Sorry for the screw-up re posted.
War Plan Orange
-
So I’ve been experimenting with an American strategy brought to my attention by marshmallow of war (although this may be a common thing with some players, I heard of it first from him).
The Japaneese fleet can easily create a naval blockade where all their ships can manoeuvre together from Tokyo to the Philippines shadowing the movements of the American fleet. The Americans in this case will always be at a disadvantage because the Japanese have no incentives to attack toward the mid Pacific because expansion to the money Islands and inward on the mainland are all they need to build and sustain their economy. Also, with the protection of a large starting fleet, Kamikaze tokens and scramble opportunities, Japan need only build half of what the Americans build in order to maintain this blockade.
The Americans therefore become stuck yo yoing back and forth absorbing new units trying to get comfortable odds in a future epic naval battle between the two fleets, and sometimes the game ends with the American units doing nothing but manoeuvring and never really getting into a fight. The shotgun strategy calls for American subs to singly occupy as many Pacific sea zones as possible with carrier based aircraft and bombers in range of those sea zones. The idea is that Japan must send their destroyers outward to deal with all these lone subs before they multiply and swarm the Pacific with more than they can handle. Hopefully 1 or 2 subs can take down a destroyer with a lucky defense roll of 1, however… the air units behind them will surly destroy the Japaneese destroyers that have been drawn out by the subs.
If the Americans can create this scenario within 15-25 sea zones, Japan will be forced to build many 8 IPC units in exchange for 6 IPC units. This is part of reducing the Japanese economy, but the real threat is the convoy disruptions around the money Islands and along the mainland coast. Taking an Island with a transport and an infantry will surely cost the Allies 10 IPCs in units due to the positioning of the Japanese fleet and relative ease of taking those Islands back, but the Japanese can’t rid themselves of all subs spread out like such and will get convoyed for sure.
Now the key is to back up any lone sub with a mop up force of air units like bombers which have the range to cover many sea zones. Taking out any Japanese destroyer when the opportunity presents itself is what will sustain this strategy, the fewer destroyers, the easier it will be to get into convoy zones. It’s like the spray effect of a shotgun shell, many will miss… but some flak will hit and do damage… so even though it may seem dangerous to expose so many lone subs within range of enemy units, consider the subs as shrapnel hurdling toward the enemy. They can’t dodge all of it, and they can’t attack a single one without a destroyer present.
-
Looks sweet, I hope to try it next game because I have had the same problem as you with the yo yo between hawaii and Queensland. Also maybe the Anzacs could contribute because they would be closer to the good convoy zones. Btw I liked your sportsmanship video.
-
loving these fresh ideas YG. Â
big challenge with this idea is that if the subs aren’t positioned over japans income (10 areas, SZ 6 SZ 19-45), japan can just ignore them. Â
They aren’t a more potent combat threat spread out than in a stack, perhaps less of a threat because not all of them can reach the same square to attack/counterattack. Â When I’m visualizing this from japans point of view, I sure would want to kill all those vulnerable, solo subs, and I agree, japan really cant afford to trade units, spread out, or play an attrition game. Â
The problem is that the sweet sea zones to shotgun out in are almost all right next to japans air coverage and sea lanes. Â Its fairly easy to kill the subs in SZ 6, SZ 37, SZ 36, SZ 35 because you are constantly passing through or hanging out in these areas with your main fleets that contain a destroyer. Â
If you spread out in the north pacific (7, 24, 16, 23), and Japan doesn’t take the bait and kill the subs, you still don’t have anywhere particularly interesting to go because you cant pass through SZ 6 or any other areas screened out by destroyers. Â If somehow you did, japan would be obligated to attack your subs, but they’d be so far from your bombers and backup subs that you wouldn’t get a destroyer kill in return
That would lead to the conclusion that we want to send the sub task force through queensland and spread out from there. Â While japan has 3-4 destroyers, he could pretty much stomp our sub fleet, though we would then hopefully have another wave of subs (with paired bombers) to counterattack. Â Going through queensland takes forever (U1 buy, U2 hono U3 queens U4 in position U5 counterattack) but it could have advantages.
Also, once japan sees that this is our plan, he can buy 4 destroyers pretty easily to replace the ones he’s losing/needs to wipe us. Â
Seems like this would be a pretty good plan as long as we apply it primarily in the deep south (esp SZ 41 and 42). Â ANZAC and UK (or the bid) could also supply extra subs/bombers. Â You need 2 subs on each convoy to ensure any kind of income suppression. Â Japan usually keeps a fleet in the south, but if it only has 1 destroyer, then it can only kill 1 sub at a time. Â USA needs to get subtastic, but as I said, the biggest challenge is that unless you are sitting right on top of his income, he can ignore the spread out subs as easily as he can ignore your entirely stacked fleet. Â
Wish you didn’t live in Canada, need good players here in KC.
-
big challenge with this idea is that if the subs aren’t positioned over japans income (10 areas, SZ 6 SZ 19-45), japan can just ignore them. Â
Yes, before American subs can get into those zones, they will be spread out rendering them harmless… however, when left alone, these subs will eventually get to those convoy zones with new subs now occupying the sea zones the first subs departed from. I can see a problem for Japan if the first wave is not dealt with.
They aren’t a more potent combat threat spread out than in a stack, perhaps less of a threat because not all of them can reach the same square to attack/counterattack. Â When I’m visualizing this from japans point of view, I sure would want to kill all those vulnerable, solo subs, and I agree, japan really cant afford to trade units, spread out, or play an attrition game.
I believe that a stack of subs are a potent threat, but maybe enough lone subs can be too. It only takes a single destroyer to negate the special abilities of any infinite number of subs. If there is an American stack of subs out there, I think it’s easier for a Japanese fleet to shadow them, attack them, or even just contain them… 50 hornets are more manageable to deal with when they’re all trapped in 1 jar.
The problem is that the sweet sea zones to shotgun out in are almost all right next to japans air coverage and sea lanes. Â Its fairly easy to kill the subs in SZ 6, SZ 37, SZ 36, SZ 35 because you are constantly passing through or hanging out in these areas with your main fleets that contain a destroyer.
Air coverage is useless attacking a sub without a destroyer, and losing a lone sub to an enemy destroyer with 20 planes accompanying it is the same as losing 1 lone sub to just a destroyer. But if the American surface ships are positioned correctly, Japan will only send 1 destroyer leaving it vulnerable. The question is, who does it benefit to engage in this type of attrition.
If you spread out in the north pacific (7, 24, 16, 23), and Japan doesn’t take the bait and kill the subs, you still don’t have anywhere particularly interesting to go because you cant pass through SZ 6 or any other areas screened out by destroyers. Â If somehow you did, japan would be obligated to attack your subs, but they’d be so far from your bombers and backup subs that you wouldn’t get a destroyer kill in return
That would lead to the conclusion that we want to send the sub task force through queensland and spread out from there. Â While japan has 3-4 destroyers, he could pretty much stomp our sub fleet, though we would then hopefully have another wave of subs (with paired bombers) to counterattack. Â Going through queensland takes forever (U1 buy, U2 hono U3 queens U4 in position U5 counterattack) but it could have advantages.
I believe that the subs need to be spread out everywhere, both the north and the south. As you pointed out there are convoy zones everywhere, and the Japanese fleet with limited destroyers can’t cover all of them. If the Allies only concentrate this strategy in the southern zones, they would be letting Japan off the hook by giving them a clear target area to focus on. However, the Allies need to be able to punish the Japanese convoys in the areas Japan leaves unattended, because there is just as much money to convoy north as there is in the south.
Also, once japan sees that this is our plan, he can buy 4 destroyers pretty easily to replace the ones he’s losing/needs to wipe us.
I don’t believe it is as easy as that… Japan wants transports, they want factories, and tanks to place on those factories. They want bombers to bomb Calcutta, they want fighters and carriers to land them on. I think one of the most unattractive purchases for Japan is the destroyer because it is a defensive unit for what they will use them for and Japan wants to be aggressive. They can buy 3 destroyers on J1, but what they really want is 2 transports and a factory… they can buy 4 destroyers J2, but what they really want is a carrier, 3 mech, and another factory. Any mass production of Japanese destroyers to combat American subs could be regarded as win situation for the Allies because of the money it takes away from the mainland thrust.
Seems like this would be a pretty good plan as long as we apply it primarily in the deep south (esp SZ 41 and 42). Â ANZAC and UK (or the bid) could also supply extra subs/bombers. Â You need 2 subs on each convoy to ensure any kind of income suppression. Â Japan usually keeps a fleet in the south, but if it only has 1 destroyer, then it can only kill 1 sub at a time. Â USA needs to get subtastic, but as I said, the biggest challenge is that unless you are sitting right on top of his income, he can ignore the spread out subs as easily as he can ignore your entirely stacked fleet.
I agree with most of this except the part where it needs to be kept to the south, I believe it only works if the lone subs multiply and threaten the entire Pacific. The more Japan ignores subs, the more subs can surround his fleet making the secondary threat even more possible… and that would be lone subs in single sea zones being in range to converge onto 1 sea zone and paralyzing the Japanese main fleet.
I’m by no means defending a strategy that I have only just started experimenting with, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that it would make any Japanese player uncomfortable, frustrated, and ultimately expensive to defend against. Much better for American than swooshing between Hawaii and Queensland all game like a school of fish.
Wish you didn’t live in Canada, need good players here in KC.
LOL… That’s a nice comment, but I would hate to give up my free health care.
Cheers.
-
Looks sweet, I hope to try it next game because I have had the same problem as you with the yo yo between hawaii and Queensland. Also maybe the Anzacs could contribute because they would be closer to the good convoy zones. Btw I liked your sportsmanship video.
Yes, I would definitely get ANZAC to throw in a few subs for the effort, thanks for the comments.
-
This can be used on a smaller scale as well.
You only need as many subs as your enemy has destroyers. As soon as you start having more (like 8 subs to his 2 destroyers) it’s your roost to rule.
Good concept to post about Young!
-
You only need as many subs as your enemy has destroyers.
Thanks Gargantua, I know that you only buy what you need or what can be used (sounds intelligent enough). When we played each other at the FMG convention, you put a knee to the back of my neck with a Taranto raid in which I scrambled and lost everything due to horrible dice rolls. I remember that I was slowly rebuilding over time and getting up from the mat (not that it mattered in the long run), and I also remember thinking that a UK factory in Egypt would end me fast, but you never built one. Flash forward to the present in the case of our sub strategy above, don’t you think it’s better to overwhelm with sub buys and surround all convoy zones with 4 or maybe even 5 times more subs than the Japanese have destroyers?… or is this one of your classic “buy only what you need” philosophies?
Cheers
-
Ok so by the sounds of it YG this is a G40 game with no time limits?
Now, assuming it is then i think this strategy has excellent potential due to the fact attrition most definitely favors US, however if this is a time limited game I’m thinking that maybe US should be playing more mainstream with Carriers and some trans to take back the money isles to prevent Japan from winning off the 125 IPC rule.
Now if its unlimited time i think you could potentially due really well with this by possibly just doing 10subs a turn. I obviously have not done this myself nor even tinkered with this idea of yours, however if I’m going to be playing this way i need to do it all out.
But how many subs were you thinking of/have tried to do?
Apologies if that does not make sense, I am new to forums… :-D
-
Great topic.
The point being to get the Japanese to build many dd’s instead of ground units for Asia (make them build sacrificial navy, not allowing them to inflate their starting navy ). Not sure I would drop 10 US subs in the water all at once though because it raises red flags, and kinda tips your hand. Plus you need a steady shuck-shuck of subs going into the kill zone, so building 3-5 a turn would be fine IMO. You will also still need to maintain a defensive fleet (carriers) so you can get into position to deploy your subs probably from Queensland and Hawaii (maybe Caroline’s).
I think that in order for this to work effectively you would need near a 3:1 ratio of allied subs to Japanese destroyers on the board to set up (building a couple more each turn). If the Japanese have 4 dd’s allies need something like 6 ready to flood the fun zone, and another 6 subs in reserve that can shuck-shuck 2-3 more subs per turn into the kill zones.
Sz54 Queensland is obviously a great launch point because you could reach all the DEI. Hawaii can be used as a reinforcement base to Queensland to keep a steady flow of replacements (along with Anz subs coming up). Hawaii should also be sending subs into the Mid Pacific in an attempt to get a few subs into sz19 & sz20 for convoy as well (tying up newly built Japanese dd’s in sz6). It might even be worth building an Anz IC at Queensland to get Anz subs into the mix quicker/deeper. An Anz IC would also allow you to add surface fleet to sure up def, or transports at the point of attack.
As pointed out in earlier posts the US/Anz will build a huge fleet that faces off against with the Japanese but often just jockey’s for position over several turns. Sometimes the epic battle never happens. As the US I generally start off building a defensive fleet (w/Anz). It is very tough to get close to the Japanese possessions when the Japanese take a defensive position at the Phil (w/lots of air power in range). I will build subs and bmrs once the surface fleets are at par. Subs/bmrs either work into my strike force, work as a clean-up crew if I attempt to bait the Japanese into a battle at sea, or simply trade blockers for a while stalling things to a stand still.
Shot gun is defiantly something that could be effective. Overwhelming the Japanese by spreading out subs is a solid strat IMO. They can have the DEI, as long as they don’t get paid for them lol. You just have to keep re-loading the shot gun with a steady flow of buck-shot.
-
Japan only starts out with 4 subs you will soon have that number at 0.
I believe Japan only starts with 2 subs, but starts with 4 destroyers.
-
I’m still making suggestion on G40 Redesigned thread.
I’m trying to simplify interactions between Submarines, transports, destroyers and planes.
And to improve Submarine vs Transports warfare by the way.
If some people want to discuss impact of these changes and how it affects such kind of Submarines shotgun strategy if DD and Sub are at 6 IPCs, please follow the link.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1555024#msg1555024More specifically, there is two points: how much IPCs differential between DD and Sub is necessary to keep this shotgun tactical option?
And how much a change on DD blocking capacity ratio against Sub, from infinite capacity to 1 DD:2 Subs or even 1:1 ratio is a game changer about this tactical option?http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1555261#msg1555261
-
Interesting idea. Once Japan has more DDs than you have subs, the strategy seems toast. The fleet doesn’t really need to escort SZ6 or SZ35 - the airbases and Kamikaze possibilities make reasonable defences in many cases. However when you have a big numerical advantage of subs vs DDs it doesn’t seem very easily stoppable.
A naval base on Wake or Midway strengthens it a little because you can reach SZ19 as well as SZ6 and a single blocker in SZ16 doesn’t prevent reaching SZ6. I’m not sure this base is worth it though.
-
This could work if you take advantage of the Turn order, where Japan goes first, followed by USA, UK and ANZAC. A classic can opener situation. To cover it up, US need to buy like only 4 subs in the start, and a fleet of carriers and fighters, and maybe the occasional Bomber. Add a Destroyer for protection too. Move it to Australia. When the US navy is in position, ANZAC use its saved IPC to buy a stack of subs and some fighters too. Maybe even UK India should use its last money before India is taken, to buy subs and some fighters ? When this blockade is moving forward, land some ANZAC fighters on US carriers. When attacking Japanese Destroyers, you should choose your fighters as casualties, since it takes less time to replace a fighter than a slow moving sub. US follow up purchases should be a stack of aircrafts and trannies with inf to take the islands as the Allied blockade move along. Now if this doesn’t strangle the Japs nothing will……
-
I think what’s really needed here is a complete evaluation of every sea zone in the Pacific. Convoy zones being the most valuable of course with those than rated according to how much money can be disrupted. Than moving on to non convoy sea zones which can be rated according to their range of those important convoy zones.
