G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@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:

@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.

@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.

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.

FWIW… I considered implementing a Medium Bomber piece into the game which would be the only aircraft capable of convoy raiding. That would certainly limit the number of planes that could do it. I haven’t thought about the mechanics all that much yet, or if the medium bomber is just too unnecessary to even have.

As for making the convoy areas more explicit, I agree. You could just write a number in the sea zone next to the convoy symbol. This would be essentially the same as original Europe and Pacific except that there are not separate spaces for the convoy. Again, I am interested to see how HBG approaches convoys in GW 1936… their system seems to be unique.

@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 raiders obviously got to choose where they focused their raids. guess we can agree to disagree on this point :)

In fact, it is two different game mechanics.
Mine is trying to be as similar as possible to SBR, it is an SBR at sea.
Yours is trying to implement OOB Convoy Disruption in the attacker phase.
Two legitimate goals.

So, when I said there is no need to choose target in a Convoy SZ, it was according to your goal, not my system.
For example, in Alaskan SZ, Alaska worth 2 IPCs & British Columbia worth 1 IPC.
If 2 Subs makes a Convoy Disruption, no need to specify.
Let’s suppose 1 Sub rolls 2, 3 while the other rolls 5 & 6.
According to your idea, the first must have chose the target, and could have pick BC for 1 IPC damage.
Following my suggestion, all 3 IPCs damage are applied, so both US (2) and UK (1) must pay for the single Sub which got hits.
Suppose now, Sub#1 rolls 1, 4 and Sub#2 rolls 1, 6, sum 2 IPCs damage.
According to your idea, probably #1 targeted Alaska while #2 targeted BC. So, US pays 1 and UK pays 1.
Following my idea, US and UK players can split US takes 2 and UK, 0 or 1 each.
Defenders choose how to split is simpler.

According to my Merchant Convoy Raid+SLD (SBR at sea rule),
in same Alaskan SZ (Alaska and BC TTs) with 2 Subs:
Subs #1 and #2 survived the preemptive rolls @1.
Sub #1 rolls 1 and #2 rolls 4, for 5 IPCs damage.
Convoy SZ cap is still 4 IPCs.
The split rule allocates 2 IPCs to US and 2 IPCs to UK.
3 Damage would split 2 US / 1 UK.
2 damage split 1 US / 1 UK.
1 Damage split 1 US / 0 UK.

The 4 IPCs cap per Convoy SZ imply to reach higher results than TT value.

About Adriatic SZ, there is 5 TTs, if Greece is German this is 4 Italian vs 1 German.
1 damage goes to Italy.
2, goes to 1 Italy / 1 Germany
3, goes to 2 Italy / 1 Germany
4, goes to 3 Italy / 1 Germany
5, 6 and 7 IPCs damage cannot be apply.

@regularkid:

@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.

OOB, Fgs and TcBs on Carrier have 2 dices each.
That’s why I asked.

About Fighter with no raid capacity.
Seems to me better to give economic damage to bombers only.

Don’t forget, this Convoy Disruption phase is made on attacker’s turn.
Allocating planes to do between 0-6 for TcBs and 0-3 with StBs instead of attacking combat units is not going to be optimized most of the time.
Having a zero result 50% of the time, is not that efficient. Against combat units, more than a single round attack is allowed.

Maybe TcB should roll 1 dice only, like other warships.
So, only Subs get 2 dices to roll.

Maybe the issue is about giving too much options to aircrafts, IDK?

@Baron:

Maybe the issue is about giving too much options to aircrafts, IDK?

I think this is the crux of the issue. We could easily generate a mechanic for aircraft to participate in convoy raiding, but the question is whether or not we need to or should. My point with allowing it for only one air unit type is that it keeps the ability very limited. Though I acknowledge that even this is superfluous.

Another thing to consider is how we would allow aircraft to convoy raid. With ships, they can fight and then raid in the same turn, should aircraft be allowed to do this? Or should convoy raiding be their single use for the turn? Movement is also a far more important factor regarding convoy raiding with aircraft than it is for ships. (E.g. they still need to have enough moves to make it back to a friendly territory). Should aircraft convoy raiding be treated like strategic bombing raids (where the planes attack and return all at once) or more like the system for ships where they stay in the SZ until your next turn (and therefore cannot be utilized in territory defense)?

For whatever it’s worth, here are a few thoughts on the subject.

