Idea: New Submarine Powers

[series]

The new current issue on this boards seems to be sea units. After recieving a bit of positive response for a previous idea I had, I decided to make a thread about it. Here is the change I suggest:

In addition to all existing submarine powers, submarines make targeted attacks.

This will make subs real nasty, but not too much so... think about it, this will seriously handicap the aircraft carriers, because a sub can take them out first, leaving the fighters to die, or maybe a transport or 2, especially loaded ones, or if you get multiple hits, you can take out a certain 24 IPC unit... and kill enemy destroyers, giving you even more sub power (it is debatable whether or not they get a targeted attack against destroyers... I think they should but it's debatable... let us discuss this perhaps...)! However, this would not be invincible. Yet, I think it would be a good counter for aircraft carriers (sink a carrier and do up to 36 IPC of damage with 16 IPC of units). Yet, people who buy only subs will be vulnerable to destroyers still.

And best of all... It's the simplest change out there. I see a lot of crazy ideas like revising every unit or making new ones or making subs harder to hit... this does it all with one simple rule change. Also, I could really see some German subs doing stuff with this... when the allies build up a sick fleet, they could send maybe 3 subs in, sink a transport or 2, and either submerge or die trying.

So how do you people think this sounds?

Edit: The rule change now includes that the targeted attack does not apply if enemy destroyers are present.

[DocD]

This is better than alot of Clausey's ideas I tell you that.
I'm for it totally!

[series]

This is better than alot of Clausey's ideas I tell you that.
I'm for it totally!
I'm actually very happy with this idea... it's the first really simple change I ever made... and it seems one of the best.

[Stephen]

This idea could have merit but would require extensive playtesting.

I recall one ruleset that had hits at a 1 being targetted. Perhaps sub hits at a 1 could take out anything.

Although I think this idea has promise, I still like "crazy ideas like revising every unit or making new ones or making subs harder to hit"

:)

[ee]

Series, you can put a sub up in a dress and call it "Queen of the May", and it surely will be, at least until the next opposing plane comes along and sinks it without so much as a "how d'ye do?".

Subs are too easy to kill in this game. Who would buy them, except as inexpensive fodder protecting/protected by a larger fleet? As an old experienced AAE hand, I have no idea why AH retreated from the destroyer in same sea zone requirement, but the first agenda item for any house rule is to reinstate it.

I would go further, to say that only destroyers, carrier based fighters, or bombers should be able to kill subs, but that's just me (apparently).

[series]

This idea could have merit but would require extensive playtesting.

I recall one ruleset that had hits at a 1 being targetted. Perhaps sub hits at a 1 could take out anything.

Although I think this idea has promise, I still like "crazy ideas like revising every unit or making new ones or making subs harder to hit"

:)
That could work (hits of 1 targeted), but I feel it's a tad bit unnecessary. I am going to try testing the rules out though. The crazy ideas work, but often simple, tiny changes that closly mirror the original rules work best.

Series, you can put a sub up in a dress and call it "Queen of the May", and it surely will be, at least until the next opposing plane comes along and sinks it without so much as a "how d'ye do?".

Subs are too easy to kill in this game. Who would buy them, except as inexpensive fodder protecting/protected by a larger fleet? As an old experienced AAE hand, I have no idea why AH retreated from the destroyer in same sea zone requirement, but the first agenda item for any house rule is to reinstate it.

I would go further, to say that only destroyers, carrier based fighters, or bombers should be able to kill subs, but that's just me (apparently).
I think that friendly destroyers should be present if u want to attack a sub with aircraft, however, if you simply keep your subs with the rest of your ships, then you can fight back. Giving them targeted attacks more than makes them worth it. Being vulnerable to air units may be a way to balance this. Unless you want to make a rule that lets subs even choose to target air units...?

[cousin_joe]

Kudos for the effort series, but here's why it doesn't work:

1. SUBs in WWII were used primarily as Convoy Raiders, not so much as warships (with perhaps Japan as an exception, and it didn't do so much for them). They should be doing economic damage rather than military damage. :rolleyes:

2. Destroyer targeting as you've described. How are you supposed to counter these suckers if they keep going after your destroyers? :confused:

3. AC targeting makes this very unbalanced. An 8IPC unit taking out 36IPC on a single die roll. Maybe to you that seems right, but the more sane among us would argue differently :)

4. As described by ee, this does nothing for sub vulnerability.

5. Serious game imbalance in favor of the Axis. Just keep taking out the ACs and DDs and the Allies are in serious trouble in the Atlantic.

