@Der:
@Baron:
One issue:
about the Subs being pinned: these Subs are useless for Convoy and probably are not enough numerous to make an attack, @2 which is better than a defense.
So this aspect of your Convoy Disruption is like wasting some good opportunity to used Subs to do something significant for the turn.
This will create an indirect incentive toward combat move (in which all Subs can have a part) with available Subs as long as their is enemy’s warships within range.In addition, the “Sub pinned situation” is more like at tactical level of combat, than the theatre of operation-level of A&A.
A third reasons, is that the result is always predictable. Which is as boring as the auto-kill of defenseless transport.
Read my next post for another way of viewing “Submarine being pinned”.
No - the convoy raid phase happens BEFORE the general combat movement phase in my rules. So a pinned sub sits there until the combat movement phase. (which is the very next phase) It is then in the same seazone as a hostile at the beginning of the comat move phase and can either withdraw or attack. You can send in other ships or planes with it to attack the DD. So nothing is wasted.�  �
IMO my suggestion wil better fit into your “either combat or Convoy Raid”, because the pinned sub in your Convoy Raid HR can now shift from Convoy Raid into Combat instead.
This is the only difference to what happen to a pinned sub (instead of waiting, the risk of being sunk are doubled and the odds to do damage to Convoy are lowered , in fact if the sub is destroyed, there is no damage) :
3.2- However, if 1 Destroyer is present in the SZ, roll @2 for Convoy Escort roll against 1 Sub, instead of @1.
4- Any Submarine being 1:1 against Destroyer rolls for damage after the Convoy Escort roll @2 instead of before.
It is of the same kind as losing their Subs Surprise strike. You can rationalize it as a the pinning effect in a much abstract way.
So if a Sub is hit by a roll @2, then there is no Convoy Disruption Damage.
What I can just say, if your going to play test your rule, is try both and see how the players react.
Which one they prefer? Which ones seems simpler? Which one is funnier?
I was just trying to improve your previous HR.
@Der:
@Baron:
One issue:
about the Subs being pinned: these Subs are useless for Convoy and probably are not enough numerous to make an attack, @2 which is better than a defense.
So this aspect of your Convoy Disruption is like wasting some good opportunity to used Subs to do something significant for the turn.
This will create an indirect incentive toward combat move (in which all Subs can have a part) with available Subs as long as their is enemy’s warships within range.In addition, the “Sub pinned situation” is more like at tactical level of combat, than the theatre of operation-level of A&A.
A third reasons, is that the result is always predictable. Which is as boring as the auto-kill of defenseless transport.
Read my next post for another way of viewing “Submarine being pinned”.
No - the convoy raid phase happens BEFORE the general combat movement phase in my rules. So a pinned sub sits there until the combat movement phase. (which is the very next phase) It is then in the same seazone as a hostile at the beginning of the comat move phase and can either withdraw or attack. You can send in other ships or planes with it to attack the DD. So nothing is wasted. Â
Another point of complexity with the “sub pin” is that you throw all subs into Convoy Raid, knowing that maybe 1 or 2 will be pinned then the pinned ones will need reinforcement to attack the DDs and other warships in the SZ.
So, in fact, if any Sub need to make a Raid, then all Subs must go raiding to be sure some of them will pass through the DDs pinning, and the remnants will do regular combat.
@Der:
I’ll do some game testing with it this weekend with some guys and see how weak or strong it is. I would like to see a more interesting Battle of the Atlantic, instead of the subs all disappearing after one round. Whether that involves strengthening subs, weakening DDs, or some combination, I don’t know. My map is really a 1942 map that I am incorporating convoy raiding into - so I don’t know how relevant G40 rules should be anyway.
Lots to think about…Â Â Â
So?
Did you get the chance to do some game tests?
How was your Subs and Convoy HRs?
Pros? Cons?
Comments from players?
BTW, I found a whole Thread on the specific topics of How to rationalize Convoy Disruption in G40, here:
As in our discussion, there is members on both sides:
Convoy Disruptions, this is fair play?!?!
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18579
Yes, Builder got some valid points. When you attack a seazone with a convoy box in it, and it is protected by a fleet or planes, then maybe the Subs should be able to make a choice if they want to target the convoy or the fleet ? The intercepting destroyers will of course be able to sink them, much like the AA guns hit planes even if the planes don’t shoot at them, but in this case the sub inflict damage before they are sunk, and not before as is the case with AA fire
How different is your idea compared to DK’s Convoy HR?
Imagine the sub move 1 space, and is always submerged. And there is no way your destroyer can find and sink that sub as long as it is submerged. When submerged, it don’t block your moves, even a lone tranny can sail over it, embark or debark. The sub moves slow through the ocean, but survive as long it is submerged. But when the sub break the surface and attack a convoy box or a fleet, then you see him. The sub fire a preemptive sneak attack shot, and if a hit, the convoy box take damage, or a ship sink without returning fire. Then all surviving ships and planes in that seazone fire against the sub. If misses, then the sub have a free choice to submerge again. But after it submerged, all present destroyers in that zone get a one time free anti-sub-weapon roll against that sub. If misses, then the sub stay submerged and invisible until next time.
Since a sub only got a movement of 1 space, it can not retreat to another seazone, only submerge where it is.
A sub is not allowed to attack other subs or aircrafts. Hits from subs can not be allocated to enemy subs or aircrafts.
To avoid subs being fodder in big naval battles, I suggest
-Trannies only defend on 1 against aircrafts.
-Subs can only hit surface ships
-Aircrafts should be able to target specific ships. If a kamikaze can target capital ships, why not every aircraft ?
-Let subs be very strong in convoy raiding, stronger than Bombers in SBR. When a sub attack a convoy box, let it roll a dice and the number is IPC lost. If one sub can inflict as much as 6 IPC damage to the enemy economy at less risk than a Bomber, you don’t use it as fodder
Wow!!!
Far away different.
A 1 space move, even for Subs, will cripple the interest in such units on a big map such as G40.
It should be better to give 3 spaces moves to warships but only M2 to Subs and Transports.
@Baron:
2 Optionnal rules for more damage:
Any unobstructed Sub which can roll before the Escort defense roll @1, makes 1D6+2 Convoy Disruption Damage.
A Submarine pinned by Destroyer which can do damage only after the roll @2, makes 1D6 Convoy Disruption Damage.An additional reward for more damage:
Any surviving Submarine still being On Patrol in Convoy Disruption Sea-Zone during the Collect Income Phase of his opponent makes another Convoy Raiding as in the step 2 through 4 above.
Based on this understanding of Convoy Rule made by Uncrustable:
As it stands, it is not an attack.
It is actually by definition a defense.
Your convoy is attempting to get through a hostile sea zone.
My ships will defend said zone against your incoming convoy.
Each of my ships gets to roll a defensive diceYou roll simply to sea if any convoy survives ‘running the gauntlet’
And I for one love the setup, its simple and makes a lot of sense
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18579
If the rule says you have to chose between SBR or regular attack, according to this principle it means that Submarines, in a given Convoy SZ protected by warships, have to chose between a Convoy attack or a regular attack on warships defending the SZ.
However, once the Subs all alone in this SZ (after destroying enemy’s warships), it becomes a blockade. So, on the Collect Income phase of this enemy’s it is correct that Subs defends the SZ against incoming Cargo Ships “running the gauntlet”. Hence, another opportunity to roll Convoy Disruption damage.
The other way of seeing that Convoy Raiding is not SBR is base on the fact that warships are protecting the vulnerable Transports. At the end of combat, if some Subs destroy all warships, the combat rule say that all defenseless transports will be destroyed. Where is the difference between defenseless Military transports and defenseless Cargo ships?
I don’t see much. That’s why in this POV, a Convoy Raiding could be done once all enemy’s Military units are destroyed.
This is an historical understanding and 2 games perspectives.
2 times Convoy Disruption once on offense and once on defense, can even receive two different names:
Convoy Raiding (on offence) and Convoy Disruption or Blockade (on defense).
