Convoy Disruption: 1941, 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare

@Black_Elk:

It seems fairly straightforward using the Flag Roundel Markers, since these are not usually placed in Sea Zones, they would be fairly easy to distinguish. It might be cool to see them moving, but I would probably avoid that and just fix their locations for simplicity. I’ve tried playing A&A with movable resources before, and while I enjoyed it, my players found it cumbersome in a game that already has so many “moving parts.”

For simplicity I would also suggest having each Roundel represent an equivalent “set” value in IPCs that is consistent across the map, like each roundel = 3 ipcs convoy income.  1 ipc would probably be too low, and require too many roundels to get up off the ground, but if they were all worth 3, I think players would go for it. You could just put a green chip under the roundel, or 3 gray chips.

I’d probably try to keep things confined to one convoy roundel per sz, just to prevent too much confusion.

Again for simplicity, I would include this cash in addition or “on top” of the Nation’s OOB starting income. That way we don’t have to completely redesign the game’s economic system on land.

Yes, this sounds good.  I concur that fixed-location convoys would be simpler to use than moving ones (and would avoid the potential problems with moving ones that I mentioned previously).  AI also concur that each SZ should contain either no convoys at all or just one convoy maximum, not multiple convoys.  I like your suggestion to boost the starting IPC national incomes to represent the addition of the convoy mechanic, rather than reclassifying some of the OOB starting IPCs as being convoy-dependent.

I have no preference on whether each convoy should represent an IPC value of 1 or a higher figure, but from a mechnical point of view here are a couple of thoughts.  If all convoys have a standard value, and if the status of the convoy operates on an all-or-nothing basis (meaning that a convoy is either fully active or totally destroyed), then there’s no need to put chips under the flag roundels.  If on the other hand – and I find the proposed idea about this a very interesting one – convoys start out with a value of 3 but can have that number knocked down to 2 or 1 or 0 to represent attrition as parts of the convoy get sunk, then putting chips under the flag roundel to track these losses is a good idea.  The concept would be compatible either with a system in which all convoys have a standard maximum value, or with a system in which different convoys have different value maximums.  Personally, my preference would be to use standard maximums, and to simply give different countries different numbers of convoys (rather than convoys of different value) to reflect the importance of their respective merchant fleets.

If we go with the model that damaged or destroyed convoys can be reinforced or replaced (back up to their maximum starting values), then I would suggest giving the flag roundel itself no IPC value, and thus having the IPC value of a convoy (0 or 1 or 2 or 3, depending on whether casualties were sustained) expressed exclusively by the chips under the roundel.  The roundel itself would merely be used to denote the fixed position which is assigned by the house rules to such-and-such a convoy.  By the same token (no pun intended), this would help everyone keep track of how many convoys each nation is entitled to and how many supplemental IPCs this represents for income-tracking purposes.

@Black_Elk:

But now you get to the question of how to approach USA?
I think there is an idea that USA is shipping resources to Allies more than collecting resources.
If you wanted to low-ball it, you could just give them 1 convoy.
[…]
USA starts with 42 ipcs.
1 Convoy would bring their starting income up to 45 ipcs.
You could put it in sz 53 to make Hawaii more relevant?

Here are some thoughts on these points.

Regarding the US East Coast: as I recall, during WWII the US convoyed a fair bit of oil to the American eastern seaboard (from which it was eventually fed into the cross-Atlantic convoys) from two locations: the Gulf of Mexico (for oil produced in Texas), and the Caribbean.

Regarding Hawaii: since it isn’t part of the continental U.S., Hawaii presumably needs to import of lot of stuff by ship.

@Black_Elk:

I know in some of the older convoy systems, it was not necessary to control the sea zone, but simply to pass through it during your conduct combat phase, and this was enough to disrupt the flow of income. So for example, a sub could pass through an enemy Convoy in a sea zone, and be said to have “raided” that zone. This would give ships the ability to behave similar to the way tanks do on land, when they blitz across unoccupied enemy territory.

In purely military terms, one helpful concept to keep in mind is the definition of a raid: a limited-objective and temporary strike into enemy-controlled territory.  Raiding forces enter an enemy-controlled territory, attack one or more specific targets, then return home.  Their purpose isn’t to take and hold ground; that’s the job of an army offensive (on land) or of an amphibious landing (on islands and coasts).  WWII strategic bomber attacks (in the real world) were examples of raids, and so were the German U-boat campaign against the Allied convoys in the Atlantic and the American submarine campaigns against Japanese convoys in the western Pacific.  Surface warships, by contrast, are not inherently raiding forces: they sometimes do conduct raider-type operations into enemy-held waters (the Bismark sortie was one such operation), but they sometimes function in other ways too: for example taking and holding territory (example: the Americans at Leyte Gulf) or serving as launching platforms (from areas of the sea  which they do control) for air attacks into areas of the sea which they don’t control.

