are we arguing the same thing here? I understand there is a difference in the convoy boxes (with fixed values) and convoy routes (associated with a territory value), they are not tied together. Those convoy zones can be interdicted by either side if their respective enemy holds the territory.
I guess the difference with AAG40 is that you have to have a DD (1 IPC) or a SS (2 IPC) up to the territory value (In the convoy route)- not just a warship for the whole value (as in AAP). At least in AAP40 there are no convoy boxes with fixed values, only convoy routes.
I’m not sure what your idea was now. I thought you said convoy ‘zones’ were your idea- I just said they were in AAP.
No i said the convoy disruption was no longer fixed, but based entirely on the associated IPC values of adjacent land territories.
IN AAP40 you only need to occupy the box, but instead of a fixed value you lose, its based on the TT, like AARHE. IN AARHE their are no fixed convoy box values and you can flip them and they become your problem when you take over the territory ( allowing the original owner to attack was was formerly his own convoy boxes).
I have a question about convoy disruptions though… from the way I read that errata to the P40 rules it seems like there has to be " a ship from a country that you are at war with" in the sea zone for the disruption to occur. Does that mean that only submarines can do convoy disruptions because if any other type of ship could not be in a seazone with an enemy ship?
No. It is theoretically possible to end a turn with unfriendly ships in a seazone with your units. All it requires is placement of units, as no power “controls” a seazone. America could have warships off SZ6 that japan failed to destroy during combat and those ships will disrupt income, after Japan has placed warships in SZ 6 during the place unit phase.
while that is a possibility its not going to happen very often… and it will only happen that way in SZs with an adjacent IC.
I get the feeling that convoy disruption isnt going to happen very often because its dependant on an enemy warship being in the SZ. I dont think people will leave a ship in a SZ if it means that their income will be affected unless there is no other option. Is convoy disruption something that people actually make part of their strategy or is it just an opportunisitic way of depriving your enemy of IPC’s every now and then. I’m curious to see how this has been used in the game.
Well if your using subs for convoy raids they enemy needs dd’s to get rid of them. It seems to be a game w/in the game for Germany/UK. The other way to raid convoys is by super stack ships in the enemy convoy zones. It could be costly for both sides, but you may do it to just reduce the enemy air/ships.
but you could only superstack subs because surface warships would cause a combat. It does look it will come into play more in the German/UK conflict though because of the limited number of spaces to put your ships.
Convoys can really hurt the UK around England. UK India doesn’t have a lot of $, so a Jap fleet just sitting at India sz, or the UK owned Dutch isles can be costly. Then there’s sz 80 around the Mid East, or the Med w/Italy by Egypt. The UK may not have the forces to keep all these clear.
Thing is Wild Bill…. from the way I understand the rules they wouldnt have to keep those sea zones clear. They would just have to make sure they didnt have any of their (UK’s) warships in those SZ’s.
Thing is Wild Bill…. from the way I understand the rules they wouldnt have to keep those sea zones clear. They would just have to make sure they didnt have any of their (UK’s) warships in those SZ’s.
?
No, if the sz w/convoy emblem is adjacent to a UK tt, how the UK would lose $ is by having enemy subs or surface war ships in them during the UK collect income phase (A UK ship doesn’t need to be present). If enemy war ships move into a convoy sz next to a UK tt, then the UK should attack those ships if it can, or it will cost them 2 ipc/enemy sub, and 1 ipc/enemy surface warship in UK’s collect income phase. There is a max amount that the UK could lose per convoy sz based on the total ipc level of all UK tt adjacent to said sz.
This would go for any power that owns coastal tt adjacent to a convoy sz.
I wonder if Germany and Italy can make a fleet of about 10-15 submarines and place them off the East coast of America in the first few turns and if Japan can make a fleet of submarines and place them off the West coast of America, therby sucking dry all of their incomes. I know this sounds kind of crazy, but submarines are cheap now and could this be possible or is it crazier than a Sea Lion attempt. :evil:
@Real:
I wonder if Germany and Italy can make a fleet of about 10-15 submarines and place them off the East coast of America in the first few turns and if Japan can make a fleet of submarines and place them off the West coast of America, therby sucking dry all of their incomes. I know this sounds kind of crazy, but submarines are cheap now and could this be possible or is it crazier than a Sea Lion attempt. :evil:
If the axis want to raid the US convoy zones, they would have to first declare war on the US (at the beginning of the axis players turn). On the US turn they could declare war on any axis power and could attack the axis fleets. If they sink them (in the US combat phase) there would be no deduction (in the US collect income phase).
The axis can be in those convoy zones w/o being at war w/US and not attack the convoys if they so choose.
oh ok Wild Bill. I reread the rules and found that user error was to blame for my misunderstanding. In other words I had a total brain fart :lol:
oh ok Wild Bill. I reread the rules and found that user error was to blame for my misunderstanding. In other words I had a total brain fart :lol:
Yeah this game can do that. LOL
I’ve often thought it should be legal to have ships of opposing sides in a SZ without combat being mandatory.
The side entering the SZ can decide to “shadow” the enemy fleet without attacking it, principally to keep it within range. The original fleet can attack on it’s own turn, but again is not obliged to do so.
Perhaps a fleet deciding to attack first has to actually find the enemy ships, something not guaranteed in open ocean (die roll, modified by presence of aircraft?)
that would definatly be inkeeping with battles like the battle of Midway where it was the very good fortune of the US navy to find the Japanese navy first.
