Convoy clarification

Will do, thank you for the feedback d(>_< )

Thanks guys. I thought this was the case, but could not easily find what you quoted in the rule book so I wanted to make sure. Sometimes I do get it wrong. (But not often.  :wink:)

You know, I’m kind of surprised that Larry didn’t include US Submarines in costing 3 IPCs for convoy raiding.  Historically, the US submarine force did the same thing to Japanese merchant shipping that German U-boats did to Allied shipping in the Atlantic.  In fact, the US submarines were actually successful at it whereas through convoying and ASW improvements, the U-boat threat in the Atlantic was gradually reduced.  US subs were so successful that in 1944 the US Navy had to cut back on submarine production because they already had too many and were running out of targets since they had so crippled the Japanese importing.

At the end of each power’s turn they check to see if there are any enemy warships in convoy zones that border territories controlled by the power in question.  So, in your example, at the end of Italy’s turn, they would deduct up to 2 IPC from their income for the US sub present in z97.  They cannot lose more income than the total value of territories that Italy controls that border z97.  If Italy is under Allies control, the convoy disruption is irrelevant, because Italy does not collect income while it is enemy-controlled.  And the new controller would not lose income to a friendly unit (the US sub).

Then, on Germany’s turn, they would lose up to 2 IPC income for the US sub in z97.  Again, they can’t lose more than the total value of German controlled territories bordering z97.

So, essentially, the US sub is doing convoy disruption to BOTH Italy and Germany as long as they both control territories that border z97.

@Peck:

Does a sea zone have to be uncontested for a convoy disruption to work?  Japan sub beside java (uk owned) uk rolls in a crusier to kill the sub,  sub submerges.  Does the sub still cause a convoy disruption?

A seazone does not need to be uncontested - the simple presence of an enemy ship disrupts the convoy, even if friendly ships are in the same seazone.  If the allies has a ship in SZ6 at the mobilize units phase of Japan’s turn, Japan could not prevent the disruption in any way, even if they placed a far numerically superior force.  If there’s an enemy ship, it disrupts - end of story.

“Submerging” has no impact on any game phase beyond the combat phase - it is ONLY an ability of the submarine to disengage from the battle and remain in the same seazone.  The only time submarines can “submerge” is during combat and after combat is over, submarines are no longer considered submerged.  It is simply a retreat mechanism, it does not exist in any manner outside of the conduct combat phase.

No.

Any of them will do (including France).

It modifies the rule on page 30 of the Europe Rulebook that allows subs to shoot at enemy transports as they move by.  It changes nothing about how subs behave in combat.

They have not changed from Alpha+.1.

that would definatly be inkeeping with battles like the battle of Midway where it was the very good fortune of the US navy to find the Japanese navy first.