Thoughts?

[Attila the Wolf]

Fighters on carriers aren't necessarily destroyed if the carrier is sunk. The rules allow the fighters to land on a territory if it is connected to the sea zone in which the carrier was sunk.

[Krieghund]

Hmmm - this is unusual. I agree with cousin_joe 100%!

[series]

Kudos for the effort series, but here's why it doesn't work:

1. SUBs in WWII were used primarily as Convoy Raiders, not so much as warships (with perhaps Japan as an exception, and it didn't do so much for them). They should be doing economic damage rather than military damage. :rolleyes:

2. Destroyer targeting as you've described. How are you supposed to counter these suckers if they keep going after your destroyers? :confused:

3. AC targeting makes this very unbalanced. An 8IPC unit taking out 36IPC on a single die roll. Maybe to you that seems right, but the more sane among us would argue differently :)

4. As described by ee, this does nothing for sub vulnerability.

5. Serious game imbalance in favor of the Axis. Just keep taking out the ACs and DDs and the Allies are in serious trouble in the Atlantic.

Thoughts?
1. With that logic, submarines shouldn't be allowed to attack at all. And that's ridiculous.

2. As I said, we could make it so destroyers disable the targeted shot. That way, it can still be countered.

3. This will make ACs a slightly less attractive purchase without destroyers is the above rule was in place, and also, it would take 3 subs to get a near-garunteed hit, costing 24 IPC. Also, it is possible for air units to land on islands and places like that.

4. So? If you want some invulnerable death machine, buy a battleship. A sub costs 8 IPC... are you suggesting we make it 3 hits to sink, attack and defend at 5, and have a movement of 8 with the ability to fly like aircraft? The point is, everything needs some sort of weakness.

5. Hey... didn't Germany actually buy submarines...? The point is, if this will help the axis, then good. After all, I remember you saying the game favors the allies now...

[Drax Kramer]

I would go further, to say that only destroyers, carrier based fighters, or bombers should be able to kill subs, but that's just me (apparently).

Actually I would go even more further, I would forbid all land based fighters from attacking naval targets.

The reason? Only small part of any one air force was trained and equipped to attack naval targets at sea. Such elite force can be assumed to be completely comprised within bomber units.

As a compensation, these bombers (as well as carrier based fighters) would be allowed to make targeted attacks (like they did in the real war).


Drax

[series]

Actually I would go even more further, I would forbid all land based fighters from attacking naval targets.

The reason? Only small part of any one air force was trained and equipped to attack naval targets at sea. Such elite force can be assumed to be completely comprised within bomber units.

As a compensation, these bombers (as well as carrier based fighters) would be allowed to make targeted attacks (like they did in the real war).


Drax
That could work, but couldnt you then just send the fighters off the carrier to attack, then reland them? Or must they be with the carrier when they attack sea units?

[DocD]

Actually I would go even more further, I would forbid all land based fighters from attacking naval targets.

The reason? Only small part of any one air force was trained and equipped to attack naval targets at sea. Such elite force can be assumed to be completely comprised within bomber units.

As a compensation, these bombers (as well as carrier based fighters) would be allowed to make targeted attacks (like they did in the real war).
Drax
Fighters counted for a good portion of naval loses drax. Besides, your idea seems too ahistorical.
Just seems silly to me.

[sking500]

Like the idea, but adding my own twist...

My understanding is that destroyers were used to "screen" the remainder of the fleet from enemy sub attacks. How about a rule where a sub could only target specific ships if no destroyers were present? This would simulate the fact that a carrier, and/or transports were at great risk travelling without destroyer escort in sub-infested waters. It would also highly encourage the highly realistic "requirement" of building destroyer escorts for fleets.

Also, carrier-based aircraft were not particularly effective at dawn/dusk, or in the evening, even with early radar/sonar. Conversely, these times were when many subs were most active due to the obvious advantageous conditions. Since the game is at a scale where this cannot be simulated, allowing conditional targeting (in the absence of destroyer escort) would be a decent way to offset the subs inherent weaknesses.

