Page 1 of 1
Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 12:15 pm
by incbob
This comes from watching Strategy Gaming Dojo Lets Play on Youtube.
So, I am confused about when a Carrier can attack a Sub. The rule book says that can attack if the Carrier is on the convoy lane. I can see his American subs getting attacked by Japanese Carriers.
Yet, when he takes the CVL Hermes to attack a Japanese sub on the Indian Ocean lane he cannot attack it.
From another post gwgardner said:
The manual needs to be changed. Carriers can no longer directly attack subs, unless in shallow water. Carriers add a bonus to convoy escorts if placed on a convoy lane - ie an indirect attack on subs.
Sousa seems to back this up that the manual is wrong.
Then why are the American subs getting into combat with the Japanese CV's. Is this just how the game shows the CVs helping out the escorts?
RE: Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 12:21 pm
by gwgardner
Was it instead the sub attacking the CV? Otherwise I don't have a clue. The game simply shows how much the escort bonus is when a carrier/destroyer group is placed on a convoy lane.
RE: Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 1:09 pm
by AlvaroSousa
It's right in the rules.
Submarine Group – 3 strength, may attack enemy fleets and convoy
lanes. Only air groups or escorts protecting a convoy route may target
a submarine group in any hex type. Other naval groups may attack a
submarine group only if the submarine group is next to a hex that is
not all water.
RE: Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 1:38 pm
by incbob
Okay. Figured it out. Watching it back it was Land Based Air. The 15th Air Division that sunk his subs.
RE: Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 1:43 pm
by incbob
I also want to say how great this system is.
Subs get their impact.
CVs and Naval units get their impact, but no micromanaging or sub whackamole.
Great Job.
RE: Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 3:43 pm
by AlvaroSousa
It was one of these systems that was changed during development back ported to WarPlan Europe.
BTW realize the targeting profile with subs. If a fleet has a damaged CV the sub has a high chance of going after it first during any naval combat. A guy in WarPlan would hit an Allied CV fleet with airpower damaging it then send in the subs. It was a great strategy.
In WPP you can set subs near an important port after a battle and if the enemy goes back you can intercept.
Or keep the subs near a combat area and move/attack with then 2nd.
RE: Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 1:33 am
by incbob
This just happened in my AAR game.
Is this a Carrier Airstrike or is this how the game shows CVs helping escorts? Forum will not let me load a bigger picture.

RE: Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 11:28 am
by AlvaroSousa
The Japanese is the A.I.? That might be a bug. They aren't supposed to attack a sub directly.
RE: Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 11:28 am
by AlvaroSousa
Or did you move and it said you got interdicted
RE: Carriers versus Subs.
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 12:00 pm
by incbob
Yes, Japan is the AI.
I do not believe it was interdiction. The reason I say this is because when I was interdicted before it occurred as I moved my units during my turn. This occurred during Japan's "turn" and I am bringing it back up to show you.