How to eliminate sub-stalling & preserve the value of subs

[newaxis]

<<Comments and constructive criticism are welcome>>
cousin joe, I applaud the changes you made to submarines, as they are useful now. I would point out however that submarines should not be able to stop convoys. A more realistic rules mechanic for Enhanced 2.1 would keep the Detected/Undetected mechanic but add the following:

Ships may attempt to move through a SZ containing an enemy fleet made up entirely of submarines. If the active player wishes to attempt to move through the enemy subs, then roll detection as normal (if the active player has DD in the fleet attempting to move through the submarines) If the enemy submarines go undetected AND they choose to submerge after the first round of combat, then the active player may move through the SZ containing the subs. (This represents some actual convoy raiding, as opposed to the abstract IPC losses. This also prevents sub-stalling.) If the subs go undetected and don't submerge or if they are detected, then the active player's convoy is stuck in the SZ with the enemy submarines.

I'm sure the above could be said more succintly, but this would preserve the value of submarines without letting them block massive fleets. As it is now, they can already prevent BB support shots, which is fine. Allowing the subs to block fleets is too much. Also, the subs will still get their attacks in to sink ships with impunity if opponents don't have destroyers. This rule change would be a fine edition for Enhanced 2.1.

[axis_roll]

<<Comments and constructive criticism are welcome>>
cousin joe, I applaud the changes you made to submarines, as they are useful now. I would point out however that submarines should not be able to stop convoys. A more realistic rules mechanic for Enhanced 2.1 would keep the Detected/Undetected mechanic but add the following:

Ships may attempt to move through a SZ containing an enemy fleet made up entirely of submarines. If the active player wishes to attempt to move through the enemy subs, then roll detection as normal (if the active player has DD in the fleet attempting to move through the submarines) If the enemy submarines go undetected AND they choose to submerge after the first round of combat, then the active player may move through the SZ containing the subs. (This represents some actual convoy raiding, as opposed to the abstract IPC losses. This also prevents sub-stalling.) If the subs go undetected and don't submerge or if they are detected, then the active player's convoy is stuck in the SZ with the enemy submarines.

I'm sure the above could be said more succintly, but this would preserve the value of submarines without letting them block massive fleets. As it is now, they can already prevent BB support shots, which is fine. Allowing the subs to block fleets is too much. Also, the subs will still get their attacks in to sink ships with impunity if opponents don't have destroyers. This rule change would be a fine edition for Enhanced 2.1.
You are messing with the underlying bases of rules, that would be LHTR 1.1
Substalling is a part of that rules set.

Can we alter those rules? Sure, but the less changed from that base, the better. I think subs need to retain the substalling capability.

[newaxis]

Think outside the box for a minute. Does letting one sub hold up an entire fleet make any sense? I say no. Convoys are designed to sail through enemy subs, but they are not allowed to by the rules in place. I'm not talking about taking away the ability of subs to get their licks in on enemy shipping, or their ability to prevent the loading of troops in SZ, or their ability to convoy raid, or their ability to get first strike casualties, or their ability to prevent naval bombardment.

All those abilities are fine, except the sub stall. Since subs can't be targeted by aircraft alone in Enhanced, nor can they be taken out if they are on their own and the enemy doesn't have a DD, they become a little too pesky. I have won about three games because of substalling. The one, measly UK sub in the pacific can win you the war. I held up an entire fleet twice because of failed sub detection rolls and prevented troops from landing. Too much depends on the detection roll to let subs stall as well.

Frankly, I find it a little preposterous that a sub could escape a navy with 3 battleships and various other ships. Similiarly, a convoy escorted by multiple submarines that could hunt the other sub down is powerless vs. the substall.

I think a lot of people are turning a blind eye to the substall problem. And yes, it is a problem in Enhanced. I like subs, but the ability to stall a fleet is a little too good. If you want a good example, look at cousin joe and pagan's grudge match. One sub prevents Australia from being taken.

Consider that no other defending piece has the ability to remove itself from combat. Troops can't retreat from defending a territory, nor can anything for that matter. But subs can, and live to stall a fleet over and over. Transports will still need escorts with this change.

[axis_roll]

Think outside the box for a minute. Does letting one sub hold up an entire fleet make any sense? I say no.
hmmm... one sub can not hold up a whole fleet. take one vessel and a bunch of planes... the defending sub will submerge, then move the fleet through that SZ.
All those abilities are fine, except the sub stall. Since subs can't be targeted by aircraft alone in Enhanced, nor can they be taken out if they are on their own and the enemy doesn't have a DD, they become a little too pesky.
You have it wrong, all you need is at least 1 naval vessel to accompany any attack on a sub(s).
I held up an entire fleet twice because of failed sub detection rolls and prevented troops from landing.
that's not how it works. A sub can not stop an amphibious assault. A sub in the same SZ as your fleet prevents you from loading a transport in that SZ. The tpt can leave and still load elsewhere in combat moves.

Again, all you have to do is force the sub to submerge and you defuse the subs ability to 'stop' your movement. You also can leave troops onboard your transports to prevent them from being substalled.

I think a lot of people are turning a blind eye to the substall problem. And yes, it is a problem in Enhanced. I like subs, but the ability to stall a fleet is a little too good. If you want a good example, look at cousin joe and pagan's grudge match. One sub prevents Australia from being taken.
Again, I think you've taken it incorrectly as to make subs too powerful.

[Stephen]

I think the issue here is a sub that is in a SZ directly between the SZ adjacent to the territory, and the SZ where the boats begin.

Say, for instance, a UK sub in Solomons, obstructing a Japanese fleet at Hawaii that wants to attack Australia. No matter what is sent at the sub, the fact that the sub is there prevents the combat move against Australia from happening. I'm using this in a current game, stalling a Japanese fleet in the Pacific.

Granted, the fleet can still move through on non-combat and park itself outside the territory for a next round attack, but that doesn't seem to be the best use of units.

What if subs had the same abilities as strafing fighters in D-Day, that you could try to go through a fleet with subs but it will get a shot against your fleet as it enters and another as it leaves? That would reduce some of the imbalance, as large fleets could still move through zones with subs, yet a few subs could still provide a siginficant impediment to a fleet similar in size.

[pagan]

Sounds like the Advanced A&A game mechanics

basically lone subs or lone sub groups take shots and submerge as the Fleet passes.

The owner of the fleet can either stop and engage (normal combat) or continue through on COMBAT movement to another combat area. (soaking up the hits)

I like it.

[axis_roll]

I think the issue here is a sub that is in a SZ directly between the SZ adjacent to the territory, and the SZ where the boats begin.

Say, for instance, a UK sub in Solomons, obstructing a Japanese fleet at Hawaii that wants to attack Australia. No matter what is sent at the sub, the fact that the sub is there prevents the combat move against Australia from happening. I'm using this in a current game, stalling a Japanese fleet in the Pacific.

Granted, the fleet can still move through on non-combat and park itself outside the territory for a next round attack, but that doesn't seem to be the best use of units.

This is not sub-stalling. You can accomplish the same thing with ANY naval vessel.

[DocD]

Yes, AxisRoll hit the nail right on the head. Any vessel can hold up a fleet that way.

The one problem I had with subs, is they can prevent a transport from loading up in combat. I guess it isn't too much of a problem though since no one else is complaining.

[cousin_joe]

hmmm... one sub can not hold up a whole fleet. take one vessel and a bunch of planes... the defending sub will submerge, then move the fleet through that SZ.

You have it wrong, all you need is at least 1 naval vessel to accompany any attack on a sub(s).

that's not how it works. A sub can not stop an amphibious assault. A sub in the same SZ as your fleet prevents you from loading a transport in that SZ. The tpt can leave and still load elsewhere in combat moves.

Again, all you have to do is force the sub to submerge and you defuse the subs ability to 'stop' your movement. You also can leave troops onboard your transports to prevent them from being substalled.


Again, I think you've taken it incorrectly as to make subs too powerful.

Thank you axis_roll. This is almost exactly as I would have responded. :)

newaxis, I think you're missing out on the fact 1 ship can be sent ahead to force submerge the SUB, so the rest of the fleet can pass through.

If you're worried about SUB Detection, buy more destroyers. There's no need to feel sorry for a defender who doesn't buy enough destroyers, as it's his own fault.

The SUB rules are fine. It does take some time to master using and dealing with SUB stalls, but it is perfectly doable. The SUB stalls as is though, are important in creating a dynamic, active Pacific Theater, and making SUBs viable. They are NOT overpowered.

[newaxis]

You guys have made some good counterpoints, but consider this situation, taken from 2 actual games that I have played:

The Allies barely have Africa, and they will lose it if Japan does not come land troops. The *** fleet is in FIC SZ. I moved my UK sub to India, thus preventing a combat move to Anglo, Italian East Afria, TransJordan. By putting one troop on each of these territories, I exploited the rules so that Japan couldn't move over my sub during the combat move, thus preventing the landing of troops since they can't offload during noncombat into enemy territory. This is a not-so-nice area in the rules. While what I did was expedient from the standpoint of the game, it was cheesy in a way. Sure, the transports could come over to the Red Sea fully loaded, but then the fleet is subject to taking bad losses if attacked.

Yes, all ships can block movement, but subs do it so much better, since they are 100% immune to damage if the enemy does not have a DD in the necessary SZ With the ability to build units at new IC, suddenly dropping subs can be a problem when you would have to wait a turn to get a destroyer. Anyway, the key issue is preventing the combat move or loading of troops.

In another game, 2 botched sub detection rolls held up the entire Japanese navy and won me the game. Letting subs get potshots if a fleet tries to move through them is reasonable. Lone subs stall a fleet; wolfpacks make losses too much to consider. My 2 cents anyway.

[cousin_joe]

You guys have made some good counterpoints, but consider this situation, taken from 2 actual games that I have played:

The Allies barely have Africa, and they will lose it if Japan does not come land troops. The *** fleet is in FIC SZ. I moved my UK sub to India, thus preventing a combat move to Anglo, Italian East Afria, TransJordan. By putting one troop on each of these territories, I exploited the rules so that Japan couldn't move over my sub during the combat move, thus preventing the landing of troops since they can't offload during noncombat into enemy territory. This is a not-so-nice area in the rules. While what I did was expedient from the standpoint of the game, it was cheesy in a way. Sure, the transports could come over to the Red Sea fully loaded, but then the fleet is subject to taking bad losses if attacked.

From a strategic point of view, all this example shows, is that the Allies were in a superior position. Furthermroe, the SUB could have been replaced by a TRN, and it would be the same story.

From a logic point of view, one can see it like this. With SUBs in the adjacent SZ, it would be foolish to send very valuable loaded TRNs through without clearing the SZ first. This takes time, and there just wouldn't be enough it to clear the SZ AND conduct the amphibious assault in the period of time one turn represents.

Yes, all ships can block movement, but subs do it so much better, since they are 100% immune to damage if the enemy does not have a DD in the necessary SZ With the ability to build units at new IC, suddenly dropping subs can be a problem when you would have to wait a turn to get a destroyer. Anyway, the key issue is preventing the combat move or loading of troops.

Again, this would be true of any naval vessel blocking, not just SUBs. And even though the SUBs require a DD (or other SUBs) present to be killed, they can still be force submerged with just one naval vessel, with the rest of the Navy passing through.

In another game, 2 botched sub detection rolls held up the entire Japanese navy and won me the game. Letting subs get potshots if a fleet tries to move through them is reasonable. Lone subs stall a fleet; wolfpacks make losses too much to consider. My 2 cents anyway.

Then they should of had 3 DDs. Again, there is no pity for the player not buying enough destroyers to clear SUBs. It's his own fault.

[newaxis]

I've made my points, so unless there are some additional insights, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think I can make my case any other way without rehashing, so I'll be quiet and civil.