Let's talk Convoys



  • Had to get in on the fun of these…  anyway, keep hearing Aldertag talking about the need for them anyhow…

    in the vein of the Oil territories, what about picking several sea zones that could be attacked by enemy forces either adjacent or within and could attack the supply routes.

    Using 1d6 for attacks adjacent, and 2d6 (take higher of the two) for attacks from within, the total ipc lost from the face of the die could be split by the combined team or particular country if each could be allocated.

    *SZ8 or SZ2–UK
    *SZ3, 4 or 63–USSR
    *SZ18 or 55–US

    *SZ61, 36  or 41 (if Jap controlled)–Japan
    *SZ15 --for Italy
    *SZ5–Germany


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    To make it simple i suggest these.

    *SZ8, 28, SZ2–UK
    *SZ3, --USSR
    *SZ65 or 56–US

    *SZ38, 49, 61, 62 (if Jap controlled)–Japan
    *SZ14 --for Italy
    *SZ5–Germany



  • To keep it simple, why not just give an IPC value to a sea zone?

    The sea zone would have an original controller, and an attacker who moved a warship (subs included) into the sea zone would place a control marker on the sea zone, and would then be in control of the sea zone and would collect the IPC from the sea zone.  (Perhaps if the warship leaves the sea zone or is destroyed, then control of the sea zone reverts back to the original controller.)



  • @Bardoly:

    To keep it simple, why not just give an IPC value to a sea zone?
     
    The sea zone would have an original controller, and an attacker who moved a warship (subs included) into the sea zone would place a control marker on the sea zone, and would then be in control of the sea zone and would collect the IPC from the sea zone.  (Perhaps if the warship leaves the sea zone or is destroyed, then control of the sea zone reverts back to the original controller.)

    Hmm, interesting idea, and instead of collecting IPC from the bank (can’t think of a better term), you would collect it from the original owner of the territory.  If for example Sz 2 (Revised) is UK (let’s say value of 1), if a German sub controls it, UK’s income would drop by 1 and UK would also need to pay Germany, when Germany collects cash at the end of the round?  Can anyone say piracy?

    Or instead of giving each Sz a value, you would need to control certain Sz’s to get X income (similar to the Italian NO in AA50 but involving certain specific Szs.



  • Or what about instead of a certain country receving the money, it goes into the Allies or Axis pot to be used by any Allies or Axis country?

    On the same thought, what about air drops of IPC by bmb’s instead of SBR, the opposite.  Your allies can send a bmb and it can SIR (strategic income run?) and air drops 1d6 amount of IPC (it would be subtracted from the owner of  the bmb) also it would be limited to the IPC value of the territory.

    Limitation being the bmb has to start off in the owner’s territory (original or controlled) that has an IC and the territory being SIRed also needs an IC.

    Sort of like a money train.

    Sorry Bardoly for going off topic but your thread got my brain thinking.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The sea zone would have an original controller, and an attacker who moved a warship (subs included) into the sea zone would place a control marker on the sea zone, and would then be in control of the sea zone and would collect the IPC from the sea zone.

    Their is no income to be taken. The enemy merchant ships are sunk and this loss is akin to losing IPC in the game. So their is no collection, but the sea zones that are assigned just need a token to designate them, which does not require map modifications and that must be the goal to make the variant accessible to most.



  • Well, in my vision on convoy sea zones, in order to keep the game as simple as possible, gaining IPC for controlling the sea zone would make sense.  i.e. A sea zone which starts in UK’s control - the IPC gain would model the US and Canada’s help which was sent to the UK during the war.  If Germany (or Italy) were to gain control of that sea zone and gain IPCs thereby, then that would model the moral boost to Germany’s economy hearing that they were winning the war in the Atlantic.  The same would apply to the Mediteranean and the Pacific.  I’m not suggesting that every or most of the sea zones be worth IPCs, just a few of them.

    Here are my suggestions.  Of course some territory IPC values might have to be slightly tweaked.

    SU - none
    UK - sz8 and sz9 worth 1-2 IPCs each
    US - sz56 and sz53 worth 2 IPCs each

    Germany - none (maybe sz5 - worth 1-2 IPCs) if there is some sort of canal rule for the strait)
    Japan - sz59, 60, 61, 62 worth 1 IPC each
    Italy - sz 14 worth 1-2 IPCs



  • Depriving the enemy of IPCs is better in my book then extra IPCs for me, cause heck, when they have less, I have more!  Simple is great as always, but better can be worth a bit of extra hassle.  Simple is just forgoing them completely.

    I’m with IL, there is no piracy on the waters, the uboats are not stopping to check the holds, just sending them to the bottom. For the UK, if they didn’t have shipping to the island, they were out of the war.  Same with Russia, so many supplies were sent through the Novosibirsk in the Pacific and through the North Atlantic that they wouldn’t have survived.

    1 or 2 IPCs per SZ isn’t worth the effort to leave ships out there as the Axis or give up a move as the Allies, if that is all I’m guaranteed.  I’d want a shot at 6 per ship at least.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    to keep it simple you make it like AAE or AAP which is a REDUCTION of enemy IPC when the space is occupied.



  • How many IPCs were reduced per zone in Pacific and Europe?



  • I do agree with y’all, that reducing IPCs is better game-wise, but trying to implement this in a very simple way is what I’m really trying for.

    @LuckyDay:

    I’m with IL, there is no piracy on the waters, the uboats are not stopping to check the holds, just sending them to the bottom. For the UK, if they didn’t have shipping to the island, they were out of the war.  Same with Russia, so many supplies were sent through the Novosibirsk in the Pacific and through the North Atlantic that they wouldn’t have survived.

    I’m modeling the IPC gain as a morale boost because your ships are winning the sea war.



  • @Bardoly:

    I’m modeling the IPC gain as a morale boost because your ships are winning the sea war.

    morale boost!, are you serious

    that is not logical at all, why  does succesful naval stratigic warfare of all things give you a morale boost



  • @Emperor_Taiki:

    @Bardoly:

    I’m modeling the IPC gain as a morale boost because your ships are winning the sea war.

    morale boost!, are you serious

    that is not logical at all, why  does succesful naval stratigic warfare of all things give you a morale boost

    Well, when the citizens of a country at war hear heartening news from the front, it usually encourages them to work harder and longer back in the factorys.  I know that the opposite can also be true somewhat, but once again, I’m just trying to come up with a SIMPLE way to add something to the game which IMHO belongs.

    Don’t forget that it’s just as crazy for a country to take a territory away from another country, gain the IPCs for the territory, and then the other country take it right back on their turn and gain the same IPCs as well.  Think France in AA50 - Germany collects 6 IPCs (+5 NO IPCs) on it’s turn, then UK captures France and also collects 6 (+5 NO IPCs), Italy liberates France (collects +5 NO IPCs), and then the US re-captures France on it’s turn collecting 6 (+5 NO IPCs).  So, in one turn, France produced at least 18 IPCs (38 IPCs if you count the NO’s.)  Now which is more crazy?  A morale boost because the German submarine wolfpacks are winning the Battle for the Atlantic?  or one territory - France in one round of play producing as many IPCs as any 1 other country normally would? (except Godzilla Japan of course  :-P)



  • @Bardoly:

    Don’t forget that it’s just as crazy for a country to take a territory away from another country, gain the IPCs for the territory, and then the other country take it right back on their turn and gain the same IPCs as well.  Think France in AA50 - Germany collects 6 IPCs (+5 NO IPCs) on it’s turn, then UK captures France and also collects 6 (+5 NO IPCs), Italy liberates France (collects +5 NO IPCs), and then the US re-captures France on it’s turn collecting 6 (+5 NO IPCs).  So, in one turn, France produced at least 18 IPCs (38 IPCs if you count the NO’s.)  Now which is more crazy?  A morale boost because the German submarine wolfpacks are winning the Battle for the Atlantic?  or one territory - France in one round of play producing as many IPCs as any 1 other country normally would? (except Godzilla Japan of course   :-P)

    Actually, I believe that if Italy liberated France, then it reverts to German control and no IPCs are given out at that time for it, so it’s just the two Allied invasions that garner additional IPCs.

    However, the multiple combing of the French countryside for IPCs is a game mechanic problem of another matter.  Perhaps collecting IPCs for everyone only once at the end of a round would the proper way to collect them, but trying to fix production ability by turning it into goodwill and determination will probably create another new problem.

    In AAE, Convoy Zones represent materials being transported from off-board territories (South Africa to UK for instance).  In AAP, there is some of this, as well as zones for say Borneo, if you control Borneo, but not the waters around it, you don’t get the income.  For AA50, this would need to be the better model of the two as the whole world is shown.  This would encourage naval play and reward the masters of the high seas.

    However, a third option is simply that there are zones that would have been popular transport routes to ICs and countries.  Enemy vessels could attack shipping here to do damage enroute from other territories, hence the amount of IPCs is reduced from the controlling players hand.



  • Bardoly, you missed the point. why does morale boost only result from stratgic naval warfare, why does it not apply to stratgic bombings or regualr battles.

    and just because A&A is illogical in one area does not meen house get to be illogical, one of the reasons play with house rules is so the game makes more sence.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    In any book of WW2 they only have facts resulting in huge loses of shipping for the nation that LOST the resources that were just sunk, No literature exists that INSTEAD totally discounts these loses and attributes the GAIN in national prestige and (hence income) for the nation that sunk these ships.

    So essentially if Germany sinks British ships it does not get richer, while the British get poorer… This can only mean the convoy zones are sappers of potential IPC.



  • @Upside-down_Turtle:

    How many IPCs were reduced per zone in Pacific and Europe?

    Sorry Turtle, meant to answer this earlier:
    in AAE, there were zones of 3, 4, 5, & 6 IPCs, totaling 10 for the US, 4 for USSR and about 20 for UK (sorry, going from memory)
    in AAP, there was a 10 and a 5 for the US, but everything else was smaller, like total of 12 for 2 or 3 zones for UK, and then the territory specific ones for places like borneo, celebes, java, Philippines, etc for the value of the territory.



  • Thanks.  I guess each zone must have a different value.  Alas, more charts.

    When adding these convoy zones, does UK, US, ect, get extra IPCs?



  • @LuckyDay:

    @Bardoly:

    Don’t forget that it’s just as crazy for a country to take a territory away from another country, gain the IPCs for the territory, and then the other country take it right back on their turn and gain the same IPCs as well.  Think France in AA50 - Germany collects 6 IPCs (+5 NO IPCs) on it’s turn, then UK captures France and also collects 6 (+5 NO IPCs), Italy liberates France (collects +5 NO IPCs), and then the US re-captures France on it’s turn collecting 6 (+5 NO IPCs).  So, in one turn, France produced at least 18 IPCs (38 IPCs if you count the NO’s.)  Now which is more crazy?  A morale boost because the German submarine wolfpacks are winning the Battle for the Atlantic?  or one territory - France in one round of play producing as many IPCs as any 1 other country normally would? (except Godzilla Japan of course  :-P)

    Actually, I believe that if Italy liberated France, then it reverts to German control and no IPCs are given out at that time for it, so it’s just the two Allied invasions that garner additional IPCs.

    I was counting Italy’s NO for Axis control of France.

    @Emperor_Taiki:

    Bardoly, you missed the point. why does morale boost only result from stratgic naval warfare, why does it not apply to stratgic bombings or regualr battles.

    and just because A&A is illogical in one area does not meen house get to be illogical, one of the reasons play with house rules is so the game makes more sense.

    No, the point was to keep the game as SIMPLE as possible.  While still having some historical sense.

    And as my example showed, morale boost does result from regular battles in the trading territories mechanic.

    Once again, I PREFER the game having a sea battle mechanic which models the war in the Atlantic where many, many tons of shipping were destroyed, and I think that IPC reduction would be better, but in the interest of SIMPLICITY, I feel that an IPC gain would be closer to the OOB rules.

    If anyone else has a simpler way to do this, then do tell.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    And as my example showed, morale boost does result from regular battles in the trading territories mechanic.

    Show how sinking thousands of merchant ships exactly ADDS to your IPC?

    Use the historical record to illustrate these points.

    If anyone else has a simpler way to do this, then do tell.

    yes exactly the opposite, the guy who occupies the convoy zone, causes damage to the owning player, exactly like it is in AAE and AAP, and all the Xeno games



  • Well, not having played AAE, AAP, or any Xeno game, I just have to go by what you’re saying.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Don’t go by what im saying. Look at a book and find some supporting documentation that has any notion that if you sink the enemy ships, you will be rich. Submarines don’t have time or room to take the goods on merchant ships. This is not 1800’s when you mount a boarding party and share the booty with drunken sailors. IN WW2 nothing of this sort occurred.



  • the traidng terriotries is a glitch in A&A it does not repreesent morale

    and Naval battles got a lot more poplicity than the stratigic warfare, and naval battles dont get you a morale boost.

    also i hope you realize you are talking about the complexity of addition and subtraction, and seeing as the regular convoy rules only include subtraction and not addition they are techniaclly simpler that your rules.



  • Some house rules I’ve read blended sea zones into the NO’s in AA50. Some examples:
    Russia- Reduce its 10 ipc bonus to 5 ipc and create a sz 5 ipc bonus maybe sz 3,4,34 & 63. Or add sz 3 & 4 to its Archangel bonus.
    US-Attach sz to it’s 1st NO(E.US, C.US & W.US) maybe sz 10,19,55,56,65 This one is way to easy to get anyway.
    UK-This one is tough because It’s commonwealth NO is already hard to get at points. Maybe add certain sz (1,2,8,9,) to show supplies from US & Canada to UK
    Germany-It’s original euro tt NO + sz 5, maybe 13 & 14.The med was as important for Germany to control as for Italy to keep supplies flowing into N. Africa.
    Italy-No changes already has sz in its 1st NO.
    Japan-Add the sz that connect It’s 1st NO (3 Chinese tt) to Japan,sz 36,61 & 62.

    On a further note I know AA42 is blending some rules from AA50. NO’s will most likely make it as optional. Has anyone heard if more sz will be part of NO’s like Italy? That would be cool.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The Sea Zones are better served with a random roll to determine the cost of sinking the convoy.

    1-2=1 ipc lost
    3-4=2 ipc lost
    5-6=3 ipc lost

    Morale (in terms of how many tanks Germany makes) does not increase by sinking enemy ships.

    If I own a restaurant and if our troops in Afghanistan kill 50 terrorists, it has no effect on my morale.

    If a sub sinks X tonnage of cargo, the people in factories don’t all of a sudden work harder and produce 100 more tanks

    subsequently, under your idea you totally ignore the fact that ships were lost and place absolutely no value on this fact in the game, and totally hype up the morale of the people as if its easily greater than the loss.

    It makes no sence. Again look up the effects of the submarine campaign and find anyplace where the morale increase results in a net gain of production and the effects of losing shipping to subs has no effect.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 2
  • 12
  • 2
  • 3
  • 8
  • 68
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games

51
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts