Submarines in WaS...

[Bellerophon]

Okay, since we have been talking about aircraft and how they would affect hidden ship movement on another thread, I thought that I would bring up the subject of how submarines are going to be represented in WaS.

Submarines would definitely need some sort of provision in the rules to allow for the fact that submarines usually attacked and retreated while submerged. Submarines were THE stealth unit of WWII, and whole books have been written about tactics and deployment of these weapons. Submarines were extremely effective weapons, especially early in the war, because of their ability to attack a target unseen. Until sonar became more common submarines were very hard to track, even by aircraft.

How do you think WaS will reflect these hidden killers in the rules?

[Joisey]

I have no idea how WaS will deal with submerged subs. Possibilities include:

1)Barring certain units from attacking subs. Example, only destroyers and aircraft can attack subs. Other units are blind.

2) Giving units attacking subs a negative modifier, with perhaps only destroyers and aircraft being exempt from that modifier, or attacking with a lesser modifier.

3) Give subs a special attack round before the first round of regular combat (this is what A&A did)

4) Add X to the true range between the attacking unit and the sub (this is only for units attacking subs, not vice-versa). This is how Star Fleet Battles treats cloaked ships, adding 5 hexes to the true range for shots at cloaked ships.

Or any combination of the above

[Bellerophon]

I have no idea how WaS will deal with submerged subs. Possibilities include:

1)Barring certain units from attacking subs. Example, only destroyers and aircraft can attack subs. Other units are blind.

2) Giving units attacking subs a negative modifier, with perhaps only destroyers and aircraft being exempt from that modifier, or attacking with a lesser modifier.

3) Give subs a special attack round before the first round of regular combat (this is what A&A did)

4) Add X to the true range between the attacking unit and the sub (this is only for units attacking subs, not vice-versa). This is how Star Fleet Battles treats cloaked ships, adding 5 hexes to the true range for shots at cloaked ships.

Or any combination of the above

I like the first shot idea, since this would reflect the submarines ability to attack while submerged and before anyone knows that they are there. I also like the modifier rule giving attacking surface ships and aircraft a negative modifier.

[XAos]

1)Barring certain units from attacking subs. Example, only destroyers and aircraft can attack subs. Other units are blind.

We do have one clue in the quickstart rulebook;
"Submarines: Submarines are hard to attack. A unit can only attack an enemy Submarine if it has an ASW attack value or a special ability to do so. You’ll notice that ASW attacks are always range 0, so a unit must be in the same sector as a Submarine to attack that Submarine. ASW attacks work like Gunnery attacks."
So your guess (1) looks correct.
None of the currently previewed units have the ASW factor/abilitiy.

[Bellerophon]

None of the currently previewed units have the ASW factor/abilitiy.

Maybe we will get lucky and the Powers That Be will give us a preview of a submarine or anti-submarine unit in the next Opening Salvo. Attention! WoTC Gods, give us Submarines!:D

[Autarch]

I think they are assuming the sub is going to be submerged for combat purposes.

[mikoyan]

A sub wasn't always necessarily submerged for an attack though. At night, the sub would run on the surface and commence a surface attack. This was mostly the US as many of the Japanese escorts didn't have radar until late in the war. During the day, a sub would have to sight a convoy, circle around it out of radar range and then set up for the attack. Especially since it didn't move all that fast below the surface. If the sub wasn't paying attention, the convoy would zig when it was expecting it to zag, and the convoy wouldn't be around.

Against military ships, a sub would be chewed up for the most part.

It wasn't until the Type XXI's that a sub could stay underwater for an extended period of time and be faster under water.

[XAos]

Against military ships, a sub would be chewed up for the most part.

It wasn't that easy for military ships.
A "sub-killer group" of the carrier HMS.Couragous & several destroyers found a U-boat early in the war. Result, the U-boat sank Couragous.:eek:

[Bellerophon]

It wasn't that easy for military ships.
A "sub-killer group" of the carrier HMS.Couragous & several destroyers found a U-boat early in the war. Result, the U-boat sank Couragous.:eek:

Also, many times destroyers or other anti-submarine surface ships had to spend HOURS trying to destroy a single submarine with depth charges, even with more accurate sonar. Submarines frequently escaped from surface ships, and the wolfpack tactics of the Germans tended to spread out the available response from Allied fleets even more.

[swarbs]

So, perhaps what we'll see is something similar to an aircraft squadron where surface ships will have a much easier time aborting an attack (historically by forcing a sub deep) than actually destroying it.

[Joisey]

A sub being surfaced or suberged is a huge difference. It would justify two stat cards. But, we'll probably just get units that are "presumed" submerged.

I'll be interested to see if the advanced rules include night engagements.

[XAos]

A sub being surfaced or suberged is a huge difference. It would justify two stat cards. But, we'll probably just get units that are "presumed" submerged.

I'll be interested to see if the advanced rules include night engagements.
I'd guess your correct that subs will be "presumed submerged".

On the subject of Night engagements;
Preview-5 is now up, Myoko; has "Night Fighter".
"Once per game, if it's turn-4 or later. This unit may reroll one gunnary attack."
Which implies night combat will be implimented by a few special abilities & otherwise not mentioned in the rules.