In my opinion, aircraft attacks against ships at sea should be seen as tactical operations, not strategic ones, for the simple reason that ships (even when gathered into large convoys) are very small targets whose position at sea is always changing, whereas cities (the primary type of strategic bombing target in WWII) are very large and have a fixed position on land.

Even recognizing the limitations of aircraft navigation during WWII, bombers always knew the map coordinates of a target city; they had variable success at getting there accurately, but at least they knew exactly where they were heading.

At sea, however, there are only two circumstances under which an aircraft can overfly a ship and attack it: either because of pure chance (meaning that it’s located a target of opportunity) or because it’s learned from a friendly unit (such as a friendly ship or friendly airplane) about the position of an enemy ship (or convoy), in whose direction it can then fly to carry out a deliberate attack.  The Luftwaffe attacks against the Operation Pedestal convoy to Malta are an example of the latter type of situation.

@LHoffman:

Though I acknowledge that even this is superfluous.

If aircraft convoy raiding is superfluous, why continue discussing its mechanics?

Also, why would ships be permitted to do naval combat and convoy raiding in the same turn? Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply have the player choose between them (this is already the case with strategic bombing, shore bombardment, etc. . . units don’t get to do two things in the same turn. Why would should convoy raids be any different?)

Another thing to consider is how we would allow aircraft to convoy raid. With ships, they can fight and then raid in the same turn, should aircraft be allowed to do this? Or should convoy raiding be their single use for the turn?

I prefer that it should be as similar as possible to SBR. This was the starting idea.
Either combat, or SBR/TBR or Merchant Convoy Raid (MCR). 3 exclusive options for StB or TcB.

Movement is also a far more important factor regarding convoy raiding with aircraft than it is for ships. (E.g. they still need to have enough moves to make it back to a friendly territory). Should aircraft convoy raiding be treated like strategic bombing raids (where the planes attack and return all at once) or more like the system for ships where they stay in the SZ until your next turn (and therefore cannot be utilized in territory defense)?

Same as SBR, StBs and TcBs doing MCR start from friendly zone and must land to a friendly one after CMR during NCM. So as SBR, bombers can be use on defense as usual.

Only warships and Subs have to be in SZ to MCR. Once MCR is done, NCM is not allowed, they stay in SZ.
According to the MCR rule trying to develop, Surface warships cannot raid in a defended SZ, any 1 DD blocker is enough to forbid them MCR. Warships make MCR in empty Convoy SZ only.

I am not sure about bombers.
It depends on the extent of the similarities with SBR mechanics and how far into historical picture.
With or without interception?
If no one likes interception with Fgs on Carrier (same rule with SBR escort-intercept), then it should be the same rule as with warships:
No MCR for bombers if the SZ have at least 1 DD blocker.
Or, said otherwise, bombers can do MCR in empty SZ only (Sub and TP doesn’t count).
This last one reduces some options for aircrafts (if there is too many).

Finally, I suggested that Sub can be allowed to do MCR even in an enemy’s control SZ.
So Sub can either attack or MCR, not both.
Do you want it or not?

I added, Shipping Lines Disruption (SLD) at 1 IPC per Sub in SZ,
that way, even attacking Sub surviving in Convoy SZ can still do 1 damage, along with Subs on MCR.
This last feature creates somekind of wolfpack capacity as said in an earlier post.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1464159#msg1464159

@CWO:

For whatever it’s worth, here are a few thoughts on the subject.

In my opinion, aircraft attacks against ships at sea should be seen as tactical operations, not strategic ones, for the simple reason that ships (even when gathered into large convoys) are very small targets whose position at sea is always changing, whereas cities (the primary type of strategic bombing target in WWII) are very large and have a fixed position on land.�

Even recognizing the limitations of aircraft navigation during WWII, bombers always knew the map coordinates of a target city; they had variable success at getting there accurately, but at least they knew exactly where they were heading.

At sea, however, there are only two circumstances under which an aircraft can overfly a ship and attack it: either because of pure chance (meaning that it’s located a target of opportunity) or because it’s learned from a friendly unit (such as a friendly ship or friendly airplane) about the position of an enemy ship (or convoy), in whose direction it can then fly to carry out a deliberate attack.� The Luftwaffe attacks against the Operation Pedestal convoy to Malta are an example of the latter type of situation.

This sounds reasonable to me. If nothing else it would give a credible reason to not allow discrete convoy raiding by aircraft. I am able to accept that such events take place in the background of the game somehow, but due to scale are not represented overtly.

However, the same could be said of an aircraft’s ability to attack a submarine in A&A. Aircraft were used in an anti-sub fashion, but this was a very limited role that was even more determined by chance or surface ship help than convoy raiding would be. So by that reasoning, we could also eliminate air vs sub combat. Convoys at least had somewhat predictable routes and a very visible presence.

@regularkid:

If aircraft convoy raiding is superfluous, why continue discussing its mechanics?

In my opinion, everything we are discussing is technically superfluous because people already play and enjoy the game OOB. And even if it is superfluous, there is no harm in discussing mechanics for it. Perhaps it could morph into something applicable or useful. We don’t know yet. Honestly, I think that limited aircraft combat raiding could be a decent, if not necessary, addition to the game. Certainly it would be more useful than Airbase/Naval Base raiding; that is one of the least utilized aspects of the game, but you can still do it if you want to.

@regularkid:

Also, why would ships be permitted to do naval combat and convoy raiding in the same turn? Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply have the player choose between them (this is already the case with strategic bombing, shore bombardment, etc. . . units don’t get to do two things in the same turn. Why would should convoy raids be any different?)

Your ships conduct some sort of combat in a given sea zone containing an enemy convoy marker. At the end of your turn you declare that they are conducting convoy disruption there.

The rules in no way prohibit doing this. You don’t have to choose, you can do both. It isn’t like a shore bombardment.

I think it would make sense to make aircraft choose if they want to convoy raid or if they want to attack, because aircraft mechanics are different from those for ships. I was just posing the question.

@Baron:

Movement is also a far more important factor regarding convoy raiding with aircraft than it is for ships. (E.g. they still need to have enough moves to make it back to a friendly territory). Should aircraft convoy raiding be treated like strategic bombing raids (where the planes attack and return all at once) or more like the system for ships where they stay in the SZ until your next turn (and therefore cannot be utilized in territory defense)?

Same as SBR, StBs and TcBs doing CMR start from friendly zone and must land to a friendly one after CMR during NCM. So as SBR, bombers can be use on defense as usual.

Only warships and Subs have to be in SZ to MCR. Once MCR is done, NCM is not allowed, they stay in SZ.

This is fine, however, it does change the way Convoy Raiding is done OOB. I have only scanned previous posts on this issue, so I am not up to date on your proposal, but if you intend to keep OOB system of convoy raiding - where it is actually done at the end of the other person’s turn - aircraft raiding will have to take place immediately, much like the old SBR rules. This would set up two different convoy raiding schemes. In practice, I don’t think this will be very obtrusive because air units will just do it as part of the SBR phase.

@LHoffman:

This sounds reasonable to me. If nothing else it would give a credible reason to not allow discrete convoy raiding by aircraft. I am able to accept that such events take place in the background of the game somehow, but due to scale are not represented overtly.

However, the same could be said of an aircraft’s ability to attack a submarine in A&A. Aircraft were used in an anti-sub fashion, but this was a very limited role that was even more determined by chance or surface ship help than convoy raiding would be. So by that reasoning, we could also eliminate air vs sub combat. Convoys at least had somewhat predictable routes and a very visible presence.

And an added reason to eliminate aircraft-versus-sub combat is that, in WWII, actual sinkings of subs by aircraft were as far as I know pretty rare in daytime (though the Leigh Light and its associated tactics did result in some sub kills by planes at night).  In the Battle of the Atlantic, the primary job of Allied aircraft wasn’t so much to sink subs (though sinkings were always welcome when they were achieved) but rather to drive them underwater in order to reduce their speed and increase their fuel consumption, thus limiting their effectiveness and range.  And to drive a sub underwater, all a plane had to do was to show up somewhere in visual range of the sub, which could easily be dozens of miles in decent viewing conditions.  As for subs fighting aircraft, that concept failed lamentably when Doenitz (briefly) ordered his U-boats to “fight it out on the surface” with Allied planes.

@CWO:

For whatever it’s worth, here are a few thoughts on the subject.

In my opinion, aircraft attacks against ships at sea should be seen as tactical operations, not strategic ones, for the simple reason that ships (even when gathered into large convoys) are very small targets whose position at sea is always changing, whereas cities (the primary type of strategic bombing target in WWII) are very large and have a fixed position on land.�

Even recognizing the limitations of aircraft navigation during WWII, bombers always knew the map coordinates of a target city; they had variable success at getting there accurately, but at least they knew exactly where they were heading.

