thanx a lot for the answer.
Convoy quirk QUESTION
-
I’m not sure there’s really an issue here. Does anyone else feel that the convoy disruption rules are unclear?
The convoy rules are perfect.
Need no markers to show control.
The loss of IPCs is caused by the number and kind of enemy warships hunting the convoys.
You can clear off the Seazone with planes (except subs) and don’t need to send warships.
Subs can fullfill their one and only determination: HUNT CARGO VESSELS!
-
I think maybe some of the confusion comes from the difference between the old rules and the new. I think if you just read the new rules then they make sense and everything is clear. If you think about it in terms of the old rules I can see how people could be a little confused.
-
oops. Didn’t see Krieghunds post saying the same thing about getting confused by looking at older rules that dont apply anymore.
-
Sea zones don’t belong to anyone, so convoys don’t belong to anyone. If you have a ship in a sea zone with a convoy marker that’s adjacent to an enemy’s territory during his/her collect income phase, you reduce his/her income. It’s as simple as that.
I love this new rule, Kev. Was it Mons that come up with the idea ? Anyway, lets take an example:
UK controll Kwangtung (3IPC) and Japan controll Formosa (1 IPC)
UK has a sub in seazone 20 and Japan has a sub in seazone 20. This is legal according to the rules.The Japanese sub deny UK 2 IPC income, and in next turn, if still alive, the UK sub deny Japan its 1 IPC income. This happens because convoys belong to everybody that control any adjacent territory, right ?
-
Take the above example, and add that UK has a factory in Kwa and mobilized a destroyer in seazone 20.
That destroyer will not cancel the Japanese sub’s convoy disruption in “Collect income Phase” ?
-
The Japanese sub deny UK 2 IPC income, and in next turn, if still alive, the UK sub deny Japan its 1 IPC income. This happens because convoys belong to everybody that control any adjacent territory, right ?
Lets hope so, though there is another territory in that sz so if Japan controls that one then it too would lose 2 ipcs.
-
That is correct, ksmckay, but my point was that several players may share the same convoy center, and that several players subs may share the same seazone and attack this particulare convoy. Just making the rules clear.
-
But is convoy disruption mandatory or can you choose not to disrupt?
Or do you only disrupt after you go to war?
I am asking because if you have to disrupt, then it will limit your pre-declaration-of-war movement.
-
It’s completely voluntary. If you don’t want to do it because you’re not ready to go to war, you don’t have to.
-
Once your at war, I have found it possible and advantageous to attack with subs or a minimum of surface vessels (1-2 destroyers) and subs in convoy zones containing enemy vessels on either sides combat phase. So long as you win the engagement (which is usually minor and sometimes just a transport murder) you can have your sub stay on station and then it is up to your opponent to knock out your sub and or surface ships to save his convoy or not. I also see how a sub/destroyer team is also very powerful because it not only allows you to take 2 IPCs from the convoy with your sub being on station but it also allows you to block with your destroyer. Blocking I have noticed is a big part of this game since you have longer range fleet movements due to Naval bases and also because of the lack of the combat air patrol ability.
-
Krieghund,
In a previous post you said
" The income for the convoy is calculated after AIR and naval combat"
Doea that mean Aircraft disrupt convoy’s aswell?
-
No.
-
Can a ship be used both in a combat move and also to disrupt a convoy in the same turn?
For instance, if I use two destroyers to attack an enemy sub in waters around a territory friendly to the sub. Can the destroyers also disrupt the convoy?
It says somewhere that you have to “declare” that you’re disrupting the convoy. Is this in there to clarify that, if not at war, you can be in that sea zone and NOT disrupt the convoy? In other words, once everyone is at war with everyone else, is officially “declaring” disruption necessary, or can i just move my ships around in the non-combat phase with the assumption that any ships in enemy convoys automatically disrupt things? This might just be a matter of house-rule-etiquette, but just wondering.
-
Can a ship be used both in a combat move and also to disrupt a convoy in the same turn?
That’s the way I have been playing it although I am not the ultimate source. The question came up in my game last night and after combing the rulebook and the FAQ we couldn’t find anything saying you cannot. If your sub is submerged then it cannot be “on station” but if it is surfaced and survives the combat phase then it can be put on station at no penalty.
It says somewhere that you have to “declare” that you’re disrupting the convoy. Is this in there to clarify that, if not at war, you can be in that sea zone and NOT disrupt the convoy? In other words, once everyone is at war with everyone else, is officially “declaring” disruption necessary, or can i just move my ships around in the non-combat phase with the assumption that any ships in enemy convoys automatically disrupt things? This might just be a matter of house-rule-etiquette, but just wondering
I believe you are correct about the first part of your question and announcing whether or not you are “on station” or not early in the game involves whether or not you want to provoke war, or just be in a convoy sea zone. For later in the game I think that you still need to announce whether or not you are on station because it would be your responsibility to remember to do so. If your non combat and collect income phase are over and you have not declared any ships or subs “on station”, then you cannot go back and say they were later when it’s your opponents turn.
-
If your non combat and collect income phase are over and you have not declared any ships or subs “on station”, then you cannot go back and say they were later when it’s your opponents turn.
I think it is written in the rules that it is everbodys responsibility to check disrupted zones when you are collecting income.
-
It all boils down to this: If you have a sub or surface warship in a convoy sea zone that’s adjacent to one or more of my territories during my Collect Income phase, you disrupt my convoy, unless you don’t want to.
Nothing else matters. It doesn’t matter what any of those ships did on your turn, my turn or anyone else’s turn. It doesn’t matter if I or anyone else has any ships of any type in the sea zone also.
The rule about intent to disrupt is simply there to allow you to not disrupt my convoy if we’re not at war and you don’t want to be at war. There’s nothing more to read into it. It’s not there to force anyone to make any declarations of intent or lose the ability to disrupt convoys. For all intents and purposes, if you’re at war you intend to disrupt unless you say you don’t (for some reason), and if you’re not at war you don’t intend to disrupt unless you say you do.
-
Krieghund, I agree with this understanding of the rules. I am also quite impressed with the way subs have been given a new look in this game. I’ll save my other opinions for a different thread.
-
I haven’t had a chance to play yet but I’m thinking this may elevate subs to the strategic asset they should be. :-D
Suggested Topics
