Convoy Disruption: 1941, 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare

[Black_Elk]

ps. The sort of convoy system I just outlined for 1942.2 could also be adapted to Global.

It might be helpful to distinguish it from the OOB Convoy system by naming it a “National Convoy” system. National because the money can only go to one nation, rather than being a “local” or “territory controlled” convoy system, where the money up for grabs is constantly changing. Here the money just goes to the National total as suggested by CWOMarc. For simplicity I would do it in some set IPC amount per Convoy, rather than being determined by the IPC values of the territories surrounding the sz or determined by who controls those territories.

Since the scale and economy of Global is larger, you could have more Convoys, or more money per convoy. So if, as suggested, you use 3 ipc convoys (Green chips) in 1942.2, you could use 5 ipcs convoys (Red Chips) in Global. Or you could just keep at 3 ipcs (3 grey chips) if you wanted.

Then you go around the map and place a Flag Roundel over the printed “convoy marker” drawn on the OOB map, and use this new system as an alternative to the OOB one. If you want to add more convoys than these, no problem, all it takes is another Roundel, placed in whatever sea zone makes sense. Some of the OOB convoys might not make sense in the new system, so in that case just ignore all the convoy images on the map that don’t work, and focus on only the new roundels.

This would prevent the situations you currently end up with, where Italy could get raided out of the game, or where a successful Sea Lion complicated the London situation etc. Here it’s simple, you just look at the Roundel markers and the red chips, and rework the convoy balance until you get something that balances the game overall by sides.

You could do this either as an alternative to certain NOs or in conjunction with them, as a way to introduce more money into play. Here’s an example of how you could substitute existing convoys zones for a National Convoy roundel system, and even create new Convoys if desired, like for Germany. The example below shows how this would be fairly simple to do. You could create a new 5 ipcs National convoy in sz 114 or sz 112 or both, in order to balance to total income by sides… If you wanted to give a nod to the Persian corridor into Russia, you could do this via a National Convoy in the adjacent Persian Gulf sz zone.

It would be important to note that this change to the convoy system introduces money on top of the normal land economy, and is capped at the total IPC value of the National Convoy, (not the adjacent land). So you wouldn’t be able to drop a player below their baseline land limit, without actually invading and taking over that land. Here for example, UK could still run Taranto and then “raid” the Italian convoy, but that convoy’s total value would cap out at just the 5 ipcs, instead of raiding Italy out of existence. Italy could still have the land cash to work with. It could be a cash infusion across the board for everyone, but one that you could scale, depending on which zones you want to include or ignore. Using the idea of “loading” National Convoy Roundels with IPC chips during the place units phase, you could include this bonus to starting income, or you could restrict it in the first round and leave all Roundels empty (to be loaded up during the first turn’s placement phase) if you wanted to delay the convoy effect by 1 round.

In the example below I gave the Cypress/Syria convoy to UK. But if there are any questionable Allied convoys it could be entertaining to just give them to France. French ownership would put them effectively out of play for most games, but might create a nice cash infusion to the French during the KGF endgame if Paris is ever liberated. The Free French boost!
:-D

[Black_Elk]

Looking at the National Convoy system on the Pacific side of the map, things would necessarily get a bit trickier, mainly on account of the Dutch, and the money islands. I suppose you would either want to ignore some of the Convoys, or else say that because the Dutch are so weird, that any Nation can take control of these convoys provided they control the island within the sea zone.

Depending on how many Convoys you want to activate/ignore, its possible you might want to set the convoys at separate values by Nation. But if using that approach I would keep the all the National values consistent, this way you always know how many IPC chips to replace

For example,
German convoy 5 ipc red chips
Russian convoy 5 ipcs red chips
Japan 3 ipc gray chips
USA 3 ipc gray chips
UK Europe 3 ipc gray chips
UK Pacific 5 ipc red chips
Italy 5 ipc red chips
French convoys 3 ipc gray chips
Anzac convoy 5 ipc red chips
Dutch convoys 3 ipcs gray chips (can be taken by any Nation at war, but will likely go to Japan).

