"Submerged shot"

[Bismarck]

What does the term "submerged shot" on the sub cards actually imply?
Is the opponent sub on the surface or submerged?

[Remember-OWS-]

Submerges shot means that the sub with that ability can shoot at another sub submerged.

[RichardBaker]

Personally, I assume that subs are mixing depths constantly during the game--briefly surfacing, operating at periscope depth, sometimes diving deep. However, we decided to be very generous and say that a sub would dive anytime it was attacked by something it saw. But another sub could surprise it and torpedo it.

The "submerged shot" is a bit of a misnomer under that explanation. To be honest, it's really there to preserve game interaction in case both sides get knocked down to nothing but subs left.


What does the term "submerged shot" on the sub cards actually imply?
Is the opponent sub on the surface or submerged?

[polish_horsy]

perhaps a max of 1 torpedo in sub v. sub combat might have been more realistic and might have made other units more playable... but obviously boring rolling 1 die per turn.

[Bismarck]

Personally, I assume that subs are mixing depths constantly during the game--briefly surfacing, operating at periscope depth, sometimes diving deep. However, we decided to be very generous and say that a sub would dive anytime it was attacked by something it saw. But another sub could surprise it and torpedo it.


Thanks for the reply, it's greatly appreciated.

You say "another sub could surprise it and torpedo it".
But, what's happening when two subs are shooting at each other?
They can't really both be caught by surprise can they?

[MidnMike]

it's just a mechanic that was put in to avoid an all-subs draw; you just have to suspend reality a bit and accept it.

[Volorkey]

Nothing is more satisfying than when a staff member responds to your question.

[Fellblade]

To be honest, it's really there to preserve game interaction in case both sides get knocked down to nothing but subs left.

A better mechanic for that situation might have been to have the game end a few turns after all objectives are captured or neither fleet has the ability to claim any more. I can't count how many games I've seen come down to a near (but not quite)stalemate of only planes and subs being left and spending 15+ turns waiting for something to happen to give one guy a couple more points.

Having some sort of game limit would have been the better way to go. Its pretty boring for 9 undamaged U-Boats to need to wait for a land-based TBD to finish them all off after they sunk the other 91 points of the opponent's 100pt fleet.

[MidnMike]

but see, what's going to happen is someone's gonna bring nothing but subs, sink all the ASW that their opponent brings, and then they win on points when your time limit runs out. Having it the way things are now allows the situation you just mentioned: 9 undamaged U-Boats need to wait for a land based TBD to finish them all of... Which is a GOOD thing... It means that people can't just take all-sub fleets, because in that scenario they automatically lose... no need to play it out!

Of course, we still have the problem of subs+fighters... Then I guess the guy with the TBD brings a fighter and whoever wins the dogfight wins the game... Still boring, but I didn't say that submerged shot solves EVERY boring possibility...

[XAos]

Personally I'd much prefer to calculate the winner on a sub--V's-sub stalemate. Than have a submerged shot rule that lets entire wolfpacks of subs engage in grossly unhistoric combat against each other.
I got stuck in one of these batttles, were for odd reasons one of the players wanted to avoid the final sub-2-sub dice rolls. and invariably moved out of contact. It went on for a long boring time.

[maciej12]

perhaps a max of 1 torpedo in sub v. sub combat might have been more realistic and might have made other units more playable... but obviously boring rolling 1 die per turn.

Maybe it would be better to have a roll to determine IF a sub could shoot at another sub. If it is implied that a sub is manuvering at different depths, then it would also be a good probability that the "attacking sub" would not be able to track the "defending sub". Make the SA state that on a roll of x or higher, this sub may attack an enemy sub. (or houserule it)

[Bismarck]

Maybe it would have been too "fiddly" to reserve the sub vs sub combat ability till all enemy surface ships had been eliminated from the game?

That way the "submerged shot" would have more of a tie-breaking function.

You could easily explain the rule by saying that sinking surface ships was usually the priority of submarines.