Convoy Disruption: 1941, 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare

[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.

[CWO Marc]

@Baron:

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.

Personally I’d also be in favour of a two-level all-or-nothing convoys, which would be much simpler.  The reason I described this three-level system (Operational / Disrupted / Destroyed) is that it wasn’t clear to me from the earlier feedback how people felt about the three options I presented on April 21:

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.

Baron’s response about these three options took the form of a long proposal for multiple types of convoy disruption, governed by some fairly complex conditions involving various unit types.  Black Elk’s response didn’t really address the three options; it dealt instead with the topic of what kinds of markers should be used to represent convoys.  So basically I’m still not sure how people feel about options 1, 2 and 3, which makes it hard to get a clear sense of where we’re going because it sounds as if all the options are still on the table.

[Black_Elk]

Excellent post Marc! Having these points all numbered and broken down should make concensus easier to arrive at. I meant to address the disrupted vs destroyed idea after work that day, but forgot :)

I think I’m with you guys, the 2 tier system sounds a bit easier to implement. But I must say, the way you 3 tiered system you outlined sounds workable as well. I could see reasons for either approach, on the one hand 2 levels would probably be more intuitive and easy to explain, but 3 levels provides a bit more variety for the attacker, depending on how many ipcs they want to remove from the enemies coffers.

I think I’d vote for overall simplicity in the end though. The faster it is in the explanation the more likely it is to be adopted I’d think.

Again, great summary!

[CWO Marc]

You’ve actually given me an idea here which I think could solve a lot of our problems – not just with the specific issue of 2 tiers versus 3 tiers, but with many other aspects of this particular HR too.

Here’s the idea: we structure the house rule itself on a two-tier system. The first tier would be the Basic (or Core) elements of the NCHR – the “stripped down to the bare bones” fundamental parts that would be common to any version of the NCHR because, if you got any simpler than these basic elements, the system would stop working.  Hopefully these fundamental parts will cover the kinds of things that we can all agree on fairly easily, and hopefully they could be expressed in a fairly short and simple way.

The second tier would be the Supplemental (or Optional) elements of the NCHR.  That’s basically where we would put all the “nonessential elements” (meaning that the system could function could work perfectly well without any of them) which potentially would make the NCHR more fun and interesting, but would also potentially make it slower and more complicated.

The nice thing about such an arrangement is that it would add a huge amount of flexibility to the system without complicating its central elements.  There could potentially be an unlimited number Optional Extras – even options that contradict each other – from which players could pick and choose as they wished.  In effect, these would be “house rules within house rules”, or “variant extras”, or whatever we wish to call them.  And we wouldn’t even need to agree between ourselves on any of those extras!  For instance, Baron could take his proposals concerning aircraft or islands and turn them into Optional Extras with suitable titles…for example “Baron’s Island-Based Disruption Variant” or something like that.  As just another example, there could be any number of variant setup charts that propose alternates to whatever we decide would make a good basic setup chart.  And so on and so forth.  In other words, the sky would be the limit for these optional extras, but they’d all use the same basic simple common foundation as their launching pad.

If this seems like the right way to proceed, then what we should probably do is try to pick out the Basic (or Core) elements out of the list of ideas we’ve discussed so far.  If we decide that something is (or should probably be) a Basic element, we would put it into the Basic pile and discuss it until we’re sure that this is the right place for it and that we’ve figured out the best way to handle it.  If we decide that something is (or should probably be) an Optional Extra, we would put it into the Optional Extra pile and we would leave it there for someone to develop it into a finished product in whatever way they see fit.

Does this sound like it could be a good way to organize our NCHR development project?

[baron Münchhausen]

When talking about basic core rules, I’m thinking :what can be a National Convoy HR put in a 1941 game settings?

For sure, the only unit which could do Convoy Disruption would be Submarine.

And, after the issue that come to my mind is: the simplest way to implement something about Sub against Convoy would be on a 1:1 basis.

But, the other issue is what can we do with a complex game as G40 to make a difference between warships?
I suggested warship hit on 1:1 basis while Submarine where superior weapon hitting on a 1:2 basis.

