G40 Escorts, Transports & Convoy Protection

@franklin_cain Russia probably go hard at it. They kinda do for the spread of commiesm anyway. Not that those TTys provide it, there just in the way.

Don’t see anything wrong with it. Allies probably get it more than Axis. They and Russia are at a disadvantage oob anyway

@andrewaagamer Thanks!

@the-captain yea the wolfpacks are pretty effective in my limited experience with them. If you decide to send the Bismark to Scapa Flow after the Hood and if given the option, retreat and the Hood goes to Iceland, a wolfpack has a good chance to sink it without loss.

You’ll still be a wolfpack for defense if the Americans are activated and try and come after you as well.

Definitely changes it up. I like em. Adding some more convoy zones would be something you guys might consider as well. just a thought : )

Okay, it sounds reasonable then. As Escorts primary purpose (from a game play perspective) is to take interceptor hits instead of bombers (the ability to shoot down interceptors seems incidental in comparison), I’m inclined to pair it with a rule that escorts can each protect one bomber, but any unprotected bombers take interceptor hits first. This way at least you have a reason for intercepting escorted bombers.

Hello YG and Dafyd.  Yeah, I’ve never used R&D in G40 either.  I think I’ll look more into the Global War system.  But I’m worried that having to build the new units would create too many pieces as well.  ….  I’ve seen that some people use special colored chips to denote a specialized/modified unit.  Like for instance, an infantry with a black chip under it denotes “Marine” etc …

But I think that might be getting too complicated for the G40 experience.  Better to move on to a more detailed game like Global War instead.

Just wanted to see if anyone has a simple method that is also somewhat historically accurate.

Anyway, I don’t expect to do any additional changes for at least the next couple of games.  I want to play-test some of the house-rules I’ve integrated into my set from this board first.

@Young:

Thanks for the reply KNP, while I was reading your post I got the idea that the combined 18 IPCs for strict neutrals can be taken for strategic purposes, and for collecting income, however, IPCs from strict neutral territories will not be added to your sides total when calculating for an economic victory. Thanks for the brain food.

Interesting idea YG. Only problem I would see was having to keep track of 2 incomes, one without the strict neutral income and one with.

@Black_Elk:

For what it’s worth I still think this HR mod is entertaining.

Which options did you play test YG?

Given all the input and ideas in this thread, I think its still worth kicking around.

I would submit than any balance issues could surely be corrected through National Objectives. Perhaps your suggested NOs for UK, did not provide enough to compensate for the inclusion of the Commonwealth?

Did you play option 2 (with South Africa)? Or just option 1?

I also like the limited cash haul concept

I have played both options and I have found that much of the Allied income is pushed to the outside on spawning locations far from the fighting. I now perfer a system where the UK Europe economy is it’s own nation separate from the UK Pacific economy… I also like combining ANZAC income and territories with UK Pacific (with Calcutta as it’s capital) in the same way Canadian income and territories are combined with UK Europe.

Well latter i did figure out what the rule was and amended my house rules along his idea ( except its really the old AAE rule on fighter escorts).

On night bombing raids… i got 50% effectiveness, but no escorts/interceptors…or AA