Deck 5 Opening Salvo - HMS Clyde and Atropo

Really dig the HMS Clyde, well done fellas!

Not gonna lie, not a fan of the SA-Sub Killer on the Atropo.  No confirmed sub kills, yet receives a boost to submerged shot?  
I know most will argue it still only gets 3 dice so it's not a big deal, however I just don't like reinforcing the dumb unhistorical sub vs sub duels.  Better off with just mine-layer and maybe a secret cargo SA to represent it's transport duties.

Either way just super jazzed the process rolls on!

It was designed to stay with the fleet, but the whole concept was a failure. That is why the rest of the class was canceled. It was finally accepted by the mid 30s that subs would not be working in that role. Also, speed values are actually a defined scale in the game based on the maximum speed in the reference literature. Speed 2 is 26 knots and above. 

You can see the stat guidelines at this link. It was basically "reverse engineered" (mostly by RAEVSKI a long time ago) from the original WotC cards.

forumini.boards.net/thread/15/guidelines-stats

Yes, speed adjustments for special mechanics or actions are generally handled with Special Abilities. I forgot to add that. But in this case speed was never a significant factor except in the original design intentions. It just explains why the sub was designed the way it was. The whole concept of submarines sailing with the battle fleet was abandoned. But that didn't mean it couldn't be used as a traditional ocean-going "fleet" patrol sub. Which is exactly how it was used. In the end we thought there were better SAs we could use based on her history than a speed SA. Some ships/units have far more "inspirations" in their history than can be expressed in SAs without overloading the card. On the other end, there are also many ships that get nominated that didn't do anything particularly "special" so we have to get creative. There is often that tug-o-war between "historical" and maintaining an "interesting and competitive game." Another big area where people draw their line in many different places.

CLYDE:
BBKiller on Clyde for a confirmed hit on Gneisenau during the war.

Clyde sacrifices the torp line for armor/VA above most other subs of similar attack. It's a different duck than the others. Most you mention like Upholder and Salmon are smaller boats that carried more torps but less robust (hence 3/5/1's for them) Clyde had less output, but was more sturdy - hence 3/7/2. Later subs like the T-class combined the best of both, but Truculent and it's comparables (Beveziers, U510/66/etc, Barb) are for the most part 12 point boats (or aggressive cost) and have 6 VA.

Cost-wise we were ceiling-ed by Bev/Silversides/U510 and floor-ed by Ambra/Upholder/Salmon/etc. Tweener - but I believe Clyde is the only allied 10 point sub. (Axis has 2: u25-also a tweener, and Axum: whose cost was "rounded down" due to being a "lightweight" sub like Upholder/Salmon/etc) The Allied also have S13 as a 2-hull sub for 8 points with a 2/2/1, but Clyde's SA is more useful and +2VA cannot be ignored (though in practice VA on a sub matters pretty rarely - especially an allied sub).

ATROPO

Also falls in that tweener roll as it's big hull (3/6/2) puts it on level with LeoDaVinci and Torelli, but it's torp line is lower than Ambra. Mines are a tough part to cost as on a sub they are relatively easy to place effectively, but they are still a crapshoot as far as effectiveness.

I have to agree with Capt. Strange on Atropo Sub Killer special ability. Could have swapped it out with something else to her history. Also with HMS Clyde, I didn't know Brigman made a card until gaz01 mentioned it. Now I do have Brigman card myself and comparing it to the Deck E one. It is a well done card but I will stick with Brigman's version.