IL is right. Got all my maps 3 x 6, 4 x 8 printed on vinyl. Banner Material. Cost of 3 x 6 map $75.00 and 4 x 8 map $107.00. They also can format it so you don’t lose any territories. They once forgot to shrink whole map to 3 x 6 when I had a 4 x 8 foot map in that size file. Lost a bunch of territoies because they didn’t shrink file. It was Tigerman’s old map.
Let's talk Convoys
-
Well, not having played AAE, AAP, or any Xeno game, I just have to go by what you’re saying.
-
Don’t go by what im saying. Look at a book and find some supporting documentation that has any notion that if you sink the enemy ships, you will be rich. Submarines don’t have time or room to take the goods on merchant ships. This is not 1800’s when you mount a boarding party and share the booty with drunken sailors. IN WW2 nothing of this sort occurred.
-
the traidng terriotries is a glitch in A&A it does not repreesent morale
and Naval battles got a lot more poplicity than the stratigic warfare, and naval battles dont get you a morale boost.
also i hope you realize you are talking about the complexity of addition and subtraction, and seeing as the regular convoy rules only include subtraction and not addition they are techniaclly simpler that your rules.
-
Some house rules I’ve read blended sea zones into the NO’s in AA50. Some examples:
Russia- Reduce its 10 ipc bonus to 5 ipc and create a sz 5 ipc bonus maybe sz 3,4,34 & 63. Or add sz 3 & 4 to its Archangel bonus.
US-Attach sz to it’s 1st NO(E.US, C.US & W.US) maybe sz 10,19,55,56,65 This one is way to easy to get anyway.
UK-This one is tough because It’s commonwealth NO is already hard to get at points. Maybe add certain sz (1,2,8,9,) to show supplies from US & Canada to UK
Germany-It’s original euro tt NO + sz 5, maybe 13 & 14.The med was as important for Germany to control as for Italy to keep supplies flowing into N. Africa.
Italy-No changes already has sz in its 1st NO.
Japan-Add the sz that connect It’s 1st NO (3 Chinese tt) to Japan,sz 36,61 & 62.On a further note I know AA42 is blending some rules from AA50. NO’s will most likely make it as optional. Has anyone heard if more sz will be part of NO’s like Italy? That would be cool.
-
The Sea Zones are better served with a random roll to determine the cost of sinking the convoy.
1-2=1 ipc lost
3-4=2 ipc lost
5-6=3 ipc lostMorale (in terms of how many tanks Germany makes) does not increase by sinking enemy ships.
If I own a restaurant and if our troops in Afghanistan kill 50 terrorists, it has no effect on my morale.
If a sub sinks X tonnage of cargo, the people in factories don’t all of a sudden work harder and produce 100 more tanks
subsequently, under your idea you totally ignore the fact that ships were lost and place absolutely no value on this fact in the game, and totally hype up the morale of the people as if its easily greater than the loss.
It makes no sence. Again look up the effects of the submarine campaign and find anyplace where the morale increase results in a net gain of production and the effects of losing shipping to subs has no effect.
-
@Imperious:
The Sea Zones are better served with a random roll to determine the cost of sinking the convoy.
1-2=1 ipc lost
3-4=2 ipc lost
5-6=3 ipc lostMorale (in terms of how many tanks Germany makes) does not increase by sinking enemy ships.
If I own a restaurant and if our troops in Afghanistan kill 50 terrorists, it has no effect on my morale.
If a sub sinks X tonnage of cargo, the people in factories don’t all of a sudden work harder and produce 100 more tanks
subsequently, under your idea you totally ignore the fact that ships were lost and place absolutely no value on this fact in the game, and totally hype up the morale of the people as if its easily greater than the loss.
It makes no sence. Again look up the effects of the submarine campaign and find anyplace where the morale increase results in a net gain of production and the effects of losing shipping to subs has no effect.
agreed
-
Bardoly, I don’t really like powers getting extra $ for taking away supply routes from other nations chalking it up to morale. I do like just getting a bonus for certain sz’s for each power. This could be used w/out NO’s or in other versions of AA. I like getting more $ into the game rather then penalizing, resulting in less units. Maybe up to 5 ipc/power payable in the collect income phase. Assign 4 sz to each power and give them 1 ipc for each of these sz that are clear of enemy war ships & subs (transp not included) at the end of their turn. If you have all 4 sz clear at the end of your turn you get an additional 1 ipc for a total of 5 ipc’s.
Possible sz in AA50:
*Russia-sz 3,4,63 and either 16 or 34.
*Uk-sz 1,2,8 & 9 keeping supplies coming from US & Canada.(could just go with 2,8 and commonwealth zones like Au 41 & SA 27)
*US-sz 10,18,56 & 53-supply Hawaii
*Germany- sz 5 (counts for 2) along with 14 & 13 (the med was very important for Germany to supply N Africa.(I know its double dipping but Germany is like that lol)
*Italy-13,14,15 only, no extra bonus for all sz’s.(This should help balance out above)
*Japan-62,61,36 supplies to and from main land,& 49-oil.
Well that’s it in a nut shell what do you think. -
@WILD:
Bardoly, I don’t really like powers getting extra $ for taking away supply routes from other nations chalking it up to morale. I do like just getting a bonus for certain sz’s for each power. This could be used w/out NO’s or in other versions of AA. I like getting more $ into the game rather then penalizing, resulting in less units. Maybe up to 5 ipc/power payable in the collect income phase. Assign 4 sz to each power and give them 1 ipc for each of these sz that are clear of enemy war ships & subs (transp not included) at the end of their turn. If you have all 4 sz clear at the end of your turn you get an additional 1 ipc for a total of 5 ipc’s.
