Want to think of a convoy raid rule.
Don’t like fixed convoy zones though.
Like it dynamic, related to actual construction.
OOB’s 1 IPC per submarine anywhere is too easy. Imagine 10 submarines in the Black Sea haha.
1 IPC per submarine near IC territory is not related to construction. Since that IC might not actually be in use. Or in use but receving material via land.
Could also handle it at the source territory but then IPC must be jumping barriers somewhere on the map.
So I thought something like this:
IPC travel from source territory to destination territory. It can travel via friendly territories. Or it can travel via the shortest sea path. Hitting on a 3, each naval unit (except for transports) destroys 1 IPC of enemy IPCs going through its sea zone.
A closed canal in the shortest sea path prevents the path. (Choose a different destination.)
Its a bit complex.
Any ideas?
Just use the rules from enhanced.
2 IPC per surfaced submarine directly adjacent to your industrial complex (max = territory value) at the end of your turn (not the submarine owner’s turn)
1 IPC per surfaced submarine within one space of being directly adjacent to your industrial complex (max=territory value) at the end of your turn (not the submarine owner’s turn.) ie SZ 5 is within one space of being adjacent to England. SZ 13 is two spaces away, no damage can be done from there.
Ends the whole discussion of 20 submarines in SZ 30 inflicting 20 IPC on both England and America, don’t it?
Thats got the problem of not relating to construction.
The IC might not even be in use. (Or might be receving material via.)
I was there remember?
In your enhanced game Western US IC was in shutdown mode most of the game but you were taking away up to 10 IPC a turn anyway lol.
I like your intention to create a rule to represent convoy raids, but you’re right: it’s a bit complex…
The enhanced rule appear to be in the good path, but it still isn’t the BEST way.
Your argumentations for IC receiving income via land are correct. In the real history, only UK and Japan (two islands) soffered against enemy raids on their convoys… USA was (it’s still) a big country with big land extensions and a big amount of natural resources (someone tell about texas oil???), so i think US should not be affected by enemy convoy raids. Otherwise, UK was a great empire were enemy sub’s menaced home production, but what about australian industries?
…you’re right, it’s a bit complex…
Maybe at this point the best way to represent convoy raids is to use specific sea zones, such as in Europe or Pacific…
Your argumentations for IC receiving income via land are correct. In the real history, only UK and Japan (two islands) soffered against enemy raids on their convoys… USA was (it’s still) a big country with big land extensions and a big amount of natural resources (someone tell about texas oil???), so i think US should not be affected by enemy convoy raids.
Not totally true, the US WAS affected by German subs early in the war, escorts were needed around the Atlantic coast during the ‘good times’ for the German submariners.
USA was too far away to effectively be affected.
Remember that A&A is a ‘what-if’ game that should allow history to be altered. Removing convoy raids against the US would limit Japanese Pacific strategies to sub-optimal.
Enabling Japanese subs to remove cash in Enhanced forces the US to fight a pacific war.
Most Japanese subs were ‘coastal submersibles’ not true submarines. American convoy zones were basically out of reach of Japanese supply for subs, because the pacific was a much larger body of water than the Atlantic.
The Germans were much more systematic in submarine warfare technique because they used the experience of ww1.
In the Pacific the Japanese had the 400 class subs late in the war but they didn’t make many of these and didn’t use them well. but this ‘what if’ thing is a decent idea, but if the Japanese changed the strategy… well they would not be “the Japanese” just like Hitler not attacking the Soviets would not be a real Hitler “type of thing” to do if you get my drift. This does not make it a true ‘what if’ but probably falling outside what was possible in Japanese naval planning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine
and this from:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm
Given their size, range, speed, and torpedoes, Japanese submarines achieved surprisingly little. This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces. This approach gave a significant return in 1942 when they sank two fleet carriers, one cruiser, and a few destroyers and other warships, and also damaged two battleships, one fleet carrier (twice), and a cruiser. However, as Allied intelligence, technologies, methods, and numbers improved, the Japanese submarines were never again able to achieve this frequency of success. For this reason, many argue that the Japanese submarine force would have been better used against merchant ships, patrolling Allied shipping lanes instead of lurking outside naval bases. Bagnasco credits the Japanese submarine fleet with sinking 184 merchant ships of 907,000 GRT. This figure is far less than achieved by the Germans (2,840 ships of 14.3 million GRT), the Americans (1,079 ships of 4.65 million tons), and the British (493 ships of 1.52 million tons).
I am all for “what-if”. Simulation over historic replay.
But just feel funny about non-existent convoys getting hit.
I felt that if UK loses altantic war she could try IC in Australia and/or India and/or Souh Africa and be less affected.
Convoy raid in sea zones adjacent to IC is destination-side. Source-side is not catered for.
You don’t have to go all the way near Japan island to isolate South Pacific Islands.
This leads to the design of static convoy zones like those in Europe and Pacific. Too bad they are “always-on”.
Russia too had convoys coming to it from America and England over the north of Scandinavia, didn’t it?
yes Lend lease came from/ to Archangel in the north, Persia in the south, and limited transports from Barents sea
Yes, any potential convoy rule would be applies to lend lease too.
@Cmdr:
Russia too had convoys coming to it from America and England over the north of Scandinavia, didn’t it?
Russian income levels already reflect on poor supply routes (IMHO)
Enabling USSR to lose money due to convoy raids with current income levels would be very harmful to the russian war effort, so much so it might not be very playable.
“Russia income levels already reflect on poor supply routes” and “convoys coming to it from America”…
thats brings to what different players think of convoys and IPC in the game.
To me convoys from US is lend lease and is separate from USSR income.
You could of course refer to IPC as income of a territory provided it receives it normal trade. In which case all shore territories should be targetable by convoy raids.
But I like to refer to IPC as war material.
Yea, well, I’ve always been rather miffed that Russia didn’t get a pay increase in Revised.
I’d like to see Russia upped to 28 IPC (SFE, Bury, Yak and Evenki upped to 2 IPC) and then putting submarines in SZ 15/16 could get up to 4 IPC from Russia in convoy raids. (Moscow is immune, obviously, and, I believe, the only IC that starts on the board that is not adjacent to the water.)
Thats got the problem of not relating to construction.
The IC might not even be in use. (Or might be receving material via.)
But this is a classic design for effect… the USA should not be able to ignore U-boats sitting off the Eastern Sea-board. There was a lot of American shipping that went up and down the US coast, and around into the Gulf of Mexico.
The Germans had a field day here with oil tankers and what not before coast black-outs were put in place.
So, although the effect itself might be a little off - the desired result is that the US does not let U-boats sit off the coast of the US because it harms their industry… so it forces the historical play of the US working hard to clear U-boats of the Eastern seaboard.
As for the UK - then it makes perfect sense, as the UK was vulnerable to blockade - and a lot of British war material was shipped in from the US, including parts to make bigger weapons.
So the 2ipc adjacent, and 1 ipc 2 zones away is a perfect rule which forces historical play - and it’s simple to cacluate.
The only funky bit is the U-boats in the Baltic - but then the first U-boats hit the UK from there anyway, and a German player will want his uboats in the Atlantic as they are twice as effective (deny UK IPC and US IPC anyway).
Honestly, I wish AARe had re-zoned the seas. There needs to be twice as many sea zones to get around in the Atlantic and Pacific.
I guess a simple solution would be limit ships to one sea zone movement, instead of two.
Thats got the problem of not relating to construction.
The IC might not even be in use. (Or might be receving material via.)But this is a classic design for effect… the USA should not be able to ignore U-boats sitting off the Eastern Sea-board. There was a lot of American shipping that went up and down the US coast, and around into the Gulf of Mexico.
Yeah. This then comes to my other idea of convoy raids hitting commerical shippping. In which case territories without IC can be hit too, but as 50% effectiveness or something.
Although if you say IPC are purely war capacity/resources then this wouldn’t be.
Like you could say US can go without Rhone wines for now.
@Cmdr:
I guess a simple solution would be limit ships to one sea zone movement, instead of two.
But would that not ruin the game in the Pacific to some degree…?
Shipping of this era was not so slow. They could get accross the Atlantic pretty quick.
Besides, as abstract as Axis and Allies is, it is more realistic to have IPC loss rather than entire armoured corps sunk during transit.
