Convoy Disruption: 1941, 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare

[baron Münchhausen]

There is many things to comment, but for now I will stay focus on the mechanics of Subs raiding.

We can say that an enemy warship needs only to pass through a Convoy SZ to destroy at least 1 IPC token.
This will make attacking warships less sitting duck of them if they can choose where they finish their move.
This also imply that it would be possible to pass through a Convoy SZ to attack another one, or enemy’s warships.

I would prefer that Subs have an advantage over surface warships.
Something like each surface warship can only sink 1 IPC token at a time.
Submarines can sink 2 IPCs token at a time. I can agree with the idea that destroyed token must be replaced by paying an additional fee during the purchase and repair phase.
I suggest a simple 1 IPC fee per token. This would be similar to the IPC payed on damaged IC.
That way, when a 6 IPCs Sub is passing through a 4 IPCs Convoy SZ,
the owner will lost 2 IPCs (still earning 2 IPCs) and it will cost another 2 IPCs to put 2 new 1 IPC tokens on board for his next turn.
So this is an overall expense of 4 IPCs.

Surface vessel wouldn’t be able to attack Convoy if any escorting warships is with them.
When Destroyer are protecting such Convoy SZ,
I still prefer to let the attacker choose whether Submarines’ hits are allocated to Convoy token or Destroyer.
But, once the escorting warships are all destroyed, the naval battle is over and no more token can be destroyed.
That way, Convoy attack can be prioritize over warships (as it was the case in Atlantic u-boat war)

I would be partisan of various Convoy SZ values such as 2 IPCs, 4 IPCs and 6 IPCs.
For 1942.2, German’s Convoy SZ near Norway should be at 2 IPCs (Norway worth only 2 IPCs) while Baltic Convoy (iron trade with Sweden) should be at 6 IPCs.
Italy’s in Med could be at 4 IPCs.

[Black_Elk]

Some great feedback and great charts too! I’m stuck at work or I’d write more, but just wanted to chime in real quick like while I’m on my break.
:-D

Taking it back to the Europe 1999 convoy rules, just for reference, its not so much that the convoys there replenished automatically, instead the owner of the convoy (the nation to which it is attached) must control it during their collect income phase. If the enemy takes it you can flip the roundel to indicate that the convoy is currently inactive, and must be recovered by yourself or your team before you get the cash.

Now in Europe 1999, all these convoys are in sea zones that would be otherwise pretty undesirable locations to have your units. They are stuck in the midway points, often between two important sea zones, but not particularly important by themselves, except for the convoy cash. So what generally happens is you’ll see players making a series of “passes” or “sweeps” across the convoy sea zone, first by the enemy to disrupt the convoy cash, then by the original owner/team to try and recover it. Actual combats for control of the convoy in early rounds were rare. Usually the convoy was designed as a way for the Allied economic advantage to become inevitable after the first few rounds.

In other words, the whole unit set up and location of convoys on the map was specifically designed such that Germany could only “disrupt” the convoy cash initially… First by doing these low risk “passes.” And perhaps they can keep this up for a little while. But within a few rounds, the Allies can position units to defend the convoy zones. At this point the German player can no longer disrupt the convoy at no risk just by “sweeping across them”, but instead has to start throwing subs into attacks. Here the control of the convoy is sort of like a bonus on top of destroying the defensive ships (really you just want to take a crack at the ships to whittle away the opponents TUV, but the convoy cash denied to the opponent if you win is there as an extra draw.) In the end though, control of the convoy is usually secured, and it is only at that point when the IPCs are a dependable part of your income.

Its kind of hard to describe without a visual, so here’s a glance at the tripleA map. I’m partial to that map, since I drew the baseline for it in early days hehe…

You can see down below (images attached) that the starting German U-boats were positioned to steal the convoy income away from the Allies, during the first round. In the second round, Allies are usually able to recover a couple of these, whereas most will still be under German control. By the third round the Allies will usually drive the U-Boats back making it harder for Axis to deny the Allies this income, and that’s when the Allied economic advantage will usually start to accelerate and really kick into high gear.

TripleA shows the starting Allied Roundels, being replaced by a German roundel, while the computer tracks the drop in British/American production. But this is a confusing system in a face to face game where the original owner/value of the convoy zone is not drawn directly on the map (as it was in Europe 1999). In a FtF game where that information is not drawn on the map, the best approach would be to use roundels for the original owner/value of the convoy and just flip the roundel (but leave it where it is) if the convoy is “disrupted” ie. taken over by the enemy. That way there is no confusion about which nation collects the income for the zone. Once the roundel is dropped, it stays the where it is, since this indicates “original” ownership.

This was an all or nothing conception of the Convoy Zones, where the British or Americans would lose the whole value of their convoy zone if the Germans disrupted it. It also had them at varying IPC values a 3, a 5, or 6 etc…

If you wanted to replicate that system, but in a game where this information is not already drawn on the physical map (e.g. 1942.2), then the roundel markers would definitely seem to be the easiest method. But I’m getting that the Europe 1999 system would be insufficient to create enough interest for players to go through the trouble of adopting our new HR convoy system. What we really want is a way to improve on Europe 1999 (using it as a model, rather than the Global convoy system) and then add in some elements of excitement, while still keeping things as simple as possible.

So say you wanted to make the values of each convoy zone variable…
and you want this information readable at a glance (without drawing on the map)…

As long each sea zone only contains Convoys from a single Nation (e.g only one type of Nation’s roundel), and as long as all roundels have a universal set value (whatever that is determined to be 1 ipc, 2 ipcs, 3 ipcs?) then you could just place multiple roundels in a zone to indicate the value of the convoy.

Lets explore a base 2 system.

For example
1 roundel = 2 convoys, with 2 gray chips, worth 2 ipcs
2 roundels = 4 convoys, with 4 gray chips, worth 4 ipcs
3 roundels = 6 convoys, with 6 grey chips, worth 6 ipcs

In any given sea zone, all the roundels will belong to the same nation, the original owner, (this is a National Convoy system after all) but by breaking them apart into separate roundels you have an easy way to track the totals at a glance. Again, if you wanted a sea zone worth 6 ipcs, you would place 3 National roundels (each of them representing a convoy worth 2 ipcs = 2 gray chips)

‘Why is this better than using a single roundel with 6 gray chips beneath it for the whole zone?’

Because, in a game where convoys can vary in total value, then as soon as the enemy starts knocking off chips, players might forget what their convoy is worth. They’d have to go back and re-read the set up charts. If you allow for replacement chips, then this confusion might increase during the course of play. Sure players might eventually commit it all to memory, but why force that? This method provides a ready way to know exactly what a given convoy zone is worth (its potential Max value) at any time.

Then you could allow them to be a purchasable unit, and a unit that can be “destroyed” in a way that makes a bit more sense to me. For example… The convoy takes 2 hits, and then the Roundel itself is “exposed”! If the raiding enemy nabs the third hit, the roundel is flipped and the convoy is considered “disrupted”. Now the roundel itself is not worth any IPCs, it is not removed.  Here’s the kicker, the Convoy does not automatically repair, instead you can “repair” 2 convoy chips for the cost of 1 ipc! This restores the chips, if the National Roundel is still upright.

If the roundel is flipped, perhaps it costs 3 ipcs, to reactive.

Also, like on Marc’s charts, if one of the conditions is not met for the convoy, like the port of origin or destination territory is captured, then you flip the roundel upside down as well, to indicate that.

I think something like this would be necessary to make a purchase mechanic work, since the whole point of the Convoy unit itself is just as a means for the player to gain more IPCs at collect income.

The convoy chip is just an ipc in waiting. It has no cool combat value, or any other advantages like the other units do, so its kind of a weird thing to pay for, unless as Baron noted, the value for the investment is pretty good. If you have to purchase or spend anything at all in IPCs, to make use of these Convoys, the net benefit in IPCs has to be a lot greater (like twice the value gained), as an incentive to spend that money for convoys rather than on units. Hence the 2 for 1 repair, if the roundel is still upright. You could cap the total number of Convoy roundels that can exist in any one zone. Say at 3 total roundels for your nation.

