artilery where tactical bombers where more for close air support.

Perhaps not the main topic of this thread, but I will answer you. Heavy Bombers were not very accurate or effective weapons. They dropped bombs from high altitude, and the majority missed. Against the industry, they were not effective, and killed more cows in the nearby fields, than it ruined factories. Submarines that sank convoys did much more damage to the economy than Heavy Bombers. But in all A&A games it is the opposite, SBR is an option but convoys are not.

On D-day more than 1000 Heavy Bombers targeted the Blockhouses at Omaha beach but missed. Then hundreds of Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers shelled the Blockhouses, but they missed too. Then 250 US Rangers climbed the cliff and killed the big coastal guns at Point du Hoc. So go figure.

The Heavy Bombers main contribution on D-day were to bomb railroad stations in the cities, to block German movement. They tried to bomb some bridges too, but that failed. Even carpet bombing infantry failed. And the mobile artillery you are talking about, that was Stukas , not B 17

In the current A&A Global game, the units are misused in a gamey way. Subs are used as fodder in naval battles, and this is historical not correct since subs were the most expensive and time consuming ships to build. But even worse, to kill a group of 5 subs, you can send in one destroyer with 10 Bombers, and you only lose your destroyer. Or you can send in one destroyer with 5 Battleships, and they absorb all the hits. Now this are all tactics that an experienced player can use against a beginner just for fun, but it feels wrong.

Among the tons of house rules to fix this issue, I favor to let destroyers be the only units to hit subs. This is almost historical  correct. The game start in 1940, and planes did not sink subs before 1945. It will also get rid of a lot of special rules, like the sneak attack etc. So, if you play on the current Global map, and want to target the convoy zone outside UK, you just send in 2 German subs. Now, if there are a UK fleet there, they cant roll against subs. Only destroyers can. And one destroyer roll one dice, and maybe sink one of the subs. Now if there are 3 UK destroyers there, they roll 3 dice. That is a simple rule, and I cant understand why its not an OOB rule.

But then we got the problem that a convoy zone adjacent to UK is very easy to protect. UK just place a lot of destroyers there, protected by scrambling fighters and a fleet. And this is just like in the real world. German subs almost never sank ships in port. But the Global map don’t have convoy zones out in the ocean, only adjacent to land, where they are easy to protect. So IMHO that is a flaw. Making the A&A Europe 1999 map superior, when it comes to commerce raiding. Â

@eddiem4145:

Another words, US subs coordinating with US capital warships. I always understood subs fought by themselves and never with capital warships.

Yu are correct. Subs never did combined arms operations together with battleships or bombers. Subs did independent operations, but sometimes together with other subs, like the German wolf packs. And in the same way, you never did see Strategic Bombers cooperate with infantry or Tanks. Strategic Bombers were designed to target Industrial Complexes, and Subs were designed to target convoys. But since this is a simple game, the fun factor is more important than historical accuracy.

The A&A Europe 1999 edition was the best game IMHO, since it had convoy centers all over the Atlantic that the German subs could target, and made for a historical correct struggle between German subs and allied destroyers. It also had a good Strategical Bombing Raid system that encouraged to use the Bombers against factories, and not against the historical incorrect ships or tanks. If you try to SBR an IC in the current Global game, you will lose your Bombers. So it is a much safer strategy to protect your Bomber behind a stack of infantry in a land battle, or behind subs in a naval battle. In the Pacific you will typically see a striking force of subs and Bombers, working together. But that never happened in the real war.

Attached is a pic of the convoy centers of A&A Europe 1999 ed, to remember how it should be

@Me1945:

What Russia makes is presented on state emblems of 6 nations. It is not a maple syrup.

They make problems, now how do you present that on a State emblem ?

@ghr2:

I really liked that 2nd map from your first post, how did you get it?

If you are on facebook, just search for Historical Board Gaming, they have posted lots of pics of the new map there, man. Pics of the old map can be fount on BGG.

Now, why do you like the 2nd map ? The eastern part of Turkey is adjacent to both the Med and Caucasus, which opens for gamey exploitations of aircrafts. The Tobruk city circle look silly, and the new map even miss Cyprus. Now, I understand that the new artwork look cool, but the old map was far superior from a gaming point of view.

…and this 9 spots were ?

@CWO:

@Young:

A&A 2nd Edition OOB National Objectives
GERMANY
1. DENMARK STRAIT

Maybe I’m just missing it, but I don’t see any such NO in the OOB rules.  There’s one which says “5 IPCs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway while Sweden is neither pro-Allies nor Allies-controlled,” but that has nothing to do with the Denmark Strait, which is the strait between Iceland and Greenland (in A&A terms, Sea Zone 122).

Only a few people are aware of this, but the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland was in fact a secret German convoy route to the South American trade marked, so yes it is definitely worth a 5 IPC no

The first pic show how I would like to see Turkey split, and sec pic is the original AA Turkey