@Black_Elk:

For convenience and gameplay balance, we could say that a convoy roundel within a SZ represents, not just the convoy traffic of the sea zone itself, but also the convoy traffic of all the zones immediately adjacent to it. A convoy for an entire adjacent region. This is an abstraction of course, but it’s probably necessary, since we can’t have Convoy roundels in every sea zone!

Yes, that would be one of the valid options for handling matters.  To give an example of the concept: The WWII British naval command that was called Western Approaches was so named because it referred to the large sea area in which the various incoming convoy routes converged prior to making port in Britain.  Obviously this made it a prime hunting ground for U-boats, which in turn is why it was so heavily defended by Royal Navy ships and Coastal Command aircraft (a defense which was made easier by the fact that this area, by its vary nature, was close to Britain, and hence was within reasonably short range).  The U-boat response was to move into the “mid-Atlantic air gap” (the so-called “black pit”) because Allied aircraft from both sides of the Atlantic could not provide air cover that far out in the early years of the war.  The target concentration was lower there, but the area was safer for the subs.

A concept related to that of convergence areas (which are dictated by the arrival and departure ports of convoys) is the concept of choke points: places where the presence of coasts and islands squeeze travelling ships into narrow waters, thus concentrating maritime traffic.  The Strait of Malacca between Singapore and Sumatra is a good real-world example: ships traveling between the Pacific and Indian Oceans must either go through it or take a long detour.  Another example is, of course, the Straight of Gibraltar.  These types of choke points have the same advantages and disadvantages (from a sub’s point of view) that convergence areas have: they produce a high concentration of targets, but they also tend to be heavily defended (since, by definition, they involve the presence of land areas where air bases can be built).

Here’s a follow-up point to my earlier post about raiding.  One big difference between bombers as raiders and subs as raiders is the issue of operational endurance.  A WWII bombing raid lasted a few hours (with no possibility of mid-air refuelling, since the technology didn’t exist at that time), whereas submarine raiding operations tended to last from a few weeks to a couple of months.  German subs learned to extended their patrol times by using resupply subs (“milk cows”) to provide them at sea with fuel, food and torpedoes.  American subs in the western Pacific could, as I recall, stay on station for a couple of months if need be: they didn’t (as far as I know) get resupplied, but they tended to be much larger than German U-boats, which allowed more provisions to be carried and a greater degree of crew comfort (the US submariner living conditions were spartan, but nothing as bad as what you can see in Das Boot).  So in this regard, subs on long-range patrol do have some characteristics of both raiding forces and occupation forces, whereas bombers are strictly raiders.

A short idea on its own:

If we treat convoys as quasi-units in the way we’re discussing, they would of course remain open to attack by enemy units (as in the OOB rules, so that part isn’t new), but a new HR element that opens up is the concept of the player who owns a particular convoy might be able to “attach” (with an “h”, not a “k”) some of his naval units to a convoy specifically for purposes of convoy defense.  The player could likewise detach naval units from convoys, if desired, as the reverse operation.  The general idea (I haven’t worked out any specifics) is that such an attachment operation would create a trade-off: a naval unit attached to a convoy for convoy-defense purposes would lose the ability to perform the other (non-convoy) things that a naval unit can normally do in a sea zone, but the convoy would gain some sort of enhanced defensive bonus, over and above the “normal” protection it would gain under the OOB rules from the presence of “normal” (unattached) ships in its sea zone (for instance the normal anti-sub abilities of a normal destroyer).

I’d use these.

@SS:

I’d use these.
Convoy Markers.png (39.71 KB, 150x127 - viewed 4 times.)

Very nice.  I like them.

Also on the subject of tools for this house rule: For each game for which it’s used (Global, 1942, etc.), we’d need to make a reference chart.  I’ve posted below a rough draft of what a couple of lines from such a chart might look like, with purely invented entries on each line.

An additional idea (especially if we have multiple convoys with different and/or changing values): using the income tracking charts to keep track of both types of IPCs, using two types of markers: one type for regular income and one type for convoy bonuses, as shown below (purely as a made-up example).

Great feedback Marc! I’m sensing some pretty broad agreement here in the ways this National Convoy system might work.