Then if you like, the player could opt to invest in more Convoys, but only up to that Max value (3 roundels = 6 ipcs, 6 gray chips.)

That’s probably the simplest way I can think of to make a Convoy that is somehow “purchasable,” or which can be diminished by the enemy through some kind of attrition. You could pick any number for the max roundels, 3, or 4, or 6, whatever. The idea is that there is some ceiling or upper limit to the amount a nation can invest in convoys.

Convoys can only exist in the designated “Convoy Zones.” They are represented by the National Roundels, with a consistent value (always worth the same number of IPCs/chips.) If you cap the total number of Convoys per zone, and fix their possible locations, it is conceivable that you could make the Convoy Roundel itself purchasable, so you can add more to a zone over time, but the existing convoys are never totally destroyed, just flipped upside down.

Would something like that make sense?

Then you could try to introduce a combat element into the thing, instead of just a movement phenomenon like the Europe 1999 system. Its still possible to make each convoy worth 3 instead of 2, but then I’m not sure how the purchasing would look, since you can’t really do the "2 for " simple repair thing. Also, if the convoy Roundel is worth 2 chips, you can create a bit more variety in the total ipc values for these zones… At 2 ipcs or 4 ipcs or 6 ipcs for example = slightly worse, slightly better, or twice as good, as the replacement cost of a single infantry unit. 3 ipc convoys couldn’t work here, since each roundel would be worth 2.

If you do the same thing with base 3 ipcs per roundel rather than 2, (like I suggested earlier) you’d have to work with 3, 6, or 9 for the total value of convoys, which might be too much money overall at the high end, given how many zones we want to include?

With a 2 chip per roundel model, maybe you could say that a surface warship only clips one chip at a pass, whereas a sub clips both? Or maybe the sub removes a chip from each roundel it passes, whereas surface warships can only remove chips from a single roundel? Something like that to privilege subs this role?

Also, since the replacement cost can’t be 1 for 1 (the investment would be a wash with no benefit for the investment) would a replacement cost of 2 for 1 be worth it? Using a 2 ipc model, that would mean the convoy owner could repair a loss of 2 chips for the same cost as a loss of only 1 chip. Might that effect the Raiders calculus, as a disincentive to raiding with warships?

I’m waffling when it comes to the set ipc values per roundel. I can see an argument for 2 chips and 3 chips, but it depends on whether you want to give the roundel itself a “hit” and do the whole flipping upside down, restoring to upright for an additional cost idea. I think 2 might be better for a simple “pass/sweep” mechanic, but 3 might be better if you wanted to make a roll for damage mechanic. Not sure though, any thoughts?

All my discussions above assumed 1 gray chip = 1 ipc, though I suppose you could make 1 chip worth 2 ipcs if you wanted. The only thing to keep in mind is how much total income you want to introduce into the game. In my mind it needs to be workable in 1942.2 to have any real shot of adoption, whether in the older world scale games like Classic/Revised/AA50, or the newer 1940 games. If it works and is enjoyable in 1942.2 that would be proof of concept for me. This places some constraints on the total money we can introduce I would think. I would say something like half of the normal starting income, for each nation via convoys, otherwise it could produce out of control spams, and too many total units in an average game.

[CWO Marc]

I like the idea of convoy value being indicated by marking a sea zone with multiple roundels (all belonging to a single power) without using any poker chips rather than marking the SZ with  a single roundel combined with one or more poker chips.  As you say, this would allow the situation on the map to be understood at a glance at any time, without lifting roundels to count chips and without consulting setup charts.  This is good, because it fits with the aim of having a system that’s as simple and clear as possible.

By the same principle, however, I do have one reservations about this part:

Then you could allow them to be a purchasable unit, and a unit that can be “destroyed” in a way that makes a bit more sense to me. For example… The convoy takes 2 hits, and then the Roundel itself is “exposed”! If the raiding enemy nabs the third hit, the roundel is flipped and the convoy is considered “disrupted”. Now the roundel itself is not worth any IPCs, it is not removed.  Here’s the kicker, the Convoy does not automatically repair, instead you can “repair” 2 convoy chips for the cost of 1 ipc! This restores the chips, if the National Roundel is still upright. If the roundel is flipped, perhaps it costs 3 ipcs, to reactive.

The reservation is that, if I understand the above paragraph correctly, a convoy’s status has four possible states:

• 0 hits (fully operational status)
• 1 hit ( … status?)
• 2 hits (“exposed”)
• 3 hits (“disrupted”)

The last state is represented clearly enough by a flipped roundel, so that’s fine…but the other three states are all represented by an upright roundel, which is confusing and which runs counter to the “understandable-at-a-glance” principle.  The two possible options for dealing with this problem would be:

• Have just two states: active (=upright) or disrupted (=flipped).  This would have the advantage  of being simple, but it would disallow intermediate-level damage.

• Having three or four states, which would require some sort of means to represent the intermediate states.  Note that in A&A battleships have three possible states: on the board and upright, on the board and tipped on their side, or off the board completely.  This feature of battleships suggests the following solution.  If we supplemented each convoy token with a transport ship sculpt (as was originally discussed), we could have the following status representations:

• 0 hits (normal status) – upright roundel + upright sculpt

• 1 hit ( … status?) – upright roundel + sculpt on its side

• 2 hits (“exposed”) – upright roundel + no sculpt

• 3 hits (“disrupted”) – flipped roundel + no sculpt

On a different topic: we’ll need to think about what the multiple roundels in one SZ represent conceptually, because it has implications for the damage / disruption mechanics of the house rule.  We need to analyze this because in WWII  multiple separate convoys did not sail together as a group.  In other words, you’d never have such a thing as a “three-convoy formation.”  Instead, you’d either have three separate small convoys, or one single large convoy.  There were advantage and disadvantages to each approach.  The advantage which single large convoys had over multiple small ones was that – for reasons related to the geometry of rectangular formations of ships – you could double the size of a convoy (increasing it by 100%) without having to double the size of the escorting force (increasing it by about 50% might suffice).  On the other hand, large convoys took more time to form up than small ones – so if there was a pressing need for certain goods to be delivered ASAP, they might be sent right away in a small convoy rather than waiting for enough ships to assemble to form a large one.

On the game map, three roundels in one SZ could stand either for three separate convoys, or for a single convoy three times larger than a “basic” one-roundel convoy.  The “three separate convoys” method would intuitively be easier to grasp from the visuals on the game map (three separate tokens), but it would probably imply that the three separate convoys would have to be treated separately for combat or disruption purposes.  The reason is that separate convoys in WWII really were separate: they were not close enough to support each other for defensive purposes, and they were not close enough for a single attacker to attack them all at once.

So I guess the correct model to use would ultimately depend on what kind of combat / disruption mechanism we use.  I don’t have any immediate thoughts on the subject (since I’m busy with something at the moment), but later on today I hope to have time to think about these issues and write some comments on them.

[CWO Marc]

Here are some additional thoughts on two issues which Black Elk raised: how many bonus IPCs a player should be able to collect from the convoy(s) he has in a given SZ, and the matter of “disruption passes” versus actual combat involving a convoy.

Black Elk’s suggestion was that, for 1942.2, the total income delivered by all the convoys at full strength should be about one-half of the normal total starting income of the various powers.  This sounds about right to me.  The precise final amount might vary a bit from this proposal, but the basic principle, in my opinion, ought to be that the convoys should add enough extra money to make the game more interesting, but not such a huge amount of money that they have two unwanted effects: distorting the purchasing abilities of the various powers in a way that would unbalance the game, and making the convoys so important economically that they become a critical military objective on an equal footing with the land war.  The convoys, to use a food analogy, should be an interesting side-dish added to the dinner table, not a fundamental change to the main course itself.

Working, therefore, from the principle that convoys should not be excessively important, I agree that it might be a good idea for the anti-convoy mechanism used by the attacker to be a simple and somewhat abstract one (“disruption”, a concept that could be explained or rationalized in various ways if we decide to go that route), since there’s no point in applying a complex combat mechanism to a game element that’s only supposed to be of medium importance.

