Economic warfare expansion to AA50

OK, here goes: an idea for an expansion on SBR and sub convoy attacks for AA50. I was planning to postpone posting this until it could be playtested, but discussions are already starting and I thought I might as well get some reactions here from you guys. The Convoy damage table maybe needs some explanation: I thought that Japan and UK should be more vulnerable to Convoy interdiction since they had to get all oil supplies by sea.

Economic warfare expansion to Axis & Allies Anniversary edition

Strategic bombardment

These rules replace the strategic bombardment section in the normal rules, as well as AA-gun rules when it comes to bombers and fighter doing SBR missions. If the defender intercepts the attack, the maximum possible damage is the IPC value of the area. If the defender doesn’t intercept, the maximum amount is twice the IPC value of the area. When attacking with Heavy bombers you now add two to each IPC damage roll instead of rolling two dice, and  maximum IPC damage is twice the value of the area, even if the defender intercepts.

Interceptions and escorts:
If the enemy has a fighter in the IC area, he may choose to intercept. Turn one fighter upside-down to indicate that it is intercepting. One intercepting fighter intercepts any number of bombers. If there is at least one fighter in the IC area, the attacker may assign escorts to a SBR mission. The attacking player must designate one fighter to escort each bomber doing SBR that turn versus that IC area. An escorting fighter must move together with the bomber, and it can’t make any other attacks. If the SBR mission is escorted, one fighter in the IC area must intercept and the defender may choose to intercept with two fighters. Upside-down fighters may not be used in the “Combat Movement Phase”, but they may still move in the “Non-Combat Movement Phase”, defend normally and intercept enemy SBR. Upside-down fighters are returned to normal in the “Place Built Units Phase” in the controlling powers turn.

Air combat:
There is one air combat per bomber doing SBR. In air combat, you fight one round only and then proceed to roll for SBR damage if the bomber has survived. AA-guns fire at ‘1’ at bombers and doesn’t get to fire at escorting fighters. Bombers and fighters fire at a ‘1’. If intercepting with one fighter, the defender chooses hits. If intercepting with two fighters versus an escorted SBR attack, one of the fighters fire at the bomber and one at the escorting fighter. Jet fighters fire at a ‘2’ and may not be hit by bombers. If the defender has “Radar”, AA-guns fire at a ‘2’ at bombers and at a ‘1’ at escorting fighters.

Convoy interdiction

Instead of normal movement and attack, a submarine may perform a Convoy interdiction: all enemy ships including destroyers are then ignored and it has a move of three. A convoy interdiction is made against a sea zone with an enemy transport. The attacker may also attack with up to one bomber for each submarine doing a Convoy interdiction. Only submarines and bombers may take part in a Convoy interdiction attack.

Convoy combat:
One round of Convoy combat is fought in each sea zone attacked. If there are no bombers attacking, only one fighter for each defending destroyer may take part in Convoy combat. Submarines and bombers hit on a ‘2’. Destroyers and fighters hit on a ‘1’. Each hit versus the defender means one transport is destroyed. When all transports have been destroyed, the defender chooses hits from destroyers and carriers carrying fighters taking part in the combat. Super subs hit on a ‘3’, may never be hit by fighters and add one to the IPC damage roll.

IPC damage from Convoy interdiction:
After Convoy combat, roll one die of IPC damage per surviving submarine. IPC damage from Convoy interdiction is recorded like SBR damage. All Convoy damage must be repaired before specific units may be built. The units that are blocked by Convoy damage are listed in the Convoy damage table (below). If the defender has the “Shipyards” technology, it repairs two points of Convoy damage for each IPC spent. Convoy damage always affects the power having the highest number of transports in a sea zone. If several powers have the same number of transports in the sea zone, IPC damage is taken by the power with the most cash at hand at the start of the attack. The same applies to hits and hits are taken by the next highest IPC power if no units of the highest IPC power are present. The maximum IPC damage per turn is 10 IPCs per transport in the attacked sea zone.

