G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[baron Münchhausen]

**To simplify things, I would lower the cap to 4 IPCs per Convoy SZ.

Germany and Italy cannot lose from raiders more per turn than 4 IPCs each.
No matter the number of Convoy SZs which were raided.**

(Maybe up to 8 IPCs for Germany?)
Atlantic SZ near Bordeaux and Mediterranean SZ near Southern France seem an overstretched when these TTs are conquered.
IDK how to deal with this otherwise.

Because German’s and Italian’s economy is mostly based on exchange with direct land neighbours and less dependant to merchant’s marine than Allies and Japan.
But OOB makes Axis suffered a lot more from Convoy Disruption than Allies, this seems an aberration to me.

**Russia cannot lose any IPCs from Convoy raiders.

UK Europe and UK Pacific have no limit.
USA has no limit.
Anzac has no limit.

Japan has no limit.**

With such cap at 4 IPCs,
StB odds would be 3.194 -2 = 1.194 IPCs/MCR
TcB odds would be 2.5 -2 = 0.5 IPCs/MCR
Sub odds would be 2.5 -0.833 = 1.667 IPCs/MCR + 1 IPC/SLD = 2.667 IPCs/Raid

Compared to economic damage on IC or Bases, aircrafts are less efficient:
OOB G40 SBR StB on IC only 4.583 -2= 2.583 IPCs/SB Raid
G40 SBR HRed with StB taken down by IC’AA gun able to do 2 IPCs damage:
4.916 -2= 2.916 IPCs/SB Raid
TBR with Tactical B (12 IPCs) dmg 1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPCs damage/TB Raid

**Also this gives a progressive increment of even numbers for economical damage caps:
Convoy SZ has a maximum damage of 4 IPCs.
Air Base, Naval Base and Minor IC have a maximum damage of 6 IPCs.
Major Industrial Complex have a maximum damage of 20 IPCs.

And, if any Medium IC producing up to 5 units could be introduced, Med IC would have a max damage of 10 IPCs.**

[regularkid]

Re: proposed convoy rules, sounds like a whole lot of extra complexity (faction-specific rules, really?) without a commensurate improvement in gameplay mechanics or enjoyability.

Rarely does one hear any complaints about convoy/blockade mechanics as a problem with the current game design. It isn’t. It works fine. The fact that blockading convoys can have a crippling impact on one’s IPCs is both historically correct and an important (though hardly sufficient, by itself) counterbalance to the strong axis-advantage in the game.

The same goes for airbase scrambling, which happens to be one of the more enjoyable aspects unique to G40. Why should it be changed? Because somebody wants faster email games? Pft.

If the goal is to come up with a redesign that is played and enjoyed by folks other than its creators, two principles should govern: first, if ain’t broke don’t fix it and, second, KISS (keep it simple stupid).

[regularkid]

Regarding the proposed collapsing/reordering of turns in order to eliminate Italian “can openers,” why exactly is canopening a problem? It adds strategic depth to the game.

But assuming the elimination of italian “can openers” is the goal, here’s a simpler solution: make Germany and Italy one faction.

Historically, the Italian Army did serve what could be described as a “can-opening” roll on the Eastern Front in 1942. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_participation_in_the_Eastern_Front#August_1941_.E2.80.93_July_1942.2C_CSIR_Operations

“The ARMIR advanced toward the right bank of the Don River which was reached by July 1942. In August, the highly-mobile riflemen (Bersaglieri) of the Prince Amedeo Duke of Aosta Fast Division eliminated the Soviet bridgehead at Serafimovič. In the same month, with the support of German tanks, the Bersaglieri repelled a Soviet attack during the first defensive battle of the Don.”

[baron Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

Re: proposed convoy rules, sounds like a whole lot of extra complexity (faction-specific rules, really?) without a commensurate improvement in gameplay mechanics or enjoyability.

At least, now StBombers can destroy Merchant’s ships. Even if it is not the optimized tactics. And both TcB and StB can raid from a coastal TT. No need to be on a Carrier to perform this raid now.

Rarely does one hear any complaints about convoy/blockade mechanics as a problem with the current game design. It isn’t. It works fine. The fact that blockading convoys can have a crippling impact on one’s IPCs is both historically correct and an important (though hardly sufficient, by itself) counterbalance to the strong axis-advantage in the game.

If the goal is to come up with a redesign that is played and enjoyed by folks other than its creators, two principles should govern: first, if ain’t broke don’t fix it and, second, KISS (keep it simple stupid).

If people want to play an OOB G39 or G42 or else, Larry, Oztea and maybe others have created such set-up.
I just know that at least Black_Elk and YG would have liked a Convoy mechanics which is not different than SBR. After all, these are both ecomomical war.
So, you get no different game mechanic.

But, first issue is about keeping track of damage, still about the same way as it is against IC, AB or NB: you put chips under them. Again, same method in the Convoy SZ. Simpler from this perspective, one less game mechanic to learn.

Second issue, the Convoy SZ positioning on G40 map. The OOB rule produces during game the opposite of the intended general principles: picturing WWII Commerce raiding and all Subwarfare it generates. The most historical feature is the Battle of Atlantic which U-boats menace almost kneel down UK.
But, in actual game, it is Italy post-Taranto raid which is kneel down by UK, mostly because of Adriatic Convoy Zone. In addition, Normandy-Bordeaux Convoy SZ generates Germany’s gamey move such as not taking the TT to counter Allies raiders in this SZ.
As a France Convoy SZ it works, but as a German’s one, it doesn’t fit into history.
Also U-boats are not that useful against UK economy.

So, I believe this is an issue that can be adress in a better way than OOB.
I suggested 1 fix about limiting such Convoy Damage on both Italy and Germany. You don’t like it, me neither. As you can read, it is at least the third version of a first draft on Convoy Raid rules.
It is an on going process. It is very difficult to get fine tuning on the first draft.

At least now, it is an alternate mechanics for Convoy Disruption which gives the initiative to attacker during his turn and not the reverse as OOB which requires a strong naval defense against the raided players to make a fruitful Convoy Raid. Just see the non-sense of moving x Subs into such SZ and wait to see how many subs survived the raided power attack with very few DDs and a lot of planes. A totally inept economical warfare, since Subs are better on offense.

With this SBR/MCR mechanics, x Subs entering an empty Convoy SZ will certainly gets 4 IPCs damage before being subject to a devastating retaliation attack (DDs & aircrafts) from the raided Power.

Switching this phase from raided power’s turn to raiding power’s turn is the most important feature. I believe this can solve one aspect of historical issue, but this need to be tested to see if it produces what is expected.

[regularkid]

I think i see what you’re going for now, and it makes sense. Just a question of how it is executed.

One easy way to promote submarine-play in the atlantic without a complete overhaul of OOB convoy-blockading system (which works quite well in the Pacific, as others have noted) is simply to add a National Objective for UK Europe, something like: 3 PUs for UK if there are no enemy submarines in the Atlantic (excluding szs 112, 125-127).

This is quite similar to the NO that was part of the original G40 game, and is actually something I have play-tested extensively in tandem with other allied NOs in a balance mod. I can attest that this NO does promote sub production and warfare by Germany in the Atlantic, creating a kind of cat-and-mouse dynamic between the Royal Navy and German uboat fleet. Occassionally, a german uboat can even sneak into an allied convoy zone in relative safety, having an even greater impact on allied income.

As for szs 105 and sz 97, if the convoy zones here are problematic, perhaps the best solution is simply to remove them?

[baron Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

I think i see what you’re going for now, and it makes sense. Just a question of how it is executed.

One easy way to promote submarine-play in the atlantic without a complete overhaul of OOB convoy-blockading system (which works quite well in the Pacific, as others have noted) is simply to add a National Objective for UK Europe, something like: 3 PUs for UK if there are no enemy submarines in the Atlantic (excluding szs 112, 125-127).

This is quite similar to the NO that was part of the original G40 game, and is actually something I have play-tested extensively in tandem with other allied NOs in a balance mod. I can attest that this NO does promote sub production and warfare by Germany in the Atlantic, creating a kind of cat-and-mouse dynamic between the Royal Navy and German uboat fleet. Occassionally, a german uboat can even sneak into an allied convoy zone in relative safety, having an even greater impact on allied income.

As for szs 105 and sz 97, if the convoy zones here are problematic, perhaps the best solution is simply to remove them?

These two solutions have the merit to be easier to implement.

About the No Axis Submarine in Atlantic SZ for UK Europe, it is truly interesting.
The strange thing is the cat-and-mouse game is reversed from a historical strategic level in ATO in which U-boats were chasing Merchant’s cargo ships. But, between U-boats and Allied warships the cats are clearly Allied Destroyers, Carriers and planes, and U-boats play the mice.
So this NO should be added to increase the Atlantic action. As such, your game experience on this point gives garanties that it works.

And, whichever the Convoy Disruption mechanic that Black_Elk will prefer such NO can be added.
It works with both mechanics.

On removing Convoy SZ 105 (Bordeaux) and SZ 97 (Adriatic), I have another solution which can provided similar results which also includes SZ 93 (Southern France) too.