I think the overall fucus of Orange has to be convoying as much Japan IPCs as possible while forcing them to buy destroyers with what they have left. ANZAC should help with sub and fighter purchases like Narvik said, but it would also be their job to jump on a couple islands to break Japan’s island NO.
-
As stated before, I really like this sub warfare strat for the Pacific. There are plenty of convoy zones for the allies to spread subs out to execute it attached to high IPC valued territories. The rules involving subs/destroyers plus the cost differential of these units make it even more attractive then just straight convoying.
With that said, why in the hell can’t the Germans do something similar on the Euro side, especially early in the game when the UK is vulnerable? This just seems wrong for the power that had the best success convoying the enemy to be so limited in its ability to do so. There are only a handful of convoy zones in the Atlantic, and they can be easily defended by the allies. The best convoy zones are next to production centers, and air bases making them easy to keep clear.
The Germans start out with a good size sub force, but are pretty much forced to throw it away G1 attacking the UK big ships. Even if the Germans build subs, they can’t spread them out like you can in the Pac to get the same desired results (strangle the enemy econ).
You should be able to attack/convoy known shipping lanes in the mid Atlantic as well as the ports IMO. That would allow the Germans to spread out subs in a similar manner to be more cost effective. You might say that the axis have enough of an advantage in this game, but if the Germans build more subs they will have fewer units heading to Moscow.
-
Probably here is another reason from AA50 forum:
@Kavik:A Note About German U-Boats:
Unfortunately, Germany is not a sub user. So close, and yet so far.
With a single small rule change subs would become a vital part of Germany’s arsenal in keeping the British navy away.
If Germany could keep 4-6 subs in SZ 5, which they can afford to do, they could cover SZs 3, 6, & 7 and keep the British navy out of those SZs. It would be really cool, and make subs a vital weapon for Germany as they should be. But the nature of subs is that they must be outside of range of enemy ships beforehand, so that enemy ships cannot enter within their range. They cannot enter range of an enemy fleet to attack, the enemy fleet must come to them.
This almost works for Germany, they can get into position in SZ 5 with 3 subs and their air force on turn 1 and keep the British navy out of important sea zones (3, 6, and 7).
It all falls apart with the unrealistic ability of a single ship to block an infinite number of ships in AA50.
This means the British can simply place a single destroyer in SZ 6, blocking the German subs, and put their navy in attack range.
The subs can’t reach the navy, so they can’t attack.
And on the following turn the British navy enters SZ 5 and destroys all of the subs.
This means that it would be a huge waste of money for Germany to try and use subs because all England has to do is sacrifice a single destroyer to kill the entire German U-Boat fleet.This would be simple to fix with a simple rule from other naval combat games.
Instead of a single ship being able to block an infinite number of enemy ships, which is ridiculous, blocking ships should only be able to block an equal number of ships.
This rule works much better and would correct several different problems associated with blocking naval units within AA50.
With this rule if the British tried to block SZ 5 with a single destroyer the Germans would simple be required to leave a single sub behind to fight it (they could leave more if they wanted, but must leave a number of ships equal to enemy blockers as they pass through that SZ) while the rest of the subs continue on to attack the UK fleet. The blocking rule is the only major problem remaining in A&A naval combat, and it alone prevents subs from being useful to Germany.With the picket force rule in place, naval combat in A&A would work very, very well and Germany would be buying subs every game.
-
Baron Munchhausen, I agree with the post you sighted about combat, but as much as I like AA50, it doesn’t have convoys. The single destroyer blocker is lame, same for a single inf being able to block mechanized units on land. Another problem IMO is that a single destroyer can spot an infinite number of subs when attacking or being attack by subs (should be some ratio, or detection roll).
G40 gave the ability to target the enemies econ, with convoy, and that was a great first step. Convoy even changed some in the Alpha project, just saying that there should have been some zones added to the Atlantic shipping lanes to make it a more viable strat for Germany.
Don’t really want to side track YG thread anymore, just wish that the Germans could enjoy a little shotgun strat of their own lol. Could have called it “The Black Mamba”
-
Here is a way Convoy Disruption can better suits Germany:
@Young:During each convoy disruption phase, disruptions are made for both your ships against your enemies territories, and enemy ships against your territories.
It is the Opening post of a thread.
-
@WILD:
Baron Munchhausen, I agree with the post you sighted about combat, but as much as I like AA50, it doesn’t have convoys. The single destroyer blocker is lame, same for a single inf being able to block mechanized units on land. Another problem IMO is that a single destroyer can spot an infinite number of subs when attacking or being attack by subs (should be some ratio, or detection roll).
G40 gave the ability to target the enemies econ, with convoy, and that was a great first step. Convoy even changed some in the Alpha project, just saying that there should have been some zones added to the Atlantic shipping lanes to make it a more viable strat for Germany.
Don’t really want to side track YG thread anymore, just wish that the Germans could enjoy a little shotgun strat of their own lol. Could have called it “The Black Mamba”
Here is a start, follow the link, I would like your two cents on this:
@Baron:Trying to build a Core rule with 1941 basic map and expanding with further game.
Here is what I get.
I voluntarily not use the Japan SZ, because I don’t think it is relevant to place Convoy in IC’s SZ.I would prefer to use SZ which also have an Islands Group in it (to more easily add the option of neutralizing Convoy by controlling Islands. SEE EDIT below.)
Interesting SZs (IMO) for Convoys 1941 /1942.2/ AA50 /G40
JAPAN (1941 Japan SZ 45) (1942.2 Japan SZ 60 & SZ 62) (AA50 Japan SZ 62) (G40 Japan SZ 6)
1941
SZ 46 (Coastal China SZ, Formosa on map SZ but not a TT)
SZ 38 (Philippine Islands and Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 31 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ)1942.2
SZ 61 (Coastal China SZ,Formosa 0 IPC TT on map SZ)
SZ 48 (Philippine Islands SZ)
SZ 50 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ)AA50
SZ 61 (Coastal China SZ,Formosa 1 IPC TT SZ)
SZ 60 (Okinawa SZ 1 IPC TT)
SZ 50 (Philippine Islands SZ, US original TT)
SZ 51 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (French Indo-China Thailand Eastern SZ, Hainan Island on map but not a TT)1940 Global
SZ 20 (Coastal China SZ, Formosa 1 IPC TT on map SZ)
SZ 35 (Philippine Islands SZ)
SZ 34 (Palau Island SZ)
SZ 33 (Caroline Islands SZ)
SZ 36 (Hainan Island 0 IPC TT)
SZ 37 (Malaya SZ, no Island in SZ) But it is a UK TT on initial set-up.
PACIFIC RUSSIA (1941 SZ 47 : Soviet Far East and Siberia / SZ 45, Siberia shared with Japan)
(1942.2 & AA50 SZ 62, Buryatia SSR shared with Japan)1941
SZ 43 (Midway SZ)
SZ 47 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Siberia)
SZ 48 (Alaska SZ)1942.2
SZ 57 (Midway SZ)
SZ 63 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Buryatia S.S.R.)
SZ 64 (Alaska SZ)AA50
SZ 57 (Midway SZ)
SZ 63 (Coastal SZ of both Soviet Far East and Buryatia S.S.R.)
SZ 64 (Alaska SZ, Bering Strait SZ)1940 Global
SZ 25 (Midway SZ) Much lower on the south
SZ 8 (Aleutian Islands SZ) More on the way toward Russian Coastal TTs.
SZ 2 (Alaska SZ)
SZ 3 & SZ 4 (Coastal Soviet Far East)
SZ 5 (Amur, Siberia and Soviet Far East SZ)
UNITED KINGDOM
1941 (INDIA ICs SZ 29 & AUSTRALIA ICs SZ 33 )
SZ 27 (French Madagascar SZ)
SZ 28 (Middle East, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 29 (India SZ)
SZ 33 (Australia SZ)
SZ 37 (New Guinea & Solomon Islands SZ)1942.2
(INDIA ICs SZ 35 & AUSTRALIA SZ 38, SZ 39, SZ 45 & SZ 46 )
SZ 28 (French Madagascar, near Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 34 (Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 35 (India SZ)
SZ 48 (New Guinea SZ) [A less interesting choice for Convoy SZ, since it is less in line with US shipping line.]
SZ 49 (Solomon Islands SZ) [OOB Japanese occupied TT]AA50
(INDIA ICs SZ 35 & AUSTRALIA SZ 39, SZ 40, SZ 41 & SZ 47 )
SZ 28 (French Madagascar, near Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 34 (Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Italian East Africa & Anglo-Egypt Sudan SZ)
SZ 35 (India SZ)
SZ 48 (New Guinea SZ) [A less interesting choice for Convoy SZ, since it is less in line with US shipping line.]
SZ 46 (Solomon Islands SZ) [OOB UK TT]1940 Global
SZ 72 (French Madagascar SZ)
SZ 71 (Union of South Africa SZ)
SZ 76 (Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia & British Somaliland SZ)
SZ 79 (Western India SZ)
SZ 80 (Eastern Persia, Persia, Irak & Saudi Arabia SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]SZ 39 (India SZ with Ceylon Island)
SZ 37 (Malaya SZ)
AUSTRALIA (SZ 54, 55, 56 , 61 and 62)
1940 Global
SZ 46 (New Guinea SZ) [Not an australian Convoy SZ but an Australian TT]
SZ 49 (Solomon Islands SZ) [Not an australian Convoy SZ but an Australian TT]
SZ 53 (New Hebrides SZ) [Not an australian Convoy SZ but an French TT]SZ 54 (Queensland SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]
SZ 62 (Sydney, Victoria SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]
SZ 63 (New Zealand SZ) [OOB Australian Convoy SZ]
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
West Coast (1941 SZ 42) (1942.2 & AA50 SZ 56) (1940 Global SZ 10)1941
SZ 39 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB US TT]
SZ 40 (Hawaiian Islands SZ)1942.2
SZ 52 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB JAPANESE TT]
SZ 53 (Hawaiian Islands SZ)AA50
SZ 52 (Wake Island SZ, 0 IPC TT)
SZ 53 (Hawaiian Islands SZ, 1 IPC TT)1940 Global
SZ 31 (Wake Island SZ) [OOB US TT]
SZ 26 (Hawaiian Islands SZ) [OOB USA Convoy SZ]
SZ 25 (Midway SZ) [This island location is not interesting for plausible Russian Convoy lines.]
SZ 30 (Johnston Island SZ) [OOB US TT] [Could be a USA Convoy SZ since it is a direct line of travel from Australia.]
Looking up for USA Pacific Convoy SZ for 1941, 1942.2, AA50 and G40,
I think Hawaiian SZ (a US TT on all 4 maps) could be preferred over Wake Island because in 1942.2 it is controlled by Japan.
Unless we want to play optional Convoy neutralized by Island Controlled of SZ 52, so in 1942.2,
US Convoy in Wake SZ 52 could be neutralized by Japan until it is liberated, it would be a similar scenario to Solomon Islands SZ 49 which would be under Japanese control but can have a UK Convoy in this SZ 49.This would create a bigger incentive to go Pacific for US and to conquer both Islands, so to relieve Convoy under Japanese grasp.
EDIT: If Islands group are treated as Subs or BBs and, on enemy’s player combat phase, can be used to flip downside all NCMs in SZ, then it can be possible to let NCMs in SZ 52 and SZ 49 face up in the 1942.2 set-up.
Japanese players would have to declare Convoy Disruption via Island Base on his turn.
This make Wake Island an interesting SZ to put Convoy in it, and would provide a game motive for Japanese player to do the same as Japan did in december 1941. -
@Baron:
[My preferred choices are bolded.]
GERMANY (1941, 1942.2 & AA50 Baltic SZ 5) (G40 Baltic SZ 113 & 114)
ITALY (1941, MED SZ 16) (1942.2, MED SZ 15) (AA50, MED SZ 14) (G40, MED SZ 95, 97)1941
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ / Northern UK Atlantic SZ)
SZ 15 (West Med Sea SZ)
SZ 16 (Central Med Sea SZ)1942.2
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 14 (West Med Sea SZ)
SZ 15 (Central Med Sea SZ)AA50
GERMANY
SZ 5 (Baltic Sea SZ)
SZ 6 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 13 (West Med Sea SZ)ITALY (AA50, MED SZ 14)
SZ 14 (Central Med Sea SZ)1940 Global
GERMANY
SZ 113 (Western Baltic SZ)
SZ 114 (Central Baltic SZ)
SZ 112 (North Sea SZ)
SZ 125 (Norway Sea SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ for Norway]
SZ 126 (Northern Norway Sea SZ)ITALY
SZ 95 (Sardinia and Sicily SZ)
SZ 97 (Adriatic SZ) [OOB Italy’s Convoy SZ]
SZ 93 (Southern France SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 94 (Algeria and Tunisia SZ)
SZ 96 (Malta SZ, UK’s controlled)
[This SZ 96 could be an optional Italy’s Convoy SZ which is neutralized as long as Malta is not captured.]
ATLANTIC RUSSIA (1941, 1942.2 & AA50 SZ 4 : Karelia and Archangel)
(Global 40 SZ 127 : Karelia, Novgorod, Archangel and Nenetsia)
[My preferred choices are bolded.]1941
SZ 3 (Iceland SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)1942.2
SZ 3 (Iceland SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)AA50
SZ 2 (Iceland and Greenland SZ)
SZ 3 (Northern Norway SZ)
SZ 4 (Coastal SZ of both Karelia S.S.R. and Archangel)1940 Global
SZ 123 (Iceland SZ)
SZ 124 (North East Atlantic SZ)
SZ 125 (Norway coast SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ for Norway]
SZ 126 (Northern Norway SZ)
SZ 127 (Coastal SZ of Karelia, Novgorod, Archangel and Nenetsia)
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
East Coast (1941 & 1942.2 SZ 11) (AA50 SZ10) (1940 Global SZ 101)1941
SZ 22 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 12 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 0 IPC)1942.2
SZ 22 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 18 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC)
SZ 12 (Mid-Atlantic SZ, near East Cost SZ)AA50
SZ 18 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 19 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC)
SZ 11 (Mid-Atlantic Azores SZ, between East Cost SZ and Gibraltar SZ)1940 Global
SZ 85 (South Brazil SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ for Brazil and Argentina]
SZ 86 (Brazil SZ)
SZ 88 (British and French Guinea SZ, Up North Brazil SZ)
SZ 89 (Caribbean SZ, West Indies Island 1 IPC) [OOB Convoy SZ for Central America, Southeast Mexico and WI.]
SZ 102 (Mid-Atlantic SZ, near East Cost SZ)
UNITED KINGDOM
(1941 & 1942.2 : SZ 6, 7, 8 )
(AA50 : SZ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 )
(1940 Global : SZ 109, 110, 111 & 119)1941
SZ 9 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 10 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland SZ)
SZ 14 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 23 (French West Africa SZ)1942.2
SZ 9 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 10 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland SZ)
SZ 13 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 23 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 17 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ)AA50
SZ 8 (Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 9 (Eastern Canada, Halifax SZ)
SZ 2 (Greenland, Iceland SZ) [As an IC’s production SZ, it is a little less interesting.]
SZ 12 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 17 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 15 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ)1940 Global
SZ 117 (East Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 118 (West Northern Mid-Atlantic SZ)
SZ 106 (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia: Halifax SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 121 (Greenland SZ) [Too far out of the shortest shipping line on the Europe map.]
SZ 91 (Gibraltar Atlantic SZ)
SZ 87 (French West Africa SZ)
SZ 83 (South French West Africa SZ)
SZ 82 (Nigeria & French Equatorial Africa SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 98 (Egypt & Trans-Jordan SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
SZ 99 (Cyprus & Greece SZ) [OOB Convoy SZ]
Suggested Topics