Convoy damage table
Power:                   Unit production blocked:
Japan, UK               Battleship, Carrier, Cruiser, Destroyer, Transport, Submarine, 
                                  Bomber, Fighter, Tank.
Germany, Soviet Union,  Battleship, Carrier, Cruiser, Destroyer, Transport, Submarine.
Italy, USA

A&Aeconomic2.doc

re: SBR
-in principle, I agree that interceptors and escorts should be in the game
-personally, I would probably look at simplifying your method for doing this, particularly air combat

For SBR, there are many options on how to include escorts and interceptors. I remember the few games that I played AAE that interceptors were way too powerful with a ‘2’ in defence. I also wanted not too many kills in air combat but at the same time that German fighters would be tied up in Germany rather than attacking at the Eastern Front in the next turn, hence the turning of interceptors upside-down. The thing about the cap for IPC damage being related to intercept or not I’m not totally sure about. Maybe the AA50 OOB cap is OK if interceptors are available since it reduces SBR effectivity overall.

re: Convoy interdiction
-personally, I would suggest simplifying this as well (I’d probably remove the blocking of unit production and stick with the convoy damage)
-I see that you have gone with a different approach here, focusing the attacks on the actual transports rather than the ICs.  I do like the idea that this is considered a special attack (and thus separated from regular combat)

I modelled it after SBR so that subs can do either normal or economic attacks. Since subs typically are destroyed quickly unlike bombers, they had to have more damage capability and that’s why they sink transports and do IPC damage. As for blocked unit production, this is to protect Germany and Soviet Union, who after all couldn’t be severely hurt by Convoy attacks in the war. Not going for convoy zones is an aesthetic thing since it clutters the map, but it also could become more flexible and fun to play if transports are the points of attack. Perhaps you have the option of autodestroying transports though to avoid some awkward situations when you don’t need transport capability (?).

Cousin Joe, I wrote up a simpler SBR ruleset, what do you think?

Strategic bombardment

These rules replace the strategic bombardment section in the normal rules. AA functions as the normal rules. When attacking with Heavy bombers you now add two to each IPC damage roll instead of rolling two dice.

Intercepting and escorting fighters:
Defending fighters in the attacked IC area are intercepting fighters, but the maximum number of interceptors is the number of attacking aircraft. The attacker may also attack with fighters which then are escorting fighters, but no more escorting fighters than there are attacking bombers.

Air combat:
In air combat, you fight one round only and then proceed to roll for SBR damage for each bomber that has survived. You add the number of aircraft on each side and then roll that number of dice, hitting on a ‘1’. If you have “Jet fighters” you get two rolls for each fighter and enemy bombers no longer get to fire in air combat.

Hit allocation in escorted SBR attacks:
If there are escorting fighters in the attack, the first hit by the defender is always on an escorting fighter, the second on an attacking bomber, and so on.

IL, you make much more sweeping changes than I propose. Air combat in my proposal is ONLY in SBR and ONLY one round of combat, after AA and before rolling for SBR damage. If you add air combat in every combat, you will prolong the game a lot and I don’t think the game needs that. I think fighters and bombers are powerful enough in ordinary combat.

When it comes to subs, look up the thread. Cousin Joe thought it was too complex, and I’ve been thinking about a simpler representation of convoy damage:

“As long as you have Convoy damage you can’t build transports and you can’t embark or disembark units on transports”

This is simpler and it also makes UK and Japan more vulnerable since they will be the ones who can’t live with convoy damage at all, whereas Italy and US some of the time may be willing to live with it and Germany and Soviet Union not really affected in most games.

As long as you have Convoy damage you can’t build transports and you can’t embark or disembark units on transports

This does not make sence. No relationship can exist or prevent those things from occurring , except by direct means.

UK bombs Berlin, and Hitler says “leave our troops on transports till i get our city rebuilt?”  HUH? What?

I’m talking about Convoy damage and not SBR damage. Convoy damage would represent disruption of the sea supply system so that invasions couldn’t be performed, operations that have to use massive amounts of shipping to be possible. In the war, the Atlantic sub war had just this effect and no major invasions could be launched by sea in '41 due to the heavy convoy losses.

But I think maybe Cousin Joe was right that as few complications of the rules as possible, and so maybe adding another element to the game is unnecessary. A simplified version of Convoy interdiction rules would be:

Convoy interdiction

Instead of normal movement and attack, a submarine may perform a Convoy interdiction: all enemy ships including destroyers are then ignored and it has a move of three. A convoy interdiction is made against a sea zone with an enemy transport. Only submarines may take part in a Convoy interdiction attack.

Convoy combat:
One round of Convoy combat is fought in each sea zone attacked, with submarines attacking on a ‘2’ and destroyers defending on ‘1’. One fighter for each defending destroyer may take part in Convoy combat, hitting on a ‘1’. Each hit versus the defender means one transport is destroyed. When all transports have been destroyed, the defender chooses hits from destroyers and carriers carrying fighters taking part in the combat. Super subs hit on a ‘3’, may never be hit by fighters and add one to the IPC damage roll.

Convoy damage:
After Convoy combat, roll one die per surviving submarine to determine Convoy damage. Convoy damage is recorded by putting damage markers in an adjacent sea zone bordering the capital area. Convoy damage is separate from damage to ICs by SBR and can be repaired in the “Purchase Units Phase” for 1 IPC per marker. All Convoy damage must be repaired before any naval unit may be built. If a power has the “Shipyards” technology, it repairs two points of Convoy damage for each IPC spent. If several powers have transports in a sea zone, the attacking player chooses which power that takes Convoy damage. The maximum IPC damage for each power per turn is 10 IPCs per controlled transport in the attacked sea zone.

America invaded Africa in late 1942 even when they faced huge shipping loses from the second “happy time” (look it up)

I don’t think a complete loss of invasion capability would take place even with the rule I thought of, since US or UK would surely be able to repair all convoy damage inflicted on them. Even with 3 subs attacking you would have around 10 IPCs loss in production. Of course, you could just have IPC damage being taken from cash at hand, but I wanted to find something similar to how SBR damage is handled in AA50 and also something that means you don’t have to have “ad-hoc” rules such as Germany and Soviet Union are immune from convoy attacks or the addition of convoy zones on the map.

America occupied Azores, UK made commando raids against Dieppe and St Nazaire, while they were losing hundreds of ships on the high seas. It just does not make any sence.

None of these invasions would be represented in Axis & Allies. Operation Overlord was postponed due to the fact of submarine warfare and this is the kind of scale we are talking about. Of course, US and UK could have invaded France even in '42 but I’m not sure they would have succeeded. In game terms, this would mean that submarines in '41 and '42 inflict damage enough so that the number of transports to invade with would be too few.

Except moving 3 makes no sence.

also, in the mid war period fighters did sink subs and bombers were used to scout, I don’t know why you ignore cruisers in ASW duty because they are integral part of this protection. Thats would make them more viable for cash strapped nations who may have one around.

Well, movement of three is for Germany to have any chance of actually getting subs to sea zones with enemy transports (Greenland and Celtic Sea from the Baltic Sea). What doesn’t make sense is how all submarines can be destroyed in the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the English channel, which is what happens in all Axis & Allies editions and which is a basic fault of the game design. Of course you could give submarines immunity to attack or something more radical but I think three in movement is less radical a change. Cruisers is a balance thing. If cruisers had ASW function that would: a) make it unnecessary to buy destroyers, b) make subs too weak. Please note that these rules means that subs in normal combat can be attacked just as in OOB AA50 rules, it’s only in Convoy combat that ASW is restricted!

lastly this has me godsmacked:

“All Convoy damage must be repaired before any naval unit may be built.”

Please don’t consider this. why would you have such a rule?

Well as I said the alternative is to have Convoy damage just subtracted from cash at hand, but now SBR works with damage markers and so I though Convoy damage should as well. The advantage is that even if Germany gets Convoy damage it can ignore it if doesn’t want to buy any more naval units. The historical explanation is that Submarine warfare attritions naval forces and in particular transports and ASW ships and in order to gain naval supremacy  the convoy war had to be won. Even as late as '43, the Allies put the convoy war as the highest war aim in the West (Casablanca), and the importance of the convoy war isn’t represented at all in Axis & Allies. Quote from Weinberg’s A world at arms, p. 380:

“… the shortage of shipping imposed restriction on the scope of Torch that would… make it impossible for the Allies to seize Tunisia in the early stages of that operation. This made it possible for the Germans to hold on in North Africa until May 1943 and hence make an invasion of Northwest Europe impossible before 1944. With shipping losses continuing to exceed new construction, it should come as no surprise that at the January 1943 conference at Casablanca, top priority should be assigned to the battle against the U-Boats. If this menace could not be conquered, the steady diminuition of Allied tonnage would immobilize the Western Allies; even if Britain could be kept supplied, there was nothing a huge American army could do to help defeat Germany if it could not be brought to Europe and supplied there.”

