@Argothair

Maybe I feel it wrong because both 2nd and 3rd objectives are not clearly historical nor tactically working objectives.
During war, there was 3 Army groups with different and sometimes competitive aims.

To illustrate my point (trying to keep the 2+),

GERMANY

• Scandinavian Iron – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Norway, Finland, and NW Europe
• Eurasian Wheat – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: EASTERN UKRAINE, BELORUSSIA, CAUCASUS
• Northern shortcut of Seaports – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Karelia, Archangel, Belorussia
• Archangel-Astrakhan Line – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Archangel, Eastern Ukraine and Kazakh

That way, USSR might have different ways to shut these NOs, mainly through control of Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine.

I feel it worth a try to add Bulgaria/Romania to Softbelly. Ploesti oilfield were vital for Third Reich War effort.

@Argothair
Hi Argo,
I really like all these Allies NOs with “…no Axis warship in xyz SZ.”

It is a way to simulate U-boats impact on Allies trade and merchants ships war goods delivery.

All Ukraine was wheat basket.
Any way to add Eastern Ukraine into the NO mix?

I hope your Triple A playtest is going according to plan.

Just a 2 cents idea:

GERMANY

• Scandinavian Iron – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Norway, Finland, and NW Europe
• Eurasian Wheat – 5 IPCs if Axis control 3+ of: Karelia, Ukraine, EASTERN UKRAINE or BELORUSSIA
• Archangel-Astrakhan Line – 5 IPCs if Axis control ALL 3 of: Archangel, CAUCASUS, and Kazakh

Second one is easier, third is tougher to get.

Might be also:

• Archangel-Astrakhan Line – 5 IPCs if Axis control 3+ of: Archangel, BELORUSSIA, CAUCASUS, and Kazakh

@Azod
Just wait and hope that Japan Fighter is taken as casualty. So you have not to go into Hawaiian SZ. I tried as much as possible to fully load this Carrier, I will try to join a Battleship or returning to Japan, to protect newly built transport. And, if building 1 Fighter along 2 TPs, it can land on Carrier, too.

There is at least 1 Fighter which need to land in Wake, Solomon or on the Carrier. IMO, I would land Japan bomber and this Fighter together to protect the bomber.

Dead zoning SZ is an important part for Japan. You have to think that fleet is better at defense than offense. So, be sure to have Subs or Bombers to support any attack on US or UK fleet.

@Azod
Do you crush UK’s fleet (as much as possible, or do you lose all East Indies fleet?) and do a light Pearl Harbor raid (with 3 Fgs, Cruiser and Sub and even the IJN Bomber) on J1?

Usually, building TP and ferrying toward Indochina/Japan while using IJN fleet to protect TP (from India’s Air) and keep US at bay from Solomon Islands should be a standard.

HTH

@baron-Münchhausen said in Convoy Disruption for 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare:

It is a punitive mechanics, as OOB G40 instead of a bonus mechanics develop previously on this actual thread.
It is yet to be play-test to see if this can be balanced somehow.

This new sequence with modified SZs is inspired by the quoted post.

Now, I can provide a revised for Redesigned National Convoy Disruption House rule for 1942.2.
First thing, the Convoy SZ is to be identify with Power’s Convoy Marker on map.
All Convoy SZs worth 3 IPCs and are bordering at least 1 TT or have an island group in it. These TTs can worth 0 IPC to many IPCs, this doesn’t change the 3 IPCs Convoy SZ basis.

Here is 1942.2 modified map (for more action into Pacific Theatre) Convoy SZs I would implement (some such as SZs 2, 3, 34, 45, 53, 57 can be considered as Allied lend-lease shipping SZs coming from either UK or US toward Russia or Australia) :

Soviet Union 25 IPCs
3 SZs x 3 IPCs = 9 IPCs max.
SZ 4 (Karelia and Archangel)
SZ 34 (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Persia),
SZ 63 (Soviet Far East)

United Kingdom 40 IPCs
10-12 SZs x 3 IPCs = 30-36 IPCs max.
SZ 2 (Greenland)
SZs 3 (Iceland), 7 (Northern UK), 8 (Southern UK),
SZs 10 (Eastern Canada), 13 (Gibraltar), 23 (West Africa),
35 (India), 40 (New Zealand), 45 (North Eastern Australia)
If captured by Allies: 37 (East Indies), 44 (Solomon Islands).

United States 50 IPCs
9 SZs x 3 IPCs = 27 IPCs max.
SZs 2 (Greenland), 11 (US East Coast), 18 (Caribbean), 22 (Brazil),
SZs 53 (Hawaii), 55 (Mexico West Coast), 56 (US West Coast),
SZs 57 (Midway), 65 (Alaska/Western Canada)

Germany 45 IPCs
2 SZs x 3 IPCs = 6 IPCs max.
SZ 5 (Baltic)
SZ 15 (Italy)

Japan 35 IPCs
6 SZs x 3 IPCs = 18 IPCs max.
SZs 36 (Malaya), 47 (Borneo),
SZs 48 (Philippines), 60 (Japan), 61 (Costal China), 62 (Korea)

An important thing to note :
lf at least 1 territory bordering (or the Island group within) the Convoy SZ is taken from his original owner and the Convoy SZ belong to the same owner, then this Convoy SZ is deactivated and can no longer be raided by enemy’s of the original Convoy SZ owner’s which have his control marker in this Convoy SZ.

When such Convoy SZ is deactivated, simply place a Nation Control Marker from enemy power onto it.

Only Submarine can raid Convoy SZ.

During Phase 1 of a Power’s turn, renamed : Convoy disruption and damage repair on IC and 2 hits units.

Each enemy’s Submarine present in a Convoy SZ of the Power’s turn makes a Convoy raid (Convoy Disruption).
Even if there is warships (including Destroyers) in Convoy SZ, Submarine can still make such raid. Once the raid is done, Submarines stay in raided SZ.

Each Submarine can make up to 3 IPCs damage, by rolling 1D6 divided by 2: 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5-6 IPCs = 3 IPC damage.
So a single Sub always does at least 2 IPCs damage on average.

There is no defense roll and Destroyer cannot do anything about it.
It is up to the Convoy SZ owner’s to send Destroyers (and more) during his turn to retaliate and sink Subs in combat phase.

Damage are immediately remove from Convoy owner’s hands, never more than 3 IPCs per SZ.
*Exception: when there is two Convoy markers (Greenland SZ 2).
Such a raid is still up to 3 IPCs per Power’s turn, but can reach up to 6 IPCs, when UK’s and US’s damage are summed up. *

Below, you get the picture of a modified 1942.2 map marked with these SZs.

@SS-GEN
I mentionned the OOB ways in beginning of my last post.

@SS-GEN
I would say that both Powers have a few optimal attacks to do then, according to results, will judge how they can coordinate or not. It was more like Sea Lion or not? Hard Barbarossa or more ressources in Africa., for Germany.

For Japan, it was more always mainland Asia between India or North in USSR, and about reacting to UK and USA.

IDK if we can simply assumed the same on this map. I hope not.
So, what works for OOB might be quite different on PTOIA map.

@SS-GEN
From my limited experience, I would say USA player is doing 80-20% whether KGF or KJF.

Splitting economy more 60-40%, makes for a longer game. But I played many like that on OOB map.

But now, with ANZAC IC and all the changes in PTO I don’t know if it is possible to do KGF and only invest 20-80.

@SS-GEN

Not necessarily. IDK if it can be optimal on this map (in which UK already got 3 IC) to built IC in Cairo (instead of Union of South Africa).

I know that on OOB 1942.2, Cairo’s IC is a valid option for a KGF.

My own playtests had heavily focused in KJF, so I kept minimal and played very defensively Cairo. Sometimes, I exchanged it. On one case, USA landing and Germany’s landing in Gibraltar (in preparation for Sea Lion), Germany was not able to conquer Cairo.

It is mainly UK which decides whether going KGF or KJF and it is all about Indian and Cairo’s fleet, and what you do with Cairo and India. Otherwise, if USA going the other way, might be a bit of an unoptimal strategy if UK invest massively into Asia while USA going Atlantic.

@SS-GEN
Cool to see that your playtest continue today.

A Fighter help against SBR for sure. At first, I was opened to the idea of removing one Inf for 1 Fg in India, but then I realized how such would impact the initial KJF move which brings all Indian and ANZAC fleet against IJN Carrier group in East Indies.

Thinking deeper, I also realized that the additional Indian’s Fg purchase was built into a factory in Cairo… That is the tough call UK have to make.

However, more IJN Fg in mainland means less against USNavy…

About : “But with UK spread all across the map with 1 income the China fig needed to go to Cairo for defense.”
It is another reason which inclined me to add an Artillery unit in China. No need to rely only on Fighter for attack punch.
I will adjust that one into TripleA and the word file.

About: “This is just based on japs can bring escorts and chance they kill a fig but looks like best to not intercept with Uk fig based on cost of a fig but still can defend @4 for territory.”

That is a factor on why Fighter dogfight values are Attack 1 but Defense 2. Attacker need to bring a ratio of 2 escort for 1 interceptor to be in par.
As in regular combat, defender get a small advantage over attacker.