Possible sz in AA50:
*Russia-sz 3,4,63 and either 16 or 34.
*Uk-sz 1,2,8 & 9 keeping supplies coming from US & Canada.(could just go with 2,8 and commonwealth zones like Au 41 & SA 27)
*US-sz 10,18,56 & 53-supply Hawaii
*Germany- sz 5 (counts for 2) along with 14 & 13 (the med was very important for Germany to supply N Africa.(I know its double dipping but Germany is like that lol)
*Italy-13,14,15 only, no extra bonus for all sz’s.(This should help balance out above)
*Japan-62,61,36 supplies to and from main land,& 49-oil.
Well that’s it in a nut shell what do you think.I like that a lot better.
I think several of the people who have responded to my posts, have NOT understand my reasoning. The whole reason to put convoy zones in the game is to better model the war. i.e. The Battle for the Atlantic is completely missing in AA50. So, how do you put it in? By adding convoy zones. Now that that has been decided, on to the hard part. How do you emplement it and yet stay as SIMPLE and as close to the OOB rules as possible? The game already is set up to add IPCs and then spend them, so my idea of gaining IPCs (and lowering the opponents IPCs likewise) is actually pretty close to the OOB rules. I’m NOT trying to do anything completely unhistorical. Quite the opposite. I’m just trying to Keep it simple. Once again, below is my original post in the thread.
To keep it simple, why not just give an IPC value to a sea zone?
The sea zone would have an original controller, and an attacker who moved a warship (subs included) into the sea zone would place a control marker on the sea zone, and would then be in control of the sea zone and would collect the IPC from the sea zone. (Perhaps if the warship leaves the sea zone or is destroyed, then control of the sea zone reverts back to the original controller.)That said, I think that WILD BILL is on the right track.
-
Why should you not give sea zones Industrial Production Values?
hmmm…
becasue their value in industrial production is ZERO!
control of the sea can only increase your Industrial production if you control land. simple controling the sea does not get you anything.
I understand now Bardoly you simply want to keep the game as close to OOB as possible, which is a noble goal, but before you were talking about that bogus morale stuff, so excuse everyone if we did not understand your reasoning.
And i think it is not to complacated to just subtract instead of subtract and add, plus it goes along way in adding realism and stratagy.
-
Convoy is nothing but a point of travel of ships carrying material to supply the war effort.
If you sink convoy you sink ammo and supplies that aid the defender.
This means the enemy loses his war making potential….losing IPC’s
You post a sub in these SZ you are modeling to occupation and sinking of ASSUMED shipping in the area.
It has NOTHING to DO WITH MORALE.
If you take Moscow that may affect morale of the enemy and his will to resist, but to sink a transport does nothing for your own production.
-
Absolutely! In WWII there were convoy routes (i.e. sea zones) which, while they didn’t actually produce anything, were vital to certain countries’ war effort. In AA this translates to IPC value. I mean, if you look at the board, how much industrial production did the interior of Africa produce? Vitually nil. Yet in every game of AA which includes Africa, those territories are all worth something. There are other territories on the board also which have a similar situation. I agree that Germany never actually got anything from all of the ships which they sunk, but the UK definitely got something from all of the ships which were not sunk, so those sea zones should have an IPC value. The flip side of what I was saying about giving an opponent IPCs for controlling those same zones was just a way to keep the game simpler. Actually my personal feeling is that there should be a way for Germany (and/or others) to reduce the IPCs of the UK (and/or others) by using subs (and/or surface warships). This part of WWII is currently missing from the main AA game, and I would like to see it implemented. Therefore, the SIMPLEST way that I see to do this so that a beginner player could easily understand would be to assign IPC values to certain sea zones, assign them to a orriginal controller, and then if an opponent has an uncontested warship in that sea zone, then the opponent collects the IPCs. Do I think that this perfectly models the Battle for the Atlantic? No. Do I think that this is a very simple way to help put the Battle for the Atlantic into AA? Yes.
-
I think there is a need for convoy zones in AA global games. They kinda introduced it in AA50. There are several ways to do it.
- Have all powers include sz in their NO’s like w/Italy in AA50.
- Separate sz from the NO’s and create new NO’s for the sea. That way you would have land NO’s & sea NO’s.
**NO’s have been introduced into the game, and would keep things sorta simple. I’m not sure I like that though because it would be an all or nothing deal. - Have certain sz worth 1 ipc or so (as Bardoly said) and basically let each power fight over them. Sorry still not to crazy about Germany being in what would be considered a UK zone and getting paid for it.
- Assign sz to each power and if those zones are in enemy hands it cost you $ or damage markers at your capitol.(could be determined by dice but might cost to much with SBR & rockets) this makes sense because loss of ships would cost $.
- Assign 3-4 sz to each power as describe by myself and others. If you keep these zones clear of enemy war ships you collect a bonus per sz (1 ipc each) or have the chance of a larger bonus if all sz’s assigned to you are clear. You could in rare cases assign the same sz to 2 powers to add some spark (for Bardoly). In this case it is assumed each power gets more income but by not keeping your convoy zones clear you lose it, results from the ships being sunk.
**As I was typing this out I noticed it might be cool to combine #4 & #5. Say on Germany’s turn it takes control of 2 sz’s assigned to the UK. Uk places 2 damage markers on its capitol. On Uk’s turn it clears those zones so now it gets a bonus to help pay for damage. On second thought I think that would defeat the whole purpose, but in AA their is a counter balance for most things lol.
Suggested Topics