I think a 3 ipc convoy (3 gray chips) is best. Since it would work on all A&A gameboards.

Keep the value consistent for all nations. Convoys always = 3, so its easier to understand and easy to track. Tie the raids to the number of warships passing either 1, 2, or up to 3 (cap’ing the max damage at 3).

I favor making the damage automatic 1:1 on IPCs raided. Or ships:chips.
Mainly so we dont have to slow down the conduct combat phase with any more rolls.

Or if you do want to preserve the roll, instead of having a roll for attacker damage, just make the roll for defense. I’m not sure about this idea, but can imagine some ways it might look.

This could be like the older rules for AAGuns, back when AA guns were “always active.” Any flyover had to face a shot, you could do the same here at sea. We might say an “active convoy” (one with defending warships) can fire a shot against any units that are attempting to raid into it.

Or how about this for an idea… A full convoy (3 chips) gets a single shot rolled at 1, against enemy raiding vessels. Just like an AAgun, for the water. This could be a single shot vs all ships, or against only 1 ship, or you could cap it at a Max of 3 shots/3 ships. So the mechanic is familiar.
Or alternatively, you could allow the purchase of “Convoy Defense”, as a new 5 ipcs unit (represented by the AAgun) and placed on top of the Convoy Roundel/Chips. Or you could allow ships in the SZ to move on top of the Roundel, at which point it is considered “Convoy defense”, and the naval unit behaves similar to the way Aircraft do on Intercept. Not entirely sure which system is optimal, but it certainly seems possible to set something up along those lines. I like the idea of “the roll” just being for the “raider’s” defense (whether or not their ship is destroyed during the raid), rather than having the raider make a roll to determine the amount of damage vs the convoy. Though I suppose you could have both if you really wanted.

Probably any of those, or something similar could be made to work, but I’d try to keep everything as simple as we can, just for ease of adoption.

I also like the special convoy markers SS shared, and the idea to create a set up/chart card for the most popular games or rulesets. Such a system could probably work on any Axis and Allies gameboard, and might be a cool way to support the idea of a “Naval expansion” to the game. Because the influx of cash from the Convoys is located “at sea” it really does facilitate an increased likelihood that players use the extra money on ships.

@CWO:

I would suggest giving the flag roundel itself no IPC value, and thus having the IPC value of a convoy (0 or 1 or 2 or 3, depending on whether casualties were sustained) expressed exclusively by the chips under the roundel.

Agreed, I prefer this method. Basically the roundel serves only to indicate the location/existence of a Convoy, not its IPC value. The IPC value is indicated by the number of chips. This way, once the National Convoy Roundel is placed in a SZ during the initial board set up, it never has to be removed.

The only possible exception to this is in Global/Pacific 1940, the convoys around the Dutch islands, since the Dutch are not a player Nation, and thus have no roundels. I could launch into another diatribe about why I find special exclusive one-off rules so annoying in A&A, but I’ll resist the urge. Suffice it to say we have 2 options here with the Dutch in G40.

Option 1. Ignore the OOB “Dutch Island” Convoys markers completely. (i.e we don’t place Convoy Roundels in those sea zones.) This has the advantage of being simpler, and would prevent Japan from collecting too much convoy money outright. The downside is that there is a bit less variety to the overall convoy campaign in the Pacific. If we choose to ignore the Dutch Convoys, I would use the logic that “this particular convoy traffic from the occupied dutch islands” is being represented by other convoys in some Adjacent zone. There are plenty of these to work with already, on both sides. For example, the Japanese convoys in sz 36 (Hainan), and sz 20 (Formosa) could be envisioned as encompassing the shipping lanes for the entire adjacent region, including the Rich Islands, Indo-China etc. If you wanted to create some Convoy near sz 34 (Palau) or sz 34 (Caroline Islands), in order to offset the Dutch convoys we ignore, that is doable as well under the new system, and this avoids the problem of changing dutch ownership as it relates to convoy ownership. Prior to the DoW, or from an Allied perspective, the convoy Dutch convoy traffic can be covered, by other Allied convoys in adjacent zones, such as sz 37 (Malaya/Singapore) , sz 43 (Borneo/Sarawak), or sz (35 Philippines.)

Option 2. Allow any Nation to take control of the Dutch Convoys. This has the advantage of a bit more novelty for the Allies or Japan. Here the logic would be, ‘well, the Dutch rules are unique OOB, and this rule just follows suit.’