On Europe Map only, a Convoy SZ is active as long as original owning Power have a TT bordering the SZ.
For Neutral TTs changing hands, it is as OOB.
So, any Power which gains ownership of Neutral TT becomes a target in this given Convoy SZ.
Otherwise, the Convoy SZ is rendered inactive.

SZ 97 would still be limited to 4 IPCs cap, and it is OK for Italy.
SZ 125 works for Germany (Narvik’s iron shipping) and the 4 IPCs cap apply.
And turn inactive if Allies invade Norway.
SZ 105 and 93 would become inactive after France conquest.
And about SZ 80 near Saudi Arabia, all surrounding TTs were Neutral and in this case the Convoy SZ would switch according to the new owners.
Same for SZ 85 (Brazil), it is Neutral at the opening round.
In case of Sea Lion invasion of UK, SZ 109 and SZ 119 would not affect Germany.

There will be no change on Pacific Map, Convoy SZs work according to OOB.

[baron Münchhausen]

**In addition, Shipping Lines Disruption (SLD) is available to any Sub (no matter if it attacked or made a raid, or was on the move earlier in the turn) which is alive after NCM and still in a Convoy SZ.

Each Sub doing Shipping Line Disruption destroys 1 IPC from enemy’s hand.**

Another feature which is implied from SLD is that Wolfpack attack is somehow imbedded into it.

If you bring 4 Subs into a Convoy SZ, there is no need to Convoy Raid and risk the escort defense @1. Just wait the SLD phase to rip off all the 4 IPCs from the Power owning the given Convoy SZ, at no risk.

On the other hand, splitting 4 Subs into 4 SZs to make more Convoy Raids and economical damage (up to 4 x 4 =16 IPCs) but at the risk of 4 defensive preemptive rolls @1 from DEscorts is another interesting tactic. Because chasing Subs in 4 SZs is harder than chasing 1 group of 4 Subs located in a single SZ.

[Black_Elk]

Sorry I haven’t been around to participate in the discussion much this week. I’m deep in the throws of a move/renovation.

I’d say keeping it simple has been a fairly consistent aim of mine. I’m not sure that the OOB rules are particularly simple, familiar maybe, but if they can be improved upon in certain areas without too much rules overhead I’m not opposed to exploring other options. We haven’t settled on anything as yet so I’m happy to brainstorm and take opinions.

I’m not a huge fan of the OOB convoy system, because it doesn’t seem to produce the desired gameplay effects in the Atlantic, and for all the reasons Baron noted. I know this rule has also been the cause of confusion for newer players because the wording is rather ambiguous in the manual as to when these “attacks” are meant to occur (eg on the defending nations turn). Not that new players are our target audience, I’m just not sure the OOB rules are all that spectacular beyond nixing Italy out of the med.

I like the concept of the NO for uboats, though I think it’d be nice if Germany had to do more than just launch a single uboat to collect it. Something that encourages the German player to fan out and get the wolf packs prowling would be nice. I think the OOB rules work better in the pacific, but that theater has its own set of challenges in other areas. I think the lackluster Battle of the Altantic on the Europe side and island hopping campaign in the Pacific are probably the two things I’d like to deal with in any redux

The scramble mention was just to put it on the table. Whether people are interested in trying something new or just keeping the familiar OOB dynamic. I’m not pushing a new scramble too hard. I’ve just heard it mentioned before that it might be an element of the game worth expanding upon.

:-)

[regularkid]

@Baron:

On Europe Map only, a Convoy SZ is active as long as original owning Power have a TT bordering the SZ.
For Neutral TTs changing hands, it is as OOB.
So, any Power which gains ownership of Neutral TT becomes a target in this given Convoy SZ.
Otherwise, the Convoy SZ is rendered inactive.
. . .

There will be no change on Pacific Map, Convoy SZs work according to OOB.

Again, this gets into the problem of faction-specific rules, which seem like a “forced,” solution. Ideally, the rule set that is ultimately agreed upon will create the desired gameplay/historial conditions organically, without the need for seemingly arbitrary distinctions and restrictions.

Regarding Black_Elk’s comments:

@Black_Elk:

I like the concept of the NO for uboats, though I think it’d be nice if Germany had to do more than just launch a single uboat to collect it.

Having play tested the “no-sub” NO, together with the OOB NOs, and some others, my experience has been that it actually does result in more dynamic sub-play than you might expect. How so?

First, there are actually 2 “sub” Nos. . . one for Russian lend lease (sz 125) and the other for the Atlantic (excluding sz 112, 125-127 as aforesaid). Where the german player only has one sub, a choice must be made. Second, it is usually not enough for the German player to simply deploy a sub in the production phase to defeat the NO, because sz 112 is excluded, and any subs constructed elsewhere in the atlantic (e.g. the channel) are extremely vulnerable. So a little bit of canniness is required. If multiple subs survive G1 (e.g., in szs 91 or 106) , it is not unusual for the German player to start moving them to remote corners of the Atlantic (up by Newfoundland, or down into the South Atlantic) to evade allied destroyers and require Allied ships to move out position. And, if a uboat makes it around the horn of africa, this negates yet another sub-NO for UK-Pacific. All promoting very nice historical dynamic for sub warfare. This in addition to the traditional combat role that subs serve. . . hey, they can sink warships too!  So the NOs do seem to achieve much of what is desired.

As for the learning curve on the OOB rules, I agree they’re not always a model of elegant simplicity in all areas. But, as you say, they are familiar, widely accepted by the community. That is a huge selling point. A very high burden should be applied to any proposed, material change.

[regularkid]

In case you guys wanted to give it a try, attached is a playable saved-game containing the most recent iteration of the “Balance Mod” NOs. The details are as follows:

Global 1940 Second Edition - Balanced Mod

Revision Credits: Adam514, aznz, dss85, Gencre, regularkid

**REVISIONS    **

Revised Air Raid Rules: Fighters attack and defend at 2. Strategic and tactical bombers attack at 1.

**Additional National Objectives  **

UK

• 3 PUs for UK Europe if Allies control at least 2 of: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece (“Southern Europe Beach Head”).

• 3 PUs for UK Europe if Malta, Crete, and Cyprus are Allied or pro-Allied controlled (“Control of Mediterranean Shipping Lanes”).

• 3 PUs for UK Europe if there are no enemy submarines in the Atlantic, excluding szs 112 and 125-127 (“Control of Atlantic Shipping Lanes”).

• 3 PUs for UK Pacific when at war with the Japanese if: (1) British control West India and Egypt; and (2) there are no enemy submarines in the western half of the Indian Ocean (sz71,…,sz81) (“Control of Indian Ocean Shipping Lanes”).

USA

• 5 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories (“Western Europe Beach Head”).

• 5 PUs if Allies control Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories (“North Africa Beach Head”).

• 5 PUs if USA is at war and controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam (“Pacific Airbases”).

• 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas (“Vital Forward Bases”).

Revised National Objectives

Russia

• 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe (“Spread of Communism”).

• 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is open if Russia is at war with European Axis and no allied units are present in any originally Russian territories: (Persia, sz 80), (Amur, sz 5), (Archangel, sz 125); An additional 1 PU per open Lend-Lease lane if Japan has declared war on Russia (“Lend Lease”).

G40BalanceModv3.tsvg

[barney]

@regularkid

Thats interesting with how the subs play out. In my experiments it always seemed as if it wasn’t worth it for Germany to send subs into the Atlantic unless they could counterattack the DD that kills them. That is currently hard to do because the only two zones they can really contest (not counting 125) both have ABs protecting them. If they have planes there, then it takes to many resources to kill it.

I like the idea of subs roaming around the edges. Even if no subs survive rd 1, depending on how soon Japan gets the ball rolling, you might be able to sneak one out rd 2. Or just save one rd 1. IDK if that would be worth it or not. It would give you another option anyway. I’ll have to check it out.

[baron Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

@Baron:

On Europe Map only, a Convoy SZ is active as long as original owning Power have a TT bordering the SZ.
For Neutral TTs changing hands, it is as OOB.
So, any Power which gains ownership of Neutral TT becomes a target in this given Convoy SZ.
Otherwise, the Convoy SZ is rendered inactive.
. . .

There will be no change on Pacific Map, Convoy SZs work according to OOB.

Again, this gets into the problem of faction-specific rules, which seem like a “forced,” solution. Ideally, the rule set that is ultimately agreed upon will create the desired gameplay/historial conditions organically, without the need for seemingly arbitrary distinctions and restrictions.

Your right, after a careful examination of both Maps, I will accept your simpler solution Regularkid.
I would delete Bordeaux Convoy SZ 105.
I keep Convoy SZs in Southern France SZ 93 and Adriatic SZ 97 where they are.
For UK Convoy SZs 109 and 119, I can rationalize that when Germany gets hands on it, the main import/export ways to Germany would be on the west coast of England instead of east coast.
That way it could explain why Germany Convoys cannot take the shortest and safest way from UK.

So I’m OK for both SZs.

After Battle of France, Bordeaux and Southern France would probably be in German’s hands. So, it makes Germany still subject to up to (2x4 IPCs cap=) 8 IPCs damage from Norway Convoy SZ 125 and Southern France Convoy SZ 93. That way, there will be no big difference on damage vs OOB 3+2+3= 8 IPCs damage cap.
Italy would suffer less with 4 IPCs cap than OOB up to 12 IPCs damage in Convoy SZ .
This is  better, Italy will not be crippled that way.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Baron:

@Baron:

@Young:

I always liked the classic SBR rules where you roll a dice per bomber and take that amount straight from their cash on hand. Off the top of my head, I would do something like… 1 or more warships in a convoy zone allows for 1d6 to take cash.

I truly believe Convoy disruption should be 4 IPCs cap per Convoy SZ
It is still near the OOB average around 4.6 IPCs per Convoy SZ.

**Bordeaux Convoy SZ 105 must be deleted.

If at least 1 TT bordering a Convoy SZ is on enemy’s hand, this SZ can be raid.
If two Allied Powers share a Convoy SZ, the economical damage must be split as evenly as possible between the two according to the number of TTs owned.

Also riping off the cash on hand is applied directly during attacker’s Convoy Raiding phase.**

Instead of direct naval combat on enemy’s ships, Submarines and Bombers (StB and TcB) should be able to make economic attack in a Convoy SZ on the attacker turn.

This should be easy to apply if attacker’s Control Markers are put in the Convoy SZ as reminder.

Examples:
UK Europe will lost 8 IPCs at most to the 2 homeland Convoy SZ IPCs.
(Same pressure as OOB 8 IPCs from 6+2 TTs Convoy SZs)

Germany can only loose 4 IPCs from Finland-Norway Convoy SZ, and from any TTs conquered in UK, Southern France, or any North American conquered TTs.
(This make also the same economic pressure on Germany as OOB.)

Italy can only loose 4 IPCs, from Adriatic SZ. Or 8 IPCs, if it takes Southern France.
(Malta with aircrafts can become interesting as another way to raid on these two SZs.)

USA can loose 4 IPCs per Convoy SZ, which includes at the beginning Alaskan Sz (from 3 to 4 IPCs), Hawaiian (increase from 1 to 4 IPCs Convoy damage), Philippines Convoy SZs (increase from 2 to 4 IPCs Convoy damage) and Gulf of Mexico SZ (an increase from 3 to 4 IPCs Convoy damage).
This makes USA much more affected by distant raids from homeland than OOB, while east (12 IPCs) and west (10 IPCs) coasts are lowered to 4 IPCs (a more logical level), each.

Japan can only loose 4 IPCs from homeland Convoy SZs but one DEI islands Convoy SZ rise from 3 to 4 and Philippines’ SZ Convoy damage rise from 2 IPCs to 4 IPCs.

Anzac is also much more vulnerable to Convoy Raid, up to 3 SZs at 4 IPCs each = 12 IPCs economic damage.
(Solomon’s Islands now become far more interesting as a base to raid these 3 SZs with Bombers.)

URSS have still nothing to loose.

Warships as a whole fleet can raid an empty Convoy SZ for 1D6.

Each Submarine can either attack enemy’s warships and TPs in a Convoy SZ OR raid the Merchant Convoy, for 1D6 damage.

**Each Tac bomber can either attack ennemy’s warships OR raid a Convoy SZ for 1D6 damage,
Each Strategic bomber can either attack enemy’s warships and TPs OR raid a Convoy SZ for 1D6+2 damage.

But Fighter cannot perform any Merchant Convoy Raid (MCR).
However, Fighters on Carriers in the SZ can be use as interceptors to protect Merchants Convoy against TcBs and StBs.
Same rule apply as in SBR:
Roll for bombers vs interceptors segment.
Remove casualties.
Then, all attack rolls must submit to a Convoy preemptive defense @1,**
coming from Destroyer Escorts, Corvettes and AA gun added on Merchants ships.

Against Submarines there is no Fighters defense, only the preemptive roll @1 per Submarine.

1 preemptive roll per each Submarine, TcB, StB or 1 preemptive roll against a whole fleet of warships.

To increase some kind of Convoy raid such as in Battle of the Atlantic and subwarfare, Submarine needs probably to be able to fight both naval combat AND economic battle in a given round of play.

Here is my suggestion:
**Sub either attacks surface vessels and TPs OR makes a Merchants’ ships Convoy Raid (MCR)
in Convoy SZ, as suggested above, damage per Submarine unit: 1D6 IPCs taken from enemy’s hand.
Defender roll a preemptive @1 against each Sub doing a raid, this picturing the Destroyer Escorts and Corvettes work.