Any ruleset that gets us closer to the historical fact is an improvement. I don’t claim my suggestions are the only possible, what are yours? This is what should be there:

1. German subs must be able to reach the Atlantic areas without being destroyed.
2. Submarines should be able to engage enemy transports and/or convoys without being forced to engage the entire fleet.
3. Some kind of representation of the merchant navy should be present, be it as Convoy damage, convoy zones, destroying IPCs if adjacent to enemy ICs, etc. If subs have enough power to destroy transports, that might be powerful enough so we wouldn’t need abstract convoys, but I doubt if that can be made a system balanced enough.
4. Buying subs should be cost-effective for Germany in early stages of the game at least, i.e. ASW should be weak enough to enable subs to do a considerable amount of damage before they are destroyed.

The rule as stated still prohibits the building of naval units, and its possible players of the same team would build more than 3 subs and ‘cost no more than 10 IPC’  Rule systems have to look at the extremes and are refuted even if ONE time in ONE game a trick is discovered which breaks the game. IMO your rule can lead to a broken game.  Japan, Germany and Italy, can start adding more subs to the 4-5 they begin with and prevent the allies from ever getting transports made. While u-boats enjoyed the “happy times” the allies were building more merchant ships than can be sunk. it was a race and the allies were still winning it. Your rule takes the wind out of the sail.

Well, sub survivability in the OOB rules isn’t very high so I doubt if that many subs will be able to attack at the same time. Of course, if you restrict the ability to attack subs you will be forced to restrict the damage that will be done.

Please find this fact and cite it.

I cited it in the earlier post. The Allies lost a total of 3,500 merchants ships at the hands of submarines, and only in '43 did building exceed sinkings:

“The construction of new ship tonnage had exceeded submarine sinkings for the first time in February 1943.” Weinberg, A world at arms, p. 382.

Submarines no longer block movement of surface naval units, except for transports. In combat with subs and other naval units, submarines are not involved. That’s to say they now perform as totally independent forms of naval combat. Once the surface naval combat is resolved, further combat with submarines can occur.

Well, this is too radical a change I think. Again according to Weinberg, American submarines sank twice as many Japanese ships as American surface ships (p. 393). I think like bombers that subs should have both an economic attack option and a normal attack option. Subs won’t be infantry of the seas now that they have only ‘1’ in defence.

Your convoy rules are very complex. I’m trying to simplify my rule suggestions. Yet your ASW rules doesn’t even include carriers which were the units that actually turned the tide against the subs! Rules should follow the Ockham’s razor principle, never be more complex than needed. The drawback of my ruleset is that you might destroy every enemy transport and then not get to attack economically the convoy routes. But adding convoy zones is so big a change I hope you can avoid it in some way.

I like your way of conducting attacks against enemy transports, it is similar to mine even though I think fighters should added as an ASW unit aside DDs. Perhaps this can be expanded to be the way subs attack economically?

1. Subs can attack either as per OOB rules or against transports. It then functions as you say only that one other unit per destroyer may take part, fighter as well as cruiser. Instead of my “one combat round and then inflict IPC damage” you would simply have more rounds of combat as you have it. Transports are the required first casualty, but the attacker can continue vs. ASW units if he wishes.
2. There should be some restriction on attacking subs but not as tough as you put it. Suggestions for ASW values in both defence and offensive combat, with DDs allowing one other unit to take part: DDs, FTRs & BMBs ‘2’, CAs ‘1’. This takes effect if attacking a sub-only force or when subs attack transports, but if subs make a normal attack or defends as part of surface fleet then all units defend according to OOB rules.
3. We still have the movement issue. I suggest movement of ‘3’ only when attacking transports and no movement restrictions by destroyers, that’s the only way Germany will get their subs forward!

If we tweak the attack transports special ability and increase sub survivability we might not even need economic abstractions like convoy zones or convoy damage since just the sinking of transports will represent the convoy war!

IL, your rules are in the Advanced category. You use a tech to represent a development in the war, whereas I think this could simply be represented by the build-up of ASW ships over time.

I start another thread on the attack transport option to economic warfare. Convoy zone is a tried and true concept by now, and it works out OK I guess. I’m just intrigued by the possibility of avoiding adding convoy zones since it does complicate the game.