At sea, however, there are only two circumstances under which an aircraft can overfly a ship and attack it: either because of pure chance (meaning that it’s located a target of opportunity) or because it’s learned from a friendly unit (such as a friendly ship or friendly airplane) about the position of an enemy ship (or convoy), in whose direction it can then fly to carry out a deliberate attack.� The Luftwaffe attacks against the Operation Pedestal convoy to Malta are an example of the latter type of situation.

I agree with this. I know theres been discussions about Str Bombers attacking ships.
You could have where reconssance ( hope its spelled write. IL will start rippin on me ) planes have to find the fleet.

If the fleet is found, then Str. Bombers can attack or Str bombers attack at a 2 or 3 if you don;t use sea planes.

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

This sounds reasonable to me. If nothing else it would give a credible reason to not allow discrete convoy raiding by aircraft. I am able to accept that such events take place in the background of the game somehow, but due to scale are not represented overtly.

However, the same could be said of an aircraft’s ability to attack a submarine in A&A. Aircraft were used in an anti-sub fashion, but this was a very limited role that was even more determined by chance or surface ship help than convoy raiding would be. So by that reasoning, we could also eliminate air vs sub combat. Convoys at least had somewhat predictable routes and a very visible presence.

And an added reason to eliminate aircraft-versus-sub combat is that, in WWII, actual sinkings of subs by aircraft were as far as I know pretty rare in daytime (though the Leigh Light and its associated tactics did result in some sub kills by planes at night). In the Battle of the Atlantic, the primary job of Allied aircraft wasn’t so much to sink subs (though sinkings were always welcome when they were achieved) but rather to drive them underwater in order to reduce their speed and increase their fuel consumption, thus limiting their effectiveness and range. And to drive a sub underwater, all a plane had to do was to show up somewhere in visual range of the sub, which could easily be dozens of miles in decent viewing conditions. As for subs fighting aircraft, that concept failed lamentably when Doenitz (briefly) ordered his U-boats to “fight it out on the surface” with Allied planes.

I based some of my assumptions about planes-Destroyers-Subs intereactions rules on this web site.
Is it an accurate source or not?
It seems that 264 U-boats were killed by ships compared to 250 U-boats destroyed by aircrafts.
Actually, I don’t know anymore what to think about efficiency of Aircraft against Subs.
Can you clarify things for me?

U-boat losses by cause

In the following table I attempt to list all U-boat losses by type of loss. There are some duplications in the listing (i.e. boats being paid off and then either scuttled or surrendered) but this as accurate as I can make it right now. This is based on the very latest research and will probably not match older sources.

Ships 264 Includes a few losses to merchant ships
Aircraft 250 Includes all ship-based aircraft
Aircraft & Ships * 37 Missing 44 See U-boats missing in Action
Air raids on ports 43 Check out this page.
Mines 35
Captured 3 U-110, U-505 and U-570

Scuttled 238 Read about Operation Regenbogen
Surrendered 155 Most scuttled in Operation Deadlight
Paid Off 37 Usually battered or “tired” boats
Accidents 25 Losses to accidents or “friendly fire”
Other (+) 7

Total 1,154 (1,149 individual boats)

http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm

@LHoffman:

This is fine, however, it does change the way Convoy Raiding is done OOB. I have only scanned previous posts on this issue, so I am not up to date on your proposal, but if you intend to keep OOB system of convoy raiding - where it is actually done at the end of the other person’s turn - aircraft raiding will have to take place immediately, much like the old SBR rules. This would set up two different convoy raiding schemes. In practice, I don’t think this will be very obtrusive because air units will just do it as part of the SBR phase.

True.
That’s why I name it Merchant Convoy Raid (MCR is my “on development” HR based on SBR mechanics, initiated by YG post) instead of Convoy Disruption (OOB) which can be also put on attacker’s turn (Regularkid idea).

MCR is a mechanic which try to make 1 basic rule for economic attack in two different settings: IC and bases or Convoy SZ.

Regularkid keeps two separate mechanisms for SBR and CD.

@SS:

I agree with this. I know theres been discussions about Str Bombers attacking ships.
You could have where renaissance ( hope its spelled write. IL will start rippin on me ) planes have to find the fleet.

If the fleet is found, then Str. Bombers can attack or Str bombers attack at a 2 or 3 if you don;t use sea planes.

You meant reCONnaissance planes?