Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…

As always nice work DK!

Thanks for all the details about the grunge you hold against OOB Convoy Disruption rules.

For one part, I will try to defend it from an Historical feel POV.

I will not try to defend it from a game mechanism POV. You clearly show how many oddities there is into.
I can just say that Convoy Disruption is a unique rule develop for the most complex games of A&A EUR40&PAC40.
In itself, this can be enough to explain that you find nowhere else some of his special feature.

For another part, willing to find a different game mechanics which can be more abstract than OOB rules, I will try to show that Convoy Disruption is a riskier business than SBR and should not be put in competition against regular combat (doing only one, not both, as it is the rule for SBR).
My reasoning is that it will be detrimental to the Subs Convoy Disruption option, hence returning to square 1.

@Der:

@Baron:

As showed above, the OOB G40 Convoy rule sticks to the tactical and economical dynamics of Subs and Merchant Marines warfare in the Atlantic.

I agree the G40 rules will work as far as achieving the gist of convoy raiding. Damage gets done to your economy. That’s the bottom line. But it is done by offending many of the principles of the game. Here are the rules cut and pasted from the Pacific '40 revised rules:

“Each enemy warship (except for aircraft carriers) and carrier based air units in the sea zone might cause the loss of 1 or more IPCs from your income for the turn.”

Here’s the first problem. Germany doesn’t have carriers, and most of their resources are tied up with land warfare. So they likely will never use planes to convoy raid. Britain and the US will, however.

Is it a problem that Allies can do it in their own way?
Many threads just say that G40 is unbalanced toward Axis.
Even with this advantage toward Fgs, it doesn’t seem to be enough to take advantage of this aspect of OOB Convoy Rule.

“The owners of enemy battleships, cruisers, and/or destroyers rolls one die for each such unit, and the owners of enemy submarines and/or air units roll two dice for each such unit.”

This makes planes just as good as submarines for convoy raiding. It actually makes them better than submarines because they are more versatile. (They can also fight land and air units.) BBs and CAs are also better because they can bombard coasts. DDs can also completely neuter subs. So what makes a sub special? Nothing. If I wanted to do major convoy raiding in G40 I’d buy a bunch of carriers, planes, and DDs.

This point about planes shows how the game developpers tried to stick to historical realism.
(Bismarck and his escort warships received explicit mission goal of Convoy Raiding in Northern Atlantic.)
If it is too much for planes, just let them roll 1 dice like other units. So only Subs can have two dices for damage.

Maybe all this procedure should be simplified and restricted to Submarines only but it would be against historical realism of the game.
At least, it would keep the historical feel of U-boats perils against Convoys.

"Any rolls of “4” or higher are ignored. The results of these rolls that are “3"or less are totalled, and the resulting number is the total convoy damage suffered in the disruption.”

Where else is this “special rule” found in the game?
It is a unique mechanism which allow for a No Result possibility on both sides.
In SBR, such a result is only possible because the Strategic Bombers crashed in flame.
Otherwise, there is always a low result of 1+2= 3 IPCs damage to IC.
There is no draw with SBR mechanics.

Again it is still realistic that U-boats didn’t find any or didn’t sink any significant amount of merchant’s ship. Hence, both sides are even.

From a game perspective, this mechanic can be change with a simpler method giving always a minimal result, as long as you reach the goal (creating an incentive) by increasing the reward of Convoy Disruption.

“After these limits are applied, the final total is subtracted from your income for the turn.”

This is the biggest flaw - you are happily involved in YOUR turn and just when you are about to collect your income, your enemies say “Just a minute! Time for us to roll a bunch of dice on YOUR turn and attack your convoys!” How out of place is that??

Here I disagree. As I said above, the On Patrol Raiders are on defensive stance. In fact, it would be more complicated to roll to know of many of your “X IPCs of supply Convoy” were not sink indeed and remain able to pass through the enemy infested controlled Convoy Sea Zone to finally reach your Capital Territory to deliver their IPCs load.
Just see Convoy Raiders as Interceptors in SBR which try to forbid the Bombers to deliver their destructive loads.

“A review of the map, specifically looking for such situations, is the responsibility of all the players. This is a step in this phase of the turn. All players should be on the lookout for such convoy attack situations and point them out.”

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Do the rules ever say “All players should be on the lookout for ways to bomb your factory and point them out.” or “All players should be on the lookout for ways to attack your capital and point them out.” All players - this includes YOU! Imagine “Hey there, Joe - just wanted to point out before I get my money at the end of MY turn that you can attack me here - and here - and also here…” Ludicrous! In my rules its more like “too bad, buddy - you didn’t attack my convoys when you had the chance during YOUR turn and you aren’t getting my money now.”

It is a demand for Fair-play. It is like making addition for NOs or IPCs count on territory gains. Not a strategical mistake. The Subs owner have already done his attack move on his turn when he put them at risk in this Convoy Sea Zone.
In fact, it should be the contrary: “Sorry man. You forgot to move the invisible merchant marines Cargo ships which are bringing IPCs to Homeland. You won’t get any of all these 10 IPCs loaded in your Convoy Zone.” Have you rolled them, then some of these IPCs would have reach the Homeland.
With your chips idea, it can be done exactly like this. Put the Maximum chips in the Convoy Zone, when the player want to collect them, then any surviving unit On Patrol roll to see what remains in the hand of the player.

And then you have the problem that comes up with defenseless transports. You have gain with no risk. In a G40 convoy raid there is no risk that any of your units might be lost in action. You can’t lose anything as an attacker - only gain by adding up the dice you roll. This violates a staple principle the rules have had since 1984. Nothing is done without risk. In my rules the subs risk getting depth charged after they attack a convoy.

Here we are to the main point of disagreement. By putting Subs in Convoys Zone, which are within reach of Air Units and just produced Warships, you already placing them in an arm’s way Dead Zone, specially Subs are very weak on defense (a low 1) (and in this case, this show that Carrier and planes are way more stronger when On Patrol than any Subs.) In addition, the Raiders must survive a whole game round, U-boats for instance need to survived against Allied players attack (Russia, UK, France remnants, USA), and in Halifax HR this also means against Commonwealth attack coming from Canada. There is a lot of risks in fact. It is just correct to finally gives the reward to the surviving units On Patrol. Because it means whether the defensive fleet has enough units to survive or No Allies care about it, so they have to pay accordingly to their strategic decision.

SBR are, in fact, far less riskier because it is a controlled decision, the odds of survival for the attacker can be known. In Convoy, unless you have many dumb players around the table (so in no possible way any enemy unit can reach your subs), the enemy’s will control their odds of survival and how many units they will throw against your Subs in this SZ.

In addition, putting an escort roll @1 will be also against the A&A system where any significant combat unit get a sculpt: there is no unit in the Convoy SZ while in SBR the IC is clearly visible on the board and defend with is in-built AA gun. To get such a convenient roll, it costs 6 IPCs and you need to move a Sub in this SZ or (a Classic Transport).

@Baron:

Does it make sense that the same sub can attack your navy and also attack your convoys in the same round of play?

Here I disagree, U-boats commander “should walk and chew gums altogether”.
In regular combat, there is many, many combat rounds.

What do you think the merchants were doing while the subs and surface ships duked it out? They were scattering at full speed. And usually DDs had subs pinned for hours before they could get away.
This point can go both ways. What are doing Military defenseless Transport instead of being bluntly sunk?
For my part, I would like to see a Transport with combat value and able to defend at 1.
I just want to say that a player’s turn represent many months and a whole game rounds much more.
The system allowed for destruction of both Warships and all defenseless transports in a single Combat Move and resolution Phase.
This point shouldn’t be a problem when trying to develop a better Convoy Rule.
The OOB Convoy Rule doesn’t interfere with the prime offensive and defensive strategic value of all Raiding units.
This point should be kept to get the most incentive system instead of putting the player in a dilemma to ponder what is the most beneficial tactical move: combat or economic plunder.

@Baron:

However, the defending interceptors can attack on the owner’s turn of play.

But can you think of an example where a unit ATTACKS TWICE in the same round of play?
As said earlier, I don’t see it as an attack but a defensive action. A kind of blockus privilege because you control a given SZ.

@Baron:

Sometimes, even more than 1 defense Combat Move.
(Ex.: UK’s Fighters on IC defending against 1 German’s SBR and 1 Italian’s SBR.)

On defense, this could represent a unit attacked on multiple sides during the same time frame by different nations.

Maybe. It is impossible to really have a multi-force attacks inside A&A system. But it will be truer to say “same time frame” about a multi-forces defenses.

@Baron:

This, I hope, explain why this is a different economic warfare than SBR.

I agree here - I tried to make convoy raising EXACTLY like a SBR and it didn’t feel right. First of all it was boring repeating the same steps. And, after all, we are comparing air and water here - they are different.
Ok. I take notice.

Once this said, since it is clear that you prefer a more streamlined mechanics, in what direction do you want to go?
1- a more destructive capacity for Subs.
(If you find that Subs have of no real impact in actual game of G40 Atlantic TO.)
Or 2- a better rate of survival against attacker for Subs performing such Convoy raiding.
(Because more Subs can do more damage, while keeping the same OOB damage roll.)

Let us know.
(I’m asking because I think your Convoy HR is weak on both points.)

One issue:
about the Subs being pinned: these Subs are useless for Convoy and probably are not enough numerous to make an attack, @2 which is better than a defense.
So this aspect of your Convoy Disruption is like wasting some good opportunity to used Subs to do something significant for the turn.
This will create an indirect incentive toward combat move (in which all Subs can have a part) with available Subs as long as their is enemy’s warships within range.

In addition, the “Sub pinned situation” is more like at tactical level of combat, than the theatre of operation-level of A&A.

A third reasons, is that the result is always predictable. Which is as boring as the auto-kill of defenseless transport.

Read my next post for another way of viewing “Submarine being pinned”.

@Der:

I’ll do some game testing with it this weekend with some guys and see how weak or strong it is. I would like to see a more interesting Battle of the Atlantic, instead of the subs all disappearing after one round. Whether that involves strengthening subs, weakening DDs, or some combination, I don’t know. My map is really a 1942 map that I am incorporating convoy raiding into - so I don’t know how relevant G40 rules should be anyway.

Lots to think about…

At least, will you keep the 1:1 pairing to block some Subs abilities by Destroyers?

The damage will be done during the attacker’s turn and the opponent must pay only on his Collect income phase. Isn’t it?

At the end of the UK’s turn when it’s pay time, these chips are collected and subtracted from the UK’s income, so they never see it.

A suggestion, instead of your kind of Subs Pinning…

A slighlty different CONVOY DISRUPTION House Rule

1- Submarines have to choose between Attack or Convoy Raiding.

Ignore all enemy’s combat units other than Destroyer(s) if Subs choose to go Raiding.

2- Roll for Convoy Disruption damage before Escort defense roll or after, if a Sub is pinned by Destroyer.
Damage should rise at the same level as your SBR (if Playing as G40, D6+2, otherwise D6) per each Sub.
And put the Convoy Disruption Damage Chips in the SZ.

3.1- Roll for Convoy Escort defense roll @1.

3.2- However, if 1 Destroyer is present in the SZ, roll @2 for Convoy Escort roll against 1 Sub, instead of @1.

Keeping the 1:1 principle, 2 DDs against 2 Subs, 3 DDs against 3 Subs, etc.
If there is only 1 Sub, against more than 1 DD, it remains a single roll @2 to hit the Sub.
So each Sub can only received a single roll to be sink, even if their is an “infinite number of Destroyers”.
This rule is a real incentive to do Raid instead of regular combat, since a single Sub unit have to survive against a single roll @2 only, instead of being under attacked by all the warships and planes of the SZ.

4- Any Submarine being 1:1 against Destroyer rolls for damage after the Convoy Escort roll @2 instead of before.
It is of the same kind as losing their Subs Surprise strike. You can rationalize it as a the pinning effect in a much abstract way.
So if a Sub is hit by a roll @2, then there is no Convoy Disruption Damage.

All others Subs in excess of Destroyer units roll the Convoy Disruption Damage before risking to be sunk by the Convoy Escort roll @1.

5- After, surviving Subs can finish their 2 spaces moves into another SZ of their choice.

What do you think of this?

2 Optionnal rules for more damage:
Any unobstructed Sub which can roll before the Escort defense roll @1, makes 1D6+2 Convoy Disruption Damage.
A Submarine pinned by Destroyer which can do damage only after the roll @2, makes 1D6 Convoy Disruption Damage.

Just watch the difference between Corvettes Escort in this 9min 25 sec. part of a Documentary, begins around 3 min. 30 sec:
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: Wolfpack Rising 5/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjm-SD3Os80

Compared to Destroyer equipped with radar in this 8 min 25 sec. Doc., begins around 2 min.:
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: The Hunt 2/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBW7aEk4VHw

An additional reward for more damage:
Any surviving Submarine still being On Patrol in Convoy Disruption Sea-Zone during the Collect Income Phase of his opponent makes another Convoy Raiding as in the step 2 through 4 above.

The answer is simple. The game World at War had it right. You had to roll to find subs first. Destroyers had an advantage at finding subs. Also the convoy disruptions sea zones covered much of the Atlantic. They also included sub pens that made it hard to attack them when stationed along the German and French coast.

Once found, you basically had one chance to attack them. Historically, the vast majority of subs in the US who submerged against destroyers and were followed for a great length of time, ended up escaping.

In Germany, most of them that were destroyed were destroyed while on the surface. The US and Britain were also able to cover to much of the sea by the time they came up with longer range aircraft.

Also, they developed more sophisticated radar towards the later part of the war that made it much easier to locate subs even when they submerged, but that is technology. In fact, the game World at War incorporated Radar and counter radar in their technology.

Please someone send me some info or links regarding subs coordinating attacks with friendly capital warships.

@Der:

@Baron:

One issue:
about the Subs being pinned: these Subs are useless for Convoy and probably are not enough numerous to make an attack, @2 which is better than a defense.
So this aspect of your Convoy Disruption is like wasting some good opportunity to used Subs to do something significant for the turn.
This will create an indirect incentive toward combat move (in which all Subs can have a part) with available Subs as long as their is enemy’s warships within range.

In addition, the “Sub pinned situation” is more like at tactical level of combat, than the theatre of operation-level of A&A.

A third reasons, is that the result is always predictable. Which is as boring as the auto-kill of defenseless transport.

Read my next post for another way of viewing “Submarine being pinned”.

No - the convoy raid phase happens BEFORE the general combat movement phase in my rules. So a pinned sub sits there until the combat movement phase. (which is the very next phase) It is then in the same seazone as a hostile at the beginning of the comat move phase and can either withdraw or attack. You can send in other ships or planes with it to attack the DD. So nothing is wasted.�  �

IMO my suggestion wil better fit into your “either combat or Convoy Raid”, because the pinned sub in your Convoy Raid HR can now shift from Convoy Raid into Combat instead.

This is the only difference to what happen to a pinned sub (instead of waiting, the risk of being sunk are doubled and the odds to do damage to Convoy are lowered , in fact if the sub is destroyed, there is no damage) :

3.2- However, if 1 Destroyer is present in the SZ, roll @2 for Convoy Escort roll against 1 Sub, instead of @1.

4- Any Submarine being 1:1 against Destroyer rolls for damage after the Convoy Escort roll @2 instead of before.
It is of the same kind as losing their Subs Surprise strike. You can rationalize it as a the pinning effect in a much abstract way.
So if a Sub is hit by a roll @2, then there is no Convoy Disruption Damage.

What I can just say, if your going to play test your rule, is try both and see how the players react.
Which one they prefer? Which ones seems simpler? Which one is funnier?

I was just trying to improve your previous HR.

@Der:

@Baron:

One issue:
about the Subs being pinned: these Subs are useless for Convoy and probably are not enough numerous to make an attack, @2 which is better than a defense.
So this aspect of your Convoy Disruption is like wasting some good opportunity to used Subs to do something significant for the turn.
This will create an indirect incentive toward combat move (in which all Subs can have a part) with available Subs as long as their is enemy’s warships within range.

In addition, the “Sub pinned situation” is more like at tactical level of combat, than the theatre of operation-level of A&A.

A third reasons, is that the result is always predictable. Which is as boring as the auto-kill of defenseless transport.

Read my next post for another way of viewing “Submarine being pinned”.

No - the convoy raid phase happens BEFORE the general combat movement phase in my rules. So a pinned sub sits there until the combat movement phase. (which is the very next phase) It is then in the same seazone as a hostile at the beginning of the comat move phase and can either withdraw or attack. You can send in other ships or planes with it to attack the DD. So nothing is wasted. Â

Another point of complexity with the “sub pin” is that you throw all subs into Convoy Raid, knowing that maybe 1 or 2 will be pinned then the pinned ones will need reinforcement to attack the DDs and other warships in the SZ.

So, in fact, if any Sub need to make a Raid, then all Subs must go raiding to be sure some of them will pass through the DDs pinning, and the remnants will do regular combat.

@Der:

I’ll do some game testing with it this weekend with some guys and see how weak or strong it is. I would like to see a more interesting Battle of the Atlantic, instead of the subs all disappearing after one round. Whether that involves strengthening subs, weakening DDs, or some combination, I don’t know. My map is really a 1942 map that I am incorporating convoy raiding into - so I don’t know how relevant G40 rules should be anyway.

Lots to think about…    Â

So?
Did you get the chance to do some game tests?
How was your Subs and Convoy HRs?
Pros? Cons?
Comments from players?

BTW, I found a whole Thread on the specific topics of How to rationalize Convoy Disruption in G40, here:
As in our discussion, there is members on both sides:

Convoy Disruptions, this is fair play?!?!
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18579

Yes, Builder got some valid points. When you attack a seazone with a convoy box in it, and it is protected by a fleet or planes, then maybe the Subs should be able to make a choice if they want to target the convoy or the fleet ? The intercepting destroyers will of course be able to sink them, much like the AA guns hit planes even if the planes don’t shoot at them, but in this case the sub inflict damage before they are sunk, and not before as is the case with AA fire

How different is your idea compared to DK’s Convoy HR?

Imagine the sub move 1 space, and is always submerged. And there is no way your destroyer can find and sink that sub as long as it is submerged. When submerged, it don’t block your moves, even a lone tranny can sail over it, embark or debark. The sub moves slow through the ocean, but survive as long it is submerged. But when the sub break the surface and attack a convoy box or a fleet, then you see him. The sub fire a preemptive sneak attack shot, and if a hit, the convoy box take damage, or a ship sink without returning fire. Then all surviving ships and planes in that seazone fire against the sub. If misses, then the sub have a free choice to submerge again. But after it submerged, all present destroyers in that zone get a one time free anti-sub-weapon roll against that sub. If misses, then the sub stay submerged and invisible until next time.

Since a sub only got a movement of 1 space, it can not retreat to another seazone, only submerge where it is.
A sub is not allowed to attack other subs or aircrafts. Hits from subs can not be allocated to enemy subs or aircrafts.

To avoid subs being fodder in big naval battles, I suggest
-Trannies only defend on 1 against aircrafts.
-Subs can only hit surface ships
-Aircrafts should be able to target specific ships. If a kamikaze can target capital ships, why not every aircraft ?
-Let subs be very strong in convoy raiding, stronger than Bombers in SBR. When a sub attack a convoy box, let it roll a dice and the number is IPC lost. If one sub can inflict as much as 6 IPC damage to the enemy economy at less risk than a Bomber, you don’t use it as fodder

Wow!!!
Far away different.
A 1 space move, even for Subs, will cripple the interest in such units on a big map such as G40.
It should be better to give 3 spaces moves to warships but only M2 to Subs and Transports.

@Baron:

2 Optionnal rules for more damage:
Any unobstructed Sub which can roll before the Escort defense roll @1, makes 1D6+2 Convoy Disruption Damage.
A Submarine pinned by Destroyer which can do damage only after the roll @2, makes 1D6 Convoy Disruption Damage.

An additional reward for more damage:
Any surviving Submarine still being On Patrol in Convoy Disruption Sea-Zone during the Collect Income Phase of his opponent makes another Convoy Raiding as in the step 2 through 4 above.

Based on this understanding of Convoy Rule made by Uncrustable:

As it stands, it is not an attack.
It is actually by definition a defense.
Your convoy is attempting to get through a hostile sea zone.
My ships will defend said zone against your incoming convoy.
Each of my ships gets to roll a defensive dice

You roll simply to sea if any convoy survives ‘running the gauntlet’

And I for one love the setup, its simple and makes a lot of sense

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18579

If the rule says you have to chose between SBR or regular attack, according to this principle it means that Submarines, in a given Convoy SZ protected by warships, have to chose between a Convoy attack or a regular attack on warships defending the SZ.

However, once the Subs all alone in this SZ (after destroying enemy’s warships), it becomes a blockade. So, on the Collect Income phase of this enemy’s it is correct that Subs defends the SZ against incoming Cargo Ships “running the gauntlet”. Hence, another opportunity to roll Convoy Disruption damage.

The other way of seeing that Convoy Raiding is not SBR is base on the fact that warships are protecting the vulnerable Transports. At the end of combat, if some Subs destroy all warships, the combat rule say that all defenseless transports will be destroyed. Where is the difference between defenseless Military transports and defenseless Cargo ships?
I don’t see much. That’s why in this POV, a Convoy Raiding could be done once all enemy’s Military units are destroyed.

This is an historical understanding and 2 games perspectives.

2 times Convoy Disruption once on offense and once on defense, can even receive two different names:
Convoy Raiding (on offence) and Convoy Disruption or Blockade (on defense).

However, it is simpler to have a single phase for this special Economic warfare.

OOB Convoy Disruption is far more difficult to achieve when it is needed to wait the opponent Income Phase. And it is far more difficult to do by Axis players because more Allies Power can destroyed the Subs On Patrol in a given SZ.
Hence the issue pointed by Builder Chris:

Example: round one of 95% of all games, the UK attacks Italy in sz95. After they win that battle, those units that conducted an attack on the UK turn now get the opportunity to conduct a convoy raid on Italy’s collect income phase of the same round of play; those UK units, in effect, conducted two attacks in the same round.
…

This double attack advantage of units attacking a sea zone and conducting a convoy raid can possibly be done by the axis against the allies but it’s very rarely happening primarily due to turn order and positioning of allied new build locations compared to axis new build locations in relation to their proximity to the convoy zones. For example, on the Europe side of the map, the UK can and often does build destroyers off the coast of Canada (sz) and air units in the UK to rid sz of axis subs. So while the axis can attack sea units and then could conduct a convoy raid there, they are not getting the opportunity to do so because of turn order and those location relations; this is a big part of the reason why the UK players don’t really fear convoy raids (like they should) but Italy gets crippled by convoy raids. Because in the med, and because of turn order, if Italy builds any destroyers to deal with subs in their Mediterranean convey sea zones, those destroyers will get sunk and they will still get raided in the same round by the same UK units. So not only is this not fair play, but it cripples the Axis more in Europe then it does the allies in Europe.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18579

@Der:

@Baron:

However, once the Subs all alone in this SZ (after destroying enemy’s warships), it becomes a blockade. So, on the Collect Income phase of this enemy’s it is correct that Subs defends the SZ against incoming Cargo Ships “running the gauntlet”. Hence, another opportunity to roll Convoy Disruption damage.

For me this will never work. For one, the OOB rules have stated for years that subs don’t block enemy movement. Even defenseless transports can ignore subs as if they aren’t there during movement. Now you are saying that lone subs can “blockade” incoming Cargo Ships and “defend” against them. The Cargo Ships are not attacking anything - they are just trying to get some goods to where they need to go. It is the subs that come along and do the attacking. What if the Germans had said “It was the Lusitania that actually attacked us - we were just sitting here defending our sea zone when it came in.” No one would have bought that. It is not possible that a transport (which is basically a cargo ship) can attack anything and never has been. This goes all the way back to 1984. Transports always attack at “0”.

In my rules, if the subs come into the sea zone during the Convoy Raid phase, they can raid the convoy if there are no matching DDs. If there are matching enemy DDs there, the subs are stopped from convoy raiding and they have the option to attack the DDs - but they cannot do both. Just like a bomber cannot bomb a factory and attack land units in the same turn. It just makes more sense and is therefore simpler to remember.

You make good points on the status of Subs and Transports which cannot block ennemy movement.
I completly forget this OOB game feature. Even if the historical rationalize was sound. Convoy Disruption is not consistent with this rule.
It could only works with Surface warships as doing the blockade.

According to OOB rules, only surface warships can block enemy ships, and only Destroyer can block Subs.
That’s why some find useful the DD strategy to delay some fleet with a few single DD put in different SZs.

However, I disagree about your comparison with SBR.

Bombers can do more than just bombing IC.
If there is interceptors, there is a dogfight between them.
Some defending Fgs can be shooted down, as well as some Bombers.

IMO, this should be the same for Subs in your HR.
Destroyers can do the same as intercepting Fighters.

Subs should be allowed a 1 time attack @2 or,
at least, endure a 1 time defense roll of the Destroyers @2.
And if Subs pass through them, then can makes Convoy damage.
Followed by the Escort roll of Convoy @1.

There will be no paralyzed Subs (pinned), waiting the Combat Phase, all alone, looking at his friendly Subs making the intended Convoy Raid.
There will be more actions and risks for both sides.

Convoy Raid should be a 1 time Sub attack @2 & DD defense @2, damage: 1D6, escort roll @1.
Same as SBR:
1 time Bomber attack @1 & Fg defense @2, IC’s AAA @1, Damage: 1D6.

The Convoy Raid sequence would be all the way similar to SBR, except for the order of defense roll at the end.

This time, all Subs doing Convoy Raid can makes a 1 time attack roll @2 while, I suggest, all Destroyers doing Patrol can roll a 1 time defense @2.
3 Subs against 2 DDs = 3 roll@2 against 2 rolls @2.
2 Subs against 3 DDs= 2 roll @2 against 3 rolls @2.

Maybe is it too much and must be kept on a 1:1 basis?
Additionnal Subs or Destroyers cannot roll attack nor defense?

When no destroyer, there is only the damage and the Close Escort defense @1.

The regular combat is different because there is many more combat rounds, as much as the attacker wish or have units left.
And also because all others defending units will be part of the battle, but were excluded of the Convoy Raid sequence.

And because of this two points, the Convoy Raid can give a better odds of survival for Subs than a direct regular Combat.

However, the surviving Destroyers will be part of any regular combat coming after Convoy Raid by any other units, such as planes or surface warships or Subs which didn’t do Raid.

What do you think of this?

@Der:

We did some testing with my rules last weekend and found that the German subs lasted much longer. They did not disappear as usual in the first round and the German player actually bought a few more subs instead of all ground units for the Eastern front. The submarines were finally a real worry for the British player and the USA actually had to help out in the Battle of the Atlantic. Mission accomplished.

I just put ideas out here in case others like them, and because alternate views help me keep my own views moderated. But to me, rules that make common sense and fall in line with the general principles of the game make the game more enjoyable, because you can spend more time actually playing and less time in confusion.

When you played did you used Knp 1 time attack against Subs before allowing them to submerge?

That is how I saw the interest for sharing ideas on HR. It provides differents angles to suggest improvement. Or another way of viewing the issue at hand.
Of course, we always have more motivation to try our own babys rule than of the others (better fit our character and the way we see the game).

But also, sharing creates some Frankeinstein HR and sometimes, it’s ALIVE!!! :-D