Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…

Subs get first round sneak attack only and planes can’t attack.

or

Subs get first round sneak attack every round and planes can attack every round only with a destoyer present.

@SS:

Subs get first round sneak attack only and planes can’t attack.

or

Subs get first round sneak attack every round and planes can attack every round only with a destoyer present.

I think it worth to think about this sub problems.
And the fix depends greatly on how we see the problem.

If it is a matter of subs having a high rate of casualty and are seldom able to make first strike attack, at least, in your first solution you make subs much less vulnerable against planes. It is unhistorical but subs combat capacity is also reduced. What do you do with Destroyers?

The other solution seems to imply that destroyers are no more able to stop the first strike shots of subs, is it right?

I think you are cracking the nutshells of subs issue but much more aspects needs to be enlighten to better understand the consequences of your ideas to judge them. If you have time to develop it a bit more, I think it can help.

Each Destroyer stops subs first strike attack 1 to 1.

@Black_Elk:

I favor the 1:1 unit pairing suggested here.

Also the suggestion to allow u boats to dive after the first round of combat. My friends and I always thought that the Destroyer really neutered subs when it was first introduced with that ability to hold the sub for the duration of combat. We used to really enjoy Classic and Revised rules that allowed submarines to wage some form of economic warfare. Usually in the form of a modified strat bombing or rocket mechanic (these always seemed the simplest and most effective way to make subs useful outside of opening strike combat or fodder.) But we also used to use rules similar to how convoys are treated. We’d do subs 2 spaces out from an IC and things of that sort. Then the new rules and price structure were introduced… I felt they were pretty successful in establishing DD as the fodder preference, but also made subs rather weaker despite the cost drop. Basically since aa50 retaining the sub as basically only valued in a combat role.

Convoy disruption was a good attempt, but again I wish this stuff would be introduced on a core board instead of just the advanced one like the 1940 maps.

Some kind of baseline economic role for the sub, paired off against destroyers 1:1.
Although the new cost at six is pretty damn cheap. Something to encourage wolf packing would be nice. But also a reason to fan out across the atlantic.

To date I’ve never been truly satisfied with implementation of subs absent some HR to correct them. Going back to Classic they are always problematic. But also iconic, and thus necessary :)
It would be nice to get something functional and handle their interaction with destroyers, air, and production once and for all. I would definitely prefer a scheme that could work across multiple boards.

The opening post seems looking for an economic warfare role for submarine.
This thing should be explored and your ideas (working as Strategic Bombing IC, or even the old way of classic when an SBR meant loosing directly IPCs) or a convoy disruption tactic should be examined for the core game (1942.2).

About subs combat role, I can follow you and DK for the 1 Destroyer blocks 1 Submarine principle.
However, this imply that to determine how many first strike submarines get, each combat round the number of subs and destroyers must be calculated and revised.
It adds an annoying procedure before a lot of naval combat round.

For my part, I would rather prefer to let destroyers block the submarine submerge 1 on 1, but needs only 1 destroyers to protect against first strike.

Once this said, I have a real game changer for submarines to submit and let everyone think about it. The idea is based on 2 things, submarines weren’t playing a role of cannon fodder for surface vessel during the war.
They were much slower (so cannot follow them) and far more elusive than DDs, Cruisers, Carriers and Battleships.

Actually, the rules evolves in a way that transports and submarines can no more control a given Sea-Zone and cannot block warships.
But submarines kept the interdiction capacity to forbid unescorted transport to unload for an amphibious assault.
Transport are taken last because of their non-combat capacity.
Why not does something similar to submarines lesser combat role compared to surface warships?
How?
By introducing this point about picking submarines as casualty:

A submarine unit can be choose as casualty when there is no other elligible surface warships (DD, CA, CV, BB).
In other way, submarines will be the last casualty amongst warships.

-Planes need no more Destroyers to hit submarines.
(Throwing into garbage the many difficult situations involving planes with transports, subs with/without destroyers).
Fgs, TcBs and StBs can hit submarine anytime now, inside the limit of given rule on Subs casualty.

-Submarines keep Surprise strike and Submerge, Cannot hit air and so forth. -1 Destroyer unit protects against all subs surprise strikes but only prevents 1 submarine submerge and for 1 combat round only. However, I will allow a special retreat move for both Submarines and Destroyers:
Retreat Move Option for DD and Subs: even if there is no more enemy ships in a once embattled Sea-Zone, attacking Subs and Destroyers can retreat 1 SZ from where they came.

So, a Submarine unit : Attack 2 Defense 1 Move 2 Cost 6
will be cheap and far more difficult to spot and destroy. Hence, have a better survivability.
However submarines will no more serve as a cheap fodder for any big warships, and this make them less interesting for some kind of naval investments and strategies.

3 Forseeable consequences on combat:
Attacker will have to balance whether sacrifying his damaged costlier units (CV and BB) to finish off an enemy by using his last standing submarines or retreat with his costlier damaged warships and his cortege of sub units.

It will remain possible to make an attack with submarines and planes only, in which case submarines can be taken as casualties before planes.

When 2 large fleets with DDs and Subs collides, the first side to lose all his destroyers becomes vulnerable to the surprise strike of enemy’s submarines.
So, submarines will more often use their first strike ability in combat.

Nice battle board. Like it alot. You don’t think the icp damage is to much.

@Der:

@Baron:

A submarine unit can be choose as casualty when there is no other elligible surface warships (DD, CA, CV, BB).

The problem here is, that the sub usually works alone, so it will be the only casualty to choose most of the time.

I don’t think that this rule on Sub casualty should be discarded on this sole point.

In Atlantic, German’s subs works usually alone.
In Pacific, this can be different for IJN and USA.

When large fleets collides in PTO, this rule allows to better depict the subs and surface vessels historical interaction.
The main casualty cost is put against the surface warships instead of viewing all the subs being chosen as first casualties, followed by destroyers, which left no part for Subs using their surprise strike capacity.

Using this casualty rule, the surface warships will be fighting each others and the subs harassing the enemy until there is no more surface vessels on their side. Then a loosing attacking or defending Subs commander have different decision to make:

For attacker, retreat with damaged costlier warships and subs (or fight to the death with, on the end, the subs lesser combat value).
For defender, submerge right now and prepare counter-attack or stay to get some lucky “1” shot against costlier damaged warships.

On the lasts combat rounds, most DDs will be sunk, so remaining Subs retrieve their first strike shots. While the big warships sunk, some defending subs can probably submerge and stay out of arm’s way: still making them a nuisance against the attacking surviving units of the preceeding battle, when comes the defending player’s turn counter-attack (with first strike @2).

In addition, Subs are usually scattered as a single unit.
This was because of the infinite blocking power of any 1 DD and his destructive power combined with some planes.
With the principle 1DD:1SS, 1 DD to block 1 Subs submerge, this can also change.
When subs will be in a dead-zone, the sub player can look upon the number of Destroyers able to attack to choose whether keeping subs in wolf-pack (giving them a better odds to defend with more rolls @1) or scattering them across numerous Sea Zones.

This is basically what I have so far - let me know where you see the holes in it…. :-)

Very good hard works and pictures to helps understand your ideas. And figures also the various in game aspects than just playing it in our heads.

I think you agree about the fact that you are adding more layers of complexity to subs rules.
In itself, if the benefits outweight the cons, then it could be OK, at least for HR.

About your Convoy Rules,
You introduce an outside element: sub pen, which is not part of the House Rule. This is a contamination which gives a false impression for more survivability to subs.

But, IMO, the main problem is that the OOB rules on Convoy disruption will works better in the specific example.
You have 3 subs against 1 DD 1 Cruiser.
Subs have to do Battle or Convoy disruption.
At the end of a Convoy disruption, both DD and Cruiser will survive.

In OOB G40, German’s player will throw in the battle 1 or 2 planes with subs to destroy these DD and Cruiser (20 IPCs).
After, any surviving subs will stay in the Convoy disruption SZ. If UK’s have no destroyer able to reach the SZ, then at the end of the UK’s turn, before collecting income, then German’s player roll for convoy damage.

OOB seems simpler.

If you want to make Subs convoy disruption more damaging, use a double times damage system once on German’s turn and once on UK’s turn. And allow Subs to do both regular attack/defense and convoy disruption during player’s turn and enemy’s turn.
After the regular combat done in a Convoy SZ, (let’s suppose it is Germany’s turn) if any U-boats survived, then immediatly proceed to Convoy disruption.
1- Convoy attack: roll 1D6 per Sub for convoy disruption, 1 to 4 IPCs damage/Sub, 5 or 6 no damage/Sub.
2- Then Merchant Escort defense roll @1.
(So 4 cases: Sub survived W/Wo convoy damage and Sub is sunk W/Wo convoy damage.)

If at the end of the UK’s turn, there is still some Subs in a Convoy Zone, then they roll another times.
Same as above.

Each single Submarine can do 2 to 8 IPCs in a whole game round. But, at least, must submit to 2 defense rolls @1.
Average result:
(1+2+3+4+0+0)/6= +1.667 IPCs damage minus 6 IPCs (cost of 1 sub) *1/6 (merchant escort)= - 1 IPC ,
Net result: *0.667 IPC damage/sub 2 times = 1.334 IPCs for a whole game round for any surviving sub.

You can compare with a G40 SBR with 1 bomber:
G1940: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor (damage 1D6+2)
Sum: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run

Or a 1942.2 SBR : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor (damage 1D6)
Sum: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR run

@Baron:

If you want to make Subs convoy disruption more damaging, use a double times damage system once on German’s turn and once on UK’s turn. And allow Subs to do both regular attack/defense and convoy disruption during player’s turn and enemy’s turn.
Let’s do the regular battle, (let’s suppose it is Germany’s turn) if any U-boots survived, then proceed to Convoy disruption.
1- Convoy attack: roll 1D6 per Sub for convoy disruption, 1 to 4 IPCs damage/Sub, 5 or 6 no damage/Sub.
2- Then Merchant Escort defense roll @1.
(So 4 cases: Sub survived W/Wo convoy damage and Sub is sunk W/Wo convoy damage.)

If at the end of the UK’s turn, there is still some Subs in a Convoy Zone, then they roll another times.
Same as above.

You can also do Convoy disruption twice (attacking player’s turn and enemy’s turn) in a whole round of play with the OOB Convoy rules.
Each Subs and Fgs roll 2 dices each, (other warships 1 dice, except CV) making damage on 1, 2 or 3 and no damage on 4, 5 and 6.
And just add the merchant escort defense @1 every time at the end of a Convoy disruption.

Each single Submarine will do from 0 to 12 IPCs in a whole game round. But, at least, must submit to 2 defense rolls @1.
Average results:
(72 pts/36 possibilities)= +2 IPCs damage on average minus 6 IPCs (cost of 1 sub) *1/6 (merchant escort)= - 1 IPC ,
Net result: 1 IPC damage/sub *2 times = 2 IPCs for a whole game round for any surviving sub or Fg.

And with no merchant defense roll:
+2 IPCs damage on average *2 times = 4 IPCs for a whole game round for any surviving sub or Fg.

@Der:

A convoy raid is an attack, is it not? Why is everyone OK with being attacked on THEIR own turn? This goes against every other attack in the game, and I don’t like it at all. I think it is very poorly thought out. Convoy raids should logically happen when strategic bombing happens.

Basically in G40 you are letting someone attack you twice - The first time the enemy can attack your ships in the zone, and then on YOUR turn they can use the very same ships to attack your convoys in the same zone, before their next turn. This is two attacks in the same round by the same units - something otherwise unheard of in this game.

I completely agree, this has been a consistent issue in my games as well. Also the wording around convoys in the game manual is very confusing. The rule reads from the perspective the player being attacked on their own turn, but this concept is not introduced at all. The result is that players have difficulty understanding when exactly convoy attacks are supposed to occur.

My definite preference is for a direct economic attack in the attackers normal turn. Similar to launching a rocket attack.
Attack rolls against “the convoy” space itself. Defender rolls for defense against the sub as if it is an AA guns.

Any sub participating in an “raid” on a convoy space, cannot participate in normal combat.

@Der:

@Baron:

…at the end of the UK’s turn, before collecting income, then German’s player roll for convoy damage.

A convoy raid is an attack, is it not? Why is everyone OK with being attacked on THEIR own turn? This goes against every other attack in the game, and I don’t like it at all. I think it is very poorly thought out. Convoy raids should logically happen when strategic bombing happens.

Basically in G40 you are letting someone attack you twice - The first time the enemy can attack your ships in the zone, and then on YOUR turn they can use the very same ships to attack your convoys in the same zone, before their next turn. This is two attacks in the same round by the same units - something otherwise unheard of in this game.

Here is how I rationalize the Convoy disruption sequence.
There is both attack and defense stance.
The first time you put (German’s) Subs in an occupied ennemy’s Convoy Sz, you are really on attack. If there was any defenseless Transport, it would also be sunk if the attacker win the battle.
(About my double damage Convoy raid, this can explain you can do both combat and raiding on Merchant’s ship after the combat. On the board, there is a lot of unvisible merchant’s cargo ship passing through this SZ, the first damage roll is to determine how many can be targeted and sink. Not really different than sinking defenseless “military” transport.)

The second time on (UK’s) income phase, this is the time to know how good or bad was the supply sea-line. In other terms, merchant’s ships were constantly traveling back and forth and unfortunatly must pass through the Convoy disruption SZ while the (German’s) Subs are on defense waiting and patroling for them. Hence the actual OOB roll for Convoy disruption which can lead to a lower income for a given (UK’s) power, because the ressources and supply were put in the bottom of the ocean.

However, UK’s player can still do something against it on the previous phase of his turn if he put some warships in the Convoy SZ trying to sink those (German’s) Subs. This represents the escorting warships for the merchant’s ships. In addition, not only UK’s but also other Allies Powers, on their turn, can attack those Subs too.

This is the Atlantic Battle with a lot of details, which includes, in this case, the will or not to provide a warship escort to the merchant’s marine.

Hence, the mechanics which excludes any escort roll @1 against the Subs. The Subs must already past through a lot before doing the Convoy disruption: destroy the defending warships and survive against all the Allies Counter-Strike. Any surviving Subs should get his reward after all this.

So, the OOB Convoy rule IMO is a close imitation inside A&A system of the historical situation.
The SBR is destroying industries and factories, the IPCs are for rebuilding IC.
The Convoy disruption is about the future incomes of a Power, which must reach the homeland before being converted into units, hence the IPCs substraction before getting the cash.

Once this said, you can argue that from a gaming POV it is too far away from a known mechanism: SBR.
You may want 1- a more streamlined procedure. Fine.
Or 2- a more destructive capacity for Subs. If you find that Subs have of no real impact in actual game of G40 Atlantic TO.
Or 3- a better rate of survival against attacker for Subs performing such Convoy raiding. (Because more Subs can do more damage, while keeping the same OOB damage roll.)

@Der:

@SS:

Nice battle board. Like it alot. You don’t think the icp damage is to much.

I have done the math and, if my math is correct, since 1/6 times you will lose a 6 IPC sub due to escort reprisal, you will net, on the average, 2.5 IPCs a raid per sub. Strategic bombing will net about the same - 2.58 IPCs per bomb run, since 1/6 times you will lose a bomber BEFORE it can do any damage. I’ve tried to make convoy raiding and strategic bombing net about the same amount.

About the D6 roll for damage (+3.5 IPCs) on Convoy followed by the escort defense @1 (-1 IPC), giving 2.5 IPCs/Sub.

I don’t think you should follow the same guideline as SBR damage because the Convoy disruption is far more difficult to achieve.
In SBR, you built a Bomber and on the next turn you can do it. While, Subs must be built, then travel through SZs and reach the Convoy zone, attacking and/or being attacked. The rewards should be higher than SBR if you want to solve the issue put in the opening post.

Maybe just 1D6 (3.5 IPCs) or 1D6-1 (2.5 IPCs) damage with no escort attack.

@Der:

@Baron:

A submarine unit can be choose as casualty when there is no other elligible surface warships (DD, CA, CV, BB).

The problem here is, that the sub usually works alone, so it will be the only casualty to choose most of the time.

Probably, I was unclear about some aspects of the HR on Subs casualty:

Your main ideas apply also here:
Destroyers can block the submarine submerge on a 1 on 1 basis and 1 Destroyer cannot stop additional Subs from crossing the single DD’s controled SZ.
The difference is about Surprise Strike, I prefer the OOB: it needs only 1 destroyers to protect against Sub’s Surprise Strike.

Submarines LAST CASUALTY RULE:
A submarine unit can be choose as casualty when there is no other elligible surface warships (DD, CA, CV, BB).
In other way, submarines will be the last casualty amongst warships.

-Planes need no more Destroyers to hit submarines.
Fgs, TcBs and StBs can hit submarine anytime, inside the limit of this given rule on Subs casualty.

-Submarines keep Surprise strike, Submersible, Cannot hit air, and Treat Hostile Sea-Zones as Friendly. -1 Destroyer unit protects against all Subs Surprise Strikes .
But _1 Destroyer unit prevents only 1 submarine Submerge and for 1 combat round only. _And 1 Destroyer can only stop 1 Submarine Treat Hostile Sea-Zones as Friendly capacity. So additional Subs can cross a given SZ to make Combat or simply as a Non-Combat Move in the further away SZ.__ Special retreat move for Submarines and Destroyers:
Even if there is no more enemy ships in a once embattled Sea-Zone, attacking Subs and Destroyers can retreat 1 SZ from where they came.

So, a Submarine unit : Attack 2 Defense 1 Move 2 Cost 6
will be cheap and far more difficult to spot and destroy. Hence, have a better survivability compared to OOB.
However, Submarines will no more serve as a cheap fodder for any big warships, and this make them less interesting for some kind of naval investments and strategies.

So, Submarines will be acting like Submarines in all situations.
Submarines mostly attack Surface Warships (DD, CA, CV, BB) but can sometimes hit submarines (at the end of naval combat or when patroling with Destroyers against Subs only fleet).
There will be no more Subs destruction fest in opening Naval Battle. :-o

Defending planes will be very dangerous (as they should) against attacking Submarines only fleet, even when there is no more destroyers on the plane’s side. :evil:
Attacking planes combined with Subs only fleet can also be a good strategy against a standard fleet, since Subs are cheaper and are allowed to be taken as casualty before planes.

@Der:

@Baron:

I think you agree about the fact that you are adding more layers of complexity to subs rules.

But I could argue - if the rules make common sense - do they complicate? Or do they rather streamline your natural thinking? Naturally one DD could only pin one U-boat. Naturally if your U-boats choose to fight a battle, they are not going to be able to convoy raid in the same round.

Does it make sense that one DD can pretty much neutralize 50 or more German U-boats? Does it make sense that the same sub can attack your navy and also attack your convoys in the same round of play? To me this is what complicates the game. Rules that offend good thinking.

There is many points in your reply.

Or do they rather streamline your natural thinking?

As showed above, the OOB G40 Convoy rule sticks to the tactical and economical dynamics of Subs and Merchant Marines warfare in the Atlantic.

Naturally one DD could only pin one U-boat. … Does it make sense that one DD can pretty much neutralize 50 or more German U-boats?

