Submarine warfare and amphibious assault

Got a question that you'd like me to answer?
I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
Post Reply
carserrano
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:01 pm

Submarine warfare and amphibious assault

Post by carserrano » Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:47 pm

Good day Mr. Harris,

I Represent almost 20 players in the Republic of Panama (Central America).

After playing several times AA1914, the group wants to post the following situations that require your opinion and/or further discussion:

A) Submarine Warfare: After reading several books and other sources about the importance of the subs in WWI, the German subs are underrated in this game. The fact is that they sunk almost 5,000 ships versus losing 50% of the 360 built aprox.
They destroyed must of the fleet that took part in Gallipoli assault (1915). The group suggest that the:

- Price of the german subs should be reduced in order to have presence in the sea due to the fact that allies have 25 ships vs 8 surface ships from the central powers.

- Any unit that tries to sink a subs will do it with -1 in its ability to fire. For example a cruiser can only fire a sub with a two or one roll. This because the major loses of german subs came after the use of planes, escorted convoys and the research of sonar technology.

- If a wolfpack is formed (group of subs of maybe 4 or more) attacking capabilities of the rival should be affected. Reducing the amount of dice attacks or something else.

- This changes of the rule makes warfare a little more viable for Germany. Most of our games due to the size of the opposite fleet and British + French progress makes a waste of money buying subs instead of soldiers.

B) Amphibious Assault: Most of them were failures. The most successful was one from Germany attacking Riga.

Our suggestion is that amphibious operations should be used only for reinforcement deployment, not for assault. Maybe you would consider this as a mad idea but in fact it's supported in historical facts. In our matchups this house rule makes the game very balanced. England and USA cannot be conquest, forcing the game to be decided in France or Germany.

The negative of the rule is obvious, eliminating the assault itself. Battleships will lose interest.

Thanks for your time.
Panama Group.

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Re: Submarine warfare and amphibious assault

Post by Flashman » Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:49 pm

Just because the Galipoli landings were a failure, we should not assume that they were bound to be so.

The assault was very badly handled, but even so if they'd known how few troops Turkey had in the area it might have succeeded if reinforced.


A suggestion made by me and others is that Battleships or other subs cannot fire at submarines at all, therefore players must build cruisers or rely on mines to eliminate the submarine menace.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests