@panther This is indeed the recommendation I’ve followed. Forgot to mention I’m testing with low luck dice.
Convoy Disruption: 1941, 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare
-
Trying to build a Core rule with 1941 basic map and expanding with further game.
Here is what I get.
I voluntarily not use the Japan SZ, because I don’t think it is relevant to place Convoy in IC’s SZ.I would prefer to use SZ which also have an Islands Group in it (to more easily add the option of neutralizing Convoy by controlling Islands. SEE EDIT below.)
Interesting SZs (IMO) for Convoys 1941 /1942.2/ AA50 /G40
JAPAN (1941 Japan SZ 45) (1942.2 Japan SZ 60 & SZ 62) (AA50 Japan SZ 62) (G40 Japan SZ 6)
1941
SZ 46 (Coastal China SZ, Formosa on map SZ but not a TT)
SZ 38 (Philippine Islands and Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 31 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ)1942.2
SZ 61 (Coastal China SZ,Formosa 0 IPC TT on map SZ)
SZ 48 (Philippine Islands SZ)
SZ 50 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ)AA50
SZ 61 (Coastal China SZ,Formosa 1 IPC TT SZ)
SZ 60 (Okinawa SZ 1 IPC TT)
SZ 50 (Philippine Islands SZ, US original TT)
SZ 51 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (French Indo-China Thailand Eastern SZ, Hainan Island on map but not a TT)1940 Global
SZ 20 (Coastal China SZ, Formosa 1 IPC TT on map SZ)
SZ 35 (Philippine Islands SZ)
SZ 34 (Palau Island SZ)
SZ 33 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (Hainan Island 0 IPC TT)
SZ 37 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ) But it is a UK TT on initial set-up.
PACIFIC RUSSIA (1941 SZ 47 : Soviet Far East and Siberia / SZ 45, Siberia shared with Japan)
(1942.2 & AA50 SZ 62, Buryatia SSR shared with Japan)1941
SZ 43 (Midway SZ)
SZ 47 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Siberia)
SZ 48 (Alaska SZ)1942.2
SZ 57 (Midway SZ)
SZ 63 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Buryatia S.S.R.)
SZ 64 (Alaska SZ)AA50
SZ 57 (Midway SZ)
SZ 63 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Buryatia S.S.R.)
SZ 64 (Alaska SZ, Bering Strait SZ)1940 Global
SZ 25 (Midway SZ) Much lower on the south
SZ 8 (Aleutian Islands SZ) More on the way toward Russian Coastal TTs.
SZ 2 (Alaska SZ)
SZ 3 & SZ 4 (Coastal Soviet Far East)
SZ 5 (Amur, Siberia and Soviet Far East SZ)
UNITED KINGDOM
1941 (INDIA ICs SZ 29 & AUSTRALIA ICs SZ 33 )
SZ 27 (French Madagascar SZ)
SZ 28 (Middle East, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 29 (India SZ)
SZ 33 (Australia SZ)
SZ 37 (New Guinea & Solomon Islands SZ)1942.2
(INDIA ICs SZ 35 & AUSTRALIA SZ 38, SZ 39, SZ 45 & SZ 46 )
SZ 28 (French Madagascar, near Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 34 (Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 35 (India SZ)
SZ 48 (New Guinea SZ) [A less interesting choice for Convoy SZ, since it is less in line with US shipping line.]
SZ 49 (Solomon Islands SZ) [OOB Japanese occupied TT]AA50
(INDIA ICs SZ 35 & AUSTRALIA SZ 39, SZ 40, SZ 41 & SZ 47 )
SZ 28 (French Madagascar, near Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 34 (Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 35 (India SZ)
SZ 48 (New Guinea SZ) [A less interesting choice for Convoy SZ, since it is less in line with US shipping line.]
SZ 46 (Solomon Islands SZ) [OOB UK TT]1940 Global
SZ 72 (French Madagascar SZ)
SZ 71 (Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 76 (Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia & British Somaliland SZ)
SZ 79 (Western India SZ)
SZ 80 (Eastern Persia, Persia, Irak & Saudi Arabia SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]SZ 39 (India SZ with Ceylon Island)
SZ 37 (Malaya SZ)
AUSTRALIA (SZ 54, 55, 56 , 61 and 62)
1940 Global
SZ 46 (New Guinea SZ) [Not an australian Convoy SZ but an Australian TT]
SZ 49 (Solomon Islands SZ) [Not an australian Convoy SZ but an Australian TT]
SZ 53 (New Hebrides SZ) [Not an australian Convoy SZ but an French TT]SZ 54 (Queensland SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]
SZ 62 (Sydney, Victoria SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]
SZ 63 (New Zealand SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
West Coast (1941 SZ 42) (1942.2 & AA50 SZ 56) (1940 Global SZ 10)1941
SZ 39 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB US TT]
SZ 40 (Hawaiian Islands SZ)1942.2
SZ 52 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB JAPANESE TT]
SZ 53 (Hawaiian Islands SZ)AA50
SZ 52 (Wake Island SZ, 0 IPC TT)
SZ 53 (Hawaiian Islands SZ, 1 IPC TT)1940 Global
SZ 31 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB US TT]
SZ 26 (Hawaiian Islands SZ) [OOB USA Convoy SZ]
SZ 25 (Midway SZ) [This island location is not interesting for plausible Russian Convoy lines.]
SZ 30 (Johnston Island SZ) [OOB US TT] [Could be a USA Convoy SZ since it is a direct line of travel from Australia.]
Looking up for USA Pacific Convoy SZ for 1941, 1942.2, AA50 and G40,
I think Hawaiian SZ (a US TT on all 4 maps) could be preferred over Wake Island because in 1942.2 it is controlled by Japan.
Unless we want to play optional Convoy neutralized by Island Controlled of SZ 52, so in 1942.2,
US Convoy in Wake SZ 52 could be neutralized by Japan until it is liberated, it would be a similar scenario to Solomon Islands SZ 49 which would be under Japanese control but can have a UK Convoy in this SZ 49.This would create a bigger incentive to go Pacific for US and to conquer both Islands, so to relieve Convoy under Japanese grasp.
EDIT: If Islands group are treated as Subs or BBs and, on enemy’s player combat phase, can be used to flip downside all NCMs in SZ, then it can be possible to let NCMs in SZ 52 and SZ 49 face up in the 1942.2 set-up.
Japanese players would have to declare Convoy Disruption via Island Base on his turn.
This make Wake Island an interesting SZ to put Convoy in it, and would provide a game motive for Japanese player to do the same as Japan did in december 1941. -
I think that would make a good deal of sense, if possible, to locate convoys in sea zones that don’t border an IC. Noting the German exception, since they don’t have a whole lot of potential sea zones that might make sense for convoys other than sz that border their factories. This is mainly for gameplay purposes, since it is much easier to defend a sz if you can place units directly into it, making such zones much harder to contest. For a nation like Germany this might not be a huge problem since their starting naval forces are not very significant, and buying a carrier to defend a home convoy is pretty expensive for them. Japan on the other hand starts with much more naval power. Putting a convoy into their “home” sea zone would be giving them another secure source of cash. I don’t see a need for that on most boards, although 1941 could be an exception under KJF conditions, since Japan’s production is so slim on that map. But even there I think coastal China or one of the sea zones farther away would make for a more engaging Pacific naval contest.
-
I think that would make a good deal of sense, if possible, to locate convoys in sea zones that don’t border an IC. Noting the German exception, since they don’t have a whole lot of potential sea zones that might make sense for convoys other than sz that border their factories. This is mainly for gameplay purposes, since it is much easier to defend a sz if you can place units directly into it, making such zones much harder to contest. For a nation like Germany this might not be a huge problem since their starting naval forces are not very significant, and buying a carrier to defend a home convoy is pretty expensive for them. Japan on the other hand starts with much more naval power. Putting a convoy into their “home” sea zone would be giving them another secure source of cash. I don’t see a need for that on most boards, although 1941 could be an exception under KJF conditions, since Japan’s production is so slim on that map. But even there I think coastal China or one of the sea zones farther away would make for a more engaging Pacific naval contest.
That’s why I like these 3, as potential SZs, if we accept to give 1941 Japan 3 NCMs in 3 different SZs (for a +6 IPCs):
1941
SZ 46 (Coastal China SZ, Formosa on map SZ but not a TT)
SZ 38 (Philippine Islands and Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 31 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ)SZ 46 and SZ 31 have no Island Territory anyway, even with my variant, these Convoy would need to be attack.