Or something along those lines. You could do lower IPC values if you wanted, or higher ones, as long as all National values are consistent for all that nations convoy roundels. That way its easy to know how many chips to load under each convoy at a glance.

In the 1940 games National Convoys could also be restricted by the DoW, or only loaded when “at war” if you wanted to limit them by the political situation.

[baron Münchhausen]

I was doubtful at first but now I believe this could be much simpler and in the right direction.

You can even put Guadalcanal on 1942.2 as a UK Convoy Sz which cannot be collect until the island is recaptured and get ride of any japanese Subs in the SZ.
Do you see where this can go?
That would explain why this island can be so important for japanese interest.

[Black_Elk]

Yup! I like that idea!

The major benefit I can see, if you can get it working as an Economic expansion, is that you could use it as a method to rebalance the game by sides without requiring a bid. Also, it stands to reason that if you could get this model to work with the OOB unit values, then it should also work with HR adjusted ones. If for example, you wanted to play the game with a redesigned unit roster, or with different unit interactions, cooler subs that hit at 3 etc. this would get you extra money to try out.
:-D

I think if it could work with 1942.2 that would be cool, because then you’d have an easy bridge to playing a modified global game with National Convoys. Global would obviously take a bit longer to puzzle out than 1942.2, since its so much larger and more nuanced, but at least the baseline concept is pretty easy. The code for this also already exists in TripleA, from the older A&A games, so it seems like it might be relatively simple to mod in as a replacement to the OOB 1940 convoy system.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

It seems fairly straightforward using the Flag Roundel Markers, since these are not usually placed in Sea Zones, they would be fairly easy to distinguish. It might be cool to see them moving, but I would probably avoid that and just fix their locations for simplicity. I’ve tried playing A&A with movable resources before, and while I enjoyed it, my players found it cumbersome in a game that already has so many “moving parts.”

For simplicity I would also suggest having each Roundel represent an equivalent “set” value in IPCs that is consistent across the map, like each roundel = 3 ipcs convoy income.  1 ipc would probably be too low, and require too many roundels to get up off the ground, but if they were all worth 3, I think players would go for it. You could just put a green chip under the roundel, or 3 gray chips.

I’d probably try to keep things confined to one convoy roundel per sz, just to prevent too much confusion.

Again for simplicity, I would include this cash in addition or “on top” of the Nation’s OOB starting income. That way we don’t have to completely redesign the game’s economic system on land.

Yes, this sounds good.  I concur that fixed-location convoys would be simpler to use than moving ones (and would avoid the potential problems with moving ones that I mentioned previously).  AI also concur that each SZ should contain either no convoys at all or just one convoy maximum, not multiple convoys.  I like your suggestion to boost the starting IPC national incomes to represent the addition of the convoy mechanic, rather than reclassifying some of the OOB starting IPCs as being convoy-dependent.

I have no preference on whether each convoy should represent an IPC value of 1 or a higher figure, but from a mechnical point of view here are a couple of thoughts.  If all convoys have a standard value, and if the status of the convoy operates on an all-or-nothing basis (meaning that a convoy is either fully active or totally destroyed), then there’s no need to put chips under the flag roundels.  If on the other hand – and I find the proposed idea about this a very interesting one – convoys start out with a value of 3 but can have that number knocked down to 2 or 1 or 0 to represent attrition as parts of the convoy get sunk, then putting chips under the flag roundel to track these losses is a good idea.  The concept would be compatible either with a system in which all convoys have a standard maximum value, or with a system in which different convoys have different value maximums.  Personally, my preference would be to use standard maximums, and to simply give different countries different numbers of convoys (rather than convoys of different value) to reflect the importance of their respective merchant fleets.