Shipping Lines Disruption (SLD) is available to any Sub (no matter if it attacked or made a raid, or was on the move earlier in the turn) which is alive and still in a Convoy SZ.

Each Sub doing Shipping Line Disruption destroys 1 IPC from enemy’s hand.
4 IPCs maximum still apply per Convoy SZ.**

This could simulate how Subs Staying on Station are ready to fall on any defenseless lonely pray passing by.
This 4 IPCs cap can also be an incentive to scatter Subs in many Convoy SZs as much as possible to optimize IPCs losses OR to make a kind of Wolfpack attack with multiple Subs at no risk during SLD.

In addition, this SLD for Submarine only make them more cost efficient on economic damage at sea.
With such cap at 4 IPCs:
StB (cost 12) odds would be 3.194 -2 = 1.194 IPCs/MCR
TcB (cost 12) odds would be 2.5 -2 = 0.5 IPCs/MCR
Sub (cost 5) odds would be 2.5 -0.833 = 1.667 IPCs/MCR + 1 IPC/SLD = 2.667 IPCs/Raid

Compared to economic damage on isolated IC or Bases, aircrafts are near half less cost efficient doing Convoy Raid:
OOB G40 SBR StB on IC only 4.583 -2= 2.583 IPCs/SB Raid
G40 SBR HRed with StB taken down by IC’AA gun able to do 2 IPCs damage:
4.916 -2= 2.916 IPCs/SB Raid
TBR with Tactical B (12 IPCs) dmg 1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPCs damage/TB Raid

Sub 2.667 IPCs (1.667 per MCR+ 1 per SLD) VS StB 1.194 IPCs per MCR only.

According to both HR game mechanics I suggested, you can see both StBs (2.916 IPCs/SBR) and Subs (2.667 IPCs/ MCR+SLD) would be statistically near even point against their favorite targets.

However, another feature is required to keep track of the IPCs loss per Convoy SZ.

For each IPC paid due to MCR or SLD in a given SZ, put 1 attacker’s Control Marker in this Convoy SZ.
When it reaches 4 markers (you can also use plastic chips under 1 Control Marker worth 1, plus each chip worth 1 so a single 3 green chip means a given SZ has been emptied of 4 IPCs goods), any additional IPC damage in this individual Convoy SZ have no effect.

That way, the raided player would have a mean to remember how much damage was taken per each individual SZ during the whole game round and how many powers made the raid.
Example, Italy in 1 Adriatic SZ can be MCR by UK and USA, if UK ripe off Italy of 2 IPCs and USA rolls for 4 damage, it will be easy to stop at 2 IPCs by looking on the number of UK’s Control Markers/chips.

I believe it is this need to keep tracks of the situation which make Larry put Convoy Disruption just before the Collect income phase of a Power, instead of the attacking Power’s turn.

[regularkid]

Baron, how bout this for a simplified (closer to OOB) approach, that puts convoy raids on the attackers turn:

1. Warships and Subs may conduct convoy raids against any income producing territory bordering a convoy zone. This works similar to a shore bombardment, with each participating ship simply targeting a specific territory (No need for a rough division of damage between allied powers bordering the same sz. The attacker simply chooses each ships target).

2. Surface ships can only make a raid in an empty convoy zone (if enemy ships are present, a naval battle results. No raid). Submarines can raid any convoy zone, unless enemy destroyer is present (if enemy destroyer is present, a naval battle results. No raid).

3. Convoy raid damage is determined using the OOB method, with each raid inflicting up to the value of the targeted territory. The total amount of damage is immediately removed from the targeted player’s treasury.

4. Each convoy zone can only be raided once per round, per side.

Sound good?

[baron Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

Baron, how bout this for a simplified (closer to OOB) approach, that puts convoy raids on the attackers turn:

1. Warships and Subs may conduct convoy raids against any income producing territory bordering a convoy zone. This works similar to a shore bombardment, with each participating ship simply targeting a specific territory (No need for a rough division of damage between allied powers bordering the same sz. The attacker simply chooses each ships target).

2. Surface ships can only make a raid in an empty convoy zone (if enemy ships are present, a naval battle results. No raid). Submarines can raid any convoy zone, unless enemy destroyer is present (if enemy destroyer is present, a naval battle results. No raid).

3. Convoy raid damage is determined using the OOB method, with each raid inflicting up to the value of the targeted territory. The total amount of damage is immediately removed from the targeted player’s treasury.

4. Each convoy zone can only be raided once per round, per side.

Sound good?

At first glance it seems effectively a working alternative to Convoy Disruption nearer OOB mechanic.