However, it is simpler to have a single phase for this special Economic warfare.
OOB Convoy Disruption is far more difficult to achieve when it is needed to wait the opponent Income Phase. And it is far more difficult to do by Axis players because more Allies Power can destroyed the Subs On Patrol in a given SZ.
Hence the issue pointed by Builder Chris:
Example: round one of 95% of all games, the UK attacks Italy in sz95. After they win that battle, those units that conducted an attack on the UK turn now get the opportunity to conduct a convoy raid on Italy’s collect income phase of the same round of play; those UK units, in effect, conducted two attacks in the same round.
…This double attack advantage of units attacking a sea zone and conducting a convoy raid can possibly be done by the axis against the allies but it’s very rarely happening primarily due to turn order and positioning of allied new build locations compared to axis new build locations in relation to their proximity to the convoy zones. For example, on the Europe side of the map, the UK can and often does build destroyers off the coast of Canada (sz) and air units in the UK to rid sz of axis subs. So while the axis can attack sea units and then could conduct a convoy raid there, they are not getting the opportunity to do so because of turn order and those location relations; this is a big part of the reason why the UK players don’t really fear convoy raids (like they should) but Italy gets crippled by convoy raids. Because in the med, and because of turn order, if Italy builds any destroyers to deal with subs in their Mediterranean convey sea zones, those destroyers will get sunk and they will still get raided in the same round by the same UK units. So not only is this not fair play, but it cripples the Axis more in Europe then it does the allies in Europe.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18579
@Baron:
However, once the Subs all alone in this SZ (after destroying enemy’s warships), it becomes a blockade. So, on the Collect Income phase of this enemy’s it is correct that Subs defends the SZ against incoming Cargo Ships “running the gauntlet”. Hence, another opportunity to roll Convoy Disruption damage.
For me this will never work. For one, the OOB rules have stated for years that subs don’t block enemy movement. Even defenseless transports can ignore subs as if they aren’t there during movement. Now you are saying that lone subs can “blockade” incoming Cargo Ships and “defend” against them. The Cargo Ships are not attacking anything - they are just trying to get some goods to where they need to go. It is the subs that come along and do the attacking. What if the Germans had said “It was the Lusitania that actually attacked us - we were just sitting here defending our sea zone when it came in.” No one would have bought that. It is not possible that a transport (which is basically a cargo ship) can attack anything and never has been. This goes all the way back to 1984. Transports always attack at “0”.
In my rules, if the subs come into the sea zone during the Convoy Raid phase, they can raid the convoy if there are no matching DDs. If there are matching enemy DDs there, the subs are stopped from convoy raiding and they have the option to attack the DDs - but they cannot do both. Just like a bomber cannot bomb a factory and attack land units in the same turn. It just makes more sense and is therefore simpler to remember.
@Baron:
The other way of seeing that Convoy Raiding is not SBR is base on the fact that warships are protecting the vulnerable Transports. At the end of combat, if some Subs destroy all warships, the combat rule say that all defenseless transports will be destroyed. Where is the difference between defenseless Military transports and defenseless Cargo ships?
I don’t see much. That’s why in this POV, a Convoy Raiding could be done once all enemy’s Military units are destroyed.
Now you are using the bad “defenseless transport” rule to defend the other rule. One of the staple principles of this game is that “nothing is done without risk” - in other words, dice are rolled and there could be consequences to everything you do. There are no consequences to slaughtering 10 or more defenseless transports or rolling dice to see how much Cargo you destroy with no retaliation possible. These “defenseless” rules should never have been put in the game IMO. In my rules the convoy that was attacked can roll one die for each attacking sub and each “1” kills a sub.
In this game all combat actions are said to happen at the same to time. Knowing this, we can see it is not possible a group of subs to destroy a navy and then have time to convoy raid during the same turn. This would seriously disrupt the timeline of the game. It would be more realistic if we allowed bombers to both bomb factories AND attack ground units in the same turn - at least planes are fast. Subs often had to patrol an area hours or days before finding a Cargo Ships to sink.
We did some testing with my rules last weekend and found that the German subs lasted much longer. They did not disappear as usual in the first round and the German player actually bought a few more subs instead of all ground units for the Eastern front. The submarines were finally a real worry for the British player and the USA actually had to help out in the Battle of the Atlantic. Mission accomplished.
But these are House Rules and I’ve come to believe there is more than one way to do rules. If people are more comfortable with how they see the rules should be in their house, then it’s their house. To me the goal of the game is to have fun, and if you have the most fun with your rules, that’s great. If I’m using a house rule and my friends and I are enjoying it, is it really necessary for me to first get the approval of the rest of the Axis and Allies world? I just put ideas out here in case others like them, and because alternate views help me keep my own views moderated. But to me, rules that make common sense and fall in line with the general principles of the game make the game more enjoyable, because you can spend more time actually playing and less time in confusion.
@Der:
@Baron:
However, once the Subs all alone in this SZ (after destroying enemy’s warships), it becomes a blockade. So, on the Collect Income phase of this enemy’s it is correct that Subs defends the SZ against incoming Cargo Ships “running the gauntlet”. Hence, another opportunity to roll Convoy Disruption damage.
For me this will never work. For one, the OOB rules have stated for years that subs don’t block enemy movement. Even defenseless transports can ignore subs as if they aren’t there during movement. Now you are saying that lone subs can “blockade” incoming Cargo Ships and “defend” against them. The Cargo Ships are not attacking anything - they are just trying to get some goods to where they need to go. It is the subs that come along and do the attacking. What if the Germans had said “It was the Lusitania that actually attacked us - we were just sitting here defending our sea zone when it came in.” No one would have bought that. It is not possible that a transport (which is basically a cargo ship) can attack anything and never has been. This goes all the way back to 1984. Transports always attack at “0”.
In my rules, if the subs come into the sea zone during the Convoy Raid phase, they can raid the convoy if there are no matching DDs. If there are matching enemy DDs there, the subs are stopped from convoy raiding and they have the option to attack the DDs - but they cannot do both. Just like a bomber cannot bomb a factory and attack land units in the same turn. It just makes more sense and is therefore simpler to remember.
You make good points on the status of Subs and Transports which cannot block ennemy movement.
I completly forget this OOB game feature. Even if the historical rationalize was sound. Convoy Disruption is not consistent with this rule.
It could only works with Surface warships as doing the blockade.
According to OOB rules, only surface warships can block enemy ships, and only Destroyer can block Subs.
That’s why some find useful the DD strategy to delay some fleet with a few single DD put in different SZs.
However, I disagree about your comparison with SBR.
Bombers can do more than just bombing IC.
If there is interceptors, there is a dogfight between them.
Some defending Fgs can be shooted down, as well as some Bombers.
IMO, this should be the same for Subs in your HR.
Destroyers can do the same as intercepting Fighters.
Subs should be allowed a 1 time attack @2 or,
at least, endure a 1 time defense roll of the Destroyers @2.
And if Subs pass through them, then can makes Convoy damage.
Followed by the Escort roll of Convoy @1.
There will be no paralyzed Subs (pinned), waiting the Combat Phase, all alone, looking at his friendly Subs making the intended Convoy Raid.
There will be more actions and risks for both sides.
Convoy Raid should be a 1 time Sub attack @2 & DD defense @2, damage: 1D6, escort roll @1.
Same as SBR:
1 time Bomber attack @1 & Fg defense @2, IC’s AAA @1, Damage: 1D6.
The Convoy Raid sequence would be all the way similar to SBR, except for the order of defense roll at the end.
This time, all Subs doing Convoy Raid can makes a 1 time attack roll @2 while, I suggest, all Destroyers doing Patrol can roll a 1 time defense @2.
3 Subs against 2 DDs = 3 roll@2 against 2 rolls @2.
2 Subs against 3 DDs= 2 roll @2 against 3 rolls @2.
Maybe is it too much and must be kept on a 1:1 basis?
Additionnal Subs or Destroyers cannot roll attack nor defense?
When no destroyer, there is only the damage and the Close Escort defense @1.
The regular combat is different because there is many more combat rounds, as much as the attacker wish or have units left.
And also because all others defending units will be part of the battle, but were excluded of the Convoy Raid sequence.
And because of this two points, the Convoy Raid can give a better odds of survival for Subs than a direct regular Combat.
However, the surviving Destroyers will be part of any regular combat coming after Convoy Raid by any other units, such as planes or surface warships or Subs which didn’t do Raid.
What do you think of this?
@Der:
We did some testing with my rules last weekend and found that the German subs lasted much longer. They did not disappear as usual in the first round and the German player actually bought a few more subs instead of all ground units for the Eastern front. The submarines were finally a real worry for the British player and the USA actually had to help out in the Battle of the Atlantic. Mission accomplished.
I just put ideas out here in case others like them, and because alternate views help me keep my own views moderated. But to me, rules that make common sense and fall in line with the general principles of the game make the game more enjoyable, because you can spend more time actually playing and less time in confusion.
When you played did you used Knp 1 time attack against Subs before allowing them to submerge?
That is how I saw the interest for sharing ideas on HR. It provides differents angles to suggest improvement. Or another way of viewing the issue at hand.
Of course, we always have more motivation to try our own babys rule than of the others (better fit our character and the way we see the game).
But also, sharing creates some Frankeinstein HR and sometimes, it’s ALIVE!!! :-D
@Baron:
One issue:
about the Subs being pinned: these Subs are useless for Convoy and probably are not enough numerous to make an attack, @2 which is better than a defense.
So this aspect of your Convoy Disruption is like wasting some good opportunity to used Subs to do something significant for the turn.
This will create an indirect incentive toward combat move (in which all Subs can have a part) with available Subs as long as their is enemy’s warships within range.In addition, the “Sub pinned situation” is more like at tactical level of combat, than the theatre of operation-level of A&A.
A third reasons, is that the result is always predictable. Which is as boring as the auto-kill of defenseless transport.
Read my next post for another way of viewing “Submarine being pinned”.
Thanks for sharing your rulebook.
It is an heavily Houseruled version as you said somewhere else.
I will just comment on the Convoy pinned sub.
I still maintain what I said in my quote above.
Subs raiding against DD and being pinned is a predictable result.
There should be risks on both sides.
These are two points you made about defenseless TPs.
So I know you care about this.
In Convoy Raid, Subs pinning creates a draw, a kind of no result event.
It needs more action.
It also contradicts the Subs do one mission per turn: combat or Raid.
In this case, the owning player put Subs in Convoy Zone telling they all raid but knowing that, in fact, all pinned will go into combat and/or retreat.
Everyone will know that you must declare one thing to maximize raiders units while the pinned will do combat instead.
Strange gamey procedures.
3 Subs vs 2 DDs, you declare 1 Sub will raid while the others attack.
But the raider is pinned so all the 3 subs finally attack the two DDs and make no Convoy Raid at all.
Even if it is consistent with DD block enemy movement, I still think this part is not top nutch.
Find any mechanics which imply die rolls, and a way for pinned subs of still doing their Raid somehow.
It is the weak point of your HR. But it is not broken.
Once this said, it is your game and own set of rules with your accustumed players.
The rulebook and Nation’s cards are nicely done and very easy to follow.
Nice work.
@Baron:
Subs going Raiding against DD and pinned is a predictable result.
There should be risk on both sides.
Glad you like the cards and some of the rules - thanks!
Although risk is found in much of this game, there has to be some kind of balance between risk and playability, or the dice rolling would get out of control. For example, during a strategic bombing raid, there would realistically be a chance that the bombers would never find the target. Or that the interceptors would not find the bombers. Harsh weather might ground all planes. There is also a risk that all mechanical units could break down, run out of fuel, etc. But none of that is considered in the OOB rules. Every chance you introduce means another die roll, and there comes a point where tedium overcomes the desire for realism.
Sure, you could put in another die roll for “did the destroyer actually pin this sub?” but IMO it adds more complication - and the sub is already the most complicated piece on the map as it is.
Perhaps the pinning DD could roll a die @ 1 to try to sink the pinned sub before it can escape?
@Der:
@Baron:
Subs going Raiding against DD and pinned is a predictable result.
There should be risk on both sides.Every chance you introduce means another die roll, and there comes a point where tedium overcomes the desire for realism.
Sure, you could put in another die roll for “did the destroyer actually pin this sub?” but IMO it adds more complication - and the sub is already the most complicated piece on the map as it is.
Perhaps the pinning DD could roll a die @ 1 to try to sink the pinned sub before it can escape?
I agree, it shouldn’t be a spotting die roll.
Why did you choose to totally paralyzed a pinned sub?
Why it is different from regular CM and also different from SBR?
In regular CM, DD blocking (enemy’s movement) a SZ will translate into combat against it. There will be a fight and the attacking Sub knows it.
In your Convoy Raiding, DD blocking do nothing neither for the Subs nor the DD.
It will lead to a fight but Sub can chose to retreat before DD rolls his defense.
In SBR, any bombers and interceptors are fighting each other for 1 single round. (Risk is low, but still there.)
Then Strategic bomber proceed over IC and submit to AAA fire. (Risk still present.)
Why your Convoy Raiding allows no fight between Subs and DDs, as in SBR?
I suggested 3 ways in previous posts.
1- Subs make no attack against DD but submit to a defense roll @2 (instead of @1) and then roll for Convoy damage.
2- Subs makes 1 rnd attack @2 against DDs defense @2, if survive rolls for Convoy damage, then Convoy Escort @1.
3- Each single Sub makes no attack (being pinned by DD) against each single DD but submit to a defense @2. If survives then rolls for Convoy damage, then Convoy Escort @1.
4- I think about this one: same as number 3 plus each unpinned Sub doing a Convoy Raid can make 1 rnd attack @2 against DDs pinning Subs to give a hand to a friendly Subs.
There is probably other possibilities to change this unrisky feature of Sub pinning, so there will be a challenge on both parts and some stakes.
I have the impression that #4 will be more to your taste because it is nearer a tactical Subwarfare and it gives an incentive for Wolf-Pack (outnumbering the DDs).
#3 is somewhat a very risky procedure for Subs, just for a single damage roll D6 submit to 2 rolls (1@2 and 1@1). The reward is very low.
Even in 1942.2 OOB SBR where damage are D6, when interceptor defend @2, all Fgs and StBs attack @1 preemptive.
And as my statistical table reveals it is the worst rewarding method of SBR compared to Triple A and G40 SBR.
@Baron:
Why did you choose to totally paralyzed a pinned sub?
In the official rules, ALL subs that move into the same sea zone as one destroyer are paralyzed - they all must stop. Then on the DD owner’s turn he can decide whether to attack them or retreat. In my rules, the sub is only pinned in the Strategic Move phase. Then in the next phase, the Combat Move phase, it can move away or attack.
@Baron:
Why it is different from regular CM and also different from SBR?
Combat movement must result in combat. The subs are not seeking out combat in the convoy raid phase, but rather seeking convoys to sink. In a SBR there is a quick dogfight before the actual bombing. But, as I shared before, we’re talking air and water here. A DD could hold a sub down for hours or days - in the meantime the other subs would be able to raid or move on by.
@Baron:
In your Convoy Raiding, DD blocking do nothing neither for the Subs nor the DD. It will lead to a fight but Sub can chose to retreat before DD rolls his defense.
Well the sub is stopped from its raiding mission, and the DD stops it from raiding a convoy, so something is done. The DD doesn’t roll a defense because it wasn’t being attacked by the sub - the sub was trying to raid convoys, and was blocked. If the sub attacks the DD in the next phase, the DD can then roll for defense.
@Der:
@Baron:
Why did you choose to totally paralyzed a pinned sub?
In the official rules, ALL subs that move into the same sea zone as one destroyer are paralyzed - they all must stop. Then on the DD owner’s turn he can decide whether to attack them or retreat. In my rules, the sub is only pinned in the Strategic Move phase. Then in the next phase, the Combat Move phase, it can move away or attack.
If the Subs are stopped by the Destroyer, they are not paralyzed.
The attacker choose whether to do it during Combat Move (to try to sink the DD) or Non-Combat Move (to just put Subs in the SZ).
In your Convoy Rules, the pinnned Sub is automaticaly unable to Raid and must Retreat or Combat.
That’s what I call paralyzed. In fact, the offender is not able to do is special Raid, even if he wishes to.
Combat movement must result in combat. The subs are not seeking out combat in the convoy raid phase, but rather seeking convoys to sink.
I’m only talking about game mechanics, here:
In a Convoy Raid, a single Sub, attack @2 against 1 Destroyers protecting a Convoy SZ, defending @2, is not, strictu sensu, a regular combat.
It is a special attack, same as in SBR Dogfight when interceptors rolls against incoming Air Raiders.
During SBR, the Bombers & Tac Bombers, the ground units doesn’t roll. Only the defending Fighters got a one chance to roll against the Air Raiders.
In this given SZ, you could have more than destroyers in it: carriers, planes, cruiser, etc. But in your Convoy raid, none of them will get a roll.
If it was a regular combat, Submarine units will not have a single roll and they may not be all alone, planes and others friendly units can be doing the combat for more than 1 single combat round.
But in Convoy Raid, it is a single round attack, because it is not the aim to destroy combat units, only destroy Merchant Ships. (As in SBR, it is to make IC’s damage, not to destroy Fgs.)
About historical background of rules, a ship-to-ship level can provide some tactical feels for developping rules but the game is about many units, making many raids during a given 3 to 6 months period.
If your not convince there is an issue behind such a gamey procedures:
3 Subs must all “pretend to raid”, against 2 DDs, just to get, in fact, 1 Sub making the Raid while the 2 others pinned Subs will make the regular combat (as long as they want, with as many friendly units),
but
doing the thing straight: announcing “2 Subs will attack the Subs while the other Sub will Raid” doesn’t work (because none will raid, since the last one will be pinned),
and if the parallel with SBR mechanics, compared to regular combat, isn’t appealing to introduce a similar mechanics in Convoy Raid,
and if the other kind of procedures suggested, aren’t up to your taste,
I cannot go further, it is your house rules.
Baron - Nothing is set in stone for me - I haven’t had a chance to extensively test any of these ideas - it could be I end up using some of your ideas, which are not bad - just different - thanks for sharing them!
@Der:
Baron - Nothing is set in stone for me - I haven’t had a chance to extensively test any of these ideas - it could be I end up using some of your ideas, which are not bad - just different - thanks for sharing them!
That’s OK.
I just believed that a theorical “paper experiment” would allow to agree on this issue on “pinned subs”, which I perceived as a weakness.
This point on Pinned Subs doesn’t seems to bother you.
So, as long as it is not really an issue for you and since you provides more reason on its behalf.
The only way to really figure it out if it really suits you and your friends, will be playtesting.
I have no specific HR on Convoy Raid.
We are simply not there in my play group. Maybe someday.
I hope because its seems the best way to describe the real impact of Subs in WWII.
It wasn’t combat, it was far more Merchant’s ships destruction.
Keeps us posted if there is any feedback on all your rules and mechanics.
I have no specific HR on Convoy Raid.
We are simply not there in my play group. Maybe someday.
I hope because its seems the best way to describe the real impact of Subs in WWII.
It wasn’t combat, it was far more Merchant’s ships destruction.
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s why we introduced merchant marine rule in our game.
We have merchant marine piece on the game board and when submarine sink a merchant ship the owner get a penalty.
That’s why we introduced merchant marine rule in our game.
We have merchant marine piece on the game board and when submarine sink a merchant ship the owner get a penalty.
Is this the house rule where you have to constantly move each country’s merchant marine ships around the map making deliveries and pickups? That does not sound like fun to me….