The three options as I see them are:

1. Have only one anti-convoy mechanism available: disruption.  The details would need to be worked out, but the effects would be fairly abstract.

2. Have only one anti-convoy mechanism available: combat.  This would refer to (roughly) the same type of combat that is used elsewhere in A&A, but it would (potentially) involve three types of forces: the attacking warships (and planes), the defending warships (and planes), and the merchant ships that the two sides are fighting over.

3. Have two anti-convoy mechanisms available: disruption or combat (but presumably not both simultaneously), preferably set up in such a way that disruption would be the method used most often and combat would be the exception.

Option 1 would be the simplest one.  Option 2 would imply that every anti-convoy operation would be a full-blown battle, which would probably slow down and weigh down the game.  Option 3, if it could be somehow calibrated in the way I described, sounds like it might be the optimal mix.

[baron Münchhausen]

You put a lot to think about gentlemen.
It’s great!
I wonder if the simple flip of Country Markers could be a solution to represent a Convoy. No need for grey token.

1 Country marker worth 2 IPCs to collect during owner’s Income phase.
(No need to move them, just count which one is face up in the SZ.)

1 Country marker cost 1 IPC to flip on the upright side (because it was put downward after a successful Convoy Disruption/Raid) at the end of the Collect Income phase when the IPCs are calculated. But the repair was paid for on owner’s Purchase and repair Phase.
No waiting until the next player’s turn between repair and flipping, no book keeping: just a flip.
You can put a few tokens in the mobilization zone to indicate that the owner paid for the convoy repair.
In addition, an upright marker makes for an immediate target for enemy during the next game round.
All is done at the owner’s turn. Except, it is just slightly different than buying small transport ships.

1 Convoy SZ can have 1, 2 or 3 Country markers.
If a Convoy SZ have only 1 or 2 Country markers, the Nation owning the Convoy SZ can purchase additional Convoy (representing additional seaport infrastructures & Convoy logistics, Merchant’s ships and cargo) up to a maximum of 3 markers in this given Convoy SZ.
1 Country marker cost 2 IPCs to buy when adding one in a less than Maximum Convoy SZ.

1 Sub can destroy 2 Convoys (2 Country markers) by moving through this SZ during combat move or attacking in the SZ.
Simply flip face downward 2 markers.
1 Battleship can destroy 2 Convoys (2 Country markers) also. Same condition as Sub.

Each Destroyer or each Cruiser can only destroy 1 Convoy each (1 Country marker flip down). Same condition as Sub.
Undamaged Carrier can destroy 1 Convoy per Fighter (or TacB) paired with which can land on the aircraft (up to 2 max per Carrier), if they land on the Carrier which stay in the Convoy SZ or pass through this SZ.

2 Tactical Bombers (G40 but not 1942.2) based on land can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
2 Fighters (1942.2 not G40)  based on land can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
2 Strategic bombers can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
It takes twice units because Convoy targets are difficult to find and planes have a limited time to spent over Convoy for attack.

In February 1941, the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe (OKL) was ordered by Adolf Hitler to form a naval air command to support the German Kriegsmarine’s U-boat operations in the Battle of the Atlantic.[1] Though reluctant, the commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe, Hermann Goering, agreed to the formation of the specialised naval command which would remain under the operational control of the Luftwaffe. It was subordinated to Luftflotte 3, commanded by Hugo Sperrle.[1] The command had jurisdiction over all Luftwaffe operations in the Atlantic and supported German surface raiders and submarines attacking Western Allied shipping in the Atlantic Ocean, English Channel and Irish Sea. The organisation’s first commanding officer was Martin Harlinghausen.

The command flew in action and achieved considerable success in 1941. British shipping losses rose. Prime Minister Winston Churchill referred to Fliegerfuhrer Atlantik and its main weapon of war, the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor, as the “scourge of the Atlantic”. Nevertheless, at the close of that year British and Allied countermeasures tamed the threat from long-range German aircraft. As the battles in the Atlantic intensified in 1942 and 1943 the command made continuous demands for aircraft and crews. Now engaged heavily in other theatres, the Luftwaffe could not afford the resources for Atlantic operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fliegerführer_Atlantik

Maybe land-based airplanes against Convoy can be played as an attack on IC with less results?
Before sinking any Convoy (flipping a Country marker), each land-based plane must submit to 1@1 AA gun fire from AA convoy defense.
Then,
1 Tactical Bombers based on land can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
1 Fighter based on land can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
1 Strategic bomber can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.

---

Convoy Disruption in an undefended Convoy SZ:
Warships (Subs, DDs, Cruisers, Carriers, BBs) need only to pass through an undefended SZ,
Planes need to attack directly this Convoy SZ, and, after combat, planes paired to the Carrier must land on this particular Carrier which pass through the Convoy SZ.

Convoy Disruption in a defended Convoy SZ:
When Surface warships (DDs, Cruisers, Carriers and BBs) or planes are attacking any escorting warships in a Convoy SZ, it is a regular combat.
All the Convoys are considered safely guarded by escorting warships. No country marker is flip upside down.

If any Submarine is part of a Naval combat in a Convoy SZ, the attacker can decide to destroy Convoy.
Any attacking Submarines’ hit can be allocated on Convoy, and 1 hit destroy 2 Convoys (2 Country markers are flip down).
(So, when Convoy are protected, Subs must get a successful roll to destroy them.)

However, when all defending escorting warships are sunk, the remaining Convoy stay on the board (no more country marker can be flip down).

---

I was writing down my post, Marc, as you post yours.
I believe my suggestion fall under your option 3 category.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

So say you wanted to make the values of each convoy zone variable…
and you want this information readable at a glance (without drawing on the map)…

As long each sea zone only contains Convoys from a single Nation (e.g only one type of Nation’s roundel), and as long as all roundels have a universal set value (whatever that is determined to be 1 ipc, 2 ipcs, 3 ipcs?) then you could just place multiple roundels in a zone to indicate the value of the convoy.
Lets explore a base 2 system.

For example
1 roundel = 2 convoys, with 2 gray chips, worth 2 ipcs
2 roundels = 4 convoys, with 4 gray chips, worth 4 ipcs
3 roundels = 6 convoys, with 6 grey chips, worth 6 ipcs

In any given sea zone, all the roundels will belong to the same nation, the original owner, (this is a National Convoy system after all) but by breaking them apart into separate roundels you have an easy way to track the totals at a glance. Again, if you wanted a sea zone worth 6 ipcs, you would place 3 National roundels (each of them representing a convoy worth 2 ipcs = 2 gray chips)

‘Why is this better than using a single roundel with 6 gray chips beneath it for the whole zone?’

Because, in a game where convoys can vary in total value, then as soon as the enemy starts knocking off chips, players might forget what their convoy is worth. They’d have to go back and re-read the set up charts. If you allow for replacement chips, then this confusion might increase during the course of play. Sure players might eventually commit it all to memory, but why force that? This method provides a ready way to know exactly what a given convoy zone is worth (its potential Max value) at any time.

Then you could allow them to be a purchasable unit, and a unit that can be “destroyed” in a way that makes a bit more sense to me. For example… The convoy takes 2 hits, and then the Roundel itself is “exposed”! If the raiding enemy nabs the third hit, the roundel is flipped and the convoy is considered “disrupted”. Now the roundel itself is not worth any IPCs, it is not removed.  Here’s the kicker, the Convoy does not automatically repair, instead you can “repair” 2 convoy chips for the cost of 1 ipc! This restores the chips, if the National Roundel is still upright.

This seems a bit complicated.

If the roundel is flipped, perhaps it costs 3 ipcs, to reactive.

Also, like on Marc’s charts, if one of the conditions is not met for the convoy, like the port of origin or destination territory is captured, then you flip the roundel upside down as well, to indicate that.
I agree, this would be an immediate shutdown of all Convoys of a given SZ.

I think something like this would be necessary to make a purchase mechanic work, since the whole point of the Convoy unit itself is just as a means for the player to gain more IPCs at collect income.

The convoy chip is just an ipc in waiting. It has no cool combat value, or any other advantages like the other units do, so its kind of a weird thing to pay for, unless as Baron noted, the value for the investment is pretty good. If you have to purchase or spend anything at all in IPCs, to make use of these Convoys, the net benefit in IPCs has to be a lot greater (like twice the value gained), as an incentive to spend that money for convoys rather than on units. Hence the 2 for 1 repair, if the roundel is still upright. You could cap the total number of Convoy roundels that can exist in any one zone. Say at 3 total roundels for your nation.

You are right. At 1 IPC reward, repairing convoys doesn’t provide any bonus income.
2 IPCs for 1 IPC repair seems a good investment.
It becomes much better if able to protect Convoy a whole turn.
On the other hand, if Submarine is able to destroy 2 markers, this means a direct cut of 4 IPCs and another 2 IPCs to reinvest in Convoy. This is quite the cost of a 6 IPCs OOB Submarine, so the lost of a Sub in a Convoy Raid can be an acceptable cost.

Then if you like, the player could opt to invest in more Convoys, but only up to that Max value (3 roundels = 6 ipcs, 6 gray chips.)

That’s probably the simplest way I can think of to make a Convoy that is somehow “purchasable,” or which can be diminished by the enemy through some kind of attrition. You could pick any number for the max roundels, 3, or 4, or 6, whatever. The idea is that there is some ceiling or upper limit to the amount a nation can invest in convoys.

**I agree. Maybe such UK’s Islands Empire can have up to 4 Convoy SZ (2 Atlantic, 1 Pacific, 1 inactive at Guadalcanal).
But Germany should stay at 3 SZs, and Japan at 3 SZ? while Russia could get 1, or maybe 2?
I’M thinking about Pacific Route to convoy US shippings toward Vladivostok.
Or to cut this Convoy line, Soviet Far East: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, and Buryatia SSR: Vladivostok, must be conquered.) and USA 2 Convoys SZ.

So according to the possibility of buying Convoy, Axis can get +18 IPCs max boost, while UK, up to 24 IPCs (4*6 IPCs) if Guadalcanal is freed. USA could rise up to 12 IPCs, Russia could get up to 12 IPCs if we agree about a Northern Pacific Convoy coming from USA.
At most, it means 36 IPCs for Axis against up to 48 IPCs for Allies. And this will not be the case at start, since Guadalcanal is a Japanese Island and SZ occupied by Sub, meaning up to 36 IPCs for Axis against 42 IPCs for Allies.**

Convoys can only exist in the designated “Convoy Zones.” They are represented by the National Roundels, with a consistent value (always worth the same number of IPCs/chips.) If you cap the total number of Convoys per zone, and fix their possible locations, it is conceivable that you could make the Convoy Roundel itself purchasable, so you can add more to a zone over time, but the existing convoys are never totally destroyed, just flipped upside down.

Would something like that make sense? YES. A lot.

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

Here’s a summary of where things appear to be at the moment with the convoy house rule proposal.  This summary is meant to be revised on an ongoing basis as points needing decisions [shown in square brackets] are discussed and finalized.

• The HR convoy system is designed for potential use with any global-scale A&A game, or with Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 if these games are played on their own.  Separate convoy setup charts for the system will be required for each of these games because they have different IPC structures and different SZ numbering systems.  [For a working draft of what these charts might look like, see CWO Marc’s post of April 17, 2015.]  In the case of Global 1940 (and its two constituent games), the HR is meant to replace the existing OOB convoy zone system.  In the case of the 1942.2, 1941 and (potentially) 1914 games, the HR is meant to introduce a convoy system where none exists in the OOB rules.

• Possible name suggested by Black Elk for the system: National Convoy House Rule.  Rationale: this distinguishes the HR from the “local convoys” in Global 1940.  [Question : Might the National Convoy / Local Convoy terminology create the impression that Global 1940 has two convoy systems, rather than a HR system that replaces the OOB system?]
  I like this National Convoy House Rule. Does National Convoy System House Rule is too much?

- The convoys in the HR system provide extra IPC income, over and above the normal IPC income which the various powers collect. These two types of income are tracked separately.  This tracking can be done with separate IPC charts, or by using two different types of markers on a single chart.  (For an illustration of the latter idea, see CWO Marc’s final post of April 16, 2015.)  The bonus income generated by each power’s convoys is added (at the Collect Income phase of the game) to the overall income of each power (in contrast with the Global 1940 OOB convoy system, which affects the IPC value of specific land territories.)
This must be track separately, mostly because Sea ports of departure and destination must be watch to be sure that all conditions are met for Convoy rewards.

- Convoys occupy fixed positions on the game map.  Each SZ can contain either one convoy or no convoys.  The nationality and the position of convoys is marked on the game map according to the convoy setup charts [which still need to be developed] for that particular A&A game.  Convoys can be marked using either A&A flag roundels (National Control Markers, or NCMs) or other suitable tokens such as the Convoy Nation Markers produced by HBG:

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Convoy-Nation-Markers-X5_p_1821.html

I agree. But Black_Elk have a good start at spotting these SZs I believe. About Markers, to identify which Territory is part of a Convoy shipping line, I think I would use the G40 Naval Base token in a 1941 or 1942.2 maps.
For example, in 1942.2, both Karelia and Archangel should receive such Naval Base token, so when both TTs are captured by Germany this would mean the end of this Arctic Convoy line for Russia. This would provided a direct symbol to identify such TT linked to Convoy.

• The IPC value of each convoy is indicated by placing plastic chips under the convoy markers on the game map (one for each IPC).  The markers themselves have no IPC value; they simply denote the location and nationality of each convoy.  [To be determined : Give each convoy a standard value of 3 (meaning 3 grey chips), which seems to be the current preference?  In such a case, we could dispense with the “Max. Value” column of the setup charts.  Or give different convoys different values, perhaps as a reflection of the economic value of their ports of departure or some other factor?]
  Maybe Country Markers can be enough to make a workable convoy system.

• The owner of a particular convoy may need to fulfil certain conditions to collect the bonus income generated by that convoy – for example, by holding the convoy’s port of departure.  These conditions are listed in the convoy setup charts [which still need to be developed].
  I really like this idea.

[To be determined : Are there certain conditions under which one nation can take over the convoy routes of another nation, for instance in the (potentially) odd case of the Dutch East Indies convoys?  Regarding the DEI convoys, one point to consider is that the DEI are a net exporter of valuables such as oil, and that a DEI convoy therefore technically represents an outgoing convoy rather than an incoming one.  This raises the following question: to whom are the DEI supposedly shipping goods prior to their takeover in the Global 1940 game?  It can’t be to Holland because Holland is already an occupied country at the start of the game…so if it isn’t going to Holland, who is the “pre-DEI-takeover” recipient of the Dutch convoy bonus IPCs?  Black Elk proposed a couple of possible solutions, and based on his analysis my suggestion would be: that we assume that no DEI convoys exist prior to the takeover of the DEI, and that we then introduce a DEI convoy when the DEI is occupied; the convoy would be either Japanese or British or ANZAC, depending on who takes control of the DEI.  The draft setup charts already contain the notion that certain conditions might need to be fulfilled to operate a convoy, so an extension of that principle might be that the existence and the nationality of certain convoys is “conditional”.  Under Condition X, a particular convoy (perhaps better thought of here as a convoy route) is inactive; under Condition Y, it’s operational and owned by Nation A; under condition Z, it’s operational and owned by Nation B.  This system could be used outside the DEI too, but the DEI is a good example for discussion purposes.  Under conditions Y or Z, the convoy would be indicated on the map by the flag roundel (or HBG convoy marker) of Nations A or B respectively; under Condition X, an upside-down flag roundel (or upside-down HBG convoy marker) would denote the presence of an inactive convoy route.]

**I’m following you on this DEI convoy route and gradation: 1- inactive, 2- operational: 1- totally disrupted, 2- partially disrupted, 3- fully shipping: giving full IPCs rewards.

Do you think something like getting hold of Guadalcanal can be a requirement to make the Convoy SZ around this island active for UK?

I’m thinking if Japanese would have had finish their airfield, the zero-planes and Bettys bombers were intended to destroy shipping between US and Australia, isn’t?**

• The IPC value of a convoy is reduced when it suffers casualties as a result of enemy attack.  This reduced value is shown by removing the appropriate number of chips from under the convoy marker and by adjusting the income tracking charts accordingly.  [To be determined : Can convoys which have suffered casualties (and perhaps which have been completely destroyed) be built back up again to a maximum of their original value?  If yes, the details of the process need to be worked out, but one part that’s clear is that convoy markers would not be removed from the game map.  If no, then no replacement process details need to be worked out, and it’s clear that a convoy marker would be removed from the game map if all of its ships are destroyed, since there’s no point in marking the position of a destroyed convoy that isn’t coming back…unless perhaps we’re dealing with a “conditional convoy” as discussed above.]

• [Convoy attacks ('convoy raiding mechanism"), convoy defense (“convoy escort mechanism”), and combat-resolution mechanics: I haven’t attempted to summarize the state of discussion of these issues, for two reasons.  First, there’re still under very active discussion.  Two, as I’ve said previously I don’t have much any aptitude for these topics.  So my preference would be just to contribute some comments here and there on historical aspects of the issues as they’re debated by Black Elk and Baron and whoever else wants to chime in, if that sounds all right, and also to have more expert hands than mine write up the discussion-status summaries for those parts of the house rule.]

Thanks for your helping hands and insightful comments. And this summary, also.

[baron Münchhausen]

I found this extensive documentary on Atlantic Battle.
It tells the story about the main naval battles occurring in Atlantic mostly between UK and Germany.

It can provide complementary details about this National Convoy Disruption System.
Especially, it shows how u-boat were far more better weapons than surface warships against Merchant’s transports Convoy.

Battlefield: Battle of the Atlantic Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58ogt5zHm0g

It talks about German’s Condor Bombers at 37 minutes.

[baron Münchhausen]

What do you think of this if Arctic Convoy Route in SZ 3 at 2 IPCs? is:

Seaports of arrival:
Karelia SSR: Murmansk
Archangel: Archangelsk

Seaport of departure:
UK: Liverpool (London)

Allies must Control Iceland within SZ 3 to be an Active Convoy.

Here is a pictured map which showed Pacific and Arctic Routes for US Convoy toward USSR.
Hope it can provides enough detail to choose an appropriate SZ for such Pacific Convoy for Russia.
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/paperno/index.htm

North Pacific Convoy Route in SZ 57 : 4 IPCs?

Seaports of arrival:
Soviet Far East: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky,
Buryatia SSR: Vladivostok.

Seaport of Departure:
Western USA: Los Angeles

Allies must Control Midway Island to be an active Convoy.

Does a 4 IPCs Russian Convoy SZ in Midway SZ 57 could be appropriate for such Pacific Convoy route?

This would provide a good “in game” incentive for Japan to make such an attack on this isolated Island.
Even if it is not the real historical motive to launch an invasion force on Midway.

Route Volume, long tons*
North Russian 3,964,000
Persian Gulf 4,160,000
Black Sea** 681,000
Soviet Far East (Pacific) 8,244,000
Soviet Arctic 452,000

[baron Münchhausen]

There is 6 Convoys zones for Axis (gaining 22 IPCs) and 6 Convoys zones for Allies (2 zones for each Allied: 22 IPCs) which are active at the start of the game.
And there is one last South Pacific Convoy Zone (4 IPCs) for United Kingdom which is not activated at the beginning.
Guadacanal needs to be conquered if Allies wants to get this additional zone.

Do you think UK player should get an additional active Convoy Zone in Indian Ocean SZ 34 near Persia (oil and Allies shipping) or Saudi Arabia?

AXIS 1942.2 CONVOY SEA ZONES:

GERMANY for 10 IPCs / 41 IPCs = 25%
Norway Convoy Route in SZ 6 near Norway : at 2 IPCs?

Seaport of arrival:
Germany: Kiel

Seaport of departure:
Norway: Oslo

Finland-Sweden Convoy Route in SZ 5 in Baltic Sea : at 4 IPCs?

Seaport of arrival:
Germany: Kiel

Seaport of departure:
Norway: Stockholm

Mediterranean Convoy Route in SZ 15 in Med Sea : at 4 IPCs?

Seaport of arrival:
Italy: Roma

Seaport of departure:
Libya: Tripoli

---

JAPAN for 12 IPCs / 30 IPCs = 40%

Japanese Rising Sun Convoy route in SZ 60 for a 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Japanese: Tokyo

Seaport of departure:
Kiangsu: Shanghai

Japanese South-East Asian Convoy Route in SZ 36 for 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Japanese: Tokyo

Seaport of departure: Malaya: Singapor

Japanese Central Pacific Convoy Route in SZ 50 for 4 IPCs?
Seaport of arrival:
Japanese: Tokyo

Seaport of departure:
Philippines: Manila

Caroline Islands need to be owned by Japan to keep Convoy SZ 50 activated.

---

ALLIES 1942.2 CONVOY SEA ZONES:

RUSSIA for 6 IPCs / 24 IPCs = 25 %
What do you think of this Arctic Convoy route in SZ 3 at 2 IPCs?

Seaports of arrival:
Karelia SSR: Murmansk
Archangel: Archangelsk

Seaport of departure:
UK: Liverpool (London)

Allies must Control Iceland within SZ 3 to be an Active Convoy.

North Pacific Convoy route in SZ 57 : 4 IPCs?

Seaports of arrival:
Soviet Far East: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky,
Buryatia SSR: Vladivostok.

Seaport of departure:
Western USA: Los Angeles

Allies must Control Midway Island to be an active Convoy.

Does a 4 IPCs Russian Convoy SZ in Midway SZ 57 could be appropriate for such Pacific Convoy route?

---

USA for 8 IPCs / 42 IPCs = 19%

Asian-Pacific Convoy Route in SZ 53: at 4 IPCs?

Seaport of arrival:
Western USA: San Francisco

Seaport of departure:
Eastern Australia: Sydney
India: Bombay

Allies must Control Hawaiian Islands to be an active Convoy.

Does a 4 IPCs USA active (at start) Convoy SZ in Hawaiian SZ 53 could be appropriate for such Asian-Pacific Convoy route ?

South-Atlantic/Mid-Atlantic Convoy Route in SZ 12: at 4 IPCs?

Seaport of arrival:
Eastern USA: Washington

Seaport of departure:
Brazil

Does a 4 IPCs USA active (at start) Convoy SZ 12 in mid-Atlantic SZ could be appropriate for such Convoy route ?

---

UNITED KINGDOM for 8 IPCs / 31 = 26% + 4 IPCs    12 IPCs /31 IPCs = 39%

About a South Pacific Convoy route in SZ 44: at 4 IPCs?

Seaport of arrival:
Eastern Australia: Sydney

Seaport of departure:
Western USA: San Francisco

Allies must Control Guadalcanal Island to be an active Convoy.

Does a 4 IPCs UK’s inactive (at start) Convoy SZ in Guadalcanal SZ 44 could be appropriate for such South Pacific Convoy route ?

North-Atlantic Convoy Route in SZ 2: at 4 IPCs?

Seaport of arrival:
UK: London (Liverpool)

Seaport of departure:
Eastern Canada: Halifax / Sydney Cape-Britain

A 4 IPCs UK active Convoy SZ in North-Atlantic SZ 2 seems to be appropriate for such Convoy route. Don’t you think?

South Atlantic Convoy Route from Africa in SZ 13 near Gibraltar or SZ 21 : at 4 IPCs?

Seaport of arrival:
UK: London (Liverpool)

Seaport of departure:
Union of South Africa: Cape Town
A 4 IPCs UK active Convoy SZ in African-Mid-Atlantic SZ 13 or SZ 21 seems to be appropriate for such Convoy route. Don’t you think?

[CWO Marc]

Busy day today, so here are just a few comments on various points.  More later today maybe, if I have time.

I like this National Convoy House Rule. Does National Convoy System House Rule is too much?  <<

I think National Convoy House Rule as the full name, and NCHR for short, sounds fine.  All house rules are systems (in one way or another), so there’s no need to build the word into the name.

This must be track separately, mostly because Sea ports of departure and destination must be watch to be sure that all conditions are met for Convoy rewards.  <<

Yes, exactly.  Convoy income is tracked separately from regular income, and the collection of income from each convoy requires three conditions to be met: having a functional convoy, plus holding both a specified port of departure and a specified port of arrival.  Each convoy has its own particular operating conditions (and perhaps its own IPC value level), and this information will be given for each convoy in the setup charts.  Players are expected to monitor the map situation to ensure that tracked convoy income correctly reflects the operating status of the convoys and the ownership of their associated ports.  I’m sure that if a convoy owner fails to notice that some of his convoy IPCs have been neutralized, one of his opponents will be more than happy to point out this oversight to him.  :)

About Markers, to identify which Territory is part of a Convoy shipping line, I think I would use the G40 Naval Base token in a 1941 or 1942.2 maps.  <<

That’s an interesting idea: putting some kind of marker on the map to identify land territories which contain ports that are associated with convoys.  It would certainly help draw to a player’s attention the fact that such-and-such an enemy territory would be nice to capture for two reasons: for its normal land-based income, and because the capture would deprive the enemy of the associated convoy income.  The OOB naval base tokens (from games which have them) would work nicely on the maps of games which don’t use naval base tokens, or which have naval bases printed on the map itself.  For games which use naval base tokens, something else would have to be used because otherwise we’d be in a situation where one token type would have two meanings.  HBG’s Convoy Marker…

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Convoy-Marker-Acrylic-_p_829.html

…might be useful in this role.  And while we’re on the subject of HBG, I’ve just noticed that they have a potentially handy Escort Duty Marker:

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Escort-Duty-Marker-Acrylic-X5_p_1811.html

I’m following you on this DEI convoy route and gradation: 1- inactive, 2- operational: 1- totally disrupted, 2- partially disrupted, 3- fully shipping: giving full IPCs rewards.
Do you think something like getting hold of Guadalcanal can be a requirement to make the Convoy SZ around this island active for UK?
I’m thinking if Japanese would have had finish their airfield, the zero-planes and Bettys bombers were intended to destroy shipping between US and Australia, isn’t? <<

Working out the details of which convoy routes exist where (and what value and operating conditions they have) will be a lot of fun, but personally I won’t be thinking about those details until the more general aspects of the NCHR have been worked out.  Those general aspects will have an effect on what the specifics of the convoy routes will be, so I feel that we’de be getting ahead of ourselves (and potentially doing work that will need to be redone) if we tried to work out the details before working out the general elements.

Battlefield: Battle of the Atlantic Part 1 <<

Yes, I have both parts on DVD, and it’s a good introduction to the subject of the Battle of the Atlantic.

[Black_Elk]

I think we’re getting pretty close to locking this down. Again a lot of great ideas. I’m pretty certain that any system we develop along these lines could be supported in tripleA fairly easily, so my main consideration right now is just how to make it look clean and function well at a glance, on the physical board in a face to face game.

Here I admit to being somewhat torn. I really like the idea of using National roundels for everything, since this would make original ownership easily readable at a glance. It would be ideal if all the materials necessary to get the system working in 1942.2 came in the box, but I recognize that this might place some limitations on the total number of roundels we could realistically use for convoys, before players run out and start poaching them for the land war. I think we’re probably looking at about 3 maybe 4 convoy zones max for each Nation in 1942.2. Assuming that NOT every National convoy sea zone will start “maxed” out (with a full compliment of convoys), then this should give us enough National Control Marker roundels in the box to at least set the board completely, and still have enough markers left over for regular play. The only nation that might be problematic in 1942.2 is Japan, since they sometimes run out of roundels even in a normal game, given how much land they usually steal from the Allies.

I would suggest that for this HR, players can easily substitute normal coins for the National Convoy Roundels as the game goes on. Coins can be flipped and still read at a glance. I’m struggling to recall whether the standard boxed chips are the same on both sides? At the phone so can’t check at the moment, but I believe all the red, green and gray poker chips in 1942.2 look the same on both sides (e.g they are faceless!). This would rule them out for easy substitution since they can’t be easily flipped. Unlike the poker chips, regular coins (of any sort) COULD be used, since they have a distinct Obverse image, and then a different image on the Reverse.

I need to remember this stuff the next time I stop by the Larry Boards to make requests haha.  Suggesting that in future A&A games, the little colored poker chips be made more like coins! With heads and tails, Axis or Allies, since this would add to their possible HR functionality.
;)

Coins don’t look particularly spectacular, but at least they offer a simple option, if players should start running out of roundels for the convoys. Coins are still readily available in most homes, and can be easily flipped Heads = Active, Tails = Disrupted, etc. for use in our proposed system. They could be paired with roundels. So say you had a sea zone with 3 Convoys = 3 national roundels, you could substitute for this 1 National roundel (indicating the original owner) and just add 2 coins to the group. Once players are aware of all the sea zones, and have the original owners memorized, you could substitute coins for all the Roundels (not every player might remember, but as long as the original owner is written down somewhere, its no problem.)

Of course, if you like to invest in special markers from HBG or another A&A game to get extra national Roundels, that’s cool too. But if you can make use of coins, like pennies, or any game marker that could flipped, then the HR can still work pretty well with just the boxed materials.

Adding additional gray chips to represent IPCs beneath the Roundels (or Coins) would probably just be redundant, unless you wanted to make the standard IPC value of the individual Roundel Convoy higher, and do some kind of variable damage per Convoy.

Even the gray chips can sometimes be at a premium in the boxed game. I often try to think of ways that regular coins might be used in the game at various points, like when chips or roundels run out. I guess in that case, you could always use regular coins at different denominations, to serve different functions. I usually suggest paper gaming money for IPCs, and then coins if that is unavailable, since I’m not a huge fan of the relying just on the IPC tracker to do the banking. But for this HR, I could see a definite case for using coins to represent convoys. This probably won’t matter for most players here, because if you have even one other boxed “5 man” A&A game, you should have more than enough National Roundels to make the proposed convoy system work. But its still nice to work something out for those players who only own the basic 1942.2 materials.

If that’s the case for anyone, then I would suggest using Pennies to track the National IPC totals, and using Nickels for convoys on the gameboard (supported by 1 National roundel per sz, indicating ownership).For players in the UK you could use 2 Pence coins, or some similarly small denomination coin, to represent actual convoys on the physical board.

As long as the total number of active convoy lanes isn’t too great, (say 2-4 sea zones per Nation that can actually contain convoys), then you really only need a couple of Roundels per nation. 2 to 4 national roundels from each Nation seems doable, and a handful of Nickels to get the system up and running. Provided we go with some kind of flip idea.

Ok just wanted to launch that idea real quick before I forgot.  
Will come back later with some more thoughts, doubtless.
:-D

great documentary suggestions!

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

There is 6 Convoys zones for Axis (gaining 22 IPCs) and 6 Convoys zones for Allies (2 zones for each Allied: 22 IPCs) which are active at the start of the game.
And there is one last South Pacific Convoy Zone (4 IPCs) for United Kingdom which is not activated at the beginning.
Guadacanal needs to be conquered if Allies wants to get this additional zone.

Do you think UK player should get an additional active Convoy Zone in Indian Ocean SZ 34 near Persia (oil and Allies shipping) or Saudi Arabia?

I completely revised this post. It is a summary of a few SZs Black_Elk suggested and a few more from my own research and taste.
To be discuss.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Here I admit to being somewhat torn. I really like the idea of using National roundels for everything, since this would make original ownership easily readable at a glance. It would be ideal if all the materials necessary to get the system working in 1942.2 came in the box, but I recognize that this might place some limitations on the total number of roundels we could realistically use for convoys, before players run out and start poaching them for the land war.

I don’t think this is likely to be a problem.  My guess is that anyone who has sufficient interest in A&A to start applying house rules to a particular game is probably also someone who owns more than just one game from the A&A product line – so they’re likely to have plenty of roundels on hand that they can import from other games.  And that’s not even taking into account the piece junkies (like me) who own multiple copies of each game.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

1 Country marker worth 2 IPCs to collect during owner’s Income phase.
(No need to move them, just count which one is face up in the SZ.)

1 Country marker cost 1 IPC to flip on the upright side (because it was put downward after a successful Convoy Disruption/Raid) at the end of the Collect Income phase when the IPCs are calculated. But the repair was paid for on owner’s Purchase and repair Phase.
No waiting until the next player’s turn between repair and flipping, no book keeping: just a flip.
You can put a few tokens in the mobilization zone to indicate that the owner paid for the convoy repair.
In addition, an upright marker makes for an immediate target for enemy during the next game round.
All is done at the owner’s turn. Except, it is just slightly different than buying small transport ships.

1 Convoy SZ can have 1, 2 or 3 Country markers.
If a Convoy SZ have only 1 or 2 Country markers, the Nation owning the Convoy SZ can purchase additional Convoy (representing additional seaport infrastructures & Convoy logistics, Merchant’s ships and cargo) up to a maximum of 3 markers in this given Convoy SZ.
1 Country marker cost 2 IPCs to buy when adding one in a less than Maximum Convoy SZ.

1 Sub can destroy 2 Convoys (2 Country markers) by moving through this SZ during combat move or attacking in the SZ.
Simply flip face downward 2 markers.
1 Battleship can destroy 2 Convoys (2 Country markers) also. Same condition as Sub.

Each Destroyer or each Cruiser can only destroy 1 Convoy each (1 Country marker flip down). Same condition as Sub.
Undamaged Carrier can destroy 1 Convoy per Fighter (or TacB) paired with which can land on the aircraft (up to 2 max per Carrier), if they land on the Carrier which stay in the Convoy SZ or pass through this SZ.

2 Tactical Bombers (G40 but not 1942.2) based on land can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
2 Fighters (1942.2 not G40)  based on land can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
2 Strategic bombers can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
It takes twice units because Convoy targets are difficult to find and planes have a limited time to spent over Convoy for attack.

Maybe land-based airplanes against Convoy can be played as an attack on IC with less results?
Before sinking any Convoy (flipping a Country marker), each land-based plane must submit to 1@1 AA gun fire from AA convoy defense.
Then,
1 Tactical Bombers based on land can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
1 Fighter based on land can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.
1 Strategic bomber can destroy 1 Convoy (1 Country marker). Need to attack the Convoy SZ.

---

Convoy Disruption in an undefended Convoy SZ:
Warships (Subs, DDs, Cruisers, Carriers, BBs) need only to pass through an undefended SZ,
Planes need to attack directly this Convoy SZ, and, after combat, planes paired to the Carrier must land on this particular Carrier which pass through the Convoy SZ.

Convoy Disruption in a defended Convoy SZ:
When Surface warships (DDs, Cruisers, Carriers and BBs) or planes are attacking any escorting warships in a Convoy SZ, it is a regular combat.
All the Convoys are considered safely guarded by escorting warships. No country marker is flip upside down.

If any Submarine is part of a Naval combat in a Convoy SZ, the attacker can decide to destroy Convoy.
Any attacking Submarines’ hit can be allocated on Convoy, and 1 hit destroy 2 Convoys (2 Country markers are flip down).
(So, when Convoy are protected, Subs must get a successful roll to destroy them.)

However, when all defending escorting warships are sunk, the remaining Convoy stay on the board (no more country marker can be flip down).

Since it was the last post on page 4, maybe it wasn’t notice.
If not the case, then it is probably the most controversial since it talks about Convoy attack mechanisms.
Following the third category according to Marc analysis, it is a mix in which it is possible for Sub to disrupt convoy while being part of a Naval attack against enemy’s escorting warships.

[baron Münchhausen]

Do you think UK player should get an additional active Convoy Zone in Indian Ocean SZ 34 near Persia (oil and Allies shipping) or Saudi Arabia?
If we agree to a 2 IPCs Convoy in this SZ34.

UK’s Red Sea Convoy Route:

Port of departure:
Persia: Mahshahr?

Port of arrival:
Egypt: Port Said (Suez Canal)

(Of course, if Egypt is captured, then this 2 IPCs Convoy is neutralized.)

It can be possible to add another 2 IPCs Convoy SZ which can be inactive at first for Germany in Med SZ 14.

Germany’s Western Mediterranean Convoy Route:

Port of departure:
Algeria: Alger

Port of arrival:
France: Marseilles

(As per the general HR, if either TT is captured, then the Convoy is neutralized.)

[CWO Marc]

I’ve prepared the following summary for several reasons: partly to introduce a few new ideas, partly to try to fix a couple of problems that haven’t yet been resolved, and partly because I’m not sure (based on the feedback received so far) whether some of the ideas under discussion so far have been agreed to or rejected or modified.

I’d like to propose that we focus for a while on the elements I’ve listed below and try to nail them down.  They involve some fundamental aspects of the NCHR (National Convoy House Rule), and I think it would be helpful if we could develop a clear picture of whether or not these basics are satisfactory to everyone before we work on other parts of the system.  I’m worried that if we try to figure out too many of the other aspects of the NCHR before having resolved the more basic issues we’ll simply be wasting our time and getting too far ahead of ourselves.  There will be plenty of opportunity later to discuss where the convoy routes will go, what units can engage in convoy disruption or convoy attack, and how convoy battles will function.

I’ve numbered each point below for discussion convenience.  I’ve also kept the summary generic, rather than tying it to a specific A&A game like 1942.2

1. Each power starts out the game with a certain number of convoys.  The convoys provide additional IPC income, over and above each power’s regular income.  Convoy income and regular income are tracked separately, but the two types of IPCs are collected and spent in the same way and are treated as a single pool of money.

2. Each convoy is represented on the game map by a convoy marker which shows its location and the nationality of the power which owns it.  Players can use flag roundels as convoy markers, or optionally whatever other type of marker they prefer.

3. Prior to the start of play, the game’s convoy system is set up by consulting the NCHR setup chart and placing the indicated number of convoy markers of the correct nationality on the numbered sea zones (SZs) that are specified by the chart.  [NOTE: The details of the setup chart will be worked out later.]

4. The setup chart shows which SZs can contain convoys, and the maximum number of convoy markers that can go into each of these SZs.  Each SZ starts the game holding its maximum number of convoys.  No SZ can contain more than 3 convoys, but some SZs can only hold a maximum of 2 convoys or 1 convoy.

5. The individual convoy markers represent individual convoys.  The convoy markers within a particular SZ collectively represent a Convoy Route.  Each Convoy Route operates under a set of conditions specified in the setup chart.  Under these conditions, a convoy owner (or a friendly power) must control a specific pair of land territories: a territory containing a designated Port of Departure and a territory containing a designated Port of Arrival.  These two ports must both be controlled by the convoy owner (or a friendly power); otherwise, no income can be collected from any of the convoys in the Convoy Route.  Optionally, players can mark these ports on the game map with a suitable marker of their choice.  [NOTE: The details of the setup chart will be worked out later.]

6. Each individual convoy has a maximum value of 2 IPCs.  Each convoy starts the game at its maximum value.  Under certain circumstances (as explained in the following paragraphs), convoy values can be reduced to 1 or 0.  Under certain circumstances (as explained in the following paragraphs), reduced-value convoys can be raised in value, but no convoy can be raised above the maximum of 2 IPCs.

7. A convoy is considered Operational if it has suffered no disruption and no battle damage, and if the convoy owner (or a friendly power) controls the pair of land territories specified for its Convoy Route in the setup chart.  An Operational convoy is depicted on the game map by a face-up convoy marker, and it provides its owner with 2 IPCs per game round at the Collect Income phase of the game.

8. An Operational convoy becomes Disrupted if an enemy force has made a Disruption Pass through the SZ it occupies.  Disruption represents situations in which convoy ships must use longer routes to avoid enemy forces who partially control the shorter shipping lanes that the convoys would normally follow.  To show that an Operational convoy has been Disrupted, its convoy marker is turned face-down.  A Disrupted convoy  provides its owner with 1 IPC per game round instead of 2.  Each separate Disruption Pass through a SZ containing Operational convoys results in one Operational Convoy being turned into a Disrupted convoy.  A Disruption Pass made through a SZ that contains no convoys, or through a SZ that contains only Disrupted convoys, has no effect.  [NOTE: We’ll work out later the details of just what constitutes a Disruption Pass and what units can make one under which circumstances.]

9. A Disrupted convoy can be returned to Operational status if the convoy owner (or a friendly power) makes a Counter-Disruption Pass through the SZ it occupies. [NOTE: we need to find a better name for this, and to work out the details of what constitutes a Counter-Disruption Pass and what units can make one under which circumstances. We also need to figure out if a Counter-Disruption Pass returns just one Disrupted convoy to Operational status or whether it returns to Operational status every Disrupted convoy in a SZ.]

9. An Operational convoy can be Attacked by an enemy force.  If the attacker wins the resulting battle, the convoy is considered Destroyed.  Destruction represents the sinking of the merchant ships which made up the convoy.  When a convoy has been Destroyed, its convoy marker is removed from the map and its value drops to 0 IPCs.  Only Operational convoys can be Attacked and Destroyed in this manner.  Disrupted convoys are not subject to Attack.  Separate Attacks are required to destroy separate convoys, even within the same SZ.  [NOTE: we’ll need to work out the details of how all this works, but the general idea is that an enemy can strike at convoys in one of two ways: by Disruption (requires no combat, but reduces value from 2 to 1) or by successful Attack (requires combat, but reduces value from 2 to 0).]

10. A Destroyed convoy can be returned to Operational status (and its marker can be placed back on the game map) through the Purchase Units process, at a cost of 1 PC per convoy.  This cost represents the process of building new merchant ships to replace the ones sunk in the Attack.

11. When a convoy owner (or a friendly power) loses control of either the Port of Departure or the Port of Arrival (or of both ports) which are specified for a Convoy Route, all the convoys in that particular route are Cancelled.  Cancelled convoys are shown by placing a grey poker chip on top of all the affected convoy markers (regardless of whether they are Operational or Disrupted).  Cancelled convoys have a value of 0 IPCs.  Cancellation has no effect on Destroyed convoys.

12.  If a convoy owner (or a friendly power) regains control of both the Port of Departure and the Port of Arrival which are specified in the setup chart for a Convoy Route, all the convoys in that particular route are Reinstated.  Reinstated convoys are shown by removing the gray poker chips which were placed on top of the convoy markers for the affected Convoy Route.  Reinstated convoys resume the status that they had (either Operational or Disrupted) before being covered.  Reinstatement has no effect on Destroyed convoys.

13. Convoy Routes can sometimes be Seized when the control of certain land territories containing either a Port of Departure or a Port of Arrival passes from one power to another power.  Whenever such a territory changes hands, players should consult the NCHR setup chart to see whether the original convoy owner still meets the conditions for controlling any associated Convoy Routes AND whether the new territorial situation meets the conditions required for a new convoy owner to take control of any associated Convoy Routes.  A particular convoy route, when it is operated by one power, might not necessarily use the same Port of Departure / Port of Arrival pairing as when it is operated by another power; the setup chart will specify which ports need to be controlled in each case.  [NOTE: we’ll need to figure out later whether seizing an opponent’s  Convoy Route also implies autromatically seizing the opponent’s associated convoy ships or whether new owner will first have to build his own convoy ships in order to operate the route.  I think he should have to provide his own ships.]

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

4. The setup chart shows which SZs can contain convoys, and the maximum number of convoy markers that can go into each of these SZs.  Each SZ starts the game holding its maximum number of convoys.  No SZ can contain more than 3 convoys, but some SZs can only hold a maximum of 2 convoys or 1 convoy.

5. The individual convoy markers represent individual convoys.  The convoy markers within a particular SZ collectively represent a Convoy Route.  Each Convoy Route operates under a set of conditions specified in the setup chart.  Under these conditions, a convoy owner (or a friendly power) must control a specific pair of land territories: a territory containing a designated Port of Departure and a territory containing a designated Port of Arrival.  These two ports must both be controlled by the convoy owner (or a friendly power); otherwise, no income can be collected from any of the convoys in the Convoy Route.  Optionally, players can mark these ports on the game map with a suitable marker of their choice.  [NOTE: The details of the setup chart will be worked out later.]

6. Each individual convoy has a maximum value of 2 IPCs.  Each convoy starts the game at its maximum value.  Under certain circumstances (as explained in the following paragraphs), convoy values can be reduced to 1 or 0.  Under certain circumstances (as explained in the following paragraphs), reduced-value convoys can be raised in value, but no convoy can be raised above the maximum of 2 IPCs.

Very good idea. Thanks for making such summary Marc.
Actually I think we haven’t get a clear agreement beginning at the point 4.
I think we need to see what is best amongst the options and find the best compromise between simplicity and degree of accuracy on details.

For example, about 4.

No SZ can contain more than 3 convoys, but some SZs can only hold a maximum of 2 convoys or 1 convoy.

I agree that 3 convoys should be the ceiling, but I find easier for game play to allow Powers to rise up an Convoy SZ which is at 1 or 2 up to the maximum if they wish.

But this is assuming that you can buy additional convoys.

A simpler solution should be to give a fixed number of Convoys for each SZ selected and you can never change that number.
Less freedom but less impact over balance than variable number of convoys.

5. About Port of Departure and Arrival, from some of my suggestion for 1942.2, I began to find interesting that maybe a secondary choice for either Departure or Arrival can be also associated, maybe it is too much.

In addition, I suggested that the possession of Islands groups within a Convoy SZ could completely cancel Convoys.
It clearly gives some incentive which provides a much higher sense of why such Islands can be at stake and not other.
Creating more historical strategic-behaviour from players, due to the higher rewards at stake around such SZ.
I know this can be a complexifying addition, but this can be rationalize as some way that islands airfields and unvisible planes are attacking and blocking convoy in the vicinity of the Islands.

6. About, 2 IPCs, I agree but cutting in 1 IPC or 0 IPC, and convoy destruction should be discuss.
I believe this make thing more complex and less appealing than 2 IPCs vs 0 IPCs flip.
But I acknowledge that it is at the expense of a more accurate depiction for half destroyed/disrupted convoy.

I can’t go further for now, I hope I rise some flags on unresolved topics.

[CWO Marc]

@Baron:

No SZ can contain more than 3 convoys, but some SZs can only hold a maximum of 2 convoys or 1 convoy.

I agree that 3 convoys should be the ceiling, but I find easier for game play to allow Powers to rise up an Convoy SZ which is at 1 or 2 up to the maximum if they wish.

But this is assuming that you can buy additional convoys.

A simpler solution should be to give a fixed number of Convoys for each SZ selected and you can never change that number.

That’s actually what I was talking about, but I guess I didn’t phrase it clearly.  Each SZ with a convoy route has a defined maximum number of convoys, and that maximum never changes.  For some the maximum is 3, for some it’s 2 and for some it’s 1.  The setup charts would say what the maximum for each SZ is.  You can’t buy extra convoys that would take a SZ over its defined maximum.  Destroyed convoys can be replaced, but the replacements aren’t allowed to bring a SZ over its defined maximum number of convoys.  Each SZ starts the game at its defined maximum value, but not all of those maximums are 3.

[CWO Marc]

@Baron:

5. About Port of Departure and Arrival, from some of my suggestion for 1942.2, I began to find interesting that maybe a secondary choice for either Departure or Arrival can be also associated, maybe it is too much.

Yes, I had proposed this too in my earlier post which said “The departures and arrivals could be tied to a single specific territory (for example Java in Global 1940, which would be a single port of departure) or to a multi-territory area (for example “United Kingdom or Scotland”, which would be an either/or port of arrival in Global 1940, and which we could designate collectively as “British Isles”).”

@Baron:

In addition, I suggested that the possession of Islands groups within a Convoy SZ could completely cancel Convoys.
It clearly gives some incentive which provides a much higher sense of why such Islands can be at stake and not other.

That’s an interesting suggestion, which would be related to the subject of “what constitutes a Disruption Pass and what units can make one under which circumstances” that I noted as a point for eventual discussion.  A major reason for taking possession of Pacific islands in WWII was that they helped in controlling the sea and airspace around them.