The Captain mentioned it in a private chat with me, so I’m sure he knows it, although I’m not sure on his opinions though. I might copy it to his glossary of his house rule topics.
Economic warfare expansion to AA50
-
Hi Lynxes,
re: SBR
-in principle, I agree that interceptors and escorts should be in the game
-personally, I would probably look at simplifying your method for doing this, particularly air combatre: Convoy interdiction
-personally, I would suggest simplifying this as well (I’d probably remove the blocking of unit production and stick with the convoy damage)
-I see that you have gone with a different approach here, focusing the attacks on the actual transports rather than the ICs. I do like the idea that this is considered a special attack (and thus separated from regular combat) -
re: SBR
-in principle, I agree that interceptors and escorts should be in the game
-personally, I would probably look at simplifying your method for doing this, particularly air combatFor SBR, there are many options on how to include escorts and interceptors. I remember the few games that I played AAE that interceptors were way too powerful with a ‘2’ in defence. I also wanted not too many kills in air combat but at the same time that German fighters would be tied up in Germany rather than attacking at the Eastern Front in the next turn, hence the turning of interceptors upside-down. The thing about the cap for IPC damage being related to intercept or not I’m not totally sure about. Maybe the AA50 OOB cap is OK if interceptors are available since it reduces SBR effectivity overall.
re: Convoy interdiction
-personally, I would suggest simplifying this as well (I’d probably remove the blocking of unit production and stick with the convoy damage)
-I see that you have gone with a different approach here, focusing the attacks on the actual transports rather than the ICs. I do like the idea that this is considered a special attack (and thus separated from regular combat)I modelled it after SBR so that subs can do either normal or economic attacks. Since subs typically are destroyed quickly unlike bombers, they had to have more damage capability and that’s why they sink transports and do IPC damage. As for blocked unit production, this is to protect Germany and Soviet Union, who after all couldn’t be severely hurt by Convoy attacks in the war. Not going for convoy zones is an aesthetic thing since it clutters the map, but it also could become more flexible and fun to play if transports are the points of attack. Perhaps you have the option of autodestroying transports though to avoid some awkward situations when you don’t need transport capability (?).
-
Cousin Joe, I wrote up a simpler SBR ruleset, what do you think?
Strategic bombardment
These rules replace the strategic bombardment section in the normal rules. AA functions as the normal rules. When attacking with Heavy bombers you now add two to each IPC damage roll instead of rolling two dice.
Intercepting and escorting fighters:
Defending fighters in the attacked IC area are intercepting fighters, but the maximum number of interceptors is the number of attacking aircraft. The attacker may also attack with fighters which then are escorting fighters, but no more escorting fighters than there are attacking bombers.Air combat:
In air combat, you fight one round only and then proceed to roll for SBR damage for each bomber that has survived. You add the number of aircraft on each side and then roll that number of dice, hitting on a ‘1’. If you have “Jet fighters” you get two rolls for each fighter and enemy bombers no longer get to fire in air combat.Hit allocation in escorted SBR attacks:
If there are escorting fighters in the attack, the first hit by the defender is always on an escorting fighter, the second on an attacking bomber, and so on. -
I thought you said from another thread you were talking about sub interactions?
I got that SBR already prepared- I think our ideas are the same, which are both from AAP here is the rest of related ideas:
Dogfights: When planes fight in land battles they now are rolling against each other and allocating other air units as hits before land units can be hit. AS such they have different dogfight values as follows:
Fighters: 3
Fighter-Bomber: 2
Bomber: 1
Heavy Bomber: 2 ( technology based)
Jet fighters: 4 ( technology based)Fighter Defense/Escort: During SBR attacks the defending player can bring in planes to fight against bombers defending at a 2. The attacker can bring in escorts to escort his bombers and they attack at 1. Only one round of air combat occurs prior to SBR rolls. Note: The AA gun rolls only against the bombers and not against the escorting fighters.
Fighter-Bomber/ Interceptor as standard pieces: Any nation can build them for 8 IPC and they attack at 3 and defend at 2 and move 4 spaces. They can be placed on carriers at same capacity as fighters. These have a special ability on defense. If they are adjacent to attacked land territories they may assist (using their defense factor) in combat starting on the first combat round. They can retreat with other defending units after any complete combat round.
Fighters: The first fighter built now costs 9 IPC each. Additional still cost 10 IPC.
IN playtest Fighter Bombers are important for poor nations who need to spread around meager air forces.
-
IL, you make much more sweeping changes than I propose. Air combat in my proposal is ONLY in SBR and ONLY one round of combat, after AA and before rolling for SBR damage. If you add air combat in every combat, you will prolong the game a lot and I don’t think the game needs that. I think fighters and bombers are powerful enough in ordinary combat.
When it comes to subs, look up the thread. Cousin Joe thought it was too complex, and I’ve been thinking about a simpler representation of convoy damage:
“As long as you have Convoy damage you can’t build transports and you can’t embark or disembark units on transports”
This is simpler and it also makes UK and Japan more vulnerable since they will be the ones who can’t live with convoy damage at all, whereas Italy and US some of the time may be willing to live with it and Germany and Soviet Union not really affected in most games.
-
“As long as you have Convoy damage you can’t build transports and you can’t embark or disembark units on transports”
This does not make sence. No relationship can exist or prevent those things from occurring , except by direct means.
UK bombs Berlin, and Hitler says “leave our troops on transports till i get our city rebuilt?” HUH? What?
If you add air combat in every combat, you will prolong the game a lot and I don’t think the game needs that. I think fighters and bombers are powerful enough in ordinary combat.
WE have the same thing , except i wish to not allow planes on both sides to ignore each other, but rather establish air superiority between themselves with concurrent air combat rounds. It take no time at all to roll plane hits separately and allocate these hits to other planes, then rolling out land units. Land units should not be able to hit 450MPH fighters, unless they have flak artillery, which is covered by AA guns anyway.
The lower air values ensure a similar outcome in the sky, allowing the modeling of battle of Britain style actions.
Try it sometime. But remember to use this you must allow defender retreat or it wont work well.
-
As long as you have Convoy damage you can’t build transports and you can’t embark or disembark units on transports
This does not make sence. No relationship can exist or prevent those things from occurring , except by direct means.
UK bombs Berlin, and Hitler says “leave our troops on transports till i get our city rebuilt?” HUH? What?
I’m talking about Convoy damage and not SBR damage. Convoy damage would represent disruption of the sea supply system so that invasions couldn’t be performed, operations that have to use massive amounts of shipping to be possible. In the war, the Atlantic sub war had just this effect and no major invasions could be launched by sea in '41 due to the heavy convoy losses.
But I think maybe Cousin Joe was right that as few complications of the rules as possible, and so maybe adding another element to the game is unnecessary. A simplified version of Convoy interdiction rules would be:
Convoy interdiction
Instead of normal movement and attack, a submarine may perform a Convoy interdiction: all enemy ships including destroyers are then ignored and it has a move of three. A convoy interdiction is made against a sea zone with an enemy transport. Only submarines may take part in a Convoy interdiction attack.
Convoy combat:
One round of Convoy combat is fought in each sea zone attacked, with submarines attacking on a ‘2’ and destroyers defending on ‘1’. One fighter for each defending destroyer may take part in Convoy combat, hitting on a ‘1’. Each hit versus the defender means one transport is destroyed. When all transports have been destroyed, the defender chooses hits from destroyers and carriers carrying fighters taking part in the combat. Super subs hit on a ‘3’, may never be hit by fighters and add one to the IPC damage roll.Convoy damage:
After Convoy combat, roll one die per surviving submarine to determine Convoy damage. Convoy damage is recorded by putting damage markers in an adjacent sea zone bordering the capital area. Convoy damage is separate from damage to ICs by SBR and can be repaired in the “Purchase Units Phase” for 1 IPC per marker. All Convoy damage must be repaired before any naval unit may be built. If a power has the “Shipyards” technology, it repairs two points of Convoy damage for each IPC spent. If several powers have transports in a sea zone, the attacking player chooses which power that takes Convoy damage. The maximum IPC damage for each power per turn is 10 IPCs per controlled transport in the attacked sea zone. -
Convoy damage would represent disruption of the sea supply system so that invasions couldn’t be performed, operations that have to use massive amounts of shipping to be possible. In the war, the Atlantic sub war had just this effect and no major invasions could be launched by sea in '41 due to the heavy convoy losses.
Well i think you are looking from the correct perspective from the authority in your rules by sppealing to the historical record. Its the only way to make sence of anything when you design house rules.
But the historical record does not demonstrate a relationship from the ability to effect the ability to perform a sea invasion, by crippling loses in merchant shipping. IN 1941 UK was not in a position to invade but for the reasons you stated. However, uk and USA made joint plans to enter Europe should the Soviets face an immediate collapse as early as 1942.
America invaded Africa in late 1942 even when they faced huge shipping loses from the second “happy time” (look it up)
America occupied Azores, UK made commando raids against Dieppe and St Nazaire, while they were losing hundreds of ships on the high seas. It just does not make any sence.
Also latter in the war u-boats were still at large and the Allies still invaded Sicily and Italy. Your idea IMO does not make sence.
On the other idea i see your looking more closely like i do. Except moving 3 makes no sence.
also, in the mid war period fighters did sink subs and bombers were used to scout, I don’t know why you ignore cruisers in ASW duty because they are integral part of this protection. Thats would make them more viable for cash strapped nations who may have one around.
lastly this has me godsmacked:
“All Convoy damage must be repaired before any naval unit may be built.”
Please don’t consider this. why would you have such a rule?
-
America invaded Africa in late 1942 even when they faced huge shipping loses from the second “happy time” (look it up)
I don’t think a complete loss of invasion capability would take place even with the rule I thought of, since US or UK would surely be able to repair all convoy damage inflicted on them. Even with 3 subs attacking you would have around 10 IPCs loss in production. Of course, you could just have IPC damage being taken from cash at hand, but I wanted to find something similar to how SBR damage is handled in AA50 and also something that means you don’t have to have “ad-hoc” rules such as Germany and Soviet Union are immune from convoy attacks or the addition of convoy zones on the map.
America occupied Azores, UK made commando raids against Dieppe and St Nazaire, while they were losing hundreds of ships on the high seas. It just does not make any sence.
None of these invasions would be represented in Axis & Allies. Operation Overlord was postponed due to the fact of submarine warfare and this is the kind of scale we are talking about. Of course, US and UK could have invaded France even in '42 but I’m not sure they would have succeeded. In game terms, this would mean that submarines in '41 and '42 inflict damage enough so that the number of transports to invade with would be too few.
Except moving 3 makes no sence.
also, in the mid war period fighters did sink subs and bombers were used to scout, I don’t know why you ignore cruisers in ASW duty because they are integral part of this protection. Thats would make them more viable for cash strapped nations who may have one around.
Well, movement of three is for Germany to have any chance of actually getting subs to sea zones with enemy transports (Greenland and Celtic Sea from the Baltic Sea). What doesn’t make sense is how all submarines can be destroyed in the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the English channel, which is what happens in all Axis & Allies editions and which is a basic fault of the game design. Of course you could give submarines immunity to attack or something more radical but I think three in movement is less radical a change. Cruisers is a balance thing. If cruisers had ASW function that would: a) make it unnecessary to buy destroyers, b) make subs too weak. Please note that these rules means that subs in normal combat can be attacked just as in OOB AA50 rules, it’s only in Convoy combat that ASW is restricted!
lastly this has me godsmacked:
“All Convoy damage must be repaired before any naval unit may be built.”
Please don’t consider this. why would you have such a rule?
Well as I said the alternative is to have Convoy damage just subtracted from cash at hand, but now SBR works with damage markers and so I though Convoy damage should as well. The advantage is that even if Germany gets Convoy damage it can ignore it if doesn’t want to buy any more naval units. The historical explanation is that Submarine warfare attritions naval forces and in particular transports and ASW ships and in order to gain naval supremacy the convoy war had to be won. Even as late as '43, the Allies put the convoy war as the highest war aim in the West (Casablanca), and the importance of the convoy war isn’t represented at all in Axis & Allies. Quote from Weinberg’s A world at arms, p. 380:
“… the shortage of shipping imposed restriction on the scope of Torch that would… make it impossible for the Allies to seize Tunisia in the early stages of that operation. This made it possible for the Germans to hold on in North Africa until May 1943 and hence make an invasion of Northwest Europe impossible before 1944. With shipping losses continuing to exceed new construction, it should come as no surprise that at the January 1943 conference at Casablanca, top priority should be assigned to the battle against the U-Boats. If this menace could not be conquered, the steady diminuition of Allied tonnage would immobilize the Western Allies; even if Britain could be kept supplied, there was nothing a huge American army could do to help defeat Germany if it could not be brought to Europe and supplied there.”
Any ruleset that gets us closer to the historical fact is an improvement. I don’t claim my suggestions are the only possible, what are yours? This is what should be there:
- German subs must be able to reach the Atlantic areas without being destroyed.
- Submarines should be able to engage enemy transports and/or convoys without being forced to engage the entire fleet.
- Some kind of representation of the merchant navy should be present, be it as Convoy damage, convoy zones, destroying IPCs if adjacent to enemy ICs, etc. If subs have enough power to destroy transports, that might be powerful enough so we wouldn’t need abstract convoys, but I doubt if that can be made a system balanced enough.
- Buying subs should be cost-effective for Germany in early stages of the game at least, i.e. ASW should be weak enough to enable subs to do a considerable amount of damage before they are destroyed.
-
I first say that i enjoy your efforts and how you look at things. Its professional and not ad hoc. I am just trying to point out inconsistencies to help you arrive at the conclusion by an examination of the period were dealing with.
I don’t think a complete loss of invasion capability would take place even with the rule I thought of, since US or UK would surely be able to repair all convoy damage inflicted on them. Even with 3 subs attacking you would have around 10 IPCs loss in production.
The rule as stated still prohibits the building of naval units, and its possible players of the same team would build more than 3 subs and ‘cost no more than 10 IPC’ Rule systems have to look at the extremes and are refuted even if ONE time in ONE game a trick is discovered which breaks the game. IMO your rule can lead to a broken game. Japan, Germany and Italy, can start adding more subs to the 4-5 they begin with and prevent the allies from ever getting transports made. While u-boats enjoyed the “happy times” the allies were building more merchant ships than can be sunk. it was a race and the allies were still winning it. Your rule takes the wind out of the sail.
None of these invasions would be represented in Axis & Allies. Operation Overlord was postponed due to the fact of submarine warfare and this is the kind of scale we are talking about. Of course, US and UK could have invaded France even in '42 but I’m not sure they would have succeeded. In game terms, this would mean that submarines in '41 and '42 inflict damage enough so that the number of transports to invade with would be too few.
Overlord was not postponed for this reason. Please find this fact and cite it. However, our landing in Morocco was in a scale represented by AA and performed in 1942. The landing at Sicily in 1943 was also in AA scale. IN both periods U-Boats had the upper hand and ships were being built.
IN 1944 they invaded and no U-boats has any effect on it
In 1942 they invaded Morocco and no U-boats had any effect
IN 1943 Italy didn’t do anything while Sicily was invaded.
In 1942 America invaded the solomons and Japanese subs didn’t have any effect on it.
In 1943 America invaded all sorts of islands and Japanese subs didn’t have any effect on it.I can go on and on.
Of course, you could just have IPC damage being taken from cash at hand, but I wanted to find something similar to how SBR damage is handled in AA50 and also something that means you don’t have to have “ad-hoc” rules such as Germany and Soviet Union are immune from convoy attacks or the addition of convoy zones on the map.
Why not treat them all equally as long as they have the same access to IPC detached by sea zones. I have this posted in another thread:
Lend Lease: For each transport in the Atlantic the US player rolls one d6 = result equals IPC that can be sent to Russia and deducted from US IPC total. (I recommend you use chips) Procedure: place whatever you rolled in the Soviet Lend Lease box. The convoy box can be subject to attacks and should be protected. The following Soviet turn the IPC generated is added to the Soviet player’s treasury.
For example: The US player has 5 transports and rolls 5 dice resulting in 22 potential Lend Lease IPC. They elect to send only 15 and place that amount of chips in the Lend Lease Box. Enemy subs or planes can attempt to attack these IPC up to the limit of 15 IPC. They roll as a convoy raid attack.
Exception: You may place up to one naval ship in a VC even if the territory does not contain a factory.
Submarines:
Attacking Submarines can only engage enemy transports or perform convoy raids on enemy sea zones designated as such. If they elect to attack transports perform the following sequence:- Subs each roll at 2 or less to hit. Transports are removed for each hit.
- ASW units (Destroyers and Cruisers) each roll hitting at one. Remove subs.
- Subs may elect to submerge or continue attack.
Note: If attacking ASW units engage the subs on their own turn follow the same procedure except ASW units can now be hit rather than transports.
Special Rules:
• If the active player has Super Subs Technology they attack at 3 or less.
• If the active player has ASW Technology, then planes can now roll for ASW as long as a ASW naval unit is present (at a 1:1 basis). Also, all ASW units now roll at 2 or less to score a hit.Submarines no longer block movement of surface naval units, except for transports. In combat with subs and other naval units, submarines are not involved. That’s to say they now perform as totally independent forms of naval combat. Once the surface naval combat is resolved, further combat with submarines can occur.
Convoy Zones: Each nation begins in control of specific sea zones that can be attacked by enemy naval forces or bombers. When the listed territory is occupied by the opposing side the convoy center is replaced with a new convoy token of the controlling player. Anytime the enemy enters this sea zone with a warship (not transport) they roll one D6:
1-2= 1 IPC lost, 3-4= 2 IPC lost, 5-6= 3 IPC lost. The convoy zone can only be attacked up to the full value of 3 IPC per turn. The following convoy centers are in the game:Germany:
Sea zone #5-Convoy removed if Germany loses two of the three: Sweden, Finland, or Norway.Italy:
Sea Zone #14- Convoy removed if Italy loses Libya or Balkans.Japan:
Sea Zone #62- Convoy removed if Japan loses Manchuria.
Sea Zone #36- Convoy removed if Japan loses French-Indo China.Soviet Union:
Sea Zone #4- Convoy removed if Soviets lose Karella S.S.R.United Kingdom:
Sea Zone #8- Convoy removed if UK loses any part of Canada.
Sea Zone #2- Convoy removed if UK loses England.
Sea Zone #33-Convoy removed if UK controls less than 6 IPC in Africa.
Sea Zone #35-Convoy removed if UK controls loses India.
Sea Zone #12-Convoy removed if UK controls loses Egypt.
Sea Zone #39-Convoy removed if UK controls loses Australia.
Sea Zone #38-Convoy removed if UK controls loses East Indies or Borneo.
United States:
Sea Zone #10- Convoy removed if USA loses Eastern USA.
Sea Zone #50- Convoy removed if USA loses Western United States.
Sea Zone #54- Convoy removed if USA loses Alaska.
Sea Zone #56- Convoy removed if USA loses Philippine Islands.
Sea Zone #65- Convoy removed if USA loses Hawaii.Note: In each case when the sea zone is occupied a new convoy zone is established by the side that captures the listed territories and the new player can now be attacked in the same manner on your own next turn.
Convoy Raid Attack: Submarines or planes in range can elect to attack these convoys in addition to other attacks in the same sea zone if other ships are also present (subs can only attack transports in this manner).
Procedure: move sub in sea zone with convoy box roll d6
1-2= 1 IPC lost
3-4= 2 IPC lost
5-6= 3 IPC lostFollowing the Convoy Raid each submarine or plane has the option to attack enemy transports located in the sea zone.
under this system we bring back the basic convoy zones represented as they were historically and caped at 3 IPC max, so the other player cant pile up on one weak sea zone each turn.
Also, they are in flux, so if the assigned territories are taken they flip to convoy zones for the new conquering player. The problem with AAE was if all of Africa was axis occupied by Germany , their was no need to a UK convoy box, because now the Germans needed to bring the income over and establish sea lanes to supply the home territory with these resources. So you merely place a convoy token when the listed territories change hands and its now a target for the opposition.
Also, i allow a choice on multiple sea combat rounds. Perhaps both sides with to keep rolling, but still give each the option to retreat.
Sub combat is now totally separate and subs are NEVER again the ‘infantry of the sea’. Thats what destroyers are now.
I can move the zones around because they are afterall tokens that are placed on the map. Playtesting shows they are in correct places at this point.
-
The rule as stated still prohibits the building of naval units, and its possible players of the same team would build more than 3 subs and ‘cost no more than 10 IPC’ Rule systems have to look at the extremes and are refuted even if ONE time in ONE game a trick is discovered which breaks the game. IMO your rule can lead to a broken game. Japan, Germany and Italy, can start adding more subs to the 4-5 they begin with and prevent the allies from ever getting transports made. While u-boats enjoyed the “happy times” the allies were building more merchant ships than can be sunk. it was a race and the allies were still winning it. Your rule takes the wind out of the sail.
Well, sub survivability in the OOB rules isn’t very high so I doubt if that many subs will be able to attack at the same time. Of course, if you restrict the ability to attack subs you will be forced to restrict the damage that will be done.
Please find this fact and cite it.
I cited it in the earlier post. The Allies lost a total of 3,500 merchants ships at the hands of submarines, and only in '43 did building exceed sinkings:
“The construction of new ship tonnage had exceeded submarine sinkings for the first time in February 1943.” Weinberg, A world at arms, p. 382.
Submarines no longer block movement of surface naval units, except for transports. In combat with subs and other naval units, submarines are not involved. That’s to say they now perform as totally independent forms of naval combat. Once the surface naval combat is resolved, further combat with submarines can occur.
Well, this is too radical a change I think. Again according to Weinberg, American submarines sank twice as many Japanese ships as American surface ships (p. 393). I think like bombers that subs should have both an economic attack option and a normal attack option. Subs won’t be infantry of the seas now that they have only ‘1’ in defence.
Your convoy rules are very complex. I’m trying to simplify my rule suggestions. Yet your ASW rules doesn’t even include carriers which were the units that actually turned the tide against the subs! Rules should follow the Ockham’s razor principle, never be more complex than needed. The drawback of my ruleset is that you might destroy every enemy transport and then not get to attack economically the convoy routes. But adding convoy zones is so big a change I hope you can avoid it in some way.
I like your way of conducting attacks against enemy transports, it is similar to mine even though I think fighters should added as an ASW unit aside DDs. Perhaps this can be expanded to be the way subs attack economically?
- Subs can attack either as per OOB rules or against transports. It then functions as you say only that one other unit per destroyer may take part, fighter as well as cruiser. Instead of my “one combat round and then inflict IPC damage” you would simply have more rounds of combat as you have it. Transports are the required first casualty, but the attacker can continue vs. ASW units if he wishes.
- There should be some restriction on attacking subs but not as tough as you put it. Suggestions for ASW values in both defence and offensive combat, with DDs allowing one other unit to take part: DDs, FTRs & BMBs ‘2’, CAs ‘1’. This takes effect if attacking a sub-only force or when subs attack transports, but if subs make a normal attack or defends as part of surface fleet then all units defend according to OOB rules.
- We still have the movement issue. I suggest movement of ‘3’ only when attacking transports and no movement restrictions by destroyers, that’s the only way Germany will get their subs forward!
If we tweak the attack transports special ability and increase sub survivability we might not even need economic abstractions like convoy zones or convoy damage since just the sinking of transports will represent the convoy war!
-
I am responding to this part and the other part latter.
Yet your ASW rules doesn’t even include carriers which were the units that actually turned the tide against the subs!
Yes they do, but carriers didnt do ASW, planes did. once the convoy system was perfected and specific technology was created, planes from carriers ( not carriers) were used to locate and shoot down subs recharging batteries. Under my system ASW is a technology, which raises the score to hit from 1 to 2, effectively ending the happy time. So Carriers are very important once ASW gets developed. So i lose the idea that “planes cant attack w/o destroyers thing”, and say that they can as soon as they got ASW tech.
Also, i added cruisers which are a must for ASW capable units.
Rules should follow the Ockham’s razor principle, never be more complex than needed. The drawback of my ruleset is that you might destroy every enemy transport and then not get to attack economically the convoy routes. But adding convoy zones is so big a change I hope you can avoid it in some way.
convoy zones are not complex at all. they just delineate the zones that subs can grab money from. Thats it. The second point is a convoy zone represents the IPC traveling by sea, so you need a mechanism to model what happens when the territory that the IPC is traveling from is captured.
for example: if India falls to Japan, it makes no sence that a UK convoy zone should exist off of India, but rather a NEW Japanese convoy zone.
Its the same principle as the tokens are used to designate control. My system is extremely simple . Try it.
I like your way of conducting attacks against enemy transports, it is similar to mine even though I think fighters should added as an ASW unit aside DDs. Perhaps this can be expanded to be the way subs attack economically?
They are once fighters develop ASW. You have to represent the happy time when the allies had no clue how to counter the axis u-boats.
- Subs can attack either as per OOB rules or against transports. It then functions as you say only that one other unit per destroyer may take part, fighter as well as cruiser. Instead of my “one combat round and then inflict IPC damage” you would simply have more rounds of combat as you have it. Transports are the required first casualty, but the attacker can continue vs. ASW units if he wishes.
Yes but its also the option of either player to submerge or retreat. Under my proposal you cant send subs to attack ASW, unless you originally had transports in the sea zone, and both sides are continuing combat for their own reasons. ( not a typical situation)
- There should be some restriction on attacking subs but not as tough as you put it. Suggestions for ASW values in both defence and offensive combat, with DDs allowing one other unit to take part: DDs, FTRs & BMBs ‘2’, CAs ‘1’. This takes effect if attacking a sub-only force or when subs attack transports, but if subs make a normal attack or defends as part of surface fleet then all units defend according to OOB rules.
Now you bring in complications with unique values of hit depending on who is attacking subs… I thought you don’t like this? I say keep it all the same and everybody goes up to 2 when they get ASW technology.
- We still have the movement issue. I suggest movement of ‘3’ only when attacking transports and no movement restrictions by destroyers, that’s the only way Germany will get their subs forward!
Not true under my proposal. remember only DD can attack subs sitting around, untill ASW tech is developed and thats at a 1 which is hardly gonna stop German subs moving. Once you got ASW this will change, but model the happy time which ended once the ASW got going. Giving subs extra movement just because of some idea that they will die is not a good rule. It has to be a real rule.It has to make sence. You can fix the issue by other means.
If we tweak the attack transports special ability and increase sub survivability we might not even need economic abstractions like convoy zones or convoy damage since just the sinking of transports will represent the convoy war!
I don’t know know to increase sub survivability ANY MORE, then only allowing only DD and CA to get after them at 1, and only after ASW tech is developed, adding planes and raising the value to 2. Its as minimal as possible.
-
IL, your rules are in the Advanced category. You use a tech to represent a development in the war, whereas I think this could simply be represented by the build-up of ASW ships over time.
I start another thread on the attack transport option to economic warfare. Convoy zone is a tried and true concept by now, and it works out OK I guess. I’m just intrigued by the possibility of avoiding adding convoy zones since it does complicate the game.
-
I do use a tech to represent ASW, but that can be easily made from a rider on “shipyards” technology as you have.
Also, a convoy zone can be as simple as placing a token on the sea zone from a list for each player. Thats not ‘advanced’ at all. Sea zones are not advanced idea and used in AAE and AAP. MY only change is the IPC they represent is now represented by the new occupier should the attached income now be under new control.
Suggested Topics