[series]

Like the idea, but adding my own twist...

My understanding is that destroyers were used to "screen" the remainder of the fleet from enemy sub attacks. How about a rule where a sub could only target specific ships if no destroyers were present? This would simulate the fact that a carrier, and/or transports were at great risk travelling without destroyer escort in sub-infested waters. It would also highly encourage the highly realistic "requirement" of building destroyer escorts for fleets.
Yes, I mentioned that in my original post. I was wondering if I should include it, and so far... all signs point to yes. The only problem is I cant see one destroyer stopping like 8 subs...

[DocD]

Like the idea, but adding my own twist...

My understanding is that destroyers were used to "screen" the remainder of the fleet from enemy sub attacks. How about a rule where a sub could only target specific ships if no destroyers were present? This would simulate the fact that a carrier, and/or transports were at great risk travelling without destroyer escort in sub-infested waters. It would also highly encourage the highly realistic "requirement" of building destroyer escorts for fleets.

oh nice sking. I really like that idea. No extra units or rules needed. Best idea I've heard in a long time. Makes subs and destroyers an item at the buffet line.
I'm going to incorporate this one into DocD's enhanced ruleset!

[series]

Ok, I am writing the rule change down officially:

In addition to all existing submarine powers, submarines make targeted attacks as long as no enemy destroyers are present.


As I said in my original post, I thought this would work out well.

[sking500]

Yes, I mentioned that in my original post. I was wondering if I should include it, and so far... all signs point to yes. The only problem is I cant see one destroyer stopping like 8 subs...

Sorry, I must've missed it in your original post...props to you.

[madmat]

Doh, now subs would become excellent buys, as would destroyers.
That's a very interesting idea.

[cousin_joe]

Like the idea, but adding my own twist...

My understanding is that destroyers were used to "screen" the remainder of the fleet from enemy sub attacks. How about a rule where a sub could only target specific ships if no destroyers were present? This would simulate the fact that a carrier, and/or transports were at great risk travelling without destroyer escort in sub-infested waters. It would also highly encourage the highly realistic "requirement" of building destroyer escorts for fleets.

Also, carrier-based aircraft were not particularly effective at dawn/dusk, or in the evening, even with early radar/sonar. Conversely, these times were when many subs were most active due to the obvious advantageous conditions. Since the game is at a scale where this cannot be simulated, allowing conditional targeting (in the absence of destroyer escort) would be a decent way to offset the subs inherent weaknesses.Great twist sking500! :D You may have saved this idea, yet :)

[series]

Great twist sking500! :D You may have saved this idea, yet :)Nice try to compliment my great ideas without complimenting me, but he should have as much credit as I do- I did say in my original post that it was an idea, but hes the first person to use it (and, since he thought of it himself, he deserves credit too). The point is Toe, you can try to not compliment me, but it will get harder and harder and harder until you have no choice....

[Zero Pilot]

With the tweaks, gotta say... I like it! This would put subs and destroyers "back in the game" in a big way. And it's simple yet effective.

Ya know Series this idea will likely never make it into Cousin Joe's Enhanced if only because the impetus came from you. *he-he* Somehow I see shades of a Clausewitz vs. DocD rivalry here all over again! ~ZP

[DocD]

With the tweaks, gotta say... I like it! This would put subs and destroyers "back in the game" in a big way. And it's simple yet effective.

Ya know Series this idea will likely never make it into Cousin Joe's Enhanced if only because the impetus came from you. *he-he* Somehow I see shades of a Clausewitz vs. DocD rivalry here all over again! ~ZP
LOL....You know I was thinking the same thing pilot. Clausey was such an opponent, I feel sad I beat him to a pulp.
I will be glad when Series and Cj get that game on they were discussing last week.
Let's get ready to rumble!!!!

[Drax Kramer]

1. With that logic, submarines shouldn't be allowed to attack at all. And that's ridiculous.

Well, it didn't seem ridiculous to Larry when he sat to design Axis&Allies for Nova Games. In this first incarnation, submarines had no attack factor and were reduced to one round of defensive fire whenever enemy surface fleet entered or started the turn in the submarine's sea zone.