#1doesn’t seem necessary. Once the damage are rolled, you apply the damage accordingly and let the owners split as they wish. The same way casualty are determined by multiple defenders.
The damage cap would be the sum of all enemy’s adjacent TTs to Convoy SZ.

It would be easier to implement into Triple A.

What do you do about Fighter rolling 2D6, keeping 1-3 as damage?
I’m OK with TcB.
Any idea about Strategic bombers?
In OOB Convoy system, every 1D6 roll gives an avg of 1 IPC, 2D6 gives 2 IPCs.
But getting no damage is possible, and there is no risk to the attacker.

What about letting StB rolling 1D6 and keeping 1-3 as damage?
1 IPC avg is much lower than 2.583 IPCs (or 2.916) avg on SBR.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Baron:

@Baron:

@Baron:

@Young:

Instead of direct naval combat on enemy’s ships, Submarines and Bombers (StB and TcB) should be able to make economic attack in a Convoy SZ on the attacker turn.
Example
Adriatic SZ. Or 8 IPCs, if it takes Southern France.
(Malta with aircrafts can become interesting as another way to raid on these two SZs.)

Anzac is also much more vulnerable to Convoy Raid, up to 3 SZs at 4 IPCs each = 12 IPCs economic damage.
(Solomon’s Islands now become far more interesting as a base to raid these 3 SZs with Bombers.)

Warships as a whole fleet can raid an empty Convoy SZ for 1D6.

Each Submarine can either attack enemy’s warships and TPs in a Convoy SZ OR raid the Merchant Convoy, for 1D6 damage.

**Each Tac bomber can either attack ennemy’s warships OR raid a Convoy SZ for 1D6 damage,
Each Strategic bomber can either attack enemy’s warships and TPs OR raid a Convoy SZ for 1D6+2 damage.

But Fighter cannot perform any Merchant Convoy Raid (MCR).
However, Fighters on Carriers in the SZ can be use as interceptors to protect Merchants Convoy against TcBs and StBs.
Same rule apply as in SBR:
Roll for bombers vs interceptors segment.
Remove casualties.
Then, all attack rolls must submit to a Convoy preemptive defense @1,**
coming from Destroyer Escorts, Corvettes and AA gun added on Merchants ships.

Against Submarines there is no Fighters defense, only the preemptive roll @1 per Submarine.

1 preemptive roll per each Submarine, TcB, StB or 1 preemptive roll against a whole fleet of warships.

In addition, this SLD for Submarine only make them more cost efficient on economic damage at sea.
With such cap at 4 IPCs:
StB (cost 12) odds would be 3.194 -2 = 1.194 IPCs/MCR
TcB (cost 12) odds would be 2.5 -2 = 0.5 IPCs/MCR
Sub (cost 5) odds would be 2.5 -0.833 = 1.667 IPCs/MCR + 1 IPC/SLD = 2.667 IPCs/Raid

Sub 2.667 IPCs (1.667 per MCR+ 1 per SLD) VS StB 1.194 IPCs per MCR only.

According to both HR game mechanics I suggested, you can see both StBs (2.916 IPCs/SBR) and Subs (2.667 IPCs/ MCR+SLD) would be statistically near even point against their favorite targets.

An interesting aspect of such mechanics above which are similar to SBR, is that allowing StBs and TcBs at lower odds than SBR can probably enhanced the action around some Islands and Convoy SZ.

The first ones I tought about were Malta in Med sea and Solomons near Australia.
Both have Convoy SZs within range of TcBs and StBs.
These rules can simulate the historical values of these two TTs. And why they battle to capture them.
Italy never succeeded while US Marines interrupted the japanese airfield building on Guadalcanal which was supposed to be use by bombers against transports moving cargo to Australia.

With 4 IPCs cap it is easy to maximized damage, but there is a big risk to loose 12 IPCs units against the Convoy preemptive defense @1.

I really believe that cheaper Subs which are far more effective at doing Convoy raid and even doing both naval combat and 1 IPC Shipping Lines Disruption can compete with this original Aircraft Convoy Raid which can be faster to implement due to 4 and 6 moves.

[regularkid]

@Baron:

At first glance it seems effectively a working alternative to Convoy Disruption nearer OOB mechanic.

#1doesn’t seem necessary. Once the damage are rolled, you apply the damage accordingly and let the owners split as they wish. The same way casualty are determined by multiple defenders.
The damage cap would be the sum of all enemy’s adjacent TTs to Convoy SZ.

