Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.
Convoy Disruption: 1941, 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 ipcsAllies 36 to 48
Axis: 21 to 29It’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: 33Which even has a nice look to it, 54 vs 33 ipcs! haha
:-DIn 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.
-
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?
-
@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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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? -
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?
-
Here is what I still believe should be applied as basic core rule, even if this contradict what I suggested on Sub only.
6. A convoy which is Operational becomes Disrupted when…
1 Submarine or 1 Battleship is moving through such SZ during combat move or move to this SZ during combat move. In both case, 1 NCM is flip face down. And the owner cannot receive the 2 IPCs from National Convoy.
It seems to me that not allowing Battleship this kind of mission is quite contrary to intuitive thinking and history.
It is not complex at all, and Subs remains the best unit for the cheap cost to make Convoy Raid.
In this game, BB are very prohibitive but, at least, initial set-up BB should play their part in this Convoy game.
This will not be the optimal unit to do so but there is so few unit on board we shouldn’t forbid Convoy Disruption to such behemoth.
About my new mechanics for combat. I now would include Battleship with Submarine to make things similar in all aspects. When Submarines or Battleships are attacking a Convoy SZ with Destroyers or any other warships,
Attacking player can choose to allocate a Sub or Battleship or more against Convoy. Submarines or Battleships make direct auto-disruption on a 1:1 basis: Each submarine or battleship make 1 flip of NCM per unit per combat round.If there is no more escorting warships vessels, then it is not possible to make additional hit against NCM representing Convoy. This simply means that escorting vessels have done their protective jobs and Convoy continue its journey.
Everything else work like regular combat.So it allows Destroyers to defend against Submarines or Battleship without being hit, for the first combat round or more (if the attacking player wish so.)
So each NCM works like an additional hit against Submarine or Battleship, if the attacker say he choose to target Convoy.Example 1: 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.
Example 2:
1 Sub and 1 Battleship vs 2 DD and 2 NCMs in SZ.
The attacker choose to attack both Convoys first, with Sub and BB.
The Sub and BB can attack for 1 round against the 2 NCMs while the 2 DDs gets 1 round of defensive rolls.
On the second round, the Sub and BB (if both survived the first round) would attack DDs or choose to retreat.
But in anyway, both NCMs are now flip downward, since Sub and BB gets an automatic hit at Convoy on a 1:1 basis.Example 3:
If instead, the Battleship attack DD first while Sub stay focus on Convoy,
On first round both DDs get a hit.
Sub is lost and BB take a hit.
If BB sink 1 DD per round, it cannot chase Convoy after, the second NCM would still be there and functional.
Finally, as extra-option for 1942.2 and G40,
all other unit can attack Convoy on a 2:1 basis. 2 units moving into the SZ, or through for warships only,
It needs 2 units amongst: DDs, Cruisers, Fgs, Bombers, or Carriers (A1 D2) to disrupt 1 Convoy and flip 1 NCM.Planes can be land-base or Carrier-base, this make no difference.
As long as there is 2 units for 1 Convoy to disrupt. -
7. A convoy which has been Disrupted becomes Operational when…
I thought that we were pretty close on an agreement that the owner should pay 1 IPC to flip NCM face upward when it is his Collect Income phase? It was simpler than anything else, even moving DD in convoy SZ to flip upward NCM.
Did you have something else in mind?
About Convoy Destruction, I’m not a great fan either.
I just believe that 1 IPC cost can represent everything from cargo lost and ship wreckage.
I see it as a partial damage to convoy made by Sub, not a total destruction.
If all ships and their load (of 2 IPCs) would have been lost, the replacement cost would probably be greater than total income which could be made in a single travel (2 IPCs). -
@Baron:
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 what I’ve been saying all along. The core rules are the core rules and the options are the options. They’re two separate things. The core rules never change. There’s only one set of core rules. Options can’t be put into the core rules because that would change the core rules. If people want to use options, they’re welcome to do so, but options (by definition) are a rule variation, not a new set of core rules.
At this point, however, it’s pretty clear to me that I’m the only one who seems to be attracted to this concept. Black Elk has made very few comments about all this over the past week or so, which makes it hard to interpret what his position is, and the models you’ve proposed several times (notably the part about island-based disruption, which has come up again today) seem to be based on a different concept of what a set of core rules is supposed to mean. So at this point, I think it would be best for everyone if I just withdrew from this discussion so that you and Black Elk can carry on with the work by yourselves and so that you can both design something that you’ll both be happy with.
-
It was never my intention to put you out of anything.
Your contribution is very valuable.
And I think Black_Elk think the same.
He didn’t add anything because it is the week-end probably.I can work with a system which start with Submarine as the only Disruption weapon.
And consider Battleship able to do it also, as one of the first variant of NCHR.However, if we start with the basic set-up in such and such SZs
and add an extra-option which completely change the basic SZs to different ones, it becomes rather complex to add this variant.
On the opposite, if it can be foreseen and it is possible to find some kind of consensus on specific SZs, I believe this make for a better core system and an overall better House rule. That’s why I come back with island-based disruption. However, I agree it can’t be part of the core rule. There is other things to decide before making all the detail. But I saw that core rule which put Convoy SZ in a specific SZ not fitted for other variant seems problematic to me.Also, I didn’t take one point at a time because I’m actually more in a creative process and I would not discard something before it has been reviewed by others.
-
Crazy week at work, and today too, which is actually my birthday.
:-DWhich is why soon as I eat some cake, I’ll be back to talk more about convoys. Because I live A&A! And love to play.
I’m on board with everything you’ve posted so far Marc. Been reading it all with great interest!
-
I like the 7 points, a blueprint for World War hehe ;)
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)Complete agreement here on the first 3 points. I think this would be optimal for 1941.
I’m fine with sz 9 Mid Atlantic and sz 29 India, whatever works best. To me its more about the money in play, than the exact location of the sz, though those would seem to fit the bill just fine. Provided there is a ready answer to the sz 9 question, to deal with that German U-boat I think it works well. The situation is always the same in A&A, with a German u-boat occupying that Mid-Atlantic Gap sea zone (whatever sz number it gets on a particular board), so I’d say that however it works in 1941 with sz 9, it should work the same on all other mapboards.
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.
Yes, I prefer fixed convoys, no movement, for ease of use. If I’m reading point 4 correctly, based on the 5th point that follows it, this means we are introducing 4 ipcs for each nation in 1941? This seems adequate to me, given the overall scale of the economy on that board. It might be interesting to have more than 1 convoy, ie more than a single roundel representing a convoy worth 2 ipcs each, purely to get us up to 6 ipcs per Nation in convoy cash (enough for a submarine) but I’m in no way wedded to that, only offered it as an idea. When I hear “1 convoy or no convoys”, I read 1 convoy = 1 roundel = 2 ipcs, correct?
I would say that for point 4, capping the value at 1 convoy is fine for 1941, but it may be limiting in a game like 1942.2 or Global where the economy is larger and the desire to scale up the bonus convoy cash to meet the game might be difficult. For core rules, I think it would be easier to increase the number of convoys per zone, than it would be to change the value of the individual roundels. So in that sense, I would prefer that point 5 in this list be considered a core rule (convoy roundels should be worth 2 ipcs for all games), but point 4 seems a bit more specific to 1941, unless I misread it.
I guess I see these two points as related, in order for the core rules to scale for each board, you either need to change the number of convoys (at 2 ipcs) per zone, or the individual value of the convoy (increasing it beyond 2 ipcs), or else include many more zones each individually at a value of 2 ipcs. Just to give a sense of the scale in 1941 OOB Russia has a starting income of 7 ipcs, in 1942.2 Russia starts with 24 ipcs. Using this as a base, the 1942.2 economy is more than 3 times larger than the 1941 economy.
So if we want to keep pace with the convoy cash increase you have those three basic options when jumping to 1942.2 scale.
Option A. 3 times the number of convoys in a give zone (3 roundels at a value of 2 ipcs each as opposed to a single roundel)
Option B. 3 times the value for the single convoy roundel in that zone (raising that value from 2 ipc to 6 ipcs)
Option C. 3 times the number of sea zones that house those convoys (6 total sea zones per nation rather than 2.)
does that make sense?I’m not sure which would be the simplest for scale. Option A requires more roundels, Option C requires more total convoy sea zones, option B requires players to memorize a different base ipc value convoy roundels depending on which board they are playing. I think I favor option A, just to keep the base value of each roundel at 2, no matter which game you are playing, and just increase the number in each zone, when playing the larger scale games.
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?I think this would be the way to go for 1941, and any board, with simplicity being the key. Basically I’m looking for a system I can explain to my buddy quickly, to pick up and run with it, involving as few complicating factors as possible. In this case, Marc’s idea to scrap the port of origin/destination, and reserve this for the more complex system might be optimal. Or if you want to keep a land territory attachment, then it could maybe just be one of these, the port of destination? Though either way, if we keep a land territory requirement, this does seem return the convoy cash concept into one which is subordinated to land war. I’ll just put it to this simple example between Russia and Germany… If, as Germany, all I have to do to shut down the Russian convoy in sz 3 is take the port of Murmansk itself (wherever our gamey geography decides that is, either Karelia or Arch) then I would never bother with sz 3, and only focus on the land territory with the port! The logic there goes, “Why buy a sub, when a tank would do just as well?” and taking Karelia or Arch provides has the advantage of not only shutting down the convoy income, but also the TT’s income. So that would be my main reservation with the land territory requirement. Not that it wouldn’t make sense historically, or for all practical purposes in reality, but simply because I think the gameplay result in A&A would be that players ignore the new convoy sea zones, and opt instead to focus on land territories with ports, since the latter would provide more bucks for the bang.
:-DSo we’re in agreement there as well I think. Potentially interesting or potentially problematic as an optional add on, but not strictly necessary.
Suggested Topics