For my part, I would rather prefer a system which keeps the same combat/disruption value against Convoy and escort.

Also, for simplicity, we use the same convention such like 1 National Control Marker worths 2 IPCs.
We certainly can’t give a lot of them due to the very low economy of 1941.

Would you see such rule as already too much outstreched if we would use such scale?

For 1941 1 NCM worths 1 IPC.  1 Sub destroys 1 token basis.
1942.2 1 NCM worths 2 IPCs.    1 Sub destroys 2 tokens basis.
G40 1 NCM worths 2 IPCs.        1 Sub destroys 2 tokens basis.

Or maybe, it is pointless because exchanging 1 IPC to get 1 IPC does not worth such investment in 1941?
However, I see a way to use up the remaining IPC by repairing Convoy with the 1 or 2 leftover IPCs, due to the no 4 IPCs Artillery issue in 1941.

---

Splitting an equal share of Convoy Zone between Axis and Allies,

This probably means 1 SZ per Allies and 1 SZ for Germany and 2 SZs for Japan.
This can be doubled 6 SZs vs 6 SZs if playing 1 IPC token.

But that could’nt probably go above 3 SZs vs 3 SZs if playing 2 IPCs token.

So, this example shows the issue on a basic core rule which brought a dilemma: to save uniformity or to save proportions?

Where is your prefered option?

[Black_Elk]

That actually sounds like an ideal approach Marc! Gives us a lot more flexibility too, in coming up with a system that can be engaging for players at each level, especially at the high end (advanced 1942.2 or Global play.)

I’ve been trying to think of various ways that extra money might be introduced into A&A, on many different boards over the years, but I like this convoy option perhaps best of all. It achieves a long time goal of mine, to make the naval game in A&A more satisfying. Right now, on most A&A boards, a true naval arms race only really occurs when your opponent gives you that wink and a nod, like “Ok, lets both be crazy and buy a bunch of ships, even though we both realize it’s probably not the best investment, and will likely prolong the game” ;)

I’m thinking here especially of the decision by the German player to invest in the water. With a convoy system in place, we can provide a more sound incentive for the Axis to wage a battle of the Atlantic. On the flip side, we can give the US a reason to make pacific naval investments on boards where those are sometimes less advantageous than pure KGF.

Oh also, good call Baron! Of all the recent boards 1941 is probably the one that would benefit most from an influx of cash, and a naval purchasing incentive. Surely that games economy is such that we’d have to focus the convoys a bit more than in 1942.2 or Global. But I think it would be cool if the basic system could be made to work there as well.

[Black_Elk]

ps. Thinking more on 1941. Sometimes its a bit easier to build out a core system when we have a specific gameboard in mind, and for this 1941 would be the best place to start. It’s the cheapest boxed game and the one intended as the starter, so if we can get a system up and running there, that would certainly be ideal.

Most of the naval sculpts included in the box don’t see much action, because their cost is prohibitive for most nations. 1941 also has the smallest overall economy, so the convoy income needs to be proportional. It would be cool if the same convoy elements introduced in a 1941 game could port directly into 1942.2 without needing to change any of the numbers around.

So if we give a single roundel a value of 2 ipcs, then I’d say at most 1941 could probably support 2 convoy sea zones per nation.

For the Allies you could probably split the convoys apart such that each nation has 1 main convoy zone for each major theater of operations Europe or Pacific. Allies would have 6 zones altogether. For the Axis you could have 4 zones altogether, Germany and Japan each with 2 convoy zones in their theater of operations. That would allow for some balancing of the game by sides. Here are some options we could look into…

Russia: either sz 3 or sz 4 as the Russian Atlantic convoy zone, and sz 47 as the Russian Pacific.
Germany:  sz 5 Baltic and sz 16 Med.
UK: either sz 2 or sz8 Atlantic, and sz 37 Pacific.
Japan: sz 45 representing traffic to and from the home islands and sz 31 for everything else.
USA: sz 40 Hawaii or sz 43 Midway to abstractly represent the shipping across the entire Pacific, and sz 13 Atlantic for the other side of the globe.

Basically each of these zones is standing in abstractly for shipping lanes across a huge part of the globe, but concentrated into these zones more locally for gameplay purposes.

With a 2 ipcs per convoy, using just 1 in each sea zone to start, that model that would give you the following totals it would be the same as giving each Nation a bonus of 4 ipcs. The boost would look like this

Russia: 7 to 11 ipcs
Germany: 12 to 16 ipcs
UK: 12 to 16 ipcs
Japan: 9 to 13 ipcs
USA: 17 to 21 ipcs

Allies 36 to 48
Axis: 21 to 29

It’s not a huge boost overall, but it does a lot more options for unit purchasing. Notice how Russia at base value could afford fighters under this model, something which I think would be cool for 1941.

If it works at this level, you could potentially increase the number of convoys to two in some zones rather than just one.

Each nation gets one zone with 1 convoy, and one zone with 2 convoys. Giving each nation a total boost of 6 ipcs (the value of a sub) staggered in whatever way generates the most interest for the gameplay.

Examples…

Russia sz 3 = 2 convoys, sz 47 = 1 convoy, 13 ipc base value for the whole Nation.
Germany: sz 5 = 2 convoys, sz 16 = 1 convoy, 18 ipc base national total.
UK: sz 8 = 2 convoys, sz 37 = 1 convoys, 18 ipcs base national total.
Japan: sz 45 = 1 convoy, sz 31 = 2 convoys, 15 ipcs base national total.
USA: sz 13 = 1 convoys, and sz 40= 2 convoys, 23 ipcs base national total.

Allies: 54
Axis: 33

Which even has a nice look to it, 54 vs 33 ipcs! haha
:-D

In particular, using sz 40 (Pearl Harbor) and sz 37 (Guadalcanal) as convoys, gives a cool way to provide some added incentives for Pacific action. Overall I don’t think this would make the game’s economy too high, it would probably still function pretty well in terms of game length, just with more “heavy hitter” buys available to all nations, which should be fun for new players and vets alike.

The player/nations who benefit the most proportionally from this convoy boost are Russia and Japan, but this could be good for the gameplay as well, since those are the two nations are usually the most frustrating to play on this board.

Finally, and perhaps critically important for this to work in 1941, it might be necessary to say that all Axis convoys start out “flipped” or inactive during the first round? The gameplay logic could be that the Global conflict has just started in earnest, with the attendant “shock” to Axis shipping being represented by their flipped convoy roundels. Otherwise, Axis could likely disrupt all Allied shipping in the first round, and collect a heavy convoy bonus for themselves in the first round, making the income spread too large for Allies to overcome. This would push the Axis convoy boost out one round, but preserve the strong naval incentive to disrupt Allied convoys. Considering the relative value of territories on the game map, a convoy zone worth 4 ipcs would be a very high value target (and reason to buy ships), even a 2 ipc convoy, would be major, considering the low production value of many land territories. A 4 ipc convoy, would represent as much in IPCs as the territory of Germany, making it much more likely that players will invest in ships either to protect or disrupt these very high value sea zones.

[CWO Marc]

I agree that 1941 would be a good test-bed for developing the NCHR.  Excellent suggestion.

I’ve taken my previous 13-point list and stripped it down (partially based on the latest feedback from Baron and Black Elk, though I didn’t have time to study it in detail) to what I think would be the core elements of a 1941 application.  It’s not a final model; it’s just a first shot (with a few gaps that I didn’t try to fill) at what the core 1941 NCHR might look like, which I’m posting here for discussion purposes.

In revising my original list (and examining the suggestions that have been made by Baron and Black Elk since I originally posted it), the question I asked myself for each point was: “Is this strictly necessary to make the system work?”  If yes, I treated it as a core element.  If not, I treated it as a possible extra, or at least as a point for later discussion.

I also drew a distinction between “Is this strictly necessary to make the system work?” and the separate question of “Would this make the system work better?”  A good example of this distinction is a question that Black Elk raised: should all Axis convoys start out “flipped” or inactive during the first round?  The NCHR might certainly work better if that was the case, but at this stage I’ve been trying to focus on the minimal number of elements that are needed to make the system work at all, not on the ones that will make it work in an optimal way.  Making the system work as best we can is certainly important – for instance to make sure that it doesn’t produce wildly unbalanced income levels – so some of those adjustments will probably need to be built into the core rules…but let’s start first by finding the lowest common denominators of the system, then work our way up from there.

In some cases, I’ve put in “PROBABLE EXTRA” paragraphs to show that a particular idea should probably be considered an optional extra.  I’ve also put in some “COMMENT” paragraphs to explain my rationale for a particular core rule.  The “TO BE DECIDED” paragraphs are place-holders for things that will definitely need to be part of the core system, but which I haven’t written up yet because I’m hoping we can nail down the easy general principles first, then move on to the finer details that will be more complicated to decide.

1. Each power starts out the game with 2 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.

TO BE DECIDED: Obviously we will need to decide which convoys of which nationality will go in which SZs.  I haven’t looked in detail at the latest proposals that have been made on this subject because I don’t have a 1941 map in front of me right now, and also because I wanted to focus on some of the other basics first.

4. Each SZ can contain either 1 convoy or no convoys, as indicated by the setup chart.  Convoys cannot move.

COMMENT: This is the simplest possible model, hence the most suitable one for the core system.  Variants with multiple convoys per SZ are certainly possible, and they could be very enjoyable, but they should be considered optional extras because they introduce a lot of complications.

5.  Each convoy has a value of 2 IPCs when it is Operational and 0 IPCs when it is Disrupted.  A convoy which is Operational is indicated on the map using a face-up convoy marker.  A convoy which is Disrupted is indicated on the map using a face-down convoy marker.  Convoy markers are never removed from the map.

COMMENT: A two-tier system (with a value of either 2 or 0) is much simpler than a 3-tier system (with a value of 2 or 1 or 0), so that’s the most straightforward option for the core system.  I’m assuming that 2 is a good value for Operational convoys – but if you feel that 1 or 3 would be better, that’s an easy change to make.

PROBABLE EXTRA: If you compare this version of point 5 with the earlier version of point 5, you’ll note that I’ve scrapped the entire section dealing with Convoy Routes.  The concept of Convoy Routes was based on the assumption that there could be more than one convoy per SZ, and therefore that we needed terminology to distinguish between single convoys and groups of convoys.  We can make that distinction in optional variants where multiple convoys per SZ are allowed, but in the core system the simplest option is to have just one convoy per SZ.

6. Convoy income is generally not affected when the control of land territories passes from one power to another power.  If, however, a particular power does not control at the Collect Income stage any land territories that are adjacent to a SZ, it cannot collect convoy income.  In such a situation, that power’s convoy markers are covered by a poker chip (without changing their face-up or face-down position) and the game’s income-tracking is adjusted accordingly.  If that power later regains control of a coastal territory, the chips are removed from the convoy markers and the game’s income-tracking is adjusted to show that convoy income can once again be collected by that power.

PROBABLE EXTRA: The original concept of Convoy Routes reflected the assumption that, in order to collect income from a convoy, players not only needed to have an operational convoy, they also needed to control a designated Port of Departure and a designated Port of Arrival.  That’s definitely an interesting idea, because it means that convoys could be neutralized “from the land” rather than just “from the sea”, but once again it introduces a lot of complications which are not strictly necessary to make the core system work.  So I think that we should save this concept for an optional extra.  Ditto for the idea that some convoy routes can be taken over by another power under certain circumstances.

COMMENT: Notwithstanding the fact that the whole “Port of Departure and Port of Arrival” model has been reclassified as an optional extra, I realized that we do need to introduce the minimal condition that a player must control at least one coastline to collect convoy income because it would be absurd if that condition didn’t exist (even though there’s not much chance that any power could end up controlling no coastal territories).

7. A convoy which is Operational becomes Disrupted when…

TO BE DECIDED: This point is a place-holder.

8. A convoy which has been Disrupted becomes Operational when…

TO BE DECIDED: This point is a place-holder.

And that’s it (I think) for all that we need to make the core system work.  We’ve gone from 13 points to 8, and some of the surviving points themselves are a lot shorter than their original formulation, so this is a huge simplification compared with the last version.  Obviously, points 7 and 8 need to be filled in, and there are other details that will need to be worked out…but as a basic foundation, how does this look?

