Italy sub heavy. Speculation

I hear you, Wild Bill.

It tickles me pink to think of an Axis sub or two just squatting off of the coast of Brazil, eating up IPCs, then dragging at least two destroyers away from the US fleet to go and hunt them down.

With the new subs rules in effect, and the elimination of those corny ‘convoy boxes’, we’ll finally see shipping disruption effectively modelled in the Atlantic. Can’t wait :)

hmmm I dunno. I still think that to effectively model the Battle of the Atlantic, the convoy income should be somewhere beyond the air cover range.

#515

@Brain:

Planes are better ship destroyers that subs.

Yea but planes can’t hover in enemy convoy zones and cost $, and can’t take out subs alone either.

@Make_It_Round:

and the elimination of those corny ‘convoy boxes’, we’ll finally see shipping disruption effectively modelled in the Atlantic. Can’t wait :)

Hmmm. Not sure about that. Has any one else looked at the new convoy roles with suspicion? I mean, they really don’t make sense, do they? Even if you have ships all around an island (say Japan) that island can still produce for itself. It’s not like it ships it’s own goods overseas. And if this convoy rule thing is supposed to disrupt shipments from allies, why then can it be used against Japan? Japan didn’t have any allies in the Pacific. India as well is an example. Japan can put 2 ships there, and block all income. But India doesn’t get all of it’s income and resources by sea routes. I mean, with these screwed rules, you could almost apply it to totally land purposes as well (if a country was completely surrounded by enemies, then it earns nothing.) This just does not make any sense to me. Thoughts?

@The:

Hmmm. Not sure about that. Has any one else looked at the new convoy roles with suspicion? I mean, they really don’t make sense, do they? Even if you have ships all around an island (say Japan) that island can still produce for itself. It’s not like it ships it’s own goods overseas. And if this convoy rule thing is supposed to disrupt shipments from allies, why then can it be used against Japan? Japan didn’t have any allies in the Pacific. India as well is an example. Japan can put 2 ships there, and block all income. But India doesn’t get all of it’s income and resources by sea routes. I mean, with these screwed rules, you could almost apply it to totally land purposes as well (if a country was completely surrounded by enemies, then it earns nothing.) This just does not make any sense to me. Thoughts?

I agree with you.  Convoy rules are in need of house rules if you don’t like some of the strange situations that are created by the OOB rules.
I suppose the answer to the India and Japan situation is that they bring in income from other areas, but this especially makes no sense when India is the last remaining UK territory.  I don’t have the solution off the top of my head, but this has occurred to me as well - it doesn’t always make sense….

Japan relied very heavily on resources from mainland Asia, and oil from the E Indies etc. That’s the reason it wanted to expand. Your not just cutting off its allies, your cutting off its ability to wage war through its own means as well. The same would go for UK, w/o resources from it’s own Commonwealth (and the US), it couldn’t have kept its factories going. Germany had all of Europe to plunder its resources, but still relied on shipping for iron ore and other raw materials.

BTW if the US fleet has enough ships to stop all income for Japan, and Japan can’t do anything about it, I think its time to start a new game. :-D

@WILD:

@Brain:

Planes are better ship destroyers that subs.

Yea but planes can’t hover in enemy convoy zones and cost $, and can’t take out subs alone either.

That is why there is this thing called an aircraft carrier.

@WILD:

Japan relied very heavily on resources from mainland Asia, and oil from the E Indies etc. That’s the reason it wanted to expand. Your not just cutting off its allies, your cutting off its ability to wage war through its own means as well. The same would go for UK, w/o resources from it’s own Commonwealth (and the US), it couldn’t have kept its factories going. Germany had all of Europe to plunder its resources, but still relied on shipping for iron ore and other raw materials.

All good points.  The convoy rules, like many things in A&A, are a bit abstracted.  Rather than trace convoy routes on the map that would create clutter and confusion, a decision was made that convoy raids would be done at the termini of convoys - where they started and ended.  Raiding the sea zone around Japan represents hitting convoys coming in from places like China and the East Indies, as well as intracoastal shipping.  Even within a single territory (say, from Osaka to Tokyo), it’s often cheaper and more efficient to move supplies by ship than over land.

@Brain:

@WILD:

@Brain:

Planes are better ship destroyers that subs.

Yea but planes can’t hover in enemy convoy zones and cost $, and can’t take out subs alone either.

That is why there is this thing called an aircraft carrier.

Yea an air craft carrier can interrupt a convoy, but I believe its air units don’t count (its considered one unit 1 IPC). An aircraft carrier with 2 planes still can’t attack a sub, because the planes can’t hit the sub (no dd), and the carrier has no attack value. Plus the sub could just submerge anyway (but doesn’t need to).

@WILD:

@Brain:

@WILD:

@Brain:

Planes are better ship destroyers that subs.

Yea but planes can’t hover in enemy convoy zones and cost $, and can’t take out subs alone either.

That is why there is this thing called an aircraft carrier.

Yea an air craft carrier can interrupt a convoy, but I believe its air units don’t count (its considered one unit 1 IPC). An aircraft carrier with 2 planes still can’t attack a sub, because the planes can’t hit the sub (no dd), and the carrier has no attack value. Plus the sub could just submerge anyway (but doesn’t need to).

Originally we were talking destroyng ships, not subs, planes are better for destroying ships and destroyers are best for subs.

My convoys represent the transfer of cash from one place to another, they don’t generate extra income.  Hence, each one is a link in a chain of land - to - sea(convoy) - to land, with all 3 (or more) links needing to be held for the transfer to take place, along with a demonstrable route to the desired IC destination.

They are either lend-lease convoys to send money to an ally, or colonial convoys needed to transfer money from overseas possessions.  It is absurd that the UK can collect cash for India when the home island is surrounded by enemy ships.

There are a couple of overland routes also, i.e. Persian corridor.

I agree. Far flung territories should have a controlled path to the homeland before thay can contribute IPC’s to their “homeland” otherwise they should have to spend the money themselves if they have a factory or save the money until it can be transported along a clear path.

@Brain:

I agree. Far flung territories should have a controlled path to the homeland before thay can contribute IPC’s to their “homeland” otherwise they should have to spend the money themselves if they have a factory or save the money until it can be transported along a clear path.

Woah, that’s a novel idea actually. It has serious potential. Just speculation right now, but say in the next game we scrap the current convoy rules, and then all ipcs either need to be connected by land to a factory where they can be spent, or a naval base which can connect to another naval base with a factory, or they have to be saved. Then, ships could be used to block naval bases thus making sea routes to trasport ipcs impossible (great example of africa and england which would make naval dominance highly important). Thoughts?

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

I agree. Far flung territories should have a controlled path to the homeland before thay can contribute IPC’s to their “homeland” otherwise they should have to spend the money themselves if they have a factory or save the money until it can be transported along a clear path.

Hmmm.
So would that be your evil twin brother saying that rules shouldn’t keep IPCs in Canada as it totally unbalances the game and dooms the Allies?
:lol:

Canada would still be owned by UK.

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

I agree. Far flung territories should have a controlled path to the homeland before thay can contribute IPC’s to their “homeland” otherwise they should have to spend the money themselves if they have a factory or save the money until it can be transported along a clear path.

Hmmm.
So would that be your evil twin brother saying that rules shouldn’t keep IPCs in Canada as it totally unbalances the game and dooms the Allies?
:lol:

Canada would still be owned by UK.

And this proposed rule would cause the same net effect.
#521

Not exactly