But didn’t you say in your last post “If two Allied Powers share a Convoy SZ, the economical damage must be split as evenly as possible between the two according to the number of TTs owned”? So, really, you’re not letting the defender choose anything. Also, what if Germany controls Greece only, and Italy controls everything else on sz 97. Now, UK comes along and gets a convoy raid with 7 damage. How is that split “evenly”? Does it have to be prorated?

Having the attacker choose the target territories involves less math, less room for confusion. Also makes sense from a ‘real life’ perspective, since convoy raidesr obviously got to choose where they focused their raids.  guess we can agree to disagree on this point :)

@Baron:

What do you do about Fighter rolling 2D6, keeping 1-3 as damage?
I’m OK with TcB.
Any idea about Strategic bombers?

Really haven’t given much thought to giving planes their own convoy-raid capabilities. But my gut reaction to it is “no.” Permitting convoy raids by planes themselves (with more rules to try to nerf their impact) would probably introduce too much convoy raiding, and probably be really tedious. (For example, if you have a tac bomber in India, do you really want to feel compelled to do a convoy raid of Java sz on every round? Would make planes more overpowered than they already are (and slow down the game). In my opinion, its enough that planes already serve a role in clearing fleet, allowing ships/subs to do the actual convoy-raiding.

[Black_Elk]

I agree with regularkid. I don’t see a compelling gameplay reason to give aircraft a role in convoy raids. It might be more historically accurate, but I don’t feel like it aligns with the OOB system or previous A&A convoy systems, where you needed a ship to ‘occupy’ or at least ‘pass through’ the relevant sz. I worry that it would introduce confusion to an aspect of the game that is already less familiar.

I know in my first games of G40 some people in the group just wanted to play “without all these crazy convoy rules” because they didn’t really understand them, and couldn’t project/anticipate how they’d affect the game’s internal economy for various nations. Not unlike objectives, which also dramatically alter the balance of power, convoys can be hard to parse in terms of their gameplay effects.

In this respect I much prefer the convoy system from the older theater games, where you could easily tell at a glance how much convoy money was at stake in a given sea zone for a given nation.

If working with an OOB G40 model, where the value of the sz is tied to adjacent land, then I think I like the simple targeting where the attacker has to choose.  Although I still don’t like how the OOB system works tying convoys to adjacent land territories for reasons mentioned before in this thread…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35687.0

Though adjacent land does have the benefit of being familiar to players of G40, I still wish we could develop a system where the game on the water is more independent. It would be cool for example if the convoy system encouraged submarine action in the gaps outside of air range. Which would give a nod to the air role without having to actually create a ruleset that deals with air directly.

For a nation like Germany, the incentive needs to be large enough so that they don’t just forego the Atlantic campaign as ‘a wasted effort’ which is what seems to happen OOB. Which is a bummer since the battle of the Atlantic was probably their best chance of knocking off England in the actual war, though in game it’s usually set aside in favor of campaigns in the east.

[nerquen]

Just for reference, I played a test game with a possibility of a special blitz attack preceding the normal combat move as described here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1461569#msg1461569

I did not like the game much. Although it felt more real that a single DD cannot block a big fleet, in reality it removed all blocker’s related decision makings. As any blockers could be relatively easily cleared it resulted in a game that almost no blockers were placed, both sides were pretty much just stacking max power into their main fleets with very little options for splitting a fleet into two parts and not getting wiped out. As blockers were not placed, the blitzing move pretty much is not executed most majority of times and it just annoys a player in tripleA to click through those empty events.

Blocking strategies feel a bit cheesy at times but actually make for a deeper game than without them.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I think that a turn based game like OOB benefits from blocking actions especially when a smaller nation makes the critical block or breakthrough that allows their teammate to score a winning blow. And I can see how without a blocking action in the first place, the ability to self can open is made irrelevant. I think the concept can work in a same-time set up where there are no turns per se, and you don’t know the enemy’s position (e.g. where exactly the blocks may occur.) In a game with the normal turn based structure, getting rid of the block by including a self can opener might just cause headaches. Leave the can closed and let the worms be I suppose.
:-D

I still think the same time concept has promise, but it’s a substantially different style of gameplay and I just don’t know if all that many players are interested in it. The Turn Based aspect of A&A is so integral to how everything works, I actually prefer a turn order. My ideal would be a randomized turn order, a bit like this…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34157.0

See the second to last post there, for why I don’t really like the collapsed All Axis vs All Allies way of playing.

I like randomized turns or else no turn order at all (same-time), or just keeping the OOB turn order, because trying to collapse it into all Axis turn then all Allies turn never worked all that well for me. It only seems to work in the 1v1 but I don’t know how much time it actually saves to play with collapsed turn order. I know others like IL have a different view, I just haven’t had much success playing that way.