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

I agree that 1941 would be a good test-bed for developing the NCHR. Excellent suggestion.

5. Each convoy has a value of 2 IPCs when it is Operational and 0 IPCs when it is Disrupted. A convoy which is Operational is indicated on the map using a face-up convoy marker. A convoy which is Disrupted is indicated on the map using a face-down convoy marker. Convoy markers are never removed from the map.

COMMENT: A two-tier system (with a value of either 2 or 0) is much simpler than a 3-tier system (with a value of 2 or 1 or 0), so that’s the most straightforward option for the core system. I’m assuming that 2 is a good value for Operational convoys – but if you feel that 1 or 3 would be better, that’s an easy change to make.

6. Convoy income is generally not affected when the control of land territories passes from one power to another power. If, however, a particular power does not control at the Collect Income stage any land territories that are adjacent to a SZ, it cannot collect convoy income. In such a situation, that power’s convoy markers are covered by a poker chip (without changing their face-up or face-down position) and the game’s income-tracking is adjusted accordingly. If that power later regains control of a coastal territory, the chips are removed from the convoy markers and the game’s income-tracking is adjusted to show that convoy income can once again be collected by that power.
PROBABLE EXTRA: The original concept of Convoy Routes reflected the assumption that, in order to collect income from a convoy, players not only needed to have an operational convoy, they also needed to control a designated Port of Departure and a designated Port of Arrival. That’s definitely an interesting idea, because it means that convoys could be neutralized “from the land” rather than just “from the sea”, but once again it introduces a lot of complications which are not strictly necessary to make the core system work. So I think that we should save this concept for an optional extra. Ditto for the idea that some convoy routes can be taken over by another power under certain circumstances.

COMMENT: Notwithstanding the fact that the whole “Port of Departure and Port of Arrival” model has been reclassified as an optional extra, I realized that we do need to introduce the minimal condition that a player must control at least one coastline to collect convoy income because it would be absurd if that condition didn’t exist (even though there’s not much chance that any power could end up controlling no coastal territories).

Nice methodical work Marc,
And also we all agree to focus on a 1941 application first, this will provide a real context for Convoy Rules.
From what Black_Elk described as possible adjustment for first round Axis Convoy set-up, I think it gives enough versatility.

So, we can agree upon a 2 IPCs NatCM for all systems from 1941 to G40. Much simpler to keep such convention in all games.

If disrupted we flip to 0 IPC, it cost 1 IPC to flip it up right and being functional.

Another aspect, which showed up at least once, is do we use the Convoy Destruction option? This means that on specific condition, NCM is more than just flip (we could put an enemy control marker above the other NCM)
and need at least 2 IPCs+ 1 IPC to get off the enemy’s NCM and flip NCM to upward position, IMO (to be discuss).
I think it should be 3 IPCs total.

So this make 3 stages:
1- 2 IPCs reward flip upright /
2- flip downward 0 IPC, cost 1 IPC to repair
3- flip downward with enemy marker above cost (1+2) 3 IPCs to regain a functional Convoy.

Another point is about neutralizing Convoy by controling either port (Departure or Arrival).
Marc, you suggested that once the owner of a Convoy SeaPort regain control of the TT, all Convoy reward apply.
I believe this should be played differently. If an enemy take control of a Seaport TT, you put grey chip upon the NCM in SZ.

On his collect income phase, if the owner regain control of Seaport, then you toss aside the grey chip and reveal the NCM in their current situation (flip one side or the other.) But you cannot collect any IPC Convoy income.

Also, if during the combat phase a Convoy SZ is disrupted at the same time the corresponding Seaport is conquered, the damage are applied accordingly then you put grey chip above the owner’s NCM (or both owner’s NCM and enemy’s NCM, if we choose to play Convoy Destruction also).

That way, controling and protecting Seaport TT will be more important.
Exchanging such TT each game round will prevent the owner of collecting income from SZ Convoy.
I can rationalize this as if the enemy is destroying goods from Convoy just arriving in the seaport.
The merchant’s ships stay untouched (in the actual state they were) but the owner get no IPC from Convoy.

I think this change is necessary to increase the reward of keeping the seaport and it will be easier to affect enemy’s economy by fighting over the seaport every game round.

That’s two major points, I have no time to go further away but I think these two things should be discuss and decided upon.

Thanks again guys for your great ideas and work.

---

About giving no specific Sea-port, but only requiring a TT bordered by a SZ access.
It seems that on 1941 game map, only Russia could be restricted by such rule (and there is still the Black Sea accessible from Stalingrad/Caucasus), so maybe the core rule should be without any land blocking Convoy Income bonus.
So, only Submarine disruption would be part of the Core rule.
Land blocking of Sea-port would apply in 1942.2.

We can say that Convoy IPCs for Russia can travel from North , from Med Sea to Black Sea, from Indian Ocean to Persia and to Russia by land, from India by land, or from Soviet Far East. We can also invent an Arctic Convoy through Siberia.
My intent here was just to show how many ways the Russian Convoy Income can still be plausible. So no need to add this requirement in the core rule.

However, I agree that blocking Seaport still make good incentive in 1941 to invade 0 IPC land territory such as Soviet Far East to prevent Russia from getting any Pacific Convoy bonus.

Do you think that Controling an Island group in a Convoy SZ to neutralize it can be part of the core rule?

[baron Münchhausen]

I may be out of context, but I just think about this for the Convoy Disruption mechanics:
1 Submarine disrupt 1 NCM wich otherwise give 2 IPCs to the owner,
2 Warships disrupt 1 NCM.
1 Warship cannot disrupt convoy.
1 Battleship can disrupt 1 NCM as Sub.

That way, Submarine still keep their advantage over other warships.
And the basic disruption for Sub would be the same for all 3 games.

In the core rule for 1941,
1 Submarine (6 IPCs) can disrupt 1 NCM.
1 Battleship (16 IPCss) can disrupt 1 NCM.
Destroyer cannot disrupt Convoy.
Carrier cannot disrupt Convoy.

So, you can keep the kind of historical use of Bismarck to attack Convoy.

In 1942.2 and G40, Destroyer, Cruiser and Carrier needs to be 2 to disrupt 1 NCMarker.
Battleship (20 IPCs) and Submarine (6 IPCs) can disrupt 1 NCM.
However, on the same IPC basis, you can have 3 Subs for almost a BB.
So it is 3 NCMs with 3 Subs 18 IPCs vs 1 NCM with 1 BB.

Making Submarine the best cost-ratio unit to make such Convoy disruption.

---

I thought about a different mechanics for combat.

When Submarines are attacking a Convoy SZ with Destroyers,
Sub player can choose to allocate a Sub or more against Convoy.
Subs make a direct auto disruption on a 1:1 basis, each sub make 1 flip of NCM per combat round.
If there is no more escorting vessels, then it is not possible to make additional hit against NCM.
Everything else work like regular combat.

So it allows Destroyers to defend against Subs without being hit, for the first combat round.
So each NCM work like an additional hit against Sub.

Example: 1 Sub vs 1 DD and 2 NCMs in SZ.
The sub can attack for 2 rounds against the 2 NCMs while DD gets 2 rounds of defensive rolls.
On the third round, the Sub would attack DD or choose to retreat.

If instead, the Sub attack DD first, if Sub sink the DD, then the 2 NCMs would still be there and functionnal.

[CWO Marc]

Baron: several of the ideas you mentioned in your two responses are things which would be fine (and fun) to do in supplementary rules, but which (in my opinion) don’t pass the test I tried to use to see if something should be part of the core rules.  The test was: is this something which is strictly necessary for the system to work, while keeping the system as simple as possible?  In other words, I was looking for the lowest possible floor that could still support the system.  I wasn’t looking at how high the ceiling could go because the ceiling is unlimited – and that’s what the Optional Extras will be for.  The core elements have a different function: they represent the greatest level of simplicity that can be achieved before the system stops working.

Another aspect, which showed up at least once, is do we use the Convoy Destruction option?
This means that on specific condition, NCM is more than just flip (we could put an enemy control marker above the other NCM)
and need at least 2 IPCs+ 1 IPC to get off the enemy’s NCM and flip NCM to upward position, IMO (to be discuss).
I think it should be 3 IPCs total. <<

As I explained in my notes to item 5, a two-level system (a convoy equals either 2 IPCs when it’s Operational or 0 IPCs when it’s disrupted) is much simpler than a 3-level system.  The NCHR would work using both systems – so given the choice between two systems that work, the core rules should use the simpler of the two systems.  There’s nothing to prevent a 3-level system from being used as an Optional Extra, but the point is that it shouldn’t be part of the core rules because a 2-level system has the advantage of being simpler while still working.  Remember that “core is a floor”, not a ceiling.

If an enemy take control of a Seaport TT, you put grey chip upon the NCM in SZ. <<

As I explained in my notes to item 6, I deleted from the core rules the whole concept of holding specific ports of departure and specific ports of arrival because it introduces too many complications that aren’t necessary to make the core rules work.  This would make a terrific Optional Extra, but for the core rules it’s just excess baggage that serves no essential purpose.

About giving no specific Sea-port, but only requiring a TT bordered by a SZ access. It seems that on 1941 game map, only Russia could be restricted by such rule (and there is still the Black Sea accessible from Stalingrad/Caucasus), so maybe the core rule should be without any land blocking Convoy Income bonus. <<

Yes, I’d actually be happy to eliminate completely the requirement that a player control at least one coastline in order to collect convoy income.  The reason I added that requirement this afternoon was that I didn’t have a 1941 map in front of me at that moment, and I was worried that we might run into an absurd situation in which a player might collect convoy income without holding a coatline (which in principle would be ridiculous because ships don’t sail on land).  However, I now have a 1941 map in front of me, and I can see that the chances of any power running out of coastlines is pretty slim.  As you say, Russia is the only country which this provision could reasonably threaten.  Japan would probably come in second place…and frankly, if Japan were ever to run out of coastlines on the 1941 map, it would have far bigger problems to worry about than the loss of its convoy income.  So yes, that’s a good idea – I’ll eliminate that section from the core rules, because your point fits perfectly with the principle of keeping things as simple as possible.

If disrupted we flip to 0 IPC, it cost 1 IPC to flip it up right and being functional. <<

I had left point 8 as a placeholder…

8. A convoy which has been Disrupted becomes Operational when…
TO BE DECIDED: This point is a place-holder.

…in order to get input on this subject, so thanks for the suggestion.  I don’t yet have any special opinion on this, but my (rather vague) thoughts on the subject are: If such-and-such an action by the enemy causes an Operational convoy to be Disrupted, maybe the Disrupted convoy could be returned to Operational status if the targeted player took some kind of “countermeasure” action.  I don’t mean buying a new convoy; I mean doing an action that neutralizes whatever caused the disruption in the first place.

Since I had also left point 7 as a placeholder…

7. A convoy which is Operational becomes Disrupted when…
TO BE DECIDED: This point is a place-holder.

…I didn’t have anything specific in mind as a countermeasure because I didn’t know what action it was “countermeasuring”.  But let’s say, for example, that a Disruption is caused by some sort of simple submarine action by the enemy (as you suggested when you said “So, only Submarine disruption would be part of the Core rule”).  In that case, perhaps the way to reverse the effects of Disruption could involve some kind of anti-submarine action (probably by a destroyer, which is the closest thing that A&A has to an ASW unit).  You and Black Elk have a better grasp than me of those kinds of game mechanics, so perhaps the two of you could take a crack together at points 7 and 8 and see what would be best simplest method for handling this.

Do you think that Controling an Island group in a Convoy SZ to neutralize it can be part of the core rule? <<

I don’t think so, for two reasons which are related (once again) to the principle of rock-bottom simplicity.  First, because (as discussed above) disconnecting the convoys completely from the issue of who-controls-which-territory simplifies the NCHR tremendously while still allowing it to function.  (In other words, it’s the simplest solution that still works.)  Second, because the island proposal would introduce the concept that there are two ways to disrupt a convoy: by doing whatever point 7 above will say (which is the solution we want) or by occupying an island (which is an unnecessary complication, because one disruption method is enough).  Once again, this is a case of something which is excess baggage for the core rules, but which would make a great Optional Extra.  (I even gave it a tentative name in an earlier post – “Baron’s Island-Based Disruption Variant” – for precisely that reason).

[CWO Marc]

Here’s a slightly revised version of this afternoon’s 8-point list (now reduced to a 7-point list, which is one-half the number of Woodrow Wilson’s famous Fourteen Points).  I deleted most of the earlier notes (except for the last two points, now renumbered 6 and 7) to facilitate reading and to show just how short and simple this is becoming (which is great).  The notes in the previous version still apply, however – so be sure to read them if you haven’t already done so.  The SZs proposed in point 3 are just drafts (based on Black Elk’s earlier proposal, with a few tweaks) and are of course subject to change.

1. Each power starts out the game owning a 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 placing a convoy marker of the correct nationality face-up in each of the following sea zones (SZs) of the A&A 1941 game map:

US: SZ 11 (Eastern Seaboard) and 40 (Hawaii)
UK: SZ 9 (Mid-Atlantic Gap) and 29 (India)
USSR: SZ 3 (Murmansk) and 47 (Siberia)
Germany: SZ 5 (Baltic) and 16 (North Africa)
Japan: SZ 45 (Home Islands) and 31 (Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere)

4. Each SZ can contain either 1 convoy or no convoys, as indicated by the setup chart.  Convoys cannot move.

5.  Each convoy has a value of 2 IPCs when it is Operational and 0 IPCs when it is Disrupted.  A convoy which is Operational is indicated on the map using a face-up convoy marker.  A convoy which is Disrupted is indicated on the map using a face-down convoy marker.  Convoy markers are never removed from the map.

6. A convoy which is Operational becomes Disrupted when…

TO BE DECIDED: This point is a place-holder.
POSSIBILITY: Some kind of simple action by an enemy submarine?

7. A convoy which has been Disrupted becomes Operational when…

TO BE DECIDED: This point is a place-holder.
POSSIBILITY: Some kind of simple destroyer action by the convoy owner?

[baron Münchhausen]

Ok I see what is your intent for a minimal National Convoy.
On my part, I believe such system should be able to add options around the basic core without changing the basis.
That’s why I prefer these SZ for 1941, since this would allow for a Island base Disruption variant:

3. Prior to the start of play, the game’s convoy system is set up by placing a convoy marker of the correct nationality face-up in each of the following sea zones (SZs) of the A&A 1941 game map, and as much as possible be at the same place on more complex board:

US: SZ 12 (Eastern Seaboard) West Indies are in this SZ and SZ 40 (Hawaiian Islands is in this SZ)
UK: SZ 2 (Mid-Atlantic Gap which I place on the northern part of Atlantic nearer Island SZ3) and SZ 37 (New Guinea and Solomon Islands)
USSR: SZ 3 which have Iceland as the Island (toward Murmansk and Archangelsk) and SZ43 Midway Island (toward Siberia and Soviet Far East) Germany: SZ 5 (Baltic) and 16 (North Africa) I agree with both, that way Germany/Italy will be less vulnerable to Convoy Disruption
Japan: SZ 46 (Coastal China SZ instead of Japanese SZ45) and SZ 38 (Caroline Islands and Philippine Islands SZ)

So, in Pacific, all Japanese historical conquest or campaign would be tied to some Convoy Disruption via Island Base Disruption.
Against UK SZ 37 (New Guinea and Solomon Islands)
Against SZ 40 (Hawaiian Islands is in this SZ), SZ 38 (Caroline Islands and Philippine Islands SZ), SZ43 Midway Island (toward Siberia and Soviet Far East)

Where there is two Islands groups in the same SZ, the rule should be that both Islands must be owned to make an Island Base Convoy Disruption.

Another reason which can explain why I moved SZ45 Japan Convoy to SZ46 and
SZ11 US Convoy to SZ12 is to make Convoy protection a little harder and give a better opportunity to try Disruption from enemy’s POV (it is about the same distance from enemy’s IC SZ of production).

If we agree on this Convoy SZ as part of the basic core rule, this will be much easier to implement another layer as extra option.

What do you think?