Convoy disruption zones

[majikforce]

@ghr2:

eh, dont want to talk the logic/realism of certain game mechanics, waste of time.

What seems like a waste of time to me is replying to a topic you have no interest in discussing.  Thanks for your input though.  I am not looking for realism in the game, just want see if convoy disruptions are being used to there full potential.  Personally I like the way they work now, and I think it would just add confusion to change them around, but people in my gaming group have differing opinions on this, and I was just looking for other ideas or peoples experiences.

[ghr2]

Clearly all you care about realism if you are arguing that its a waste of time for someone to reply when they are not interested in talking about realism when they were just arguing for simplicity and ease gameplay.

[techroll42]

And where do we draw the line regarding realism?

“Oh gee, the US should get 10 major factories in each of their homeland territories and each one should have IPC value of 200 to represent the US’s industrial might.”

“Oh gee, submarines should be invisible to anything but destroyers”

“Oh gee, ships have to refuel every 3 turns”

[BulwFi]

Inf can shoot down planes is real enough

[General 6 Stars]

For every German sub in the Atlantic, make allies pay 1 icp for each sub. Otherwise use cargo ships like I do in my game, where if you sink a cargo ship there’s a  5% penalty against your total icp’s you collect at end of turn for each country. Otherwise all games have some kind of flaw.

[techroll42]

SS: I like the cargo ship idea…

[GeodrivE]

@majikforce:

We had a game recently where Germany took London and the German players strategy was to hold London for as long as possible to force the US to choose a theater and hopefully wait out a victory for Japan.  The US player attempted to liberate London and in the process used convoy disruption(alpha 2 rules) as an economic tactic.  The German player made a valid point after losing close to 12 ipcs a turn that the disruption zones on the western side of UK really don’t make sense if Germany occupies London.  They should switch to the other side of the island.  So we had a discussion on disruption zones and the possibility of having them be country specific or “float” depending on certain factors.  Just wondering what everyone’s thoughts were on this.  Thanks!

He makes a good point. I think you have to add it to your house rules. With all the alpha’s and changes being made to the setups and rules going on, Just play it with the rules you all agree on and have fun!

[Jennifer]

I have to agree, the convoys in SZ 109 dont make a lick of sense from a logical stance (America’s not shipping food to Germany, certainly not through SZ 109!).

We’ve been toying with declaring certain convoy zones axis or allied zones.  Basically, all convoy zones are allied except SZ 95, SZ 97 and SZ 6 (convoys around Axis capitols),

[crusaderiv]

eh, dont want to talk the logic/realism of certain game mechanics, waste of time.
You got it man!

I agree, if EVERYTHING was realistic, convoys would be represented by a ship, subs could hit them in the Atlantic, and they could land at any port.
That’s the best way for convoy rules. Cargo must be represented.

For every German sub in the Atlantic, make allies pay 1 icp for each sub. Otherwise use cargo ships like I do in my game, where if you sink a cargo ship there’s a  5% penalty against your total icp’s you collect at end of turn for each country. Otherwise all games have some kind of flaw.
Now you talk!!

[knp7765]

@Cmdr:

I have to agree, the convoys in SZ 109 dont make a lick of sense from a logical stance (America’s not shipping food to Germany, certainly not through SZ 109!).

We’ve been toying with declaring certain convoy zones axis or allied zones.  Basically, all convoy zones are allied except SZ 95, SZ 97 and SZ 6 (convoys around Axis capitols),

Actually, SZ 125 is really an Axis convoy zone, at least while Germany still controls Norway.  Of course, if Axis has a warship there, then it screws up Russia’s Archangel NO.  I guess you could call that SZ a double duty convoy zone.

[General 6 Stars]

WHAT?

[Jennifer]

@knp7765:

@Cmdr:

I have to agree, the convoys in SZ 109 dont make a lick of sense from a logical stance (America’s not shipping food to Germany, certainly not through SZ 109!).

We’ve been toying with declaring certain convoy zones axis or allied zones.  Basically, all convoy zones are allied except SZ 95, SZ 97 and SZ 6 (convoys around Axis capitols),Â

Actually, SZ 125 is really an Axis convoy zone, at least while Germany still controls Norway.  Of course, if Axis has a warship there, then it screws up Russia’s Archangel NO.  I guess you could call that SZ a double duty convoy zone.

Yea, I didnt include that, but yea that one makes sense as well.