If we go with the model that damaged or destroyed convoys can be reinforced or replaced (back up to their maximum starting values), then I would suggest giving the flag roundel itself no IPC value, and thus having the IPC value of a convoy (0 or 1 or 2 or 3, depending on whether casualties were sustained) expressed exclusively by the chips under the roundel.  The roundel itself would merely be used to denote the fixed position which is assigned by the house rules to such-and-such a convoy.  By the same token (no pun intended), this would help everyone keep track of how many convoys each nation is entitled to and how many supplemental IPCs this represents for income-tracking purposes.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

But now you get to the question of how to approach USA?
I think there is an idea that USA is shipping resources to Allies more than collecting resources.
If you wanted to low-ball it, you could just give them 1 convoy.
[…]
USA starts with 42 ipcs.
1 Convoy would bring their starting income up to 45 ipcs.
You could put it in sz 53 to make Hawaii more relevant?

Here are some thoughts on these points.

Regarding the US East Coast: as I recall, during WWII the US convoyed a fair bit of oil to the American eastern seaboard (from which it was eventually fed into the cross-Atlantic convoys) from two locations: the Gulf of Mexico (for oil produced in Texas), and the Caribbean.

Regarding Hawaii: since it isn’t part of the continental U.S., Hawaii presumably needs to import of lot of stuff by ship.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

I know in some of the older convoy systems, it was not necessary to control the sea zone, but simply to pass through it during your conduct combat phase, and this was enough to disrupt the flow of income. So for example, a sub could pass through an enemy Convoy in a sea zone, and be said to have “raided” that zone. This would give ships the ability to behave similar to the way tanks do on land, when they blitz across unoccupied enemy territory.

In purely military terms, one helpful concept to keep in mind is the definition of a raid: a limited-objective and temporary strike into enemy-controlled territory.  Raiding forces enter an enemy-controlled territory, attack one or more specific targets, then return home.  Their purpose isn’t to take and hold ground; that’s the job of an army offensive (on land) or of an amphibious landing (on islands and coasts).  WWII strategic bomber attacks (in the real world) were examples of raids, and so were the German U-boat campaign against the Allied convoys in the Atlantic and the American submarine campaigns against Japanese convoys in the western Pacific.  Surface warships, by contrast, are not inherently raiding forces: they sometimes do conduct raider-type operations into enemy-held waters (the Bismark sortie was one such operation), but they sometimes function in other ways too: for example taking and holding territory (example: the Americans at Leyte Gulf) or serving as launching platforms (from areas of the sea  which they do control) for air attacks into areas of the sea which they don’t control.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

For convenience and gameplay balance, we could say that a convoy roundel within a SZ represents, not just the convoy traffic of the sea zone itself, but also the convoy traffic of all the zones immediately adjacent to it. A convoy for an entire adjacent region. This is an abstraction of course, but it’s probably necessary, since we can’t have Convoy roundels in every sea zone!

Yes, that would be one of the valid options for handling matters.  To give an example of the concept: The WWII British naval command that was called Western Approaches was so named because it referred to the large sea area in which the various incoming convoy routes converged prior to making port in Britain.  Obviously this made it a prime hunting ground for U-boats, which in turn is why it was so heavily defended by Royal Navy ships and Coastal Command aircraft (a defense which was made easier by the fact that this area, by its vary nature, was close to Britain, and hence was within reasonably short range).  The U-boat response was to move into the “mid-Atlantic air gap” (the so-called “black pit”) because Allied aircraft from both sides of the Atlantic could not provide air cover that far out in the early years of the war.  The target concentration was lower there, but the area was safer for the subs.

A concept related to that of convergence areas (which are dictated by the arrival and departure ports of convoys) is the concept of choke points: places where the presence of coasts and islands squeeze travelling ships into narrow waters, thus concentrating maritime traffic.  The Strait of Malacca between Singapore and Sumatra is a good real-world example: ships traveling between the Pacific and Indian Oceans must either go through it or take a long detour.  Another example is, of course, the Straight of Gibraltar.  These types of choke points have the same advantages and disadvantages (from a sub’s point of view) that convergence areas have: they produce a high concentration of targets, but they also tend to be heavily defended (since, by definition, they involve the presence of land areas where air bases can be built).