[Patton_71]

I for one do have a problem with subs taking such a large role in the game. IIRC, only twice did subs have an immediate impact on a battle between fleets (Nautilus and Cavalla during Phillipine sea, and Darter/Dace during Leyte Gulf). Subs certainly have an immense impact in a strategic/economic sense and even recon. But subs are simply too slow to be a reliable weapon during a fleet action. The failure of the Japanese sub force during WWII is a prime example of this failed doctrine.

That being said, faced with the reality that WAS minis will have subs available in scenarios, it all depends on the power/counter stike balance of the game mechanics. Hopefully it will be done right, and not totally screwy like the 100% accurate, immune to ground fire paras in AAM.

Patton

[Joisey]

I think speed will be the key factor in how big of an involvement subs will have in fleet battles. If they are as slow in the game relative to ships as they were in real life, then fleet battle speeds will quickly leave them behind and afford them a narrow window of opportunity for attack.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

I have no idea how WaS will deal with submerged subs. Possibilities include:

1)Barring certain units from attacking subs. Example, only destroyers and aircraft can attack subs. Other units are blind.

2) Giving units attacking subs a negative modifier, with perhaps only destroyers and aircraft being exempt from that modifier, or attacking with a lesser modifier.

3) Give subs a special attack round before the first round of regular combat (this is what A&A did)

4) Add X to the true range between the attacking unit and the sub (this is only for units attacking subs, not vice-versa). This is how Star Fleet Battles treats cloaked ships, adding 5 hexes to the true range for shots at cloaked ships.

Or any combination of the above

I hope you continue your HHR work for War at Sea just in case we need it. Good ideas.

[polar]

What I know:

- Only ships with ASW can try to attack subs
- No ships preview has an ASW value

What I guess:
-destroers + some air units will have ASW
-Subs will have speed of 1
-Subs will have some torpedo values
-Subs may settup more freely than other units. Ie a sub may be placed directly infront of enemy ships before engange-ment?

Sadly the 'nuclear' submarine was not invented and used in WWII, because that would have been real nasty fun :
extremly stealthy unit with tons of firepower, moveing just as fast as any other ships and no need to come up to the surface to get oxygen for your fule... Haven't seen any good game which has modeled the submarine great.
And I will not see the nuclear submarine in this game either.

[gcrutch]

Has anyone used 3 + subs in their fleet in a game? How did they perform?

[Grandviceroy]

we have had as many as 30 subs on the board ... that was for PQ17...a convoy battle.

tomorrow, when we do Pedastal at my club (we've done it once before) there will be 21 -- but 15 are italian, only 5 are uboats.

of course, there are also 25 destroyers escorting the convoy, the carrier and the battleship/cruiser force....

all subs start submerged -- they are visible on the map, but until they shoot, a DD has to search for them to attack them .. that involves rolling a die less than the DD's ASW rating. if so, they do depth charges. if no, they don't.

when subs shoot, they suffer the 'stacked' penalties of Baker's rules (with a minimum of one die, regardless, as per Baker's update). After that, they are spotted and can be depth charged. To become "unspotted" they have to pass on shooting in a torpedo phase....then they can submerge....usually only the better subs can survive long enough to do this, unless they get really lucky with initiative or there aren't that many DD around.

the convoy eventually cuts through or outruns the subs...but it makes for a good tense fight for a while....

other than convoy battles, we have used A sub (that's one) as a surprise ambusher (write down the grid square and he stays hidden until a DD enters his box or he is revealed) or as scouts on a strategic map (and, in one case, a pair of subs did find a carrier group - the carriers simply moved away, leaving some DD to deal with the subs)

otherwise, we tend to agree beforehand on whether players can have subs or not, or if so a maximum number of points or percentages that can be invested in subs, so as to prevent one guy from having a trump or trick buy that the other can't counter -- after all, we want to play a GAME not just see who can build the trickier fleet....


I think a lot of games, especially big games, are better GAMES if you set up some parameters like that ahead of time (ie. if you do or do not want it to be sub-heavy, or air/carrier heavy, or too many BBs...not that blind buys are necessarily bad, but it is nice sometimes to say 'lets have a cruiser action' or 'lets just fight with small ships' or even a pure carrier to carrier distant air duel or an old fashioned battleline slugfest....

[gcrutch]

we have had as many as 30 subs on the board ... that was for PQ17...a convoy battle.

other than convoy battles, we have used A sub (that's one) as a surprise ambusher (write down the grid square and he stays hidden until a DD enters his box or he is revealed) or as scouts on a strategic map (and, in one case, a pair of subs did find a carrier group - the carriers simply moved away, leaving some DD to deal with the subs)....

I like that ambusher rule - cool. What about battles with several subs using the standard core rules? Since subs can't take objectives, I'm guessing that they cannot be abused as long as the opponent has destroyers?

The reason that I am asking is that the $$ price is right for subs on the direct mini market and I like the look of the single "Barb" that I own. That makes for in inexpensive fleet for my first fleet (with two or more surface ships in a 100 point force).