I agree. And this point will increase Subs odds of survival. No a single DD should not have such potential. 1 on 1 should be implemented.

Naturally if your U-boats choose to fight a battle, they are not going to be able to convoy raid in the same round.
Does it make sense that the same sub can attack your navy and also attack your convoys in the same round of play?

Here I disagree, U-boats commander “should walk and chew gums altogether”.
In regular combat, there is many, many combat rounds.
And in OOB, military Transports are the last victims. And, as the Rulebook say somehow, they are auto-kill to save times during the game because, in fact, the combat units could roll dices until they hit all of them, since they are defenseless.

It is easy to translate that into a Convoy Zone, there is many very slow Cargo ships units which are just sitting duck against any Convoy Raiders.
And we can also suppose that the defending Warships are actively protecting these lines of supply.
Destroying all of them and chasing Merchant Marines Convoy is mostly the same thing as Destroying Combat unit then slaughtering defenseless transport, IMO.

Hence, this simple way to provide more economical impact for Subs in G40 is:
To let them make a First Convoy Disruption once they destroyed all enemy’s Warships in the Convoy SZ, no more no less. Keeping track of the damage as you suggested, by placing some specific chips in the SZ.
And, make another one (following entirely OOB), during the official OOB Convoy Disruption phase, including the other warships and planes (as OOB).
Probably, at this time, the enemy’s Subs units will be destroyed during the previous Combat phase anyway.
So, Submarines would have get at least a single chance to do a little wreck on the Merchant’s Convoy. Increasing their usefulness and better depicting why U-boats were a real danger for UK. As you presented in your Opening Post.

I think, your assumptions are based upon Strategic Bombing Raid, in which it is a very dedicated operation. Planes cannot stay in the air for long, have to move back and forth to Air Base and target areas.
No plane can do both Combat and SBR since they didn’t stay in the same territory after SBR.
However, the defending interceptors can attack on the owner’s turn of play.
Each unit can always do both attack and defense Combat Move.
Sometimes, even more than 1 defense Combat Move.
(Ex.: UK’s Fighters on IC defending against 1 German’s SBR and 1 Italian’s SBR.)

The On Station for Submarines and others Convoy Raiders is very different.
They are occupying the SZ and defending against intruders, even defenseless ones. The unvisible (on the board) cargo ships.
This, I hope, explain why this is a different economic warfare than SBR.

As always nice work DK!

Thanks for all the details about the grunge you hold against OOB Convoy Disruption rules.

For one part, I will try to defend it from an Historical feel POV.

I will not try to defend it from a game mechanism POV. You clearly show how many oddities there is into.
I can just say that Convoy Disruption is a unique rule develop for the most complex games of A&A EUR40&PAC40.
In itself, this can be enough to explain that you find nowhere else some of his special feature.

For another part, willing to find a different game mechanics which can be more abstract than OOB rules, I will try to show that Convoy Disruption is a riskier business than SBR and should not be put in competition against regular combat (doing only one, not both, as it is the rule for SBR).
My reasoning is that it will be detrimental to the Subs Convoy Disruption option, hence returning to square 1.

@Der:

@Baron:

As showed above, the OOB G40 Convoy rule sticks to the tactical and economical dynamics of Subs and Merchant Marines warfare in the Atlantic.

I agree the G40 rules will work as far as achieving the gist of convoy raiding. Damage gets done to your economy. That’s the bottom line. But it is done by offending many of the principles of the game. Here are the rules cut and pasted from the Pacific '40 revised rules:

“Each enemy warship (except for aircraft carriers) and carrier based air units in the sea zone might cause the loss of 1 or more IPCs from your income for the turn.”

Here’s the first problem. Germany doesn’t have carriers, and most of their resources are tied up with land warfare. So they likely will never use planes to convoy raid. Britain and the US will, however.

Is it a problem that Allies can do it in their own way?
Many threads just say that G40 is unbalanced toward Axis.
Even with this advantage toward Fgs, it doesn’t seem to be enough to take advantage of this aspect of OOB Convoy Rule.

“The owners of enemy battleships, cruisers, and/or destroyers rolls one die for each such unit, and the owners of enemy submarines and/or air units roll two dice for each such unit.”

This makes planes just as good as submarines for convoy raiding. It actually makes them better than submarines because they are more versatile. (They can also fight land and air units.) BBs and CAs are also better because they can bombard coasts. DDs can also completely neuter subs. So what makes a sub special? Nothing. If I wanted to do major convoy raiding in G40 I’d buy a bunch of carriers, planes, and DDs.

This point about planes shows how the game developpers tried to stick to historical realism.
(Bismarck and his escort warships received explicit mission goal of Convoy Raiding in Northern Atlantic.)
If it is too much for planes, just let them roll 1 dice like other units. So only Subs can have two dices for damage.

Maybe all this procedure should be simplified and restricted to Submarines only but it would be against historical realism of the game.
At least, it would keep the historical feel of U-boats perils against Convoys.

"Any rolls of “4” or higher are ignored. The results of these rolls that are “3"or less are totalled, and the resulting number is the total convoy damage suffered in the disruption.”

Where else is this “special rule” found in the game?
It is a unique mechanism which allow for a No Result possibility on both sides.
In SBR, such a result is only possible because the Strategic Bombers crashed in flame.
Otherwise, there is always a low result of 1+2= 3 IPCs damage to IC.
There is no draw with SBR mechanics.

Again it is still realistic that U-boats didn’t find any or didn’t sink any significant amount of merchant’s ship. Hence, both sides are even.

From a game perspective, this mechanic can be change with a simpler method giving always a minimal result, as long as you reach the goal (creating an incentive) by increasing the reward of Convoy Disruption.

“After these limits are applied, the final total is subtracted from your income for the turn.”

This is the biggest flaw - you are happily involved in YOUR turn and just when you are about to collect your income, your enemies say “Just a minute! Time for us to roll a bunch of dice on YOUR turn and attack your convoys!” How out of place is that??

Here I disagree. As I said above, the On Patrol Raiders are on defensive stance. In fact, it would be more complicated to roll to know of many of your “X IPCs of supply Convoy” were not sink indeed and remain able to pass through the enemy infested controlled Convoy Sea Zone to finally reach your Capital Territory to deliver their IPCs load.
Just see Convoy Raiders as Interceptors in SBR which try to forbid the Bombers to deliver their destructive loads.

“A review of the map, specifically looking for such situations, is the responsibility of all the players. This is a step in this phase of the turn. All players should be on the lookout for such convoy attack situations and point them out.”

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Do the rules ever say “All players should be on the lookout for ways to bomb your factory and point them out.” or “All players should be on the lookout for ways to attack your capital and point them out.” All players - this includes YOU! Imagine “Hey there, Joe - just wanted to point out before I get my money at the end of MY turn that you can attack me here - and here - and also here…” Ludicrous! In my rules its more like “too bad, buddy - you didn’t attack my convoys when you had the chance during YOUR turn and you aren’t getting my money now.”

It is a demand for Fair-play. It is like making addition for NOs or IPCs count on territory gains. Not a strategical mistake. The Subs owner have already done his attack move on his turn when he put them at risk in this Convoy Sea Zone.
In fact, it should be the contrary: “Sorry man. You forgot to move the invisible merchant marines Cargo ships which are bringing IPCs to Homeland. You won’t get any of all these 10 IPCs loaded in your Convoy Zone.” Have you rolled them, then some of these IPCs would have reach the Homeland.
With your chips idea, it can be done exactly like this. Put the Maximum chips in the Convoy Zone, when the player want to collect them, then any surviving unit On Patrol roll to see what remains in the hand of the player.

And then you have the problem that comes up with defenseless transports. You have gain with no risk. In a G40 convoy raid there is no risk that any of your units might be lost in action. You can’t lose anything as an attacker - only gain by adding up the dice you roll. This violates a staple principle the rules have had since 1984. Nothing is done without risk. In my rules the subs risk getting depth charged after they attack a convoy.

Here we are to the main point of disagreement. By putting Subs in Convoys Zone, which are within reach of Air Units and just produced Warships, you already placing them in an arm’s way Dead Zone, specially Subs are very weak on defense (a low 1) (and in this case, this show that Carrier and planes are way more stronger when On Patrol than any Subs.) In addition, the Raiders must survive a whole game round, U-boats for instance need to survived against Allied players attack (Russia, UK, France remnants, USA), and in Halifax HR this also means against Commonwealth attack coming from Canada. There is a lot of risks in fact. It is just correct to finally gives the reward to the surviving units On Patrol. Because it means whether the defensive fleet has enough units to survive or No Allies care about it, so they have to pay accordingly to their strategic decision.

SBR are, in fact, far less riskier because it is a controlled decision, the odds of survival for the attacker can be known. In Convoy, unless you have many dumb players around the table (so in no possible way any enemy unit can reach your subs), the enemy’s will control their odds of survival and how many units they will throw against your Subs in this SZ.

In addition, putting an escort roll @1 will be also against the A&A system where any significant combat unit get a sculpt: there is no unit in the Convoy SZ while in SBR the IC is clearly visible on the board and defend with is in-built AA gun. To get such a convenient roll, it costs 6 IPCs and you need to move a Sub in this SZ or (a Classic Transport).

@Baron:

Does it make sense that the same sub can attack your navy and also attack your convoys in the same round of play?

Here I disagree, U-boats commander “should walk and chew gums altogether”.
In regular combat, there is many, many combat rounds.

What do you think the merchants were doing while the subs and surface ships duked it out? They were scattering at full speed. And usually DDs had subs pinned for hours before they could get away.
This point can go both ways. What are doing Military defenseless Transport instead of being bluntly sunk?
For my part, I would like to see a Transport with combat value and able to defend at 1.
I just want to say that a player’s turn represent many months and a whole game rounds much more.
The system allowed for destruction of both Warships and all defenseless transports in a single Combat Move and resolution Phase.
This point shouldn’t be a problem when trying to develop a better Convoy Rule.
The OOB Convoy Rule doesn’t interfere with the prime offensive and defensive strategic value of all Raiding units.
This point should be kept to get the most incentive system instead of putting the player in a dilemma to ponder what is the most beneficial tactical move: combat or economic plunder.

@Baron:

However, the defending interceptors can attack on the owner’s turn of play.

But can you think of an example where a unit ATTACKS TWICE in the same round of play?
As said earlier, I don’t see it as an attack but a defensive action. A kind of blockus privilege because you control a given SZ.

@Baron:

Sometimes, even more than 1 defense Combat Move.
(Ex.: UK’s Fighters on IC defending against 1 German’s SBR and 1 Italian’s SBR.)

On defense, this could represent a unit attacked on multiple sides during the same time frame by different nations.

Maybe. It is impossible to really have a multi-force attacks inside A&A system. But it will be truer to say “same time frame” about a multi-forces defenses.

@Baron:

This, I hope, explain why this is a different economic warfare than SBR.

I agree here - I tried to make convoy raising EXACTLY like a SBR and it didn’t feel right. First of all it was boring repeating the same steps. And, after all, we are comparing air and water here - they are different.
Ok. I take notice.

Once this said, since it is clear that you prefer a more streamlined mechanics, in what direction do you want to go?
1- a more destructive capacity for Subs.
(If you find that Subs have of no real impact in actual game of G40 Atlantic TO.)
Or 2- a better rate of survival against attacker for Subs performing such Convoy raiding.
(Because more Subs can do more damage, while keeping the same OOB damage roll.)

Let us know.
(I’m asking because I think your Convoy HR is weak on both points.)