[CWO Marc]

Here’s a follow-up point to my earlier post about raiding.  One big difference between bombers as raiders and subs as raiders is the issue of operational endurance.  A WWII bombing raid lasted a few hours (with no possibility of mid-air refuelling, since the technology didn’t exist at that time), whereas submarine raiding operations tended to last from a few weeks to a couple of months.  German subs learned to extended their patrol times by using resupply subs (“milk cows”) to provide them at sea with fuel, food and torpedoes.  American subs in the western Pacific could, as I recall, stay on station for a couple of months if need be: they didn’t (as far as I know) get resupplied, but they tended to be much larger than German U-boats, which allowed more provisions to be carried and a greater degree of crew comfort (the US submariner living conditions were spartan, but nothing as bad as what you can see in Das Boot).  So in this regard, subs on long-range patrol do have some characteristics of both raiding forces and occupation forces, whereas bombers are strictly raiders.

[CWO Marc]

A short idea on its own:

If we treat convoys as quasi-units in the way we’re discussing, they would of course remain open to attack by enemy units (as in the OOB rules, so that part isn’t new), but a new HR element that opens up is the concept of the player who owns a particular convoy might be able to “attach” (with an “h”, not a “k”) some of his naval units to a convoy specifically for purposes of convoy defense.  The player could likewise detach naval units from convoys, if desired, as the reverse operation.  The general idea (I haven’t worked out any specifics) is that such an attachment operation would create a trade-off: a naval unit attached to a convoy for convoy-defense purposes would lose the ability to perform the other (non-convoy) things that a naval unit can normally do in a sea zone, but the convoy would gain some sort of enhanced defensive bonus, over and above the “normal” protection it would gain under the OOB rules from the presence of “normal” (unattached) ships in its sea zone (for instance the normal anti-sub abilities of a normal destroyer).

[General 6 Stars]

I’d use these.

[CWO Marc]

@SS:

I’d use these.
Convoy Markers.png (39.71 KB, 150x127 - viewed 4 times.)

Very nice.  I like them.

Also on the subject of tools for this house rule: For each game for which it’s used (Global, 1942, etc.), we’d need to make a reference chart.  I’ve posted below a rough draft of what a couple of lines from such a chart might look like, with purely invented entries on each line.

[CWO Marc]

An additional idea (especially if we have multiple convoys with different and/or changing values): using the income tracking charts to keep track of both types of IPCs, using two types of markers: one type for regular income and one type for convoy bonuses, as shown below (purely as a made-up example).

[baron Münchhausen]

I pretty like where it is going.
The various SZ pointed out as good candidate for Convoy.
I just not have time to discuss some ways of doing Convoy Raiding and interactions with regular combat and units sharing the SZ.
Later,
Keep up the good work.

[Black_Elk]

Great feedback Marc! I’m sensing some pretty broad agreement here in the ways this National Convoy system might work.

I think a 3 ipc convoy (3 gray chips) is best. Since it would work on all A&A gameboards.

Keep the value consistent for all nations. Convoys always = 3, so its easier to understand and easy to track. Tie the raids to the number of warships passing either 1, 2, or up to 3 (cap’ing the max damage at 3).

I favor making the damage automatic 1:1 on IPCs raided. Or ships:chips.
Mainly so we dont have to slow down the conduct combat phase with any more rolls.

Or if you do want to preserve the roll, instead of having a roll for attacker damage, just make the roll for defense. I’m not sure about this idea, but can imagine some ways it might look.

This could be like the older rules for AAGuns, back when AA guns were “always active.” Any flyover had to face a shot, you could do the same here at sea. We might say an “active convoy” (one with defending warships) can fire a shot against any units that are attempting to raid into it.

Or how about this for an idea… A full convoy (3 chips) gets a single shot rolled at 1, against enemy raiding vessels. Just like an AAgun, for the water. This could be a single shot vs all ships, or against only 1 ship, or you could cap it at a Max of 3 shots/3 ships. So the mechanic is familiar.
Or alternatively, you could allow the purchase of “Convoy Defense”, as a new 5 ipcs unit (represented by the AAgun) and placed on top of the Convoy Roundel/Chips. Or you could allow ships in the SZ to move on top of the Roundel, at which point it is considered “Convoy defense”, and the naval unit behaves similar to the way Aircraft do on Intercept. Not entirely sure which system is optimal, but it certainly seems possible to set something up along those lines. I like the idea of “the roll” just being for the “raider’s” defense (whether or not their ship is destroyed during the raid), rather than having the raider make a roll to determine the amount of damage vs the convoy. Though I suppose you could have both if you really wanted.

Probably any of those, or something similar could be made to work, but I’d try to keep everything as simple as we can, just for ease of adoption.

I also like the special convoy markers SS shared, and the idea to create a set up/chart card for the most popular games or rulesets. Such a system could probably work on any Axis and Allies gameboard, and might be a cool way to support the idea of a “Naval expansion” to the game. Because the influx of cash from the Convoys is located “at sea” it really does facilitate an increased likelihood that players use the extra money on ships.

@CWO:

I would suggest giving the flag roundel itself no IPC value, and thus having the IPC value of a convoy (0 or 1 or 2 or 3, depending on whether casualties were sustained) expressed exclusively by the chips under the roundel.

Agreed, I prefer this method. Basically the roundel serves only to indicate the location/existence of a Convoy, not its IPC value. The IPC value is indicated by the number of chips. This way, once the National Convoy Roundel is placed in a SZ during the initial board set up, it never has to be removed.

The only possible exception to this is in Global/Pacific 1940, the convoys around the Dutch islands, since the Dutch are not a player Nation, and thus have no roundels. I could launch into another diatribe about why I find special exclusive one-off rules so annoying in A&A, but I’ll resist the urge. Suffice it to say we have 2 options here with the Dutch in G40.

Option 1. Ignore the OOB “Dutch Island” Convoys markers completely. (i.e we don’t place Convoy Roundels in those sea zones.) This has the advantage of being simpler, and would prevent Japan from collecting too much convoy money outright. The downside is that there is a bit less variety to the overall convoy campaign in the Pacific. If we choose to ignore the Dutch Convoys, I would use the logic that “this particular convoy traffic from the occupied dutch islands” is being represented by other convoys in some Adjacent zone. There are plenty of these to work with already, on both sides. For example, the Japanese convoys in sz 36 (Hainan), and sz 20 (Formosa) could be envisioned as encompassing the shipping lanes for the entire adjacent region, including the Rich Islands, Indo-China etc. If you wanted to create some Convoy near sz 34 (Palau) or sz 34 (Caroline Islands), in order to offset the Dutch convoys we ignore, that is doable as well under the new system, and this avoids the problem of changing dutch ownership as it relates to convoy ownership. Prior to the DoW, or from an Allied perspective, the convoy Dutch convoy traffic can be covered, by other Allied convoys in adjacent zones, such as sz 37 (Malaya/Singapore) , sz 43 (Borneo/Sarawak), or sz (35 Philippines.)

Option 2. Allow any Nation to take control of the Dutch Convoys. This has the advantage of a bit more novelty for the Allies or Japan. Here the logic would be, ‘well, the Dutch rules are unique OOB, and this rule just follows suit.’

There is a definite downside that option 2 violates the new concept we’re trying to introduce that National Convoys are “National,” and don’t change ownership depending on who controls some surrounding territory, except in this one weird instance. There is also the potential the the Dutch convoys become too potent of a target for Japan, distorting their already out-sized importance (as Allied targets.) So I think it might be easier to just ignore all those convoys, remove them from play, and focus on the potential locations immediately adjacent instead. This also contains within it the idea that the Dutch Island Convoy resources are “bound” elsewhere, and so we don’t really need to have a convoy for each Dutch island. The Island itself is enough of a draw already, instead we could put the convoy emphasis one space out just to simplify.

[Black_Elk]

@CWO:

In purely military terms, one helpful concept to keep in mind is the definition of a raid: a limited-objective and temporary strike into enemy-controlled territory.  Raiding forces enter an enemy-controlled territory, attack one or more specific targets, then return home.  Their purpose isn’t to take and hold ground; that’s the job of an army offensive (on land) or of an amphibious landing (on islands and coasts).  WWII strategic bomber attacks (in the real world) were examples of raids, and so were the German U-boat campaign against the Allied convoys in the Atlantic and the American submarine campaigns against Japanese convoys in the western Pacific.  Surface warships, by contrast, are not inherently raiding forces: they sometimes do conduct raider-type operations into enemy-held waters (the Bismark sortie was one such operation), but they sometimes function in other ways too: for example taking and holding territory (example: the Americans at Leyte Gulf) or serving as launching platforms (from areas of the sea  which they do control) for air attacks into areas of the sea which they don’t control.

That’s an interesting point. I know that the term “Raid” itself in English, is etymologically related to our word “Ride” and comes to us from early ideas about mounted combat. The speed and the shock! I picture some Indo-European horse-riding warlord, descending on the hapless enemy, trampling, looting and burning, before galloping off to the next spot post haste.
:-D

Maybe subs or other raiding vessels could just work like that? They pass through the convoy, knock off a single chip on their way, and just keep it simple.

My main concern with a “defensive convoy shot” against raiding units, (a shot that could actually destroy the enemy’s ships), is that this will make the trade of 3 IPCs vs potential TUV destroyed too risky for the attacker.

Perhaps the roll, if there is to be a roll, should just determine whether the convoy Chip gets knocked off, or not. In other words, raiding does not put the raiding vessel at risk, but the Convoy defender still has a chance to “evade.” No convoy damage, the chip stays in place. The baseline for this could be 1d6, if the defender rolls a 1, no damage occurs. Otherwise 1 chip is removed.

Under that system, you could perhaps create some way that a defender can put one of their ships in a sz “on convoy defense” during a raid. The ship moves on top of the roundel, and this changes the roll somehow? Perhaps instead of rolling a 1 to “evade”, it evades at 3, or 50/50. Something along those lines.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

I’m sensing some pretty broad agreement here in the ways this National Convoy system might work.

Yes, things seem to be coming along nicely indeed.

I’m posting below (assuming “.doc format” Word documents are postable here, which I think they are) a document I was working on this evening prior to reading your posts from today.  It’s a document that could be useful to you and Baron and anyone else who wants to contribute to this HR development process.  Basically, it’s a blank chart (meant to be expandable) for preparing lists of potential convoy locations, IPC values and operating conditions.

The charts where the final choices (for the various A&A games) will eventually be written down once we’ve worked out the complete HR will probably look similar – but for the moment this is just a working document to record ideas and proposals for discussion as we decide where to put these convoys.  I kept it as generic as possible, for example by allowing (potentially) for different convoy values, even though – as discussed above – there are advantages to giving them all a standard value of 3.  I also included nations that may or may not actually get convoys (including the Dutch, who you mention in one of your posts).  I don’t know to what extent this document might or might not be useful, but the folks here are welcome to play around with it if they wish.

Blank Convoy Chart Global 1940.doc

[baron Münchhausen]

About the Raiding mechanism, do you think this can be too complicated?

Any 1 Submarine raiding a Convoy Zone: auto destroy of all 3 IPCs.
The Merchant’s convoyed ships didn’t see them coming.

Any 1 surface warship (and up to 2 planes paired with Carrier) needs to make an attack roll against Merchant’s Convoy. Any hit makes for the destruction of 3 IPCs.

When there is warships defending the Convoy SZ,
attacking surface warship makes regular combat BUT the 3 IPCs Convoy is safe.
So any one can use a DD blocker to protect the Convoy SZ.

When Submarines are part of the battle, the attacker can choose to assign a Submarine’s hit to the Convoy, instead of an enemy warship chosen by the owner’s (as OOB combat rule for casualty).

This simply means that with Subs, the attacker can destroy enemy units AND the 3 IPCs Convoy.

In this case, the Convoy is played as an additional free hit (like these puts on Carrier or Battleship) without loosing a combat unit.

[CWO Marc]

Here’s a summary of where things appear to be at the moment with the convoy house rule proposal.  This summary is meant to be revised on an ongoing basis as points needing decisions [shown in square brackets] are discussed and finalized.

• The HR convoy system is designed for potential use with any global-scale A&A game, or with Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 if these games are played on their own.  Separate convoy setup charts for the system will be required for each of these games because they have different IPC structures and different SZ numbering systems.  [For a working draft of what these charts might look like, see CWO Marc’s post of April 17, 2015.]  In the case of Global 1940 (and its two constituent games), the HR is meant to replace the existing OOB convoy zone system.  In the case of the 1942.2, 1941 and (potentially) 1914 games, the HR is meant to introduce a convoy system where none exists in the OOB rules.

• Possible name suggested by Black Elk for the system: National Convoy House Rule.  Rationale: this distinguishes the HR from the “local convoys” in Global 1940.  [Question : Might the National Convoy / Local Convoy terminology create the impression that Global 1940 has two convoy systems, rather than a HR system that replaces the OOB system?]

• The convoys in the HR system provide extra IPC income, over and above the normal IPC income which the various powers collect.  These two types of income are tracked separately.  This tracking can be done with separate IPC charts, or by using two different types of markers on a single chart.  (For an illustration of the latter idea, see CWO Marc’s final post of April 16, 2015.)  The bonus income generated by each power’s convoys is added (at the Collect Income phase of the game) to the overall income of each power (in contrast with the Global 1940 OOB convoy system, which affects the IPC value of specific land territories.)

• Convoys occupy fixed positions on the game map.  Each SZ can contain either one convoy or no convoys.  The nationality and the position of convoys is marked on the game map according to the convoy setup charts [which still need to be developed] for that particular A&A game.  Convoys can be marked using either A&A flag roundels (National Control Markers, or NCMs) or other suitable tokens such as the Convoy Nation Markers produced by HBG:

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Convoy-Nation-Markers-X5_p_1821.html

• The IPC value of each convoy is indicated by placing plastic chips under the convoy markers on the game map (one for each IPC).  The markers themselves have no IPC value; they simply denote the location and nationality of each convoy.  [To be determined : Give each convoy a standard value of 3 (meaning 3 grey chips), which seems to be the current preference?  In such a case, we could dispense with the “Max. Value” column of the setup charts.  Or give different convoys different values, perhaps as a reflection of the economic value of their ports of departure or some other factor?]

• The owner of a particular convoy may need to fulfil certain conditions to collect the bonus income generated by that convoy – for example, by holding the convoy’s port of departure.  These conditions are listed in the convoy setup charts [which still need to be developed].  [To be determined : Are there certain conditions under which one nation can take over the convoy routes of another nation, for instance in the (potentially) odd case of the Dutch East Indies convoys?  Regarding the DEI convoys, one point to consider is that the DEI are a net exporter of valuables such as oil, and that a DEI convoy therefore technically represents an outgoing convoy rather than an incoming one.  This raises the following question: to whom are the DEI supposedly shipping goods prior to their takeover in the Global 1940 game?  It can’t be to Holland because Holland is already an occupied country at the start of the game…so if it isn’t going to Holland, who is the “pre-DEI-takeover” recipient of the Dutch convoy bonus IPCs?  Black Elk proposed a couple of possible solutions, and based on his analysis my suggestion would be: that we assume that no DEI convoys exist prior to the takeover of the DEI, and that we then introduce a DEI convoy when the DEI is occupied; the convoy would be either Japanese or British or ANZAC, depending on who takes control of the DEI.  The draft setup charts alreday contain the notion that certain conditions might need to be fulfilled to operate a convoy, so an extension of that principle might be that the existence and the nationality of certain convoys is “conditional”.  Under Condition X, a particular convoy (perhaps better thought of here as a convoy route) is inactive; under Condition Y, it’s operational and owned by Nation A; under condition Z, it’s operational and owned by Nation B.  This system could be used outside the DEI too, but the DEI is a good example for discussion purposes.  Under conditions Y or Z, the convoy would be indicated on the map by the flag roundel (or HBG convoy marker) of Nations A or B respectively; under Condition X, an upside-down flag roundel (or upside-down HBG convoy marker) would denote the presence of an inactive convoy route.]

• The IPC value of a convoy is reduced when it suffers casualties as a result of enemy attack.  This reduced value is shown by removing the appropriate number of chips from under the convoy marker and by adjusting the income tracking charts accordingly.  [To be determined : Can convoys which have suffered casualties (and perhaps which have been completely destroyed) be built back up again to a maximum of their original value?  If yes, the details of the process need to be worked out, but one part that’s clear is that convoy markers would not be removed from the game map.  If no, then no replacement process details need to be worked out, and it’s clear that a convoy marker would be removed from the game map if all of its ships are destroyed, since there’s no point in marking the position of a destroyed convoy that isn’t coming back…unless perhaps we’re dealing with a “conditional convoy” as discussed above.]

• [Convoy attacks ('convoy raiding mechanism"), convoy defense (“convoy escort mechanism”), and combat-resolution mechanics: I haven’t attempted to summarize the state of discussion of these issues, for two reasons.  First, there’re still under very active discussion.  Two, as I’ve said previously I don’t have much any aptitude for these topics.  So my preference would be just to contribute some comments here and there on historical aspects of the issues as they’re debated by Black Elk and Baron and whoever else wants to chime in, if that sounds all right, and also to have more expert hands than mine write up the discussion-status summaries for those parts of the house rule.]

[CWO Marc]

@Baron:

About the Raiding mechanism, do you think this can be too complicated?

Any 1 Submarine raiding a Convoy Zone: auto destroy of all 3 IPCs.
The Merchant’s convoyed ships didn’t see them coming.

Any 1 surface warship (and up to 2 planes paired with Carrier) needs to make an attack roll against Merchant’s Convoy. Any hit makes for the destruction of 3 IPCs.

When there is warships defending the Convoy SZ,
attacking surface warship makes regular combat BUT the 3 IPCs Convoy is safe.
So any one can use a DD blocker to protect the Convoy SZ.

When Submarines are part of the battle, the attacker can choose to assign a Submarine’s hit to the Convoy, instead of an enemy warship chosen by the owner’s (as OOB combat rule for casualty).

This simply means that with Subs, the attacker can destroy enemy units AND the 3 IPCs Convoy.

In this case, the Convoy is played as an additional free hit (like these puts on Carrier or Battleship) without loosing a combat unit.

Just a comment: my concern isn’t so much whether this is too complicated or not, but whether it’s realistic for a convoy to be completely wiped out by a single attack.  I’d say it isn’t.  WWII convoys that suffered very high casualty levels (and fortunately for the Allies, such massive casualty levels were the exception rather than the rule) generally had their numbers whittled down over the course of several days of fighting by multiple attacks carried out by multiple attackers.  The so-called “wolf pack” sequence seen in the Humphrey Bogart movie “Action in the North Atlantic” is thrilling but completely unrealistic: it shows a huge swarm of U-boats cruising underwater in a large formation (almost like a fighter squadron), and it compresses into a five-minute battle (showing multiple cargo ships being torpedoed and multiple U-boats being blown apart by depth charges or rammed by destroyers) a level of carnage that, in real life, would typically have been spread over several hours or even days.  In WWII, if a convoy found itself in a hopeless situation against an overwhelming enemy force, the commodore might well opt to order the convoy to scatter – as was done in the Jervis Bay / Admiral Scheer confrontation, or with Arctic Convoy PQ17 – even though this was regarded as a desperate measure of last resort.

It think it would be more realistic to have the total destruction of a convoy only happen under two situations: in a single turn when there’s a massive strength advantage in favour of the attacker, or over several turns when the force ratios are more balanced (which would be a more typical situation).