And SZ 31 is a bit further away and this could please Marc, as it is one of the SZ he suggested.We can also easily see on your Pacific Convoy Map that the Singapore in Malaya SZ has an heavy traffic going to Formosa or Philippine Islands and coming from money Islands such as Borneo, Sumatra & Java (East Indies) and Celebes.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35687.msg1398455#msg1398455 -
[My preferred choices are bolded.]
GERMANY (1941, 1942.2 & AA50 Baltic SZ 5) (G40 Baltic SZ 113 & 114)
ITALY (1941, MED SZ 16) (1942.2, MED SZ 15) (AA50, MED SZ 14) (G40, MED SZ 95, 97)1941
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ / Northern UK Atlantic SZ)
SZ 15 (West Med Sea SZ)
SZ 16 (Central Med Sea SZ)1942.2
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 14 (West Med Sea SZ)
SZ 15 (Central Med Sea SZ)AA50
GERMANY
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 13 (West Med Sea SZ)ITALY (AA50, MED SZ 14)
SZ 14 (Central Med Sea SZ)1940 Global
GERMANY
SZ 113 (Western Baltic SZ)
SZ 114 (Central Baltic SZ)
SZ 112 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 125 (Norway Sea SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ for Norway]
SZ 126 (Northern Norway Sea SZ)ITALY
SZ 95 (Sardinia and Sicily SZ)
SZ 97 (Adriatic SZ) [OOB Italy’s Convoy SZ]
SZ 93 (Southern France SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 94 (Algeria and Tunisia SZ)
SZ 96 (Malta SZ, UK’s controlled)
[This SZ 96 could be an optional Italy’s Convoy SZ which is neutralized as long as Malta is not captured.]
ATLANTIC RUSSIA (1941, 1942.2 & AA50 SZ 4 : Karelia and Archangel)
(Global 40 SZ 127 : Karelia, Novgorod, Archangel and Nenetsia)
[My preferred choices are bolded.]1941
SZ 3 (Iceland SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)1942.2
SZ 3 (Iceland SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)AA50
SZ 2 (Iceland and Greenland SZ)
SZ 3 (Northern Norway SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)1940 Global
SZ 123 (Iceland SZ)
SZ 124 (North East Atlantic SZ)
SZ 125 (Norway coast SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ for Norway]
SZ 126 (Northern Norway SZ)
SZ 127 (Coastal SZ of Karelia, Novgorod, Archangel and Nenetsia)
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
East Coast (1941 & 1942.2 SZ 11) (AA50 SZ10) (1940 Global SZ 101)1941
SZ 22 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 12 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 0 IPC)1942.2
SZ 22 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 18 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC)
SZ 12 (Mid-Atlantic SZ, near East Cost SZ)AA50
SZ 18 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 19 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC)
SZ 11 (Mid-Atlantic Azores SZ, between East Cost SZ and Gibraltar SZ)1940 Global
SZ 85 (South Brazil SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ for Brazil and Argentina]
SZ 86 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 88 (British and French Guinea SZ, Up North Brazil SZ)
SZ 89 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC) [OOB Convoy SZ for Central America, Southeast Mexico and WI.]
SZ 102 (Mid-Atlantic SZ, near East Cost SZ)
UNITED KINGDOM
(1941 & 1942.2 : SZ 6, 7, 8 )
(AA50 : SZ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 )
(1940 Global : SZ 109, 110, 111 & 119)1941
SZ 9 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 10 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland SZ)
SZ 14 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 23 (French West Africa SZ)1942.2
SZ 9 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 10 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland SZ)
SZ 13 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 23 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 17 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ)AA50
SZ 8 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 9 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland, Iceland SZ) [As an IC’s production SZ, it is a little less interesting.]
SZ 12 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 17 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 15 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ)1940 Global
SZ 117 (East Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 118 (West Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 106 (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia: Halifax SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 121 (Greenland SZ) [Too far out of the shortest shipping line on the Europe map.]
SZ 91 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 87 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 83 (South French West Africa SZ)
SZ 82 (Nigeria & French Equatorial Africa SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 98 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 99 (Cyprus & Greece SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ] -
Now,
here is what I believe would give interesting results and interactions for a 1941 core of National Convoy House Rules:
It gives 5 NCMs*2 IPCs= 10 IPCs to Axis vs 7 NCMs*2 IPCs =14 IPCs to Allies.
Can we agree on this SZs for 1941 Convoy or not? (Even about Wake SZ for US?)
Do we need a special first turn flip on NCMs for Axis player on first turn?
GERMANY (1941 Baltic SZ 5)
ITALY (1941, MED SZ 16)
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 16 (Central Med Sea SZ)JAPAN (1941 Japan SZ 45)
SZ 46 (Coastal China SZ, Formosa on map SZ but not a TT)
SZ 38 (Philippine Islands and Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 31 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ)
ATLANTIC RUSSIA (1941 SZ 4 : Karelia and Archangel)
SZ 3 (Iceland SZ)PACIFIC RUSSIA (1941 SZ 47 : Soviet Far East and Siberia / SZ 45, Siberia shared with Japan)
SZ 43 (Midway SZ)UNITED KINGDOM
(1941 : SZ 6, 7, 8 )
SZ 2 (Greenland SZ)
SZ 14 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)UNITED KINGDOM
(INDIA 1941 ICs SZ 29 & AUSTRALIA ICs SZ 33 )
SZ 37 (New Guinea & Solomon Islands SZ)UNITED STATES of AMERICA
East Coast (1941 SZ 11)
SZ 12 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 0 IPC)UNITED STATES of AMERICA
West Coast (1941 SZ 42)
SZ 39 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB US TT]
I found an additional reason to prefer Caribbean SZ 12 over US East Cost SZ 11.
There was much more ships sunk in the Caribbean than along the East Coast during the course of WWII.
See the graphics in the file below.
Or follow the link:
http://www.usmm.org/shipsunkdamaged.htmlIf we combine Gulf of Mexico casualties with East Coast, we get an higher results.
But, on all 3 maps (1941 to G40), the Gulf of Mexico is split in two SZs, like SZ 12 and SZ 11 in 1941, for instance.
So, these casualties can be divided amongst both.
At least, we can say that there was as much losses in both SZs.
So it seems clear that SZ12 is relevant as a Convoy SZ.In addition, here is another reason which shows that a Caribbean SZ makes a lot of sense.
@CWO: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:
You’ve actually given me an idea here which I think could solve a lot of our problems – not just with the specific issue of 2 tiers versus 3 tiers, but with many other aspects of this particular HR too.
Here’s the idea: we structure the house rule itself on a two-tier system. The first tier would be the Basic (or Core) elements of the NCHR – the “stripped down to the bare bones” fundamental parts that would be common to any version of the NCHR because, if you got any simpler than these basic elements, the system would stop working. Hopefully these fundamental parts will cover the kinds of things that we can all agree on fairly easily, and hopefully they could be expressed in a fairly short and simple way.
The second tier would be the Supplemental (or Optional) elements of the NCHR. That’s basically where we would put all the “nonessential elements” (meaning that the system could function could work perfectly well without any of them) which potentially would make the NCHR more fun and interesting, but would also potentially make it slower and more complicated.The nice thing about such an arrangement is that it would add a huge amount of flexibility to the system without complicating its central elements. There could potentially be an unlimited number Optional Extras – even options that contradict each other – from which players could pick and choose as they wished. In effect, these would be “house rules within house rules”, or “variant extras”, or whatever we wish to call them. And we wouldn’t even need to agree between ourselves on any of those extras! For instance, Baron could take his proposals concerning aircraft or islands and turn them into Optional Extras with suitable titles…for example “Baron’s Island-Based Disruption Variant” or something like that. As just another example, there could be any number of variant setup charts that propose alternates to whatever we decide would make a good basic setup chart. And so on and so forth. In other words, the sky would be the limit for these optional extras, but they’d all use the same basic simple common foundation as their launching pad.
If this seems like the right way to proceed, then what we should probably do is try to pick out the Basic (or Core) elements out of the list of ideas we’ve discussed so far. If we decide that something is (or should probably be) a Basic element, we would put it into the Basic pile and discuss it until we’re sure that this is the right place for it and that we’ve figured out the best way to handle it. If we decide that something is (or should probably be) an Optional Extra, we would put it into the Optional Extra pile and we would leave it there for someone to develop it into a finished product in whatever way they see fit.
Does this sound like it could be a good way to organize our NCHR development project?
Clearly, I missed to notice the part about basic set-up being optional too.
Sorry Marc, I thought designating a few SZ as Convoy Sz was a minimum required to play a basic core game with NCHR.
It never come to my mind that a balance game without specific Convoy SZs was playable.In addition, I would add that this Black_Elk post provides a few principles to guide me about SZs which are appropriate Convoy SZs:
@Black_Elk:One potentially viable approach is to say that a naval unit does not need to occupy the sea zone (on the opponent’s turn, during their collect income phase) but simply to “attack” the convoy on their own turn. What form that attack takes is I suppose a different issue. You could make it a roll, or it could just be automatic.
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. Or…
I imagine it like this, if one of your own convoy zones is undefended, and an enemy naval unit enters it during their combat move (either passing through, or ending their move here) then your IPC chips beneath the Convoy Roundel would be removed. Now, when your turn arrives, on your collect income there will no chips/IPCs to collect for that zone. At the end of a players turn, after collect income, the convoy chips are replaced automatically.This last could be an extension of the “place units” phase, so you place all units and then finally re-place all convoy chips.
Based on the earlier example with Japan, I have been thinking about how this might look in the Atlantic for 1942.2. One thing I think you need to decide when working up a new HR of this sort, is how much of the game you want to change. I think its good to pick a focus, because if you change too much at once, then the rule can become a bit unmanageable. So for example, if we added an entirely new convoy/income mechanic, then I think it makes a lot of sense to try and leave the rest of the game more or less unchanged, so you can really see whether the rule is fun for gamplay, or balanced in isolation. That means that if I was going to play with a new HR convoy rule in 1942.2 it would be helpful to preserve the OOB unit set up. This creates an interesting challenge for the location of Convoys, because it would be best if the set up didn’t include “contested convoys” e.g. a convoy of one nation, occupied by enemy starting units. This would create more confusion than its worth in my view. So for example, the more I think about it, the more sz 9 seems like a poor location for an Allied Convoy, because German subs start out there! Brings up an immediate dilemma if you put a convoy Roundel there, because the question then arises, “is it already being raided by the starting German u-boats?”
I suppose you could start the game with no convoy IPCs chips loaded under the Flag Roundels
Instead the chips could be loaded during a players first “place units phase.” In that case you could support a British convoy in sz 9, without having to address the question of whether German starting subs there are already raiding it. This would entail no adjustment to starting income, since convoys wouldn’t come into effect until the end of the players first turn, so it doesn’t effect the first round unit set up or battle requirements. That might be ideal.I think you can avoid the specific question of sz 9 German subs though, while still preserving the essential flavor of the Convoy routes, if you approach the Atlantic a bit like I suggested for Japan. The convoys stand in for all “adjacent sea zones,” which allows you to cover more of the broader convoy region, albeit abstractly. So the convoy activity in sz 9, could be handled via sz 2, or sz 12, which are conveniently NOT occupied by German warships at the outset.
;)Just like with the Japan convoy example on the previous page, I think it would be nice to create a fairly even distribution of convoys for this extra Atlantic income, but one that it is possible for both sides to contest, at least for a time. So just like sz 50 could cover most of the south Pacific convoys, sz 12 could represent the American contributions to Africa, while also encompassing Brazil or the West Indies. Sz 2 could represent Allied convoys bound for England from the Americas, sz 3 would do the same but bound for Russia. Sz 13 could do double duty on both the Med and the South Atlantic/Africa covering most of the British Empire for this side of the globe etc. Germany has 3 convoys here, just like Japan on the Pacific side, but they can be contested after time. What do you guys think?
-
@Baron:
7. A convoy which has been Disrupted becomes Operational when…
I thought that we were pretty close on an agreement that the owner should pay 1 IPC to flip NCM face upward when it is his Collect Income phase? It was simpler than anything else, even moving DD in convoy SZ to flip upward NCM.
Did you have something else in mind?
About Convoy Destruction, I’m not a great fan either.I just believe that 1 IPC cost can represent everything from cargo lost and ship wreckage.
I see it as a partial damage to convoy made by Sub, not a total destruction.
If all ships and their load (of 2 IPCs) would have been lost, the replacement cost would probably be greater than total income which could be made in a single travel (2 IPCs).About the Raiding/Disrupting mechanism, do you have an idea?
Any 1 Submarine or Battleship raiding a Convoy Zone: auto destroy of 1 NCM 2 IPCs.*
When there is warships defending the Convoy SZ,
except for Battleship, attacking surface warships and planes makes regular combat BUT all Convoys are safe.
So any one can use a DD blocker to protect the Convoy SZ.When Battleships or Submarines are part of the battle, the attacker can choose to assign a Submarine’s or Battleship’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 or Battleships, as long as they aren’t sink by defenders units, the attacker can destroy enemy units AND 1 NCM Convoy per combat round per Sub or per Battleship.
In this case, the Convoy is played as an additional free hit for the defender (like these puts on Carrier or Battleship) without loosing a combat unit.
Do you prefer this method?
@Black_Elk:Well, the simplest and most familiar method would be to just say these convoys work exactly like the convoys of the Original A&A Europe game (1999.)
In that case, there was no specialized “convoy attack” or “convoy defense.” It wasn’t a combat per se, so much as a combat movement. In that game, if a convoy zone was defenseless (no protecting warships) then all the raider had to do was enter/pass through the zone to deny their opponent the cash. If their opponent left a ship in the zone to defend the convoy, then this ship had to be destroyed first, and any attacking warship that survived the engagement would then occupy the sz denying the cash to the opponent.
That’s the most basic National Convoy system I can think of. Of course, we could try to improve on it with additional elements, but if you wanted to keep things as simple as possible, it might be worth just using those rules as the base.The whole point of creating a convoy system to begin with, in my view, is to attach IPC values directly to the Sea Zones in some way. Clearly this is an abstraction, even in real world terms. We’re not talking about fishermen pulling fish out of the sea, but rather the idea of a “Trade”, or National exchange, the concept that the same resources/goods can accrue in value, if you’re able to move them farther afield. In my suggested example, that’s what the +3 ipcs would represent, a bonus to the nation’s normal national production when it’s able to move across the sea.
In that respect I still think it is more fruitful to conceive of the convoy as a “shipping lane” rather than the actual ships/goods travelling along it. If you control the lane, it is possible to move the resources to a place where they have more value. If the lane is being contested, then you will lose that value (or at least some of that value), because now the logistics cost involved in defending/moving the goods will necessarily increase.
Keeping the broader gameplay in mind, the advantage of having convoys, is to encourage the purchase of more naval units. Just having more money in play (which the convoys would introduce) helps to facilitate this, but players are even more likely to buy ships, if that additional income is directly attached to a SZ rather than exclusively to land territories, as it is OOB, because then you need ships to disrupt it.
At every point along the way, you have to make a compromise. A&A is just too simplistic to model everything. It might be entirely conceivable for aircraft to sink a convoy vessel in the real world, and this surely happened in the war, but it’s worth considering whether the game really needs to model this? In A&A Europe (1999) it was not possible for Aircraft to disrupt convoy income, you had to have a ship. Not to suggest that we can’t improve on this, and somehow involve Air in the convoy disruption/defense, but just pointing out that it’s not strictly necessary.
I think there comes a point in these games, where the rules can get away from the gameplay enjoyment, if a mechanic is too complicated or if it’s application is too rare. It’s worth keeping in mind that players of the 1940/Global games have different expectations and more tolerance for complex rules, but for a game like 1942.2 I definitely favor simplicity. Put another way, it might be best to work out a bare bones system for 1942.2, and then build onto it for the 1940 games, if you want to add extra steps or nuances to the mechanics of it.
-
@Baron:
@CWO:
I agree that 1941 would be a good test-bed for developing the NCHR. Excellent suggestion.
5. Each convoy has a value of 2 IPCs when it is Operational and 0 IPCs when it is Disrupted. A convoy which is Operational is indicated on the map using a face-up convoy marker. A convoy which is Disrupted is indicated on the map using a face-down convoy marker. Convoy markers are never removed from the map.
