Bardoly, you missed the point. why does morale boost only result from stratgic naval warfare, why does it not apply to stratgic bombings or regualr battles.
and just because A&A is illogical in one area does not meen house get to be illogical, one of the reasons play with house rules is so the game makes more sence.
In any book of WW2 they only have facts resulting in huge loses of shipping for the nation that LOST the resources that were just sunk, No literature exists that INSTEAD totally discounts these loses and attributes the GAIN in national prestige and (hence income) for the nation that sunk these ships.
So essentially if Germany sinks British ships it does not get richer, while the British get poorer… This can only mean the convoy zones are sappers of potential IPC.
How many IPCs were reduced per zone in Pacific and Europe?
Sorry Turtle, meant to answer this earlier:
in AAE, there were zones of 3, 4, 5, & 6 IPCs, totaling 10 for the US, 4 for USSR and about 20 for UK (sorry, going from memory)
in AAP, there was a 10 and a 5 for the US, but everything else was smaller, like total of 12 for 2 or 3 zones for UK, and then the territory specific ones for places like borneo, celebes, java, Philippines, etc for the value of the territory.
Thanks. I guess each zone must have a different value. Alas, more charts.
When adding these convoy zones, does UK, US, ect, get extra IPCs?
Don’t forget that it’s just as crazy for a country to take a territory away from another country, gain the IPCs for the territory, and then the other country take it right back on their turn and gain the same IPCs as well. Think France in AA50 - Germany collects 6 IPCs (+5 NO IPCs) on it’s turn, then UK captures France and also collects 6 (+5 NO IPCs), Italy liberates France (collects +5 NO IPCs), and then the US re-captures France on it’s turn collecting 6 (+5 NO IPCs). So, in one turn, France produced at least 18 IPCs (38 IPCs if you count the NO’s.) Now which is more crazy? A morale boost because the German submarine wolfpacks are winning the Battle for the Atlantic? or one territory - France in one round of play producing as many IPCs as any 1 other country normally would? (except Godzilla Japan of course :-P)
Actually, I believe that if Italy liberated France, then it reverts to German control and no IPCs are given out at that time for it, so it’s just the two Allied invasions that garner additional IPCs.
I was counting Italy’s NO for Axis control of France.
Bardoly, you missed the point. why does morale boost only result from stratgic naval warfare, why does it not apply to stratgic bombings or regualr battles.
and just because A&A is illogical in one area does not meen house get to be illogical, one of the reasons play with house rules is so the game makes more sense.
No, the point was to keep the game as SIMPLE as possible. While still having some historical sense.
And as my example showed, morale boost does result from regular battles in the trading territories mechanic.
Once again, I PREFER the game having a sea battle mechanic which models the war in the Atlantic where many, many tons of shipping were destroyed, and I think that IPC reduction would be better, but in the interest of SIMPLICITY, I feel that an IPC gain would be closer to the OOB rules.
If anyone else has a simpler way to do this, then do tell.
And as my example showed, morale boost does result from regular battles in the trading territories mechanic.
Show how sinking thousands of merchant ships exactly ADDS to your IPC?
Use the historical record to illustrate these points.
If anyone else has a simpler way to do this, then do tell.
yes exactly the opposite, the guy who occupies the convoy zone, causes damage to the owning player, exactly like it is in AAE and AAP, and all the Xeno games
Well, not having played AAE, AAP, or any Xeno game, I just have to go by what you’re saying.
Don’t go by what im saying. Look at a book and find some supporting documentation that has any notion that if you sink the enemy ships, you will be rich. Submarines don’t have time or room to take the goods on merchant ships. This is not 1800’s when you mount a boarding party and share the booty with drunken sailors. IN WW2 nothing of this sort occurred.
the traidng terriotries is a glitch in A&A it does not repreesent morale
and Naval battles got a lot more poplicity than the stratigic warfare, and naval battles dont get you a morale boost.
also i hope you realize you are talking about the complexity of addition and subtraction, and seeing as the regular convoy rules only include subtraction and not addition they are techniaclly simpler that your rules.
Some house rules I’ve read blended sea zones into the NO’s in AA50. Some examples:
Russia- Reduce its 10 ipc bonus to 5 ipc and create a sz 5 ipc bonus maybe sz 3,4,34 & 63. Or add sz 3 & 4 to its Archangel bonus.
US-Attach sz to it’s 1st NO(E.US, C.US & W.US) maybe sz 10,19,55,56,65 This one is way to easy to get anyway.
UK-This one is tough because It’s commonwealth NO is already hard to get at points. Maybe add certain sz (1,2,8,9,) to show supplies from US & Canada to UK
Germany-It’s original euro tt NO + sz 5, maybe 13 & 14.The med was as important for Germany to control as for Italy to keep supplies flowing into N. Africa.
Italy-No changes already has sz in its 1st NO.
Japan-Add the sz that connect It’s 1st NO (3 Chinese tt) to Japan,sz 36,61 & 62.
On a further note I know AA42 is blending some rules from AA50. NO’s will most likely make it as optional. Has anyone heard if more sz will be part of NO’s like Italy? That would be cool.
The Sea Zones are better served with a random roll to determine the cost of sinking the convoy.
1-2=1 ipc lost
3-4=2 ipc lost
5-6=3 ipc lost
Morale (in terms of how many tanks Germany makes) does not increase by sinking enemy ships.
If I own a restaurant and if our troops in Afghanistan kill 50 terrorists, it has no effect on my morale.
If a sub sinks X tonnage of cargo, the people in factories don’t all of a sudden work harder and produce 100 more tanks
subsequently, under your idea you totally ignore the fact that ships were lost and place absolutely no value on this fact in the game, and totally hype up the morale of the people as if its easily greater than the loss.
It makes no sence. Again look up the effects of the submarine campaign and find anyplace where the morale increase results in a net gain of production and the effects of losing shipping to subs has no effect.
@Imperious:
The Sea Zones are better served with a random roll to determine the cost of sinking the convoy.
1-2=1 ipc lost
3-4=2 ipc lost
5-6=3 ipc lostMorale (in terms of how many tanks Germany makes) does not increase by sinking enemy ships.
If I own a restaurant and if our troops in Afghanistan kill 50 terrorists, it has no effect on my morale.
If a sub sinks X tonnage of cargo, the people in factories don’t all of a sudden work harder and produce 100 more tanks
subsequently, under your idea you totally ignore the fact that ships were lost and place absolutely no value on this fact in the game, and totally hype up the morale of the people as if its easily greater than the loss.
It makes no sence. Again look up the effects of the submarine campaign and find anyplace where the morale increase results in a net gain of production and the effects of losing shipping to subs has no effect.
agreed
Bardoly, I don’t really like powers getting extra $ for taking away supply routes from other nations chalking it up to morale. I do like just getting a bonus for certain sz’s for each power. This could be used w/out NO’s or in other versions of AA. I like getting more $ into the game rather then penalizing, resulting in less units. Maybe up to 5 ipc/power payable in the collect income phase. Assign 4 sz to each power and give them 1 ipc for each of these sz that are clear of enemy war ships & subs (transp not included) at the end of their turn. If you have all 4 sz clear at the end of your turn you get an additional 1 ipc for a total of 5 ipc’s.
Possible sz in AA50:
*Russia-sz 3,4,63 and either 16 or 34.
*Uk-sz 1,2,8 & 9 keeping supplies coming from US & Canada.(could just go with 2,8 and commonwealth zones like Au 41 & SA 27)
*US-sz 10,18,56 & 53-supply Hawaii
*Germany- sz 5 (counts for 2) along with 14 & 13 (the med was very important for Germany to supply N Africa.(I know its double dipping but Germany is like that lol)
*Italy-13,14,15 only, no extra bonus for all sz’s.(This should help balance out above)
*Japan-62,61,36 supplies to and from main land,& 49-oil.
Well that’s it in a nut shell what do you think.
@WILD:
Bardoly, I don’t really like powers getting extra $ for taking away supply routes from other nations chalking it up to morale. I do like just getting a bonus for certain sz’s for each power. This could be used w/out NO’s or in other versions of AA. I like getting more $ into the game rather then penalizing, resulting in less units. Maybe up to 5 ipc/power payable in the collect income phase. Assign 4 sz to each power and give them 1 ipc for each of these sz that are clear of enemy war ships & subs (transp not included) at the end of their turn. If you have all 4 sz clear at the end of your turn you get an additional 1 ipc for a total of 5 ipc’s.
Possible sz in AA50:
*Russia-sz 3,4,63 and either 16 or 34.
*Uk-sz 1,2,8 & 9 keeping supplies coming from US & Canada.(could just go with 2,8 and commonwealth zones like Au 41 & SA 27)
*US-sz 10,18,56 & 53-supply Hawaii
*Germany- sz 5 (counts for 2) along with 14 & 13 (the med was very important for Germany to supply N Africa.(I know its double dipping but Germany is like that lol)
*Italy-13,14,15 only, no extra bonus for all sz’s.(This should help balance out above)
*Japan-62,61,36 supplies to and from main land,& 49-oil.
Well that’s it in a nut shell what do you think.
I like that a lot better.
I think several of the people who have responded to my posts, have NOT understand my reasoning. The whole reason to put convoy zones in the game is to better model the war. i.e. The Battle for the Atlantic is completely missing in AA50. So, how do you put it in? By adding convoy zones. Now that that has been decided, on to the hard part. How do you emplement it and yet stay as SIMPLE and as close to the OOB rules as possible? The game already is set up to add IPCs and then spend them, so my idea of gaining IPCs (and lowering the opponents IPCs likewise) is actually pretty close to the OOB rules. I’m NOT trying to do anything completely unhistorical. Quite the opposite. I’m just trying to Keep it simple. Once again, below is my original post in the thread.
To keep it simple, why not just give an IPC value to a sea zone?
The sea zone would have an original controller, and an attacker who moved a warship (subs included) into the sea zone would place a control marker on the sea zone, and would then be in control of the sea zone and would collect the IPC from the sea zone. (Perhaps if the warship leaves the sea zone or is destroyed, then control of the sea zone reverts back to the original controller.)
That said, I think that WILD BILL is on the right track.
Why should you not give sea zones Industrial Production Values?
hmmm…
becasue their value in industrial production is ZERO!
control of the sea can only increase your Industrial production if you control land. simple controling the sea does not get you anything.
I understand now Bardoly you simply want to keep the game as close to OOB as possible, which is a noble goal, but before you were talking about that bogus morale stuff, so excuse everyone if we did not understand your reasoning.
And i think it is not to complacated to just subtract instead of subtract and add, plus it goes along way in adding realism and stratagy.
Convoy is nothing but a point of travel of ships carrying material to supply the war effort.
If you sink convoy you sink ammo and supplies that aid the defender.
This means the enemy loses his war making potential….losing IPC’s
You post a sub in these SZ you are modeling to occupation and sinking of ASSUMED shipping in the area.
It has NOTHING to DO WITH MORALE.
If you take Moscow that may affect morale of the enemy and his will to resist, but to sink a transport does nothing for your own production.
Absolutely! In WWII there were convoy routes (i.e. sea zones) which, while they didn’t actually produce anything, were vital to certain countries’ war effort. In AA this translates to IPC value. I mean, if you look at the board, how much industrial production did the interior of Africa produce? Vitually nil. Yet in every game of AA which includes Africa, those territories are all worth something. There are other territories on the board also which have a similar situation. I agree that Germany never actually got anything from all of the ships which they sunk, but the UK definitely got something from all of the ships which were not sunk, so those sea zones should have an IPC value. The flip side of what I was saying about giving an opponent IPCs for controlling those same zones was just a way to keep the game simpler. Actually my personal feeling is that there should be a way for Germany (and/or others) to reduce the IPCs of the UK (and/or others) by using subs (and/or surface warships). This part of WWII is currently missing from the main AA game, and I would like to see it implemented. Therefore, the SIMPLEST way that I see to do this so that a beginner player could easily understand would be to assign IPC values to certain sea zones, assign them to a orriginal controller, and then if an opponent has an uncontested warship in that sea zone, then the opponent collects the IPCs. Do I think that this perfectly models the Battle for the Atlantic? No. Do I think that this is a very simple way to help put the Battle for the Atlantic into AA? Yes.
I think there is a need for convoy zones in AA global games. They kinda introduced it in AA50. There are several ways to do it.