Surviving attacker's surface vessels could then retaliate with one round of fire against the submarines.

It was much more realistic use of submarines short of convoy zones than what we got now.


Drax

[SCIPIO]

In addition to all existing submarine powers, submarines make targeted attacks as long as no enemy destroyers are present.


I like it very much! By far the best additional rule: short, simple, historical and you don't have to change anything in the game! Now we should playtest it to see if it's works good, but I think it would do! And now I'm not worried anymore if a Fgt can destroy a Sub so easily or if the DD costs 12, or if my opponent don't buy anything but Carrier plenty of Fgt!

[Krieghund]

Well, it didn't seem ridiculous to Larry when he sat to design Axis&Allies for Nova Games. In this first incarnation, submarines had no attack factor and were reduced to one round of defensive fire whenever enemy surface fleet entered or started the turn in the submarine's sea zone.

Surviving attacker's surface vessels could then retaliate with one round of fire against the submarines.

It was much more realistic use of submarines short of convoy zones than what we got now.

It seems you and I may be the only ones who feel this way, Drax.

[series]

Well, it didn't seem ridiculous to Larry when he sat to design Axis&Allies for Nova Games. In this first incarnation, submarines had no attack factor and were reduced to one round of defensive fire whenever enemy surface fleet entered or started the turn in the submarine's sea zone.

Surviving attacker's surface vessels could then retaliate with one round of fire against the submarines.

It was much more realistic use of submarines short of convoy zones than what we got now.


Drax
Well, I'm sure theres a reason that rule was changed. After all, one could say "It didn't seem ridiculous to George Washington to have slavery legal", but since the rule was changed...

LOL....You know I was thinking the same thing pilot. Clausey was such an opponent, I feel sad I beat him to a pulp.
I will be glad when Series and Cj get that game on they were discussing last week.
Let's get ready to rumble!!!!
Yeah, we are still scheduling it unfortunately (different time zones really give us very little overlapping free time).

[Krieghund]

Well, I'm sure theres a reason that rule was changed. After all, one could say "It didn't seem ridiculous to George Washington to have slavery legal", but since the rule was changed...

The reason the rule was changed in the MB version was that it was decided that there needed to be a cheap naval unit with actual combat ability, unlike transports. With the addition of destroyers in AAR, I was hoping that the sub rules would return to their former state, but that was not to be.

I asked Larry Harris if there was any consideration given to restoring the original sub rules in AAR, but he said he had forgotten that they had worked that way in the Nova version. Too bad. :(

[sking500]

(Trying not to sound too smarmy here, but...)
Thank you all for the compliments. It's very rewarding to see positive feedback from people who share a common interest with myself.

Props to series for the original idea, which stimulated this conversation in the first place.

[series]

Ya know Series this idea will likely never make it into Cousin Joe's Enhanced if only because the impetus came from you. *he-he* Somehow I see shades of a Clausewitz vs. DocD rivalry here all over again! ~ZPTook you long enough to figure that out... :D

Trust me, getting this good idea in a variant like enhanced would bring shame to the idea. Well, then again, it would sure make enhanced worth playing.

[sking500]

Hey!

I hit the 100-mark with that last post! I'm now at about one-tenth the number of posts most of the rest of the regulars have. Hooray for triple digits!

Whooohooo!

[cousin_joe]

Took you long enough to figure that out... :D

Trust me, getting this good idea in a variant like enhanced would bring shame to the idea. Well, then again, it would sure make enhanced worth playing.I think you got that the wrong way around series. Getting this idea in a variant like Enhanced would bring shame to Enhanced. This idea belongs more in that piece of crap you call Arms Race: Invasion of Earth :D

If you noticed, I never said the idea was good, just sking500's twist on it :p . I still stand by points 1,3,4,5 I made earlier in the thread. I agree with Drax and Krieghund that SUBs should be more important in a convoy raiding role, rather than a military role. They should still have some anti-warship capabilities, but providing them with target selection makes them much more powerful than they really were.

[series]

I think you got that the wrong way around series. Getting this idea in a variant like Enhanced would bring shame to Enhanced. This idea belongs more in that piece of crap you call Arms Race: Invasion of Earth :D
the hundreds of people anticipating it's release will disagree with that last statement :p

[DocD]

I don't think it will make subs all that tough cousin. Placing a destroyer in the fleet negates the subs ability so I can't imagine this rule making subs overly strong.

[cousin_joe]

the hundreds of people anticipating it's release will disagree with that last statement :p
Hundreds?!?! :eek: Delusional, are we? :rolleyes: It's pretty much just you and nerdx, and guess what, You're the Same Person!!! A hundred is seriously pushing it, unless there are a whole bunch of other personalities in that schizoid mind of yours we don't know about yet? :eek:

[series]

Hundreds?!?! :eek: Delusional, are we? :rolleyes: It's pretty much just you and nerdx, and guess what, You're the Same Person!!! A hundred is seriously pushing it, unless there are a whole bunch of other personalities in that schizoid mind of yours we don't know about yet? :eek:nerdx doesnt even like the idea, and we're not the same person as moderator sinister said! Seriously, you wont know how many PMs I got requesting the rules!

[Blasherke]

Ok, I am writing the rule change down officially:

In addition to all existing submarine powers, submarines make targeted attacks as long as no enemy destroyers are present.


As I said in my original post, I thought this would work out well.
We liked the idea so we tested it. Our remarks were the following:
- nothing changes for Germany: they don't need the rule to counter the US and UK transports, since transports are almost always taken as a casualty anyway.
- nothing changes for russia: no need to reason why.
- UK: buys one extra destroyer to counter the initial German subs.
- Japan: they do buy a couple of subs in an attempt to counter the US AC, but nothing really changes since the US simply buys one or two destroyers.
- US: see the above

Suggestion: for each attacking sub you need one destroyer to neutralise the ability.

In general, the outcome of the game isn't really influenced by the rule. From our experience, we believe naval warfare in general doesn't much influence the outcome of the game, at least not as much as the battle on the continent. But as we feel the rule makes naval warfare more interesting we're going to keep on playing by it in the future.


greetz,
Blash

[DocD]

We liked the idea so we tested it. Our remarks were the following:
- nothing changes for Germany: they don't need the rule to counter the US and UK transports, since transports are almost always taken as a casualty anyway.
- nothing changes for russia: no need to reason why.
- UK: buys one extra destroyer to counter the initial German subs.
- Japan: they do buy a couple of subs in an attempt to counter the US AC, but nothing really changes since the US simply buys one or two destroyers.
- US: see the above

Suggestion: for each attacking sub you need one destroyer to neutralise the ability.

In general, the outcome of the game isn't really influenced by the rule. From our experience, we believe naval warfare in general doesn't much influence the outcome of the game, at least not as much as the battle on the continent. But as we feel the rule makes naval warfare more interesting we're going to keep on playing by it in the future.
greetz,
Blash
Interesting Blash....I thought it would come down like that. Hum, I'm not sure if I would continue to 'evolve' this rule though. I mean one could start working out ratios of subs to destroyers and all that, but then it seems that we are getting into a whole new ball game.

[SCIPIO]

We liked the idea so we tested it. Our remarks were the following:
- nothing changes for Germany: they don't need the rule to counter the US and UK transports, since transports are almost always taken as a casualty anyway.
- nothing changes for russia: no need to reason why.
- UK: buys one extra destroyer to counter the initial German subs.
- Japan: they do buy a couple of subs in an attempt to counter the US AC, but nothing really changes since the US simply buys one or two destroyers.
- US: see the above

Suggestion: for each attacking sub you need one destroyer to neutralise the ability.

In general, the outcome of the game isn't really influenced by the rule. From our experience, we believe naval warfare in general doesn't much influence the outcome of the game, at least not as much as the battle on the continent. But as we feel the rule makes naval warfare more interesting we're going to keep on playing by it in the future.


Now Subs and Destroyer are bought and not so useless like before...

[series]

Well, at one point I did mention a 1:2 ratio idea (1 destroyer can neutralize 2 submarines) but that was just an idea. However, after reading the playtest, i think it could work...

[moppar]

a rule change that encourages naval purchases without changing game balance would be welcome at my game table. good idea, thanks

[nerdx]

I love the idea. I'm glad I thought of it.

[series]

I love the idea. I'm glad I thought of it.
Oh no, not this again...