There is a definite downside that option 2 violates the new concept we’re trying to introduce that National Convoys are “National,” and don’t change ownership depending on who controls some surrounding territory, except in this one weird instance. There is also the potential the the Dutch convoys become too potent of a target for Japan, distorting their already out-sized importance (as Allied targets.) So I think it might be easier to just ignore all those convoys, remove them from play, and focus on the potential locations immediately adjacent instead. This also contains within it the idea that the Dutch Island Convoy resources are “bound” elsewhere, and so we don’t really need to have a convoy for each Dutch island. The Island itself is enough of a draw already, instead we could put the convoy emphasis one space out just to simplify.

@CWO:

In purely military terms, one helpful concept to keep in mind is the definition of a raid: a limited-objective and temporary strike into enemy-controlled territory.  Raiding forces enter an enemy-controlled territory, attack one or more specific targets, then return home.  Their purpose isn’t to take and hold ground; that’s the job of an army offensive (on land) or of an amphibious landing (on islands and coasts).  WWII strategic bomber attacks (in the real world) were examples of raids, and so were the German U-boat campaign against the Allied convoys in the Atlantic and the American submarine campaigns against Japanese convoys in the western Pacific.  Surface warships, by contrast, are not inherently raiding forces: they sometimes do conduct raider-type operations into enemy-held waters (the Bismark sortie was one such operation), but they sometimes function in other ways too: for example taking and holding territory (example: the Americans at Leyte Gulf) or serving as launching platforms (from areas of the sea  which they do control) for air attacks into areas of the sea which they don’t control.

That’s an interesting point. I know that the term “Raid” itself in English, is etymologically related to our word “Ride” and comes to us from early ideas about mounted combat. The speed and the shock! I picture some Indo-European horse-riding warlord, descending on the hapless enemy, trampling, looting and burning, before galloping off to the next spot post haste.
:-D

Maybe subs or other raiding vessels could just work like that? They pass through the convoy, knock off a single chip on their way, and just keep it simple.

My main concern with a “defensive convoy shot” against raiding units, (a shot that could actually destroy the enemy’s ships), is that this will make the trade of 3 IPCs vs potential TUV destroyed too risky for the attacker.

Perhaps the roll, if there is to be a roll, should just determine whether the convoy Chip gets knocked off, or not. In other words, raiding does not put the raiding vessel at risk, but the Convoy defender still has a chance to “evade.” No convoy damage, the chip stays in place. The baseline for this could be 1d6, if the defender rolls a 1, no damage occurs. Otherwise 1 chip is removed.

Under that system, you could perhaps create some way that a defender can put one of their ships in a sz “on convoy defense” during a raid. The ship moves on top of the roundel, and this changes the roll somehow? Perhaps instead of rolling a 1 to “evade”, it evades at 3, or 50/50. Something along those lines.

@Black_Elk:

I’m sensing some pretty broad agreement here in the ways this National Convoy system might work.

Yes, things seem to be coming along nicely indeed.

I’m posting below (assuming “.doc format” Word documents are postable here, which I think they are) a document I was working on this evening prior to reading your posts from today.  It’s a document that could be useful to you and Baron and anyone else who wants to contribute to this HR development process.  Basically, it’s a blank chart (meant to be expandable) for preparing lists of potential convoy locations, IPC values and operating conditions.

The charts where the final choices (for the various A&A games) will eventually be written down once we’ve worked out the complete HR will probably look similar – but for the moment this is just a working document to record ideas and proposals for discussion as we decide where to put these convoys.  I kept it as generic as possible, for example by allowing (potentially) for different convoy values, even though – as discussed above – there are advantages to giving them all a standard value of 3.  I also included nations that may or may not actually get convoys (including the Dutch, who you mention in one of your posts).  I don’t know to what extent this document might or might not be useful, but the folks here are welcome to play around with it if they wish.

Blank Convoy Chart Global 1940.doc

Here’s a summary of where things appear to be at the moment with the convoy house rule proposal.  This summary is meant to be revised on an ongoing basis as points needing decisions [shown in square brackets] are discussed and finalized.

• The HR convoy system is designed for potential use with any global-scale A&A game, or with Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 if these games are played on their own.  Separate convoy setup charts for the system will be required for each of these games because they have different IPC structures and different SZ numbering systems.  [For a working draft of what these charts might look like, see CWO Marc’s post of April 17, 2015.]  In the case of Global 1940 (and its two constituent games), the HR is meant to replace the existing OOB convoy zone system.  In the case of the 1942.2, 1941 and (potentially) 1914 games, the HR is meant to introduce a convoy system where none exists in the OOB rules.