COMMENT: A two-tier system (with a value of either 2 or 0) is much simpler than a 3-tier system (with a value of 2 or 1 or 0), so that’s the most straightforward option for the core system. I’m assuming that 2 is a good value for Operational convoys – but if you feel that 1 or 3 would be better, that’s an easy change to make.
6. Convoy income is generally not affected when the control of land territories passes from one power to another power. If, however, a particular power does not control at the Collect Income stage any land territories that are adjacent to a SZ, it cannot collect convoy income. In such a situation, that power’s convoy markers are covered by a poker chip (without changing their face-up or face-down position) and the game’s income-tracking is adjusted accordingly. If that power later regains control of a coastal territory, the chips are removed from the convoy markers and the game’s income-tracking is adjusted to show that convoy income can once again be collected by that power.
PROBABLE EXTRA: The original concept of Convoy Routes reflected the assumption that, in order to collect income from a convoy, players not only needed to have an operational convoy, they also needed to control a designated Port of Departure and a designated Port of Arrival. That’s definitely an interesting idea, because it means that convoys could be neutralized “from the land” rather than just “from the sea”, but once again it introduces a lot of complications which are not strictly necessary to make the core system work. So I think that we should save this concept for an optional extra. Ditto for the idea that some convoy routes can be taken over by another power under certain circumstances.COMMENT: Notwithstanding the fact that the whole “Port of Departure and Port of Arrival” model has been reclassified as an optional extra, I realized that we do need to introduce the minimal condition that a player must control at least one coastline to collect convoy income because it would be absurd if that condition didn’t exist (even though there’s not much chance that any power could end up controlling no coastal territories).
Nice methodical work Marc,
And also we all agree to focus on a 1941 application first, this will provide a real context for Convoy Rules.
From what Black_Elk described as possible adjustment for first round Axis Convoy set-up, I think it gives enough versatility.So, we can agree upon a 2 IPCs NatCM for all systems from 1941 to G40. Much simpler to keep such convention in all games.
If disrupted we flip to 0 IPC, it cost 1 IPC to flip it up right and being functional.
Another aspect, which showed up at least once, is do we use the Convoy Destruction option? This means that on specific condition, NCM is more than just flip (we could put an enemy control marker above the other NCM)
and need at least 2 IPCs+ 1 IPC to get off the enemy’s NCM and flip NCM to upward position, IMO (to be discuss).
I think it should be 3 IPCs total.So this make 3 stages:
1- 2 IPCs reward flip upright /
2- flip downward 0 IPC, cost 1 IPC to repair
3- flip downward with enemy marker above cost (1+2) 3 IPCs to regain a functional Convoy.Another point is about neutralizing Convoy by controling either port (Departure or Arrival).
Marc, you suggested that once the owner of a Convoy SeaPort regain control of the TT, all Convoy reward apply.
I believe this should be played differently. If an enemy take control of a Seaport TT, you put grey chip upon the NCM in SZ.On his collect income phase, if the owner regain control of Seaport, then you toss aside the grey chip and reveal the NCM in their current situation (flip one side or the other.) But you cannot collect any IPC Convoy income.
Also, if during the combat phase a Convoy SZ is disrupted at the same time the corresponding Seaport is conquered, the damage are applied accordingly then you put grey chip above the owner’s NCM (or both owner’s NCM and enemy’s NCM, if we choose to play Convoy Destruction also).
That way, controlling and protecting Seaport TT will be more important.
Exchanging such TT each game round will prevent the owner of collecting income from SZ Convoy.
I can rationalize this as if the enemy is destroying goods from Convoy just arriving in the seaport.
The merchant’s ships stay untouched (in the actual state they were) but the owner get no IPC from Convoy.I think this change is necessary to increase the reward of keeping the seaport and it will be easier to affect enemy’s economy by fighting over the seaport every game round.
That’s two major points, I have no time to go further away but I think these two things should be discuss and decided upon.
Thanks again guys for your great ideas and work.
About giving no specific Sea-port, but only requiring a TT bordered by a SZ access.
It seems that on 1941 game map, only Russia could be restricted by such rule (and there is still the Black Sea accessible from Stalingrad/Caucasus), so maybe the core rule should be without any land blocking Convoy Income bonus.
So, only Submarine disruption would be part of the Core rule.
Land blocking of Sea-port would apply in 1942.2.We can say that Convoy IPCs for Russia can travel from North , from Med Sea to Black Sea, from Indian Ocean to Persia and to Russia by land, from India by land, or from Soviet Far East. We can also invent an Arctic Convoy through Siberia.
My intent here was just to show how many ways the Russian Convoy Income can still be plausible. So no need to add this requirement in the core rule.However, I agree that blocking Seaport still make good incentive in 1941 to invade 0 IPC land territory such as Soviet Far East to prevent Russia from getting any Pacific Convoy bonus.
Do you think that Controlling an Island group in a Convoy SZ to neutralize it can be part of the core rule?
6. OPTION: Island Base Convoy Disruption
Since the possession of Islands, especially in Pacific Theatre of Operation, was very important to built an airfield and be able to disrupt and destroy merchants convoys passing nearby, here is this variant:All the Islands in a given Convoy SZ must be captured to be able to proceed to Island Base Convoy Disruption.
So, this imply that where there is two Islands groups in the SZ, both Islands must be owned to make an Island Base Convoy Disruption.At the beginning of the combat phase, if such Islands groups is owned from the start of the player’s turn and the enemy’s Convoy in the SZ is still functional, then the owning player must say that it “does Convoy Disruption via Island Base” and flip all NCM tokens in the surrounding SZ face down. (Everything else after that apply as if it was a Convoy Disruption made by Submarine [or Battleship].)
As long as the player owned such Islands group at the beginning of his turn, he can do Island Base Convoy Disruption during his Combat phase.
This imply that as long as such Islands group is contested and exchange back and forth, Island Base Convoy Disruption cannot be performed.
Rationalization: it take some times to built an effective disruptive operation from Island, things in a just conquered territory must be set up.
Hence, Disruption from Islands bases cannot be performed right away after Combat resolution. -
@Baron:
There is 6 Convoys zones for Axis (gaining 22 IPCs) and 6 Convoys zones for Allies (2 zones for each Allied: 22 IPCs) which are active at the start of the game.
And there is one last South Pacific Convoy Zone (4 IPCs) for United Kingdom which is not activated at the beginning.
Guadacanal needs to be conquered if Allies wants to get this additional zone.Do you think UK player should get an additional active Convoy Zone in Indian Ocean SZ 34 near Persia (oil and Allies shipping) or Saudi Arabia?
AXIS 1942.2 CONVOY SEA ZONES:
GERMANY for 10 IPCs / 41 IPCs = 25%
Norway Convoy Route in SZ 6 near Norway : at 2 IPCs?Seaport of arrival:
Germany: KielSeaport of departure:
Norway: OsloFinland-Sweden Convoy Route in SZ 5 in Baltic Sea : at 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Germany: KielSeaport of departure:
Norway: StockholmMediterranean Convoy Route in SZ 15 in Med Sea : at 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Italy: RomaSeaport of departure:
Libya: Tripoli
JAPAN for 12 IPCs / 30 IPCs = 40%
Japanese Rising Sun Convoy route in SZ 60 for a 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Japanese: TokyoSeaport of departure:
Kiangsu: ShanghaiJapanese South-East Asian Convoy Route in SZ 36 for 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Japanese: TokyoSeaport of departure: Malaya: Singapor
Japanese Central Pacific Convoy Route in SZ 50 for 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Japanese: TokyoSeaport of departure:
Philippines: ManilaCaroline Islands need to be owned by Japan to keep Convoy SZ 50 activated.
ALLIES 1942.2 CONVOY SEA ZONES:
RUSSIA for 6 IPCs / 24 IPCs = 25 %
What do you think of this Arctic Convoy route in SZ 3 at 2 IPCs?Seaports of arrival:
Karelia SSR: Murmansk
Archangel: ArchangelskSeaport of departure:
UK: Liverpool (London)Allies must Control Iceland within SZ 3 to be an Active Convoy.
North Pacific Convoy route in SZ 57 : 4 IPCs?
Seaports of arrival:
Soviet Far East: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky,
Buryatia SSR: Vladivostok.Seaport of departure:
Western USA: Los AngelesAllies must Control Midway Island to be an active Convoy.
Does a 4 IPCs Russian Convoy SZ in Midway SZ 57 could be appropriate for such Pacific Convoy route?
USA for 8 IPCs / 42 IPCs = 19%
Asian-Pacific Convoy Route in SZ 53: at 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Western USA: San FranciscoSeaport of departure:
Eastern Australia: Sydney
India: BombayAllies must Control Hawaiian Islands to be an active Convoy.
Does a 4 IPCs USA active (at start) Convoy SZ in Hawaiian SZ 53 could be appropriate for such Asian-Pacific Convoy route ?
South-Atlantic/Mid-Atlantic Convoy Route in SZ 12: at 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Eastern USA: WashingtonSeaport of departure:
BrazilDoes a 4 IPCs USA active (at start) Convoy SZ 12 in mid-Atlantic SZ could be appropriate for such Convoy route ?
UNITED KINGDOM for 8 IPCs / 31 = 26% + 4 IPCs 12 IPCs /31 IPCs = 39%
About a South Pacific Convoy route in SZ 44: at 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Eastern Australia: SydneySeaport of departure:
Western USA: San FranciscoAllies must Control Guadalcanal Island to be an active Convoy.
Does a 4 IPCs UK’s inactive (at start) Convoy SZ in Guadalcanal SZ 44 could be appropriate for such South Pacific Convoy route ?
North-Atlantic Convoy Route in SZ 2: at 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
UK: London (Liverpool)Seaport of departure:
Eastern Canada: Halifax / Sydney Cape-BritainA 4 IPCs UK active Convoy SZ in North-Atlantic SZ 2 seems to be appropriate for such Convoy route. Don’t you think?
South Atlantic Convoy Route from Africa in SZ 13 near Gibraltar or SZ 21 : at 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
UK: London (Liverpool)Seaport of departure:
Union of South Africa: Cape Town
A 4 IPCs UK active Convoy SZ in African-Mid-Atlantic SZ 13 or SZ 21 seems to be appropriate for such Convoy route. Don’t you think?I quoted these possible Seaports of arrival and departure for 1942.2 to introduced specific rules for this option:
A special token for Seaport of arrival is needed.CAPTURING SEAPORT OF DEPARTURE:
When a Seaport of departure is captured by enemy’s unit, all National Convoy Markers in corresponding Convoy SZ must be covered by this enemy control markers.
All NCMs stay as they were, face up or down, (unless enemy’s units were also performing Disruption during this combat phase).
But once it is done, it is not possible to perform any Disruption on Convoys covered by enemy’s Control Markers.
It is neither possible to pay 1 IPC to flip an NCM in upright position.As long as these control markers are on the NCMs, the original owner of the seaport of arrival cannot collect Convoy Income.
When the Seaport of departure is liberated, then all enemy’s Control Markers are taken off.
CAPTURING SEAPORT OF ARRIVAL:
When a Seaport of arrival is captured by enemy’s unit, an enemy Control Marker must also be put on the Seaport token of this Territory.
As long as this Seaport and the territory is not liberated, the Power cannot collect the corresponding Convoy IPCs Income.
So, even exchanging this territory is enough to get Convoy IPCs during the Collect Income phase of the original owning Power.
This imply that to prevent the original owner to get Convoy IPCs, the enemy must hold this territory for the duration of a whole turn of the original owner.If there is two possible Seaports of arrival, then both Territories must be captured and keep for the whole turn of the original power.
For example, any of Karelia or Archangel mustn’t be liberated by Russia, if Germany want to prevent Russia from getting IPCs Convoy.
USSR Seaports of arrival for the North Sea shipping line:
Karelia SSR: Murmansk
Archangel: Archangelsk
This will rise the stake for Russia to fight for any of these two territories.All NCMs in corresponding Convoy SZ are not affected and stay in the same status.
They can be disrupted, or payed for rebuilding during the owner Purchase and repair phase and be flipped upward during owner’s Collect Income Phase. -
I got a hand on Imperious Leader AA50 map.
So I revised my previous post to include also the most probable SZ numbers to AA50 game.@Baron:
[My preferred choices are [b]bolded.]
AA50
GERMANY (AA50 Baltic SZ 5)SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 13 (West Med Sea SZ)ITALY (AA50, MED SZ 14)
SZ 14 (Central Med Sea SZ)
ATLANTIC RUSSIA (AA50 SZ 4 : Karelia and Archangel)
[My preferred choices are bolded.]AA50
SZ 2 (Iceland and Greenland SZ)
SZ 3 (Northern Norway SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
East Coast (AA50 SZ10)AA50
SZ 18 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 19 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC)
SZ 11 (Mid-Atlantic Azores SZ, between East Cost SZ and Gibraltar SZ)
UNITED KINGDOM
(AA50 : SZ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 )AA50
SZ 8 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 9 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland, Iceland SZ) [As an IC’s production SZ, it is a little less interesting.]
SZ 12 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 17 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 15 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ)@Baron:
Trying to build a Core rule with 1941 basic map and expanding with further game.
Here is what I get.
I voluntarily not use the Japan SZ, because I don’t think it is relevant to place Convoy in IC’s SZ.I would prefer to use SZ which also have an Island Group in it (to more easily add the option of neutralizing Convoy by controlling Islands)
Interesting SZs (IMO) for Convoys AA50
JAPAN (AA50 Japan SZ 62)
AA50
SZ 61 (Coastal China SZ, Formosa 1 IPC TT SZ)
SZ 60 (Okinawa SZ, 1 IPC TT)
SZ 50 (Philippine Islands SZ, US original set-up TT)
SZ 51 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (French Indo-China Thailand Eastern SZ, Hainan Island on map but not a TT)
PACIFIC RUSSIA (AA50 SZ 62, Buryatia SSR shared with Japan)
AA50
SZ 57 (Midway SZ)
SZ 63 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Buryatia S.S.R.)
SZ 64 (Alaska SZ, Bering Strait SZ)
UNITED KINGDOM
AA50
(INDIA ICs SZ 35 & AUSTRALIA SZ 39, SZ 40, SZ 41 & SZ 47 )
SZ 28 (French Madagascar, near Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 34 (Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 35 (India SZ, Ceylon Island on map but not a TT)
SZ 48 (New Guinea SZ) [A less interesting choice for Convoy SZ, since it is less in line with US shipping line.]
SZ 46 (Solomon Islands SZ) [OOB UK TT]
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
West Coast (AA50 SZ 56)AA50
SZ 52 (Wake Island SZ, 0 IPC TT)
SZ 53 (Hawaiian Islands SZ, 1 IPC TT) -
@Black_Elk, I revised in this actual post my older one above. I wasn’t very satisfy myself about the optional rule for Seaport and I believe it was also your opinion (since there was no +1 above, as it seems to be a casual code to express your agreement.)
@Baron:AXIS 1942.2 possible CONVOY SEA ZONES:
GERMANY 10 IPCs / 41 IPCs = 25%
Norway Convoy Route in SZ 6 near Norway
Seaport of arrival:
Germany: Kiel
Seaport of departure:
Norway: OsloFinland-Sweden Convoy Route in SZ 5 in Baltic Sea
Seaport of arrival:
Germany: Kiel
Seaport of departure:
Norway: StockholmCentral Mediterranean Convoy Route in SZ 15 in Med Sea
Seaport of arrival:
Italy: Roma
Seaport of departure:
Libya: TripoliWestern Mediterranean Convoy Route in SZ 14 in Med Sea
Seaport of arrival:
France: Marseilles
Seaport of departure:
Libya: Tripoli
JAPAN 12 IPCs / 30 IPCs = 40%
Japanese Chinese Sea Convoy route in SZ 61 (Coastal China SZ,Formosa 0 IPC TT on map SZ)
Seaport of arrival:
Japan: Tokyo
Seaport of departure:
Kiangsu: ShanghaiJapanese Convoy route in SZ 48: Philippines Islands
Seaport of arrival:
Japan: Tokyo
Seaport of departure:
Philippines Islands: ManilaJapanese South-East Asian Convoy Route in SZ 36
Seaport of arrival:
Japan: Tokyo
Seaport of departure: Malaya: Singapor or East Indies? or Borneo?Caroline Islands Convoy SZ 50.
Seaport of departure:
Japan: Tokyo
Seaport of arrival:
Caroline Islands: Truk Island
ALLIES 1942.2 CONVOY SEA ZONES:
RUSSIA 6 IPCs / 24 IPCs = 25 %
What do you think of this Arctic Convoy route in SZ 3Seaports of arrival:
Karelia SSR: Murmansk
Archangel: Archangelsk
Seaport of departure:
UK: Liverpool (London) and Eastern USA: New YorkNorth Pacific Convoy route in SZ 57: Midway Island
Seaports of arrival:
Soviet Far East: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky,
Buryatia SSR: Vladivostok.
Seaport of departure:
Western USA: Los Angeles
USA 8 IPCs / 42 IPCs = 19%
Asian-Pacific Convoy Route in SZ 52 (Wake Island) or SZ 53 (Hawaiian Island)
Seaport of arrival:
Western USA: San Francisco
Seaport of departure:
Eastern Australia: Sydney and/or
India: BombayCaribbean Convoy Route in SZ 18
Seaport of arrival:
Eastern USA: Washington
Seaport of departure:
Brazil
UNITED KINGDOM 8 IPCs / 31 = 26% + 4 IPCs 12 IPCs /31 IPCs = 39%
South Pacific Convoy route in SZ 44
Seaport of arrival:
Eastern Australia: Sydney
Seaport of departure:
Western USA: San FranciscoNorth-Atlantic Convoy Route in SZ 2
Seaport of arrival:
UK: London (Liverpool)
Seaport of departure:
Eastern Canada: Halifax / Sydney Cape-BritainSouth Atlantic Convoy Route from Africa in SZ 13 near Gibraltar or SZ 23 near West Africa
Seaport of arrival:
UK: London (Liverpool)
Seaport of departure:
Union of South Africa: Cape TownI quoted these possible Seaports of arrival and departure for 1942.2 to introduced these less complex optional rule for Seaport:
In summary, treat the corresponding Convoy SZ as a territorial extension of both Seaport of Departure and Arrival.
Once one of the territory is captured, a Control marker is put in the territory and also on every Convoy NCMs in the corresponding SZ. This enemy’s control marker in SZ is removed when the seaport territory is liberated, the same way as the enemy’s territorial control marker is removed from the territory.CAPTURING SEAPORT OF DEPARTURE:
When a Seaport of departure is captured by enemy’s unit, all National Convoy Markers in corresponding Convoy SZ must be covered by this enemy control markers, in the same phase an enemy’s Control Marker is put in the Seaport Territory.
All NCMs stay as they were, face up or down, (unless enemy’s units were also performing Disruption during the previous combat phase of the turn).
But once it is done, it is not possible to perform any Disruption on Convoys covered by enemy’s Control Markers.
It is neither possible to flip an NCM in upright position (even if the 1 IPC fee was payed at the beginning of the turn).
If this situation occurred because a Seaport was not liberated and there is still enemy’s Control Markers on top of Convoy NCMs, then the 1 IPC is returned to the player. (As any unit which cannot be place on board, due to lack of IC’s production capacities, for example.)As long as these control markers are on the NCMs, the original owner of the seaport of arrival cannot collect Convoy Income.
When the Seaport of departure is liberated, then all enemy’s Control Markers are taken off.
CAPTURING SEAPORT OF ARRIVAL (same procedure as for Seaport of departure):
When a Seaport of arrival is captured by enemy’s unit, an enemy Control Marker is put on the corresponding Convoy NCM in the Sea Zone.
As long as this Seaport and the territory is not liberated, the original owner cannot collect the corresponding Convoy IPCs Income.
As long as these control markers are on the NCMs, the original owner of the seaport of arrival cannot collect Convoy Income.
When the Seaport of arrival is liberated, then all enemy’s Control Markers in the corresponding Convoy SZ are taken off.So, even exchanging this territory is enough to get Convoy IPCs during the Collect Income phase of the original owning Power. As long as there is some NCMs which are already face upright (when taking off the enemy’s control markers over them).
This imply that to prevent the original owner to get Convoy IPCs, the enemy must hold this territory for the duration of a whole turn of the original owner.
(Or having made a convoy disruption while conquering the Seaport. In that case, the NCMs must be payed 1 IPC to be flip in upright position if the original owner is able to liberate the seaport. But their will be no IPC to collect until the original owner’s next turn.)If there is two possible Seaports of arrival, then both Territories must be captured and keep for the whole turn of the original power.
For example, any of Karelia or Archangel must not be liberated by Allies, if Germany want to prevent Russia from getting IPCs Convoy.
USSR Seaports of arrival for the North Sea shipping line:
Karelia SSR: Murmansk
Archangel: Archangelsk
This will rise the stake for Russia to fight for any of these two territories.All NCMs in corresponding Convoy SZ cannot be affected when any enemy’s control markers are put on top of them and must stay in the same status.
They can be payed for rebuild during the owner Purchase and repair phase and be flipped upward during owner’s Collect Income Phase (as long as there is no more enemy’s control markers upon them in the Collect Income Phase, hence the seaport of arrival have been liberated in the previous combat resolution phase). -
@Baron:
7. A convoy which has been Disrupted becomes Operational when…
I thought that we were pretty close on an agreement that the owner should pay 1 IPC to flip NCM face upward when it is his Collect Income phase? It was simpler than anything else, even moving DD in convoy SZ to flip upward NCM.
Did you have something else in mind?
I just believe that 1 IPC cost can represent everything from cargo lost and ship wreckage.
I see it as a partial damage to convoy made by Sub, not a total destruction.
If all ships and their load (of 2 IPCs) would have been lost, the replacement cost would probably be greater than total income which could be made in a single travel (2 IPCs).About the Raiding/Disrupting mechanism, there is many methods on the table, any preference Black_Elk?
METHOD #1
(All warships and planes can be involved. Convoy can be disrupted during Naval Combat but not after.)Any 1 Submarine or Battleship raiding a Convoy Zone: auto destroy of 1 NCM 2 IPCs.*
OPTIONAL 1: Each pair of any other kind of warships can raid 1 NCM by passing through an unguarded Convoy SZ.
OPTIONAL 2: Each pair of any planes can raid 1 NCM by attacking an unguarded Convoy SZ.
In the last options, besides submarine and battleship, any combination of 2 units would flip 1 NCM: 2 surface warships, 2 planes or 1 warship and 1 plane.When there is warships defending the Convoy SZ,
except for Battleship and Submarine, other kind of attacking surface warships and planes makes regular combat BUT all Convoys are safe.
So any one can use a Destroyer blocker to protect the Convoy SZ.When Battleships or Submarines are part of the battle, the attacker can choose to assign a Submarine’s or Battleship’s hit to the Convoy, instead of an enemy warship (or plane) unit chosen by the owner’s (as OOB combat rule for casualty).
No need to specify before the rolls, it must be specified when the number of successful hits from Subs and BBs are known.This simply means that with Submarines or Battleships, as long as they aren’t sunk by defenders units, the attacker can destroy enemy units AND 1 NCM Convoy per combat round per Sub or per Battleship.
As soon as the regular combat is over, all upright Convoy NCMs are considered having been saved from disruption.In this case, the Convoy is played as an additional free hit for the defender (like these puts on Carrier or Battleship) without loosing a combat unit.
RATIONALIZATION for METHOD #1: It has more details, but it allows real Atlantic Battle depiction in which Destroyers were attacking submarines while submarines were primarily targeting merchant’s ships before their escorting corvettes and Destroyers.
Also, Submarines and Battleships are treated differently and have an advantage over other warships and planes.
Especially, Strategic bombers are not quite effective compared to what they can do against Industrial Complex.
2 StBs (24 IPCs) makes 3 IPCs Convoy damage while 2 StBs can do 3.5 IPCs each for 7 IPCs on average, max 12 IPCs (D6, 1942.2).
Or 5.5 IPCs each (D6+2, G40) for 11 IPCs on average, max. 16 IPCs.
1 single submarine at 6 IPCs can do the same job against 1 Convoy.METHOD #2:
(No plane, no surface warship involved. Convoy can only be disrupted after Naval Combat.)Any 1 Submarine raiding a Convoy Zone: auto destroy of 1 NCM 2 IPCs.*
OPTIONAL 1: Battleship can also raid Convoy as a Submarine does.When there are warships defending the Convoy SZ, a regular battle is resolve.
Any attacking surviving Submarine (or Battleship) can apply damage to Convoy NCM (as if there was no previous naval combat).OPTIONAL 2 (former METHOD #3): all warships involved
All warships can raid Convoy as a Submarine does.For each surface warship or Submarine passing through Convoy SZ, 1 NCM is flip face down: auto destroy of 1 NCM* 2 IPCs.
If there are any escorting warships, there is a battle first.
If the attacking enemy’s units win, each warship can flip down 1 NCM (as if there was no previous naval combat).Method #3 is inspired by:
@Black_Elk:Well, the simplest and most familiar method would be to just say these convoys work exactly like the convoys of the Original A&A Europe game (1999.)
In that case, there was no specialized “convoy attack” or “convoy defense.” It wasn’t a combat per se, so much as a combat movement. In that game, if a convoy zone was defenseless (no protecting warships) then all the raider had to do was enter/pass through the zone to deny their opponent the cash. If their opponent left a ship in the zone to defend the convoy, then this ship had to be destroyed first, and any attacking warship that survived the engagement would then occupy the sz denying the cash to the opponent.
That’s the most basic National Convoy system I can think of. Of course, we could try to improve on it with additional elements, but if you wanted to keep things as simple as possible, it might be worth just using those rules as the base.The whole point of creating a convoy system to begin with, in my view, is to attach IPC values directly to the Sea Zones in some way. Clearly this is an abstraction, even in real world terms. We’re not talking about fishermen pulling fish out of the sea, but rather the idea of a “Trade”, or National exchange, the concept that the same resources/goods can accrue in value, if you’re able to move them farther afield. In my suggested example, that’s what the
+3 ipcs+2 IPCs would represent, a bonus to the nation’s normal national production when it’s able to move across the sea.In that respect I still think it is more fruitful to conceive of the convoy as a “shipping lane” rather than the actual ships/goods travelling along it. If you control the lane, it is possible to move the resources to a place where they have more value. If the lane is being contested, then you will lose that value (or at least some of that value), because now the logistics cost involved in defending/moving the goods will necessarily increase.
Keeping the broader gameplay in mind, the advantage of having convoys, is to encourage the purchase of more naval units. Just having more money in play (which the convoys would introduce) helps to facilitate this, but players are even more likely to buy ships, if that additional income is directly attached to a SZ rather than exclusively to land territories, as it is OOB, because then you need ships to disrupt it.
At every point along the way, you have to make a compromise. A&A is just too simplistic to model everything. It might be entirely conceivable for aircraft to sink a convoy vessel in the real world, and this surely happened in the war, but it’s worth considering whether the game really needs to model this? In A&A Europe (1999) it was not possible for Aircraft to disrupt convoy income, you had to have a ship. Not to suggest that we can’t improve on this, and somehow involve Air in the convoy disruption/defense, but just pointing out that it’s not strictly necessary.
-
@ Black_Elk,
As soon as your are less busy, let me know what you think about the different points.
I made what I can do by myself without other opinion thus far.
But, before wrapping up this Convoy Disruption House Rule somehow, I would need some guidance.
You seems less enthusiast about the Seaport optional rules.
Should we let it aside or keep it?Here is the simpler I can get about it:
@Baron:@Black_Elk, I revised in this actual post my older one above. I wasn’t very satisfy myself about the optional rule for Seaport and I believe it was also your opinion (since there was no +1 above, as it seems to be a casual code to express your agreement.)
[…]
I quoted these possible Seaports of arrival and departure for 1942.2 to introduced these less complex optional rule for Seaport:
In summary, treat the corresponding Convoy SZ as a territorial extension of both Seaport of Departure and Arrival.
Once one of the territory is captured, a Control marker is put in the territory and also on every Convoy NCMs in the corresponding SZ. This enemy’s control marker in SZ is removed when the seaport territory is liberated, the same way as the enemy’s territorial control marker is removed from the territory.CAPTURING SEAPORT OF DEPARTURE:
When a Seaport of departure is captured by enemy’s unit, all National Convoy Markers in corresponding Convoy SZ must be covered by this enemy control markers, in the same phase an enemy’s Control Marker is put in the Seaport Territory.
All NCMs stay as they were, face up or down, (unless enemy’s units were also performing Disruption during the previous combat phase of the turn).
But once it is done, it is not possible to perform any Disruption on Convoys covered by enemy’s Control Markers.
It is neither possible to flip an NCM in upright position (even if the 1 IPC fee was payed at the beginning of the turn).
If this situation occurred because a Seaport was not liberated and there is still enemy’s Control Markers on top of Convoy NCMs, then the 1 IPC is returned to the player. (As any unit which cannot be place on board, due to lack of IC’s production capacities, for example.)As long as these control markers are on the NCMs, the original owner of the seaport of arrival cannot collect Convoy Income.
When the Seaport of departure is liberated, then all enemy’s Control Markers are taken off.
CAPTURING SEAPORT OF ARRIVAL (same procedure as for Seaport of departure):
When a Seaport of arrival is captured by enemy’s unit, an enemy Control Marker is put on the corresponding Convoy NCM in the Sea Zone.
As long as this Seaport and the territory is not liberated, the original owner cannot collect the corresponding Convoy IPCs Income.
As long as these control markers are on the NCMs, the original owner of the seaport of arrival cannot collect Convoy Income.
When the Seaport of arrival is liberated, then all enemy’s Control Markers in the corresponding Convoy SZ are taken off.So, even exchanging this territory is enough to get Convoy IPCs during the Collect Income phase of the original owning Power. As long as there is some NCMs which are already face upright (when taking off the enemy’s control markers over them).
This imply that to prevent the original owner to get Convoy IPCs, the enemy must hold this territory for the duration of a whole turn of the original owner.
(Or having made a convoy disruption while conquering the Seaport. In that case, the NCMs must be payed 1 IPC to be flip in upright position if the original owner is able to liberate the seaport. But their will be no IPC to collect until the original owner’s next turn.)If there is two possible Seaports of arrival, then both Territories must be captured and keep for the whole turn of the original power.
For example, any of Karelia or Archangel must not be liberated by Allies, if Germany want to prevent Russia from getting IPCs Convoy.
USSR Seaports of arrival for the North Sea shipping line:
Karelia SSR: Murmansk
Archangel: Archangelsk
This will rise the stake for Russia to fight for any of these two territories.All NCMs in corresponding Convoy SZ cannot be affected when any enemy’s control markers are put on top of them and must stay in the same status.
They can be payed for rebuild during the owner Purchase and repair phase and be flipped upward during owner’s Collect Income Phase (as long as there is no more enemy’s control markers upon them in the Collect Income Phase, hence the seaport of arrival have been liberated in the previous combat resolution phase). -
My enthusiasm has not abated, just my free time :)
Had to make a roommate change and the busy season at work eating into my A&A schedule. I’m definitely following the posts though
-
My enthusiasm has not abated, just my free time :)
Had to make a roommate change and the busy season at work eating into my A&A schedule. I’m definitely following the posts though
I totally understand. I’m in a similar situation at work. :?
So, I guessed right: you were giving me some hints via “karma points” :-)
To followed… -
To underline how Convoy Disruption was a significant part of WWII.
What was the most significant battle in World War 2?
Mike Hewitt, Very amateur historian
To add to Carter Moore’s excellent answer, if you wanted translate ‘GDP’ into a single battle, I nominate the Battle of the Atlantic as the one that really won the war.I call it a battle, and it certainly felt that way to those fighting in it, but since it lasted from September 1939 until May 1945 and the battlefield was the whole of the Atlantic Ocean, it was more a war within a war.
Essentially, the battle’s story is that of the German U-Boat arm attempting to sink enough allied merchant shipping to cut off the lifeline of supply from the US and Canada to the UK and Russia, and the attempts by the British, Canadian and U.S. navies to stop them.
At the hight of the battle, tonnage of shipping sunk was outpacing tonnage of shipping built, a trend which would, if continued, have meant the eventual end of transatlantic supply. This would quite probably have forced the capitulation of the UK and gravely weakened the Soviet Union (which, although it would never admit it, and still doesn’t, relied heavily on U.S. and British material shipped to it through the Arctic convoys.)
Fortunately, the allied navies, under new British CIC Western Approaches Max Horton (a great man who commanded submarines himself in WW1), fought back effectively with new weapons and tactics, such as Hedgehog, improved detection equipment and better air cover, so that German submarines found it increasingly difficult to operate.
If the U-boats had won the Battle of the Atlantic, all the land battles in Europe would have been for nothing as, without supply, neither Britain nor, possibly, the Soviet Union could have continued the fight.
This is not, of course, to denigrate the very real land and air victories (Stalingrad, The Battle of Britain, El Alamein, Kursk, Overlord) which ultimately defeated Germany - it’s just that the outcome of each might have been very different without the supplies from across the Atlantic.
http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-most-significant-battle-in-World-War-2
-
That last post is particularly awesome and makes a very strong case for an Atlantic convoy system in A&A!
As for the methods suggested, I gravitate towards the simplest workable method, at least for a game like 1942.2. My concern with the more involved methods, is that would be a bit too rules intensive for most people in my playgroup. I totally appreciate the desire to have a system that balances for units other than subs, I just worry that it would be tough to teach.
In this case my preference would be for something like Marc suggested, where the more expansive methods build on the baseline method. For example, where method 2 or 3 build on method 1, rather than replacing it. If that makes sense.
As always excellent analyses Baron!
-
That last post is particularly awesome and makes a very strong case for an Atlantic convoy system in A&A!
As for the methods suggested, I gravitate towards the simplest workable method, at least for a game like 1942.2. My concern with the more involved methods, is that would be a bit too rules intensive for most people in my playgroup. I totally appreciate the desire to have a system that balances for units other than subs, I just worry that it would be tough to teach.
In this case my preference would be for something like Marc suggested, where the more expansive methods build on the baseline method. For example, where method 2 or 3 build on method 1, rather than replacing it. If that makes sense. As always excellent analyses Baron!
I thought about all this and I believe it is mandatory to come forward with something a little more valuable to have more incentive to risk costly warships into ocean for so minor objective, such as a few NCMs and IPCs from Convoy Disruption.
METHOD #3, is boosted but still simpler than Method #1 with either option 1 or 2:
METHOD #3
(All warships and planes can be involved. Convoy can be disrupted after Naval Combat.)Any 1 Submarine or Battleship disrupting a Convoy Zone: auto destroy of 2 NCMs 2 IPCs per Convoy SZ.*
To disrupt a Convoy SZ, Submarine or Battleship can do it from
A) a starting Convoy SZ or
B) moving through a Convoy SZ or
C) ending a Combat Move in a Convoy SZ.For example, a given Submarine could be able to disrupt up to 6 NCMs in a single Combat Move, if for example SZ 1, SZ 2 and SZ3 were enemy’s Convoy SZ (with 3 NCMs in each Convoy SZ) and the Submarine was starting from SZ3 to SZ1 via SZ2, then up to 2 NCMs per SZ would be flip face down.
OPTION 1: Any other kind of warships can raid 1 NCM by starting from, passing through or ending into an unguarded Convoy SZ.
So, each Destroyer, Cruiser or Carrier can flip face down up to 3 NCMs from three different Convoy SZs.OPTION 2: Any bomber (StB or TcB) can raid a single 1 NCM by attacking an unguarded Convoy SZ.
In the last option, only 1 specific Convoy SZ can be targeted by one single bomber.
Many bombers can target different Convoy SZs or the same SZ to disrupt additional NCMs in the SZ as well.When there are warships defending the Convoy SZ, a regular battle is resolve.
Each attacking surviving Submarine (or Battleship) can apply damage to 2 Convoy NCMs (as if there was no previous naval combat).
OPTION 1: Any other kind of warships can raid 1 NCM each.
OPTION 2: Each surviving bomber (TcB or StB) can raid 1 NCM in this Convoy SZ. -
My personal design philosophy is that when you scale back the map, you also have to scale back the complexity of the rules and features. That doesn’t mean you can’t have convoys, airbases, etc., but it might mean that you have to find a way to make them smaller or less intrusive.
For example, having dozens of convoy zones makes sense in G40, because even the smaller factions start out with dozens of IPCs per turn – even if you lose, e.g., 4 IPCs to submarine raids, that’s still only about 10% of your economy. In 1942.2, though, the same submarines could wind up doing a lot more damage – submarines in the western and central Mediterranean alone could wipe out 14 German IPCs, i.e., roughly 30% of the German economy. To fix that, I’d recommend having about two designated ‘convoy zones’ for each nation – if there’s one or more enemy submarines in the convoy zone during your collect income phase, then nothing happens, and if there are no enemy submarines in the convoy zone, you collect, e.g., 2 IPCs per convoy zone. That keeps the rules simpler and prevents the submarine warfare from taking up too much of people’s time and attention.
Another interesting idea to think about for finding the best Convoy Disruption mechanics.
Perhaps, this kind of mechanics should be use for 1941 and 1942.2 while a more complex one for G40? -
A slightly different and less unbalancing than the above (but a little more complex move).
That last post is particularly awesome and makes a very strong case for an Atlantic convoy system in A&A!
As for the methods suggested, I gravitate towards the simplest workable method, at least for a game like 1942.2. My concern with the more involved methods, is that would be a bit too rules intensive for most people in my playgroup. I totally appreciate the desire to have a system that balances for units other than subs, I just worry that it would be tough to teach.
In this case my preference would be for something like Marc suggested, where the more expansive methods build on the baseline method. For example, where method 2 or 3 build on method 1, rather than replacing it. If that makes sense. As always excellent analyses Baron!
Still mandatory to come forward with something a little more valuable to get a better incentive to risk costly warships into ocean for so minor objective, such as a few NCMs and IPCs from Convoy Disruption. I reduced somehow the possible damage of this Convoy Disruption mechanic.
This modified METHOD #3, is boosted but still simpler than Method #1 with either option 1 or 2:
METHOD #3 restricted to 2 SZs
(All warships and planes can be involved. Convoy can be disrupted after Naval Combat.)Any 1 Submarine or Battleship disrupting a Convoy Zone: auto destroy of 2 NCMs 2 IPCs per Convoy SZ.*
Only 2 SZs can be disrupted and up to 4 NCMs can be flipped face down per Submarine or Battleship.
To disrupt a Convoy SZ, Submarine or Battleship can do it from
A) a starting Convoy SZ or
B) moving through a Convoy SZ or
C) ending a Combat Move in a Convoy SZ.For example, a given Submarine could be able to disrupt up to 4 NCMs in a single Combat Move, if for example SZ1, SZ2 and SZ3 were enemy’s Convoy SZs (with 3 NCMs in each Convoy SZ) and the Submarine was starting from SZ3 to SZ1 via SZ2, then up to 2 NCMs per each SZ would be flip face down.
BUT, you would have to choose which SZs is disrupted and which one is not.
This would give 3 combinations of disrupted convoy in 2 SZs (for instance: SZ1 & SZ2 but not SZ3 / SZ1 & SZ3 but not SZ2 / SZ2 & SZ3 but not SZ1).OPTION 1: Any other kind of warships can raid 1 NCM by starting from, passing through or ending into an unguarded Convoy SZ.
So, each Destroyer, Cruiser or Carrier can flip face down up to 2 NCMs from three different Convoy SZs.OPTION 2: Any bomber (StB or TcB) can raid a single 1 NCM by attacking an unguarded Convoy SZ.
In this option, only 1 specific Convoy SZ can be targeted by one single bomber.
Flying over a SZ doesn’t allow to Disrupt Convoy in it.
Many bombers can target different Convoy SZs or the same SZ to disrupt additional NCMs in the SZ as well.When there are warships defending the Convoy SZ, a regular battle is resolve.
Each attacking surviving Submarine (or Battleship) can apply damage to 2 Convoy NCMs (as if there was no previous naval combat).
OPTION 1: Any other kind of warships can raid 1 NCM each.
OPTION 2: Each surviving bomber (TcB or StB) can raid 1 NCM in this Convoy SZ.Usual OOB movement restriction apply, such as Destroyer blocking Submarines.
So, by blocking a Sub in a given SZ, a DD will prevent any other Convoy Disruption in any further away Convoy SZ.
Suggested Topics
