Oh…
I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???
:disappointed:
Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.
Convoy Disruption: 1941, 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare
-
So, what is wrong with the OOB rule ?
Maybe were you talking about the submarine combat values?
Here are the main posts from the thread which started everything:
@Baron:I play-tested the ideas below:
SUBMARINES A3 D1 M2 Cost 7
Surprise Strike, (blocked when at least 1 Destroyer or Anti-Sub Vessel is present),
Submerge, instead of rolling for a Surprise Strike attack (blocked by ASV on a 1:1 basis for the first combat round only),
Stealth Movement: No Hostile Sea-Zone (except ASV can block Submarine Stealth movement on 1:1 basis),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an Anti-Sub Vessel.
Re: Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34169.msg1372793#msg1372793DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 Cost 7
Anti-Sub Vessel: each ASV blocks Surprise Strike capacity of all enemy’s Submarine units present.
Cancel Sub’s Submerge on 1 DD:1 Sub basis for the first combat round only
(When it occurs, defending Subs rolls a Defense @1 in the first round, and any surviving Subs can submerge at the beginning of the second combat round.)
Cancel Sub’s Stealth Movement on 1 DD: 1 Sub basis for Combat or Non Combat Move, all additional Sub units can perform a Stealth Movement as usual.TRANSPORT A0 1Def@1 Maximum per TPs group M2 Cost 8, 1 hit
A transports group get a single defense roll @1/round along with defending warships
(for this single defense roll, friendly transports are all considered being part of the same defending player’s group),
and each transport unit can be taken individually as casualty. As long as their is still 1 TP remaining, it can roll this single defense @1.
Must be escorted by a warship when making an amphibious assault in an enemy’s Submarines infested SZ or Transports infested SZ, so to be able to ignore them/ or fight them with combat units.
Otherwise, Submarines and Transports may be ignored during Transport Combat Move or Non Combat Move.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1373212#msg1373212The Submarines in defensive combat situations always rise the question of taking them as casualties or not (since it has such a low defense @1 and unable to hit planes).
The option of submerging after first round (even when enemy’s Destroyers are present, as allowed according to the HR above, not OOB) is still a tough call.
It clearly leaves all tactical decisions to the player.
That is quite funnier than all Sub rules I tested before (and I tested numerous variations, believe me! :-D):
will you take the Sub unit as fodder or let your Destroyer taking the hit, which gives the opportunity to submerge and fight another day (on offense with a high @3)?No complex rules with planes vs Subs either.
I can see it work, people. Submarines are not always taken as fodder instead of a friendly destroyer, letting Destroyer be the main sea fodder. And the main reason is that you don’t want to loose you more offensive efficient Sub units in a desperate combat.
Sometimes, it is a tough call: giving an additional combat round to your Battleship, so you can have one last chance to make a hit @4, or simply submerging the Subs (sacrificing your BB) knowing that there is an enemy Battleship which will be without escorting DD and very vulnerable to First Strike Shots when your Subs will be on offensive.The overall units interaction is simpler while the Submarines have a much more offensive role, if you don’t use them as fodder (which are not cheaper than Destroyer, since they are at the same cost.)
You can easily play Defenseless TPs at 7 IPCs and both DDs and Subs at 8 IPCs, if you prefer.
You will still get the same simpler interactions between combat units (Subs, DDs, planes).
I forgot to mention that according to the HR above, owner choose the order of all casualties, including transports. So all the tactical choices are in his hands.@Baron:
Thanks guys for your reply,
I think I really find the solution and it was under our noses.
The issue about 6 IPCs Subs is that it shouldn’t be the fodder of the sea, but 8 IPCs Destroyer.
Larry Harris fixed this issue by requiring that planes need Destroyer to hit Submarines, so not bringing into combat a Destroyer will prevent the defender to use submarines as fodder against a massive Air attack.Your 8-8-8 was part of the solution Toblerone77.
Destroyer is still A2 D2 M2 C8, 1 hit, block Submarine’s no hostile SZ and Surprise Strike on 1:1 basis
Transport is A0 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit (I prefer chosen last for historical, but the Classic transport is OK, from a game play perspective)The real change is to make Submarine absolutely not interesting unit as fodder.
Here is the trick, I think:
Submarine A3 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit, Submerge, cannot hit plane, No Hostile Sea Zone, Surprise strike and the rest as OOB.
Need 1 DD to block 1 Sub’s Surprise Strike.
Works the same as yours Der Kuenstler, with KNP escape always possible during regular combat phase, except 1 thing:
planes can always hit submarines (DD not needed, but they can submerge before being attacked, if the Surprise Strike Phase is not blocked).On offense, such Sub can be prefered over Destroyer A2 and even sometimes, Cruiser A3 and Fighter A3, simply because you will be able to directly hit Warships, even capital warships (the costlier units), with even a bonus by getting ride of enemy’s DDs and being able to retrieve Surprise Strike. So submarine would not be chose amongst the first fodders casualties.
At first glance Sub seems more powerful.
In fact, this Sub unit is weaker than the actual OOB Submarine with DK’s HR.
4 OOB Subs A2 D1 C6 = A8 D4 C24, 4 hits.
3 Subs A3 D1 C8 = A9 D3 C24, 3 hits.
4 Subs A2 OOB 57% vs 3 Subs A3 38% for 8 IPCs Subs, if both were attacking the others at her attack factor.On offense, it is still a formidable weapon, but on defense and due to the similar cost with Destroyer, it will be a waste to sacrifice them as fodder since you can always Submerge (once the first regular attack has been done against them, in case when many DDs are attacking) to make a better use of them on the offense. Let them survive to fight another day!
Why would you keep them as fodder to pad your fleet on defense, since they are now vulnerable to plane but unable to hit them like DD can?I think this new combat value and the same cost as Destroyer and the evasive Submerge will do the job by itself without the need to add a specific restriction on casualty picking as I suggested earlier.
The optimized choice of any owner’s will be clear. You can use Subs as fodder on defense, but it is at a huge tactical cost, since this more expensive Submarine is an offensive weapon, hitting as hard as a Cruiser on specific targets, such as BB, CV and Cruiser. That was the case OOB, but since it was the cheapest warships, it was clearly tantalizing to pick them as casualty.
What do you think of this?
Isn’t that simpler?
No special rule for plane.
No unlimited blocker capacity for DD, keeping 1:1 against Surprise strike and no hostile SZ only.
A Submerge capacity which is not block but only delayed until the regular combat phase, which still imply that Planes needs to bring X number of Destroyers to prevent X number of Subs from submerging during their Surprise Strike phase.Do you see why it was mostly right under our nose? :wink:
-
I like this approach, because the mechanic is straightforward. I think I favor convoy raids over convoy disruption, because it still strikes me as a little strange allowing the enemy to make a form attack when it’s not their turn. But that precedent has been established with global.
Perhaps if you wanted to explore a less potent convoy disruption, the subs “on station” might only hit at a 1, or perhaps auto damage at 1 to match their defense value, the way you have the raid matching the attack value? This would be more of a token or novelty phenomenon, but might prevent the sort of disruption spam you see against Italy in G40.
On the other hand, if disruption is restricted to subs only (no other ships), and you already have an increased cost for those, it might not be as huge an issue. Allowing air to hit subs would be helpful too, for helping to avoid the convoy disruption conundrum of G40.
:-DThe sub values proposed are interesting. The main challenge I see with ready adoption by players, is the need for some kind of simple battleboard showing these values and interactions. Or to develop a complete revised roster, for many of the other ideas you’ve proposed for HR units, collected in one place for ease of reference.
Usually I have to try these things out FtF, because its I’m not an editing wizard in tripleA. But I’ve been enjoying some of the Mods barney has posted lately, that try to showcase new unit HR ideas. This would be a cool one to see.
Nice work man
-
Do you think there is enough money on the 1942.2 board to be playable and not a plague on overall economy?
-
Well, if the gameplay was enjoyable, I wouldn’t have any issue including some kind of simple repeating income bonus to facilitate a more dynamic submarine economic warfare situation.
Would be interesting to see how the starting submarines might be used during the first round, if the player elected to use them for raids rather than combats.
The ability to bleed IPCs directly from the enemy can be very potent, especially if this can effect their starting cash. Thinking mainly of the UK.
-
But that precedent has been established with global.
Perhaps if you wanted to explore a less potent convoy disruption, the subs “on station” might only hit at a 1, or perhaps auto damage at 1 to match their defense value, the way you have the raid matching the attack value? This would be more of a token or novelty phenomenon, but might prevent the sort of disruption spam you see against Italy in G40.The 1 hit auto damage can be interesting. It is, after all, the average results of 1+2+3+0+0+0= 6 out of 6 = 1 IPC.
I was inspired by G40 which gives to roll 2D6 for Convoy Disruption.
The difference is that I split the rolls to increase the opportunity for Submarine to do it before being sunk.
In a complete table turn, a single sub unit cannot do more damage than her G40 counter-part. -
Well, if the gameplay was enjoyable, I wouldn’t have any issue including some kind of simple repeating income bonus to facilitate a more dynamic submarine economic warfare situation.
Would be interesting to see how the starting submarines might be used during the first round, **if the player elected to use them for raids rather than combats.
The ability to bleed IPCs directly from the enemy can be very potent, especially if this can effect their starting cash. Thinking mainly of the UK.**
True. I didn’t think about it. It opens a completely different strategy.
One or two German’s Subs can try an opening raid.Russian Sub will certainly make it against Finland-Norway Sz.
Doing Sub economic warfare in combination with Strategic bombing raid can now becomes a way to strangle an opponent.
-
On the other hand, if disruption is restricted to subs only (no other ships), and you already have an increased cost for those, it might not be as huge an issue. Allowing air to hit subs would be helpful too, for helping to avoid the convoy disruption conundrum of G40.
:-DThe actual rules suggested still imply that a Destroyer is needed to prevent a Sub to submerge (on a 1:1 basis) before airplanes can make an attack roll.
I can’t figure a simple way to allow planes to hit submarines before they submerge without coming back to Revised Sub rules in which planes were Subs doom.
-
…unless HBG made an unique sculpt of a plane with ASW capabilities like the Catalina or Liberator, and the player would need to be successful on the Tech Development first, and then start purchasing this Catalinas for $ 15 each piece. The other planes would of course not get any asw capability
-
@Baron:
But that precedent has been established with global.
Perhaps if you wanted to explore a less potent convoy disruption, the subs “on station” might only hit at a 1, or perhaps auto damage at 1 to match their defense value, the way you have the raid matching the attack value? This would be more of a token or novelty phenomenon, but might prevent the sort of disruption spam you see against Italy in G40.The 1 hit auto damage can be interesting. It is, after all, the average results of 1+2+3+0+0+0= 6 out of 6 = 1 IPC.
I was inspired by G40 which gives to roll 2D6 for Convoy Disruption.
The difference is that I split the rolls to increase the opportunity for Submarine to do it before being sunk.
In a complete table turn, a single sub unit cannot do more damage than her G40 counter-part.So, you believe it is better if the damage are following the Subs combat values: Attack 3 / Defense 1.
CONVOY RAID DAMAGE:
Each Submarine roll 1D6, considering only 3 or less for damage, up to the maximum number of IPCs from all territories owned adjacent to the SZ for a given round of play.or CONVOY DISRUPTION DAMAGE:
Each individual Submarine On Station in a given SZ inflict 1 IPC damage, up to the maximum number of IPCs from all territories owned adjacent to the SZ for a given round of play.In both case, the Disrupted player must pay immediately to the bank the given IPCs damage.
If you have a better way of formulating this HR, I will accept it gladly.
I can see the merits of this 1-3 on D6 roll for damage / 1 IPC auto-damage.
The first Convoy Disruption occurs during a Combat phase where there is already some dices tossing.The second Convoy Disruption occurs during the Collect Income phase of the enemy player.
Collect Income phase have no such dice rolling.
So it is faster to simply count how many Submarines are On Station and to substract IPCs accordingly. -
Hi all. Great discussion so far. I have always thought that there should be a sub war built into the game. Here are a few thoughts.
First. The problem with planes. Historically planes were the nemesis of subs in The Atlantic. Closing the Air gap really was the end of the sub free for all. Asw planes were the liberators welling tons catalina etc not spitfires and hurricanes
Proposal:
1.only bombers can complete asw missions. Fighters do not have range or equipment for asw.
2. When on asw range of planes is reduced by 2.Is the 1:1 rule to big a drop for the destroyers. A few destroyers would often guard an entire convoy against the wolf packs.
Proposal:
Destroyers remove the surprise strike at 2 subs per destroyer. This would give the destroyer a bit bigger bite.Submerge.subs should never lose the submerge ability. It is the sub captains choice to attack or withdraw.
-
Hi all. Great discussion so far. I have always thought that there should be a sub war built into the game. Here are a few thoughts.
First. The problem with planes. Historically planes were the nemesis of subs in The Atlantic. Closing the Air gap really was the end of the sub free for all. Asw planes were the liberators welling tons catalina etc not spitfires and hurricanes
Proposal:
1.only bombers can complete asw missions. Fighters do not have range or equipment for asw.
2. When on asw range of planes is reduced by 2.Is the 1:1 rule to big a drop for the destroyers. A few destroyers would often guard an entire convoy against the wolf packs.
Proposal:
Destroyers remove the surprise strike at 2 subs per destroyer. This would give the destroyer a bit bigger bite.
Submerge.subs should never lose the submerge ability. It is the sub captains choice to attack or withdraw.Fighters (F4F wildcat) and TcBs (TBF Avenger) were used against Subs in ASW but they were aboard Carriers, mostly escort carriers.
So in fact, Fgs attacking Sub from Island have a lot less range than Fgs aboard carriers. If you move the Carrier, you can move 2 spaces while Fgs go 3 space and came back 1 behind to deck on Carrier.So, there is already in-built game restriction such as you suggested.
Within my HR, Sub is at the same cost as Destroyers and 1 DDs blocks all Subs First Strike, for simplicity.
Sub gets A3 D1 M2 while DD gets A2 D2 M2.The 1:1 blocker is only for Stealth Move and Submerge.
The attack value of Subs is already better than DDs, no need to give an additional First Strike against DDs.
-
Thanks Thespaceman,
You gave me an idea to solve the German cunundrum when being Raided.
This country could find it hard and expensive to sunk subs.Here is the idea: StBs get a special ASW attack @1.
It allows to strike Subs before they Submerge.
This occurs when StBs are attacking a SZ infested by Subs only.
Otherwise, a regular attack @4 is used.So this gives StB a small chance to sink Sub. 1 shot before submerge.
So it becomes possible to strike Subs without buying a Destroyer.
Of course, DD is far better but now you can do something against Convoy Disruption if you cannot invest in warships.It can work as a Catalina or a Condor.
-
I like this approach, because the mechanic is straightforward. I think I favor Convoy Raids over convoy disruption, because it still strikes me as a little strange allowing the enemy to make a form attack when it’s not their turn. But that precedent has been established with global.
Perhaps if you wanted to explore a less potent convoy disruption, the subs “on station” might only hit at a 1, or perhaps auto damage at 1 to match their defense value, the way you have the raid matching the attack value? This would be more of a token or novelty phenomenon, but might prevent the sort of disruption spam you see against Italy in G40.
On the other hand, if disruption is restricted to subs only (no other ships), and you already have an increased cost for those, it might not be as huge an issue. Allowing air to hit subs would be helpful too, for helping to avoid the convoy disruption conundrum of G40. :-D
I think I better understand why Der Kuenstler and you prefer a Convoy Raid which occurs during player’s turn combat phase.
The G40 Convoy rule are giving Warships some kind of “double dip” actions, unlike SBR or Shorebombardment which imply a choice:
you can SBR or a regular attack, you can Shore bombard or kill the poor enemy’s transport in the SZ but not both.To the contrary, G40 Convoy Disruption makes for a regular attack in the SZ then, waiting till the enemy’s Collect Income phase, you can roll for damage according to the number of warships which still survived in the SZ.
This is probably one of the reason it affects Italy so much after Taranto raid. Italy lost all his big warships and if counter-strike goes sour, the Convoy Disruption is plaguing this Axis power.
I understand that G40 rules were made that way to simplify the calculations and bookkeeping about the maximum IPCs lost by multiple Raids from more than 1 enemy’s powers, for instance UK subs and US subs could do it against Italy, eventually. It becomes simpler to wait for Italy’s Income Phase to know the total amount of damage and to compare to the maximum allowed.
Here is my solution to solve both: 1- attack on player’s turn (no double-dipping effect) and 2-keep record straight (no immediate plunder on IPCs already owned by player but still waiting Income Phase to apply damage).
1- All warships can do Convoy Disruption, including planes which have room to land on a Carrier. No extra Fgs or TcBs can do it, neither StBs.
2- The damage results for all warships are following their attack factor or less:
Submarines Attack @2 (or Attack @3 if playing with Super Subs Tech, or with my HR Subs A3 D1 Cost 7 or 8 IPCs)
Destroyer Attack @2
Cruiser Attack @3
Battleship Attack @4
Carrier Attack @0 (But planes which can land on Carrier do damage)
Fighter Attack @3
TcB Attack @3 or 4 (if paired to Fg)3- During combat phase, a player can Convoy Raid an empty SZ or a SZ which have only Transports or Submarines.
Said otherwise, if any enemy’s surface warships is in the SZ, there is no Convoy Disruption, only regular combat.
(Warships are actively protecting the merchant’s ships. That’s the way to rationalize this, IMO.)
This also imply it cannot make a regular attack on Subs and/or Transport and a Convoy Raid, it is one or the other, not both.
(Same rule as with Shore Bombardment applied for Convoy Raid.)4- When rolling for damage, you only consider the lower results which would make for a hit in regular combat.
For example, Cruiser do damage on a 3 or less: 1 is 1 IPC, 2 is 2 IPCs, 3 is 3 IPCs, 4-5-6 make no damage.
Subs do it on a 2 or less: 1 is 1 IPC, 2 is 2 IPCs, 3-4-5-6 make no damage.5- Once all damaged are calculated, you place in SZ a number of Attacker Country Marker equal to the amount of IPCs damage.
Example, 3 US Destroyers get 1,2,3. It means 3 IPCs damage.
So you put in the SZ 3 US markers.6- When it is the enemy’s Collect Income Phase, you substract from his IPCs income the number of his Enemy’s Control Marker in the SZ Convoy Raided up to the maximum allowed for this SZ.
7- I would give a Special Convoy Disruption for Subs, each enemy’s Submarine still present in the SZ during player’s Collect Income Phase, makes 2 IPCs additional damage, up to the maximum allowed in this SZ.
That way the OOB 2D3 Convoy damage rolls for Subs can be taken somehow into account without too much complexification.
What do you think everyone of this change for G40 Convoy Disruption rules?
-
Yes I think that does a pretty good job of sumarizing my misgivings, and contrast with the OOB situation. Also important to me is the ability to create one system that could work on all game boards.
The major problem I had with this aspect of convoys in G40, was how ambiguously the rules were worded in the manual. I remember my players were completely unable to parse them, due to confusion about when these raids were supposed to occur, or which player/side was being referenced in the examples as “attacker” or “defender” the “enemy” etc. All very confusing, without any real introduction to the concept that disruption occurs, not on your own turn, but on the opponent player’s turn, during their collect income phase!
Or put another way, my players were confused about why they could be “attacked” on their own turn, during their collect income phase, by the enemy (via disruption). “How can that be?” Or “doesn’t this violate the turn order?” Or “doesn’t that upend the whole purpose of having separate turns in the first place?” hehe. These are the questions I was fielding the first time out. The fact that it was discribed as an “attack” but not a combat. They just assumed they were reading the rule incorrectly. The default response was “these rules are confusing, lets try to play without them” haha.
Disruption in G40 is kind of weird and not introduced very succesfully, given the rather unprecedented character of the attack. It’s like it tries to keep the flavor of the very first A&A convoy mechanic introduced in the old theater games. You know back when “Axis and Allies Europe 1999” and Axis and Allies Pacific 2001" were totally distinct games (red Japan, back in the day) but making it way more complicated than those rules.
In the oldest convoy rules, the convoy income was a feature of the sz itself. The money was attached to the zone, but usually it could only be collected by 1 nation. So for example player A has a convoy zone and gets extra money for it, if player B takes that zone they don’t get the money but rather deny it to the enemy. In G40, the convoy income is a feature of the land surrounding the sea zone (convoy zone), not attached to the zone per se, but to the ipc value of the enemy land adjacent to it.
Frankly I don’t like either system, because I think the economic disruption should be a feature of the submarine unit specifically (not all warships) and that this should be a form of “attack” made during the raiding player’s own “conduct combat phase,” not during the opponent’s collect income phase!
My argument there would be for simplicity and for gameplay i.e. as a way to make the submarine different from other naval attack units, and give it a more independent “hunting role.” I say the argument is “for the gameplay” because I’m aware that historically any warship could probably disrupt convoys. But what we’re looking for in a rule, is a way to separate off the role of subs and make that role unique or advantageous when compared to other naval units at a comparable cost. More advantageous than they are in normal combat, so players actually have an incentive to use them for the economic attacks instead of just normal attacks!
Otherwise the subs just default to the same way other naval combat units work e.g. grouped together with the main fleet, or the main air group. I don’t think the submarine should work like this. (I don’t think StratBs should work like this either, for that matter, even if this conversation is just for subs, I see them as related issues. I mean the way a bomber’s economic attack advantage is subordinated to its normal combat attack advantage vs ships, instead of the other way around.)
The sub unit would be far more interesting, if it’s primary role was for economic attacks, with a secondary role in normal combat. The current situation is basically the reverse. And the sub isn’t really very unique as a convoy disrupting unit. It behaves like all other ships that disrupt convoys, except that its cheaper for the spam and can’t be hit by air without a dd.
The analogy I always return to is SBR or Rocket Attacks, I think subs should work in a similar way. Either you choose to use them as a combat unit, or you forego combat for the chance at an “economic attack.” I think you should be able to run such a “sub attack” in any coastal sea zone bordering enemy territories with an ipc value, otherwise it only works on maps with a special “marker” or map designation drawn on the sz, which means it can’t work on all game boards.
A simple rule, that took into account the max value of adjacent enemy territories, and then allowed subs to “roll” against it, would be ideal. If its overpowered, then you just build in some kind of defensive roll, similar to an AAgun vs a bomber, to destroy the sub. I used to play with similar rules in AA50 (although there it was a special roll against coastal factories for my group.)
The danger of all convoy rules that allow you to “destroy” enemy IPCs directly is how they can affect the first round purchase options. Thinking about SBR as a model, when you “raid” with a bomber in the latest games, money is removed indirectly (via the purchase/repair damage system). In the old SBR rules of Classic/Revised a successful “raid” meant that your opponent had give money to the bank immediately, with no “choice” and no damage/repair. Seems to me that the G40 convoy rules follow the earlier sort of idea of Classic or Revised (where the money is given up to the bank ie. destroyed), even though I much prefer the latter sort of idea from AA50 and later, where the player got to choose how to deal with the consequences of the raid.
In other words, I don’t think players should have to learn two totally separate “economic raiding mechanics” one for bombers and one for subs. Instead the two mechanics should mirror each other and work in similar ways. If not exactly the same, than at least similar enough that I can explain one with reference to the other.
Putting the focus on coastal factories would probably be too overpowered, given how SBR already works against these factories. But if you’re not going to put the focus on coastal factories or give the defender an intermediate “repair” type option, but use the old model (money taken goes straight to the bank) then there should at least be a chance that the “raiding” unit can be destroyed during the economic attack, the same way bombers face AA fire, defender rolls at 1 to destroy the unit attempting to raid. I think that would be way easier than separating this whole “convoy” process out across multiple turns in the game round, which is what the current G40 system does.
-
I’m wondering if the problems with the OOB convoy rules – which have varied from game to game – arise from the fact that the economic modeling in A&A has traditionally been very simple (which is arguably a valid game design principle), but that as a side-effect of this simplicity the games have traditionally paid little or no attention to logistics and supply (except in A&A Battle of the Bulge, which is an unusual game by A&A standards).
The “convoy zone” concept that was introduced for the first time in the original A&A Europe game was an idea that struck me as being both clever and odd at the same time. On land, income generation is depicted as an IPC value printed on a territory. The concept is straightforward to understand: such-and-such a territory is assumed to contain economically useful things like oil and minerals and grain and so forth (all represented abstractly by IPC values), and whoever physically occupies that territory gets to reap the rewards of those resources. By contrast, the convoy zone system at sea is an odd hybrid. It recognizes that convoys had a huge economic impact on WWII, but this recognition isn’t done by depicting actual convoys; it’s done by turning sea zones into the equivalent of land territories, which players have to occupy in order to control them and in order to gain the economic benefits they represent.
This concept has always bothered me because, although the notion of “control of the sea” is certainly valid (as A.T. Mahan pointed out in his classic work on sea power), naval units don’t “occupy” regions of the sea in the same way that land armies occupy ground. Warships are actually closer to aircraft in this respect: aircraft may control the air, but they don’t occupy it. In and of themselves, individual sections of the sea (and of the air) have no value; they’re simply the medium on which (or in which) ships (or planes) operate. So I’m wondering if the OOB approach to handling convoys is perhaps a case of falling between two barstools.
-
Nailed it! :-D
Damn CWOMarc, on point as always!
Let me know if you ever get a chance to give that 1942.2 strategy guide I was working on the once over. This last point you made totally fits with an idea I was trying to stress in the naval and air sections about A&A unit transits across the map. You always hit it dead on. I’d be very interested in your feedback.
I suppose the suggestion I made, to just have the Sub function as the sole convoy disrupting unit, and to eliminate convoy zones in favor of a system that uses all sea zones that border land with an ipc value (so you could get it working in 1942.2 as well) would still violate the basic idea that the sea zones are just unit transit lanes. But at least this economic value to sz would be somewhat limited in scope. Basically you’d have the sub unit represent more than just “submarines” but instead embodying the whole convoy conflict, just in the one unit type. It’s not perfect but at least it’s simple. From a gameplay perspective it gives the sub a specialized role to play, very similar to the Strategic bomber.
Just like many types of units represented in A&A could conceivably have damaged an enemy’s infrastructure or production capacity, this role is exclusively given to the bomber unit for simplicity. The game doesnt have to model all the types of “economic raid” that might possibly occur in warfare, just a nod to the idea, and then fold it into part of a single iconic unit. In the air it’s the StratB, on sea it could be the Sub.
As an aside I think the destroyer is still overpowered vs subs OOB. I’d prefer it if subs could always dive, and instead of holding subs from diving that the Destroyer simply had an opening shot against them before they could go under. But even if you wanted to keep the destroyer/sub interaction the same, by giving subs the economic attack role we would at least restore a bit of parity between those two units, Subs vs DD in terms of gameplay entertainment value.
The OOB Convoy situation in G40 can’t be adapted to 1942.2 in my view, without making definite changes to the rules. In G40 all warships can disrupt convoys, but that would be too powerful for a game like 1942.2, with it’s smaller overall economy and lack of distinct Convoy zones with symbols to identify their locations on the map.
On the other hand, if you could get a basic, universal system in 1942.2 for Subs doing economic raids, then you could probably port that over to G40 pretty easily.
In that case you could just say that the “convoy marker symbol” drawn on the G40 map gives a raiding bonus of some sort. Or that it somehow scales better for these sub attacks. Like raid +1 per sub or the like, if the raid occurs in one of those zones. That way you don’t have to redesign the G40 game/map, just come up with a new idea of what the convoy marker symbol represents to subs.
Again not perfect, but I think it would be simpler and make the sub a lot more interesting in the unit roster
-
Let me know if you ever get a chance to give that 1942.2 strategy guide I was working on the once over. This last point you made totally fits with an idea I was trying to stress in the naval and air sections about A&A unit transits across the map. You always hit it dead on. I’d be very interested in your feedback.
I’ve just had a quick look at that other thread. It’s very long, so I won’t be able to comment on it in any detail because I’m leaving my computer in a few minutes, but I did glance at the section which describes how, in 1942.2, the sea is basically just a means to get from Point A to Point B, with sea zones having no value in and of themselves. Yes, I can see the parallel with the point I made previously, so what you describe in the “Ships and Sea Zones” section of that other post does indeed sound right to me. The difference is that your other post describes an A&A game that has no printed convoy zones, whereas in my post above I was talking about the various A&A games which do have printed convoy zones and therefore which have sea zones which are somewhat analogous to land territories because their possession (or non-possession) has direct economic consequences.
-
Yes I think that does a pretty good job of sumarizing my misgivings, and contrast with the OOB situation. Also important to me is the ability to create one system that could work on all game boards.
Frankly I don’t like either system, because I think the economic disruption should be a feature of the submarine unit specifically (not all warships) and that this should be a form of “attack” made during the raiding player’s own “conduct combat phase,” not during the opponent’s collect income phase!
My argument there would be for simplicity and for gameplay i.e. as a way to make the submarine different from other naval attack units, and give it a more independent “hunting role.” I say the argument is “for the gameplay” because I’m aware that historically any warship could probably disrupt convoys. But what we’re looking for in a rule, is a way to separate off the role of subs and make that role unique or advantageous when compared to other naval units at a comparable cost. More advantageous than they are in normal combat, so players actually have an incentive to use them for the economic attacks instead of just normal attacks!Otherwise the subs just default to the same way other naval combat units work e.g. grouped together with the main fleet, or the main air group. I don’t think the submarine should work like this. (I don’t think StratBs should work like this either, for that matter, even if this conversation is just for subs, I see them as related issues. I mean the way a bomber’s economic attack advantage is subordinated to its normal combat attack advantage vs ships, instead of the other way around.)
The sub unit would be far more interesting, if it’s primary role was for economic attacks, with a secondary role in normal combat. The current situation is basically the reverse. And the sub isn’t really very unique as a convoy disrupting unit. It behaves like all other ships that disrupt convoys, except that its cheaper for the spam and can’t be hit by air without a dd.
The analogy I always return to is SBR or Rocket Attacks, I think subs should work in a similar way. Either you choose to use them as a combat unit, or you forego combat for the chance at an “economic attack.” I think you should be able to run such a “sub attack” in any coastal sea zone bordering enemy territories with an ipc value, otherwise it only works on maps with a special “marker” or map designation drawn on the sz, which means it can’t work on all game boards.
A simple rule, that took into account the max value of adjacent enemy territories, and then allowed subs to “roll” against it, would be ideal. If its overpowered, then you just build in some kind of defensive roll, similar to an AAgun vs a bomber, to destroy the sub. I used to play with similar rules in AA50 (although there it was a special roll against coastal factories for my group.)
The danger of all convoy rules that allow you to “destroy” enemy IPCs directly is how they can affect the first round purchase options. Thinking about SBR as a model, when you “raid” with a bomber in the latest games, money is removed indirectly (via the purchase/repair damage system). In the old SBR rules of Classic/Revised a successful “raid” meant that your opponent had give money to the bank immediately, with no “choice” and no damage/repair. Seems to me that the G40 convoy rules follow the earlier sort of idea of Classic or Revised (where the money is given up to the bank ie. destroyed), even though I much prefer the latter sort of idea from AA50 and later, where the player got to choose how to deal with the consequences of the raid.
In other words, I don’t think players should have to learn two totally separate “economic raiding mechanics” one for bombers and one for subs. Instead the two mechanics should mirror each other and work in similar ways. If not exactly the same, than at least similar enough that I can explain one with reference to the other.
Putting the focus on coastal factories would probably be too overpowered, given how SBR already works against these factories. But if you’re not going to put the focus on coastal factories or give the defender an intermediate “repair” type option, but use the old model (money taken goes straight to the bank) then there should at least be a chance that the “raiding” unit can be destroyed during the economic attack, the same way bombers face AA fire, defender rolls at 1 to destroy the unit attempting to raid. I think that would be way easier than separating this whole “convoy” process out across multiple turns in the game round, which is what the current G40 system does.
OK Black Elk,
I thought that my little adjustment about G40 Convoy Disruption can be enough for you, but you are really a demanding customer here. :-D
I bolded many points which you emphasis about the weakness of the actual Convoy rules or what could be a better Convoy rules.
Below, I would provide a different mechanics for Convoy Disruption but before I would address two points about how OOB G40 Convoy are still accurate toward history.
1- Warships were able to make Convoy Raid/Disruption, this imply that restricting it to Submarines is from a simplicity game perspective.
(Ex.: German’s Bismark Battleship last tour is all about Convoy Disruption gone sour.)2- Convoy Disruption applied during Collect Income phase is not a non-sense.
Since any surviving warships units which are On Station in a Convoy SZ during this phase endure at least 2 Combat resolution phase and still be in such critical SZ, this is a kind of reward for the Sub’s owner against the enemy player which owned the surrounding TTs.
At the time when all merchant’s ships converge from across the map to provide supply to the Capital (the Collect Income), any enemy’s warships raiding Merchant’s vessels is actively blocking or destroying supply, hence Income IPCs. This part of the rule seems quite sounds to me.Now, here is my new idea:
Keeping the general frame provided in my previous post:
@Baron:Here is my solution to solve both:
1- attack on player’s turn (no double-dipping effect) and
2-keep record straight (no immediate plunder on IPCs already owned by player but still waiting Income Phase to apply damage).1- All warships can do Convoy Disruption, including planes which have room to land on a Carrier. No extra Fgs or TcBs can do it, neither StBs.
2- The damage results for all warships are following their attack factor or less:
Submarines Attack @2 (or Attack @3 if playing with Super Subs Tech, or with my HR Subs A3 D1 Cost 7 or 8 IPCs)
Destroyer Attack @2
Cruiser Attack @3
Battleship Attack @4
Carrier Attack @0 (But planes which can land on Carrier do damage)
Fighter Attack @3
TcB Attack @3 or 4 (if paired to Fg)3- During combat phase, a player can Convoy Raid an empty SZ or a SZ which have only Transports or Submarines.
Said otherwise, if any enemy’s surface warships is in the SZ, there is no Convoy Disruption, only regular combat.
(Warships are actively protecting the merchant’s ships. That’s the way to rationalize this, IMO.)
This also imply it cannot make a regular attack on Subs and/or Transport and a Convoy Raid, it is one or the other, not both.
(Same rule as with Shore Bombardment applied for Convoy Raid.)4- When rolling for damage, you only consider the lower results which would make for a hit in regular combat.
For example, Cruiser do damage on a 3 or less: 1 is 1 IPC, 2 is 2 IPCs, 3 is 3 IPCs, 4-5-6 make no damage.
Subs do it on a 2 or less: 1 is 1 IPC, 2 is 2 IPCs, 3-4-5-6 make no damage.5- Once all damaged are calculated, you place in SZ a number of Attacker Country Marker equal to the amount of IPCs damage.
Example, 3 US Destroyers get 1,2,3. It means 3 IPCs damage.
So you put in the SZ 3 US markers.6- When it is the enemy’s Collect Income Phase, you substract from his IPCs income the number of his Enemy’s Control Marker in the SZ Convoy Raided up to the maximum allowed for this SZ.
7- I would give a Special Convoy Disruption for Subs, each enemy’s Submarine still present in the SZ during player’s Collect Income Phase, makes 2 IPCs additional damage, up to the maximum allowed in this SZ.
That way the OOB 2D3 Convoy damage rolls for Subs can be taken somehow into account without too much complexification.
- I will also assume my preferred type of Sub against DD:
HR SUBMARINE A3 D1 M2 C7-8 IPCs,
first strike if no enemy’s DD present,
blocked by DD on 1:1 basis sneak move and 1:1 basis submerged for a single round.
Any plane can hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without any Destroyer.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Convoy Raid Damage: 2 Dices keep all 1 to 3 results.
Convoy Disruption Damage On Station: Each Sub make for +2 IPCs additional damage if still present in a Convoy SZ during enemy’s Collect Income Phase.(I believe it is needed that a zero IPCs results is possible. The sea-lanes are not enlightened as can be some Industrial Complex in a target zone. Merchant’s ships are moving while ICs are at the same place on every SBR.
The maximum damage is the same: 1d6+2 = 8 IPCs vs 2D6, 3 or less = 6 IPCs + 2 IPCs when Sub is On Station.)DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 C7-8 IPCs,
blocks all Subs First Strike,
blocks on a 1:1 basis Sneak Move and Submerge.
Blocks on a 1:1 basis enemy’s Submarine additional +2 IPCs On Station Convoy Disruption Damage during Collect Income Phase.-
During Combat move phase, a Submarine can choose whether to make a regular combat attack (@3 first strike, if no enemy’s DD present)
OR
to do a Convoy Raid in a given SZ.
It is only Submarine units which get this option even if the SZ is enemy controlled by warships.
Other warships (Cruiser, Carrier & planes, Battleship) can only do such Convoy Raid if there is no enemy’s Warships in the SZ to raid. -
The Convoy Raid damage roll is determined that way: 1 roll 2D6 per Sub and keep only 1 to 3 results, and sum both dice.
It gives the amount of IPCs which will be lost during enemy’s Collect Income Phase.
You put in the SZ a Country Control Marker for each IPC damage on Convoy to keep track of the entire game round results against this Power.
There is no direct plunder on handy IPCs, only on incoming IPCs.
Other Combat units get only 1 single dice to roll, and get Convoy damage if they get their attack number or lower:
Destroyer Attack @2
Cruiser Attack @3
Battleship Attack @4
Carrier Attack @0 (But planes which can land on Carrier do damage)
Fighter Attack @3
TcB Attack @3 or 4 (if paired to Fg)- The Merchantman’s ship Escort can retaliate as a reaction to this Sub attack (in an empty SZ or not) / Warships attack (if the SZ was empty).
This reaction is a single roll @1, nothing more, nothing less.
(Think about the fact that a defenseless military transport cost 7 IPCs which have no DD escort.
So giving a single defense roll @1 to a SZ which can worth less than 7 IPCs, is already a grim reaction defense.)
So, if more than one Submarines make such Convoy Raid (which I call a wolfpack attack), there is still only 1 defense roll @1, figurating it as Destroyer Escort defense. This imply that no more than 1 Sub can be lost at most during Convoy Raid when there is no enemy’s DD in SZ.
(Again, if there is more Subs, it is much easier to get maximum damage with less risk.)(OPTIONAL: It can be possible IMO to add as raiders all the Tactical Bombers, not just TcBs elligible to land on a Carrier, but, after the attack, instead of a single defense roll @1, there would be an additional defense @1 against each Convoy Raiding aircraft units. It would be played as an IC’s AAA. Many Cargo Ships were equipped with AA guns and were more able to defend themselves than against Submarines attack.)
-
However, if there was any Destroyer-s in the SZ (which could be the sole survivor of a regular naval combat which occurred in the same resolve combat phase), this or these Destroyer-s can also retaliate @2 (according to OOB combat defense value) against this Submarine. And Submarine cannot sink it or them because Subs attack were focused on Merchant’s ships.
-
If the SZ was empty, this is the end of the Convoy Raid.
But, if there was any Destroyer then there is a second combat round which is like regular combat but only submarines against destroyers.
The attacking Convoy raiding Submarine can retreat after 1 round against the Destroyer, OR roll it until the destruction of one side.
That way, a Sub can make a Convoy Raid, first, and take a shot at any Destroyer protecting the SZ without being expose to counter-strike defense rolls of all other heavier warships (Cruiser, Carrier and planes or Battleship ) or defending submarines.
(This is IMO quite an interesting incentive for Subs to make economic warfare instead of a regular combat.) -
Once all the battle in the SZ are done, if any Submarine survives until the enemy’s player Collect Income turn, then each Sub worth 2 additional IPCs Convoy Disruption damage per Sub, up to the maximum allowed according to this particular SZ.
However, any friendly or player’s Destroyer present can block this additional penalty on a 1:1 basis.
For instance, 3 DDs will block up to 3 times +2 Subs damage occurring in this SZ.
If there is more Submarine units, each worth +2 IPCs additional Convoy Disruption damage.
(IMO, this additional bonus is needed to keep an incentive ratio about cost/benefits. And 2D3 on 2D6, +2 is similar to StB damage 1D6**+2**.)
EXAMPLE:
4 Submarines and 2 Cruisers are attacking a SZ with 4 Destroyers and 1 Cruiser.
The attacking player choose to use 2 Subs on regular attack and 2 Subs on Convoy Raiding.Always resolve Naval regular combat first:
2 Cruisers and 2 Submarines against 4 Destroyers and 1 Cruiser.Let’s assume it goes sour for the attacker so it loose all his units and the defender keep 1 Cruiser in the SZ.
Then the 2 Submarines can do their Convoy Raid damage (22D6 keeping 1-3) against a single defense roll @1:
22D6 keeping 1-3, sums: from 0 to up to 12 IPCs.
After, Subs can either retreat or stay in the SZ, since there is only 1 enemy’s Cruiser left.
On Cruiser’s owner turn, it can attack both Subs with other reinforcement.
If there is no attacking DD, it would be Cruiser A3 against 2 Subs defending @1 with Surprise Strike.
Everything played as OOB usual.Let’s assume that the defender choose to keep 1 Destroyer instead.
Then 2 Submarines can do their Convoy Raid damage in this first Convoy Raid round:
2*2D6 keeping 1-3, sums: from 0 to up to 12 IPCs,
against a single defense roll @1 and 1 Destroyer defending @2.
Let’s assume the Destroyer unit or the Convoy Escort get a hit.
During this first Convoy Raiding combat round, Subs can never hit Destroyers. But DDs can destroy Subs.
(I rationalize it that way: Subs are all focused on destroying Merchant’s Ship and not attacking their escorting warships.)On the second combat round, which works like a regular attack, now.
Their is still 1 submarine remaining (attacking @3) against 1 Destroyer (defending @2).
If the Submarine survive this combat round, then it can retreat.
(Or Submerge in the SZ, according to my Sub HR. But only Sub retreat is possible according to G40 OOB.)
If it stays, then it must be a fight to the death, or can choose to retreat (or Sub submerge) anytime hereafter.Let’s assume the Submarine retreat.
On the Destroyer’s owner turn, it can attack the Sub with any other units it can muster. As regular DD attack.**Do you think this can be a workable balance system?
Do you see it as a sufficient incentive for Submarines Commander to prefer raiding over regular combat?**
-
I always enjoy your HR ideas for unit abilities, values and interactions Baron
:-DThe depth and the nuance of the potential unit balances, and the comprehensive analyses provided. I often think that a fully redesigned roster would be fun. The challenge for me, is getting my players to adopt and test out new HRs, when these involve multiple changes to unit abilities. Cost structure seems easier to mess with usually, but when I suggest the possibility of unit ability changes, often the resistance just comes from habit and fact that they have trouble memorizing all the unit interactions. G40 is necessarily more complicated due to the larger roster, but even in 42.2 with a simpler roster I encounter the same challenge, when trying to convince players to try out a different scheme.
Basically I’ve got one other dude in my regular face to face group, that has the enthusiasm and aptitude for this sort of heavily House Ruled game. The sort of player who takes an interest in game design, and so is willing to try new ideas. But even that guy, is sometimes overwhelmed when I try to bring too many things into it at once. In the past, we’ve been open to trying some fairly radical mods. The simplest of those would be new NOs, or modifications to the economy of the gamemap, or using bonuses of VCs and the like, even changing the turn order. In terms of unit costs, the same player has shown a willingness to entertain alterations of these through technology advances, or via autotech schemes. Different production tiers. Different hard set up changes for units, or just a hard tweak to a units cost. But one thing I haven’t been able to sell him on yet is a full redesign of the unit roster.
A single sheet with a full cost/abilities chart for all units, and custom Battle Board would be ideal. Otherwise it becomes hard to track all the interactions. Some kind of visual, that you can flip in combat would be cool.
One thing I like that you mentioned, is using roundel markers to denote the “raided” IPCs, during the raiding player’s conduct combat phase, even if the loss is to future income (again during the opponents turn) and not an immediate loss of cash on-hand. At least this provides a way to visually track the attack on the game map, since your proposal has the consequence of the “raid” delayed until the opponents collect income phase. Only prevents the mechanic from messing up the starting income situation in the first round.
I think G40 is likely to be more accommodating, since the overall economy is larger and convoy raiding is already part of that game. For 1942.2 though, I worry it might be overly rules intensive. The distinction between the Raid proper, and the disruption on station might be tricky. I’m trying to imagine how it would affect the collect income for each nation into the second round, and how much of a bonus you’d need to provide for each nation in order to get the dynamic up and running in a game like 1942.2
I’d think you’d need at least 10 ipcs to each power, to accommodate the change. Just to provide enough cushion in the game’s overall economy, to tease out another form of economic attack beyond the SBR that can already occur.
Again, just trying to think how the rules might affect first round income in an actual game… Right now I’m looking at the OOB sub values. The attack at 3 sub modification, would give even stronger raids than these, but just to start with the admittedly weaker OOB sub that attacks at 2…
During the opener, Russia’s sub, the Red October can reach sz 6, a sea zone with 4 ipcs in territory value adjacent to it. And Germany has no starting DD to destroy it, which means the Russian sub is free to opperate until the 2nd round uncontested. So that Russian sub, if it hits on max economic damage, could raid 2 ipcs from Germany during combat in sz 6 (markers placed=money not collected on the opponents turn during their collect income phase). Then the sub could “disrupt” an additional 2 ipcs, while on station during Germany’s collect income phase = a total of -4 ipcs, or 4 ipcs Germany will not collect at the end of their first turn. Even if Germany buys a destroyer, Russia could conceivably “raid” an additional 2 ipcs the following turn, before Germany even has a chance to destroy the sub. So its a potential of at least 6 ipcs “raided” for a 6 TUV unit.
This would likely change the current optimal Russian opener for the sub, which has it go to sz 7 to play a purely defensive fodder role (in the hopes of giving the British battleship an extra shot.) That seems to me an improvement already over OOB, at least in terms of the interest for the Sub unit. But the question is whether G can sustain that economic hit, without a bonus?
The German situation would be more dramatic. Here Germany has 4 starting Subs. If 1 u-boat takes out the UK destroyer in sz 10, and the other U-boats all “wolf-pack” together against the British, that is potentially a major hit to UK’s first round income collection. 2 u-boats off the coast of England, could potentially do 4 damage on the Raid, and another 4 disrupted on station, max of 8 ipcs for England. Or you could leave the final u-boat in sz 5, and raid Karelia for 2 ipcs then another 2 ipcs on station. If the German player fires enough 2s while raiding, that’s potentially a dozen ipcs that the Allies might lose from their income due to G’s first round economic attacks. And that’s just subs, to say nothing of the Baltic cruiser getting involved hehe. Whether the German player would ever attempt this, I’m not sure. The value of their subs on G1 combat is hard to ignore, they are needed as fodder primarily and to destroy allied transports.
UK only has the lone Australian sub in sz 39, which could raid East Indies for 2, and then another 2 on station (provided the Japanese destroyer in sz 61 is sunk.) This could be a strong use of the sub, as it has a chance to max damage -4 ipcs from Japan at East Indies. Of course, that is only if you allow subs to conduct raids in a sz occupied by enemy warships, otherwise the UK has no good raid options.
Japan’s sub is out of position to reach any sz with adjacent territories worth more than 1 ipc.
The US sub at pearl is likewise not really a factor in the first round. It might not survive Japan’s first turn, and even if it did, it could only reach New Guinea on station, so USA isn’t raiding or disrupting much of anything in the first round.
Again for 1942.2 I just looked at the subs, because I’m not sure how you could really sustain a convoy raiding system on that board if all warships can disrupt convoys.
Another idea, if you wanted to include a matching bonus, would be to say that each player gets some fixed amount of additional money each round, and this is considered their “Convoy Money.” Say it was 10 ipcs or 15 ipcs or 20 ipcs etc. You could cap the total convoy damage any nation can sustain at that value. This way it is like you are fighting for “extra” money, or a new slice of pie, instead of the same old slice of pie. Each nation would get an increase in total cash, allowing them to buy more subs and sustain the new sub warfare model, and each nation would have an incentive to play out the sub economic warfare to deny the enemy their convoy cash.
The cash itself doesn’t need to be attached to a specific zone, it could represent the entire convoy system for that nation. But when you go to make raids you do it in specific sea zones, vs specific adjacent land territory values, to determine how much you could take in a given round up to that max amount (whatever it is for the Nation.) This gives you bonus money, but also a ceiling to how much money can be taken in total, to prevent the player from getting totally raided/disrupted out of play. The way Italy can be raided out of play in G40.
Any thoughts?
-
Probably that 1942.2 Subs Convoy Disruption damage should be 1 IPC while On Station and 2 IPCs for G40.
I agree also that 1942.2 Convoy Raid should be restricted to Subs; there is fewer money and is not meant to be as complex and historically accurate than G40.Another point I believe necessary:
Defending player always get the option of using DDs against Subs or keeping DDs with the main fleet and not risking them alone against attacking Subs.About additional IPCs, one of your idea was to give at the start of player turn 1 IPC per each TT or Island owned. Could this work?
Its easier to count than you’d think. Once you start to see the groupings.
For example, all of North and South America (with Greenland) is 10 for US, plus Hawaii and midway that’s 12, the four china spaces etc. At the start the Japanese pacific islands including Formosa (and honestly, when was the last time you played a game where Formosa mattered? well now it does hehe!) all those are 10, taken together with Japan is 11. Anyway, the point is, once you’ve counted the bonus a couple times it starts to become intuitive. I never even realized for example, until I tried this house rule, how many territories each nation actually controls at the start of the game (including all the 0 ipcs territories.) Or that there were 70 total territories. Because in normal games much of that land doesn’t matter or influence anything. I don’t know, I’m not saying it’s for everyone. But it is a relatively easy way to get more money into the game, without having to do a bunch of complex/nation specific rules. And it doesn’t distort the OOB so much that it changes the core game. One of the reasons why I tried to come up with this rule in the first place, was because people in my gaming group where having difficulty tracking house national objectives. This was a much easier way to bring money into the game, without tying it to a bunch of detailed conditions that had to be tracked, or multi part rules that were hard to explain. This rule is easy. In it’s simplest form you can write it out like thisBonus = +1 ipc for each territory that a Nation controls at the start of their turn
It has an elegant simplicity to it. It takes less time to figure out than normal income collection (where you are always subtracting or adding from the start position, “up here”, “but down there” to figure out what you are owed etc.) Here all territories are treated in the same way, so its universal, and easier to adopt across the board.
Also I should clarify, when I say expect a longer game, I mean more rounds into the endgame. The pace of the gameplay remains the same or very similar. The additional phase is fast, if anything it just makes the purchasing phase more engaging since you have more build options available. More units means more rolling, but that’s one of the most exciting parts of the game anyway.
I have 10 vegas style dice, and they get the job no problem. This is just an aside, but you should all get vegas style dice if you can. The dice that come with the game OOB have rounded corners and depressed marks for the numbers. There is a reason you will never ever see dice like that used is Las Vegas. I’d say more but it is too mind blowing for this thread. Google it if you’re curious :)
@Baron:
Hi Black Elk,
If you ever played your Territory Income Bonus in a 1942.2 setting,
have you ever tried to introduce a kind of sub on patrol against merchant marines?
As it is inside G40. There is probably some SZ that can be identify as vulnerable sea-lines.It could be a way to reduce the total amount of IPCs via Subs and warships presence (in addition to STrB raid).
So, it could be as simple as:
at the beginning of the player’s turn,
each territory worth 1 IPC but
for each enemy Subs in the ocean near IC (up to 2 SZ away) you substract 2 IPCs and
substract 1 IPC for each warship and plane on a carrier, but not for the carrier.What do you think of this addition?
I think the territory income bonus could easily support HRs for submarines. I have always found subs to be rather complicated and somewhat underpowered in A&A. On the old boards my HR for subs doing economic damage was pretty simple. Any submarine may elect to do economic damage on factories in range of a sea zone (2 spaces), but most forego movement to run the attack. The defending factory hits at a 1, to destroy the submarine immediately, same as sbr. Otherwise the sub does a run on the Nations shipping at a cost of 1d6 at the factory being attacked.
Subs are cheaper now than before, so it might make sense if the factory hit on a 2 instead of a 1. But I like doing it that way for ease of use. Basically having them work like bombers do. SBR in this case can stand for Submarine Battle Run, or “Submarine Blockade & Raid”, or something like that :)
In the old games income was removed directly, but in the newer games I would just keep it the same as sbr mechanics for simplicity. Or you could try other ways to implement them, but I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t work with the T.I. Bonus. I’m not sure if the OOB game in 1942.2 would support subs doing economic damage without some kind of boost to overall income. I can imagine UK getting strangled early, or Germany getting strangled late:) But with the bonus at least you’d have more money to buy both subs and destroyers (to kill enemy subs before their economic damage got too insane). It would be an incentive for the purchase of ships, especially destroyers to counter.
The 1942.2 setting is I think the optimal one for the income bonus.
I like it with the option +1 ipcs for each Victory City controlled at the start of the turn.In case anyone is curious with the VC rule added the numbers look roughly like this in 42.2 for the opening round
Russia +2
G+4
UK+2
J+3
USA+3It is also possible to give the VC bonus separately, instead of the T.I. bonus, in which case I like it at +2 ipcs (or you could do 2 ipcs with the T.I. Bonus as well, making the territory worth a total of 3 ipcs if you include the normal T.I. bonus, 1 for the territory 2 for the city.) I see lots of different ways such rules can be used
Suggested Topics