• Possible name suggested by Black Elk for the system: National Convoy House Rule.  Rationale: this distinguishes the HR from the “local convoys” in Global 1940.  [Question : Might the National Convoy / Local Convoy terminology create the impression that Global 1940 has two convoy systems, rather than a HR system that replaces the OOB system?]

• The convoys in the HR system provide extra IPC income, over and above the normal IPC income which the various powers collect.  These two types of income are tracked separately.  This tracking can be done with separate IPC charts, or by using two different types of markers on a single chart.  (For an illustration of the latter idea, see CWO Marc’s final post of April 16, 2015.)  The bonus income generated by each power’s convoys is added (at the Collect Income phase of the game) to the overall income of each power (in contrast with the Global 1940 OOB convoy system, which affects the IPC value of specific land territories.)

• Convoys occupy fixed positions on the game map.  Each SZ can contain either one convoy or no convoys.  The nationality and the position of convoys is marked on the game map according to the convoy setup charts [which still need to be developed] for that particular A&A game.  Convoys can be marked using either A&A flag roundels (National Control Markers, or NCMs) or other suitable tokens such as the Convoy Nation Markers produced by HBG:

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Convoy-Nation-Markers-X5_p_1821.html

• The IPC value of each convoy is indicated by placing plastic chips under the convoy markers on the game map (one for each IPC).  The markers themselves have no IPC value; they simply denote the location and nationality of each convoy.  [To be determined : Give each convoy a standard value of 3 (meaning 3 grey chips), which seems to be the current preference?  In such a case, we could dispense with the “Max. Value” column of the setup charts.  Or give different convoys different values, perhaps as a reflection of the economic value of their ports of departure or some other factor?]

• The owner of a particular convoy may need to fulfil certain conditions to collect the bonus income generated by that convoy – for example, by holding the convoy’s port of departure.  These conditions are listed in the convoy setup charts [which still need to be developed].  [To be determined : Are there certain conditions under which one nation can take over the convoy routes of another nation, for instance in the (potentially) odd case of the Dutch East Indies convoys?  Regarding the DEI convoys, one point to consider is that the DEI are a net exporter of valuables such as oil, and that a DEI convoy therefore technically represents an outgoing convoy rather than an incoming one.  This raises the following question: to whom are the DEI supposedly shipping goods prior to their takeover in the Global 1940 game?  It can’t be to Holland because Holland is already an occupied country at the start of the game…so if it isn’t going to Holland, who is the “pre-DEI-takeover” recipient of the Dutch convoy bonus IPCs?  Black Elk proposed a couple of possible solutions, and based on his analysis my suggestion would be: that we assume that no DEI convoys exist prior to the takeover of the DEI, and that we then introduce a DEI convoy when the DEI is occupied; the convoy would be either Japanese or British or ANZAC, depending on who takes control of the DEI.  The draft setup charts alreday contain the notion that certain conditions might need to be fulfilled to operate a convoy, so an extension of that principle might be that the existence and the nationality of certain convoys is “conditional”.  Under Condition X, a particular convoy (perhaps better thought of here as a convoy route) is inactive; under Condition Y, it’s operational and owned by Nation A; under condition Z, it’s operational and owned by Nation B.  This system could be used outside the DEI too, but the DEI is a good example for discussion purposes.  Under conditions Y or Z, the convoy would be indicated on the map by the flag roundel (or HBG convoy marker) of Nations A or B respectively; under Condition X, an upside-down flag roundel (or upside-down HBG convoy marker) would denote the presence of an inactive convoy route.]

• The IPC value of a convoy is reduced when it suffers casualties as a result of enemy attack.  This reduced value is shown by removing the appropriate number of chips from under the convoy marker and by adjusting the income tracking charts accordingly.  [To be determined : Can convoys which have suffered casualties (and perhaps which have been completely destroyed) be built back up again to a maximum of their original value?  If yes, the details of the process need to be worked out, but one part that’s clear is that convoy markers would not be removed from the game map.  If no, then no replacement process details need to be worked out, and it’s clear that a convoy marker would be removed from the game map if all of its ships are destroyed, since there’s no point in marking the position of a destroyed convoy that isn’t coming back…unless perhaps we’re dealing with a “conditional convoy” as discussed above.]

• [Convoy attacks ('convoy raiding mechanism"), convoy defense (“convoy escort mechanism”), and combat-resolution mechanics: I haven’t attempted to summarize the state of discussion of these issues, for two reasons.  First, there’re still under very active discussion.  Two, as I’ve said previously I don’t have much any aptitude for these topics.  So my preference would be just to contribