Has anyone ever had success with convoy raiding?

Subs disrupting convoys can make a real contribution to victory. Two sea zones in particular are massive convoy opportunities - sz97 & sz6.

sz97 can be used to destroy Italy’s economic contribution. In the games in which I participate significant allied effort is expended towards achieving the air and naval supremacy in the Med that allows Italian DD builds to be swept away by the US. The US is hampered by fighter scrambles, so retreat as soon as any Italian DD’s are wiped out is made possible if UK subs are available to move in during their non-com.

Note the need for air and/or naval supremacy if your subs are to survive. sz6 is a good example of this, as J’s build potential and opening air and naval power severely hamper allied attempts to gain traction. But if J’s fleet is engaged beyond reach of sz6, perhaps attempting to defend the money islands or take India, the opportunity can present itself. This has occurred in a proportion of the games in which I am involved, so not as common as sz97, but not uncommon either.

A lesser example is J subs off Ceylon - which can make a real difference given UK Pac’s low income.

So yes - lots of success - in the right circumstances.

By contrast, G is unlikely to be able to maintain air and/or naval dominance in the Irish Sea, so is likely to lose subs there attempting convoy disruption.

I’ve also used/defended against it in SZ109. Combined with Strat Bombing on London, this virtually takes UK Europe out of the game except for Africa until the US can come and rescue. However, it does require surface fleet as well. I actually think it’s best combined with a grinding down of London’s infantry. If you take Scotland, they must take the territory back or you can land fighters, which is doom for the UK. If the BB and Cruiser survive to G2, one transport can attack with 1x4 1x3 2x2. Enough to kill two inf most rounds. So in theory you only need two TT and peace with the US to pull off a Sea Lion. In practice it doesn’t seem to quite work so easily.

Convoy raids are an excellent way to make your opponent spend on things he didn’t want to spend on, or pay a price if he doesn’t.

As Germany I often find success parking subs off the coast of the UK.

I rarely have success off the coast of England because US or Canadian built destroyer sink them.
The mediterranian is far better for raiding. Destroy the Italian fleet, which usually is no problem and park subs there.

On the Pacific it is really hard to raid the Japanese as long as his fleet is intact. On the other side, Japan can raid india quiet easy.

The best way to convoy London is to attack all of their DDs on round 1 and buy at least 2 subs.  This is difficult to do if your opponent has a bid in London/Scotland.  The extra Scotland fighter makes it almost impossible without suffering heavy losses to German air.  If you can take out the DDs without suffering too many casualties then Britain is in major trouble and can be convoyed for about 3-4 turns until US can cleanup the subs.  The earlier you start the convoy the better.

Talking about convoying I have a beginner question.
It says in the rules you convoy for 2 dice with air units (and subs ofc). How do you go about convoying with an air unit?
I assume having a carrier with planes in a convoy sea-zone, correct?

Ignore me it friggin says Carrier-based air unit.
I am going to bed now…

What if the convoy Disruption phase was in the turn sequence of the nation doing the disruptions? For example:

After Germany’s non combat movement phase (let’s say they move a sub into 109 which is empty), they enter the disrupt convoys phase but instead of enemy ships rolling against them at this time, they would roll disruptions against their enemy (roll against UK for the sub they just moved). Would this be to powerful or would it make convoy zones more significant?

@Young:

What if the convoy Disruption phase was in the turn sequence of the nation doing the disruptions? For example:

After Germany’s non combat movement phase (let’s say they move a sub into 109 which is empty), they enter the disrupt convoys phase but instead of enemy ships rolling against them at this time, they would roll disruptions against their enemy (roll against UK for the sub they just moved). Would this be to powerful or would it make convoy zones more significant?

The difference, YG, is presumably that the willingness to risk the sub is increased.

According to my maths, on average a sub will achieve 2 ipc damage via convoy disruption. i.e. 2 rolls x ((1 x 1/6)+(2x1/6)+(3x1/6)). That assumes no ceiling to the potential disruption caused, which is incorrect, of course.

That in itself is insufficient to risk certain death.

But it will change things at the margins. When the sub has a slightly less than evens chance of survival, the 2 ipc convoy damage may warrant the risk.

@Private:

@Young:

What if the convoy Disruption phase was in the turn sequence of the nation doing the disruptions? For example:

After Germany’s non combat movement phase (let’s say they move a sub into 109 which is empty), they enter the disrupt convoys phase but instead of enemy ships rolling against them at this time, they would roll disruptions against their enemy (roll against UK for the sub they just moved). Would this be to powerful or would it make convoy zones more significant?

The difference, YG, is presumably that the willingness to risk the sub is increased.

According to my maths, on average a sub will achieve 2 ipc damage via convoy disruption. i.e. 2 rolls x ((1 x 1/6)+(2x1/6)+(3x1/6)). That assumes no ceiling to the potential disruption caused, which is incorrect, of course.

That in itself is insufficient to risk certain death.

But it will change things at the margins. When the sub has a slightly less than evens chance of survival, the 2 ipc convoy damage may warrant the risk.

Yes, however… the sub would at least get to roll disruptions right away, rather than waiting for the enemy to get a chance to destroy it before it’s first disruption attempt (a modification which I believe would promote more convoy disrupting).

Yes YG - I agree - but only at the margins. All as per my last post. :-)

@Young:

Yes, however… the sub would at least get to roll disruptions right away, rather than waiting for the enemy to get a chance to destroy it before it’s first disruption attempt (a modification which I believe would promote more convoy disrupting).

I think that would reduce the fun. At present, at least convoy disruptions only occur when the nation being disrupted has failed to prevent the disruption which seems fair. This change makes it feel less fair.

@simon33:

@Young:

Yes, however… the sub would at least get to roll disruptions right away, rather than waiting for the enemy to get a chance to destroy it before it’s first disruption attempt (a modification which I believe would promote more convoy disrupting).

I think that would reduce the fun. At present, at least convoy disruptions only occur when the nation being disrupted has failed to prevent the disruption which seems fair. This change makes it feel less fair.

I disagree with that interpretation of fun, I mean is it fun to throw a sub into a convoy zone with a destroyer and fighters in range to pounce on a dead duck which rolls 1@1 defence? Even if it’s the only mission the sub has before it sinks, probably wouldn’t do it… but give me a chance to steal a couple bucks before it meets its fate?.. I would do that.

I think Convoy’s are, and if you are in the right position to proceed this, it’s a very great way to turn the game. Japan has 47 ipc’s on the IPC tracker right now and I am playing USA taking Korea and this is the last move of our night. We continue next week. Look at the plentiful opportunity the USA has at Convoy’s over Japan now. It won’t take long to minimise Japans income ( and correct me if I am wrong ).

Calcutta is going to be taken back and Shanghai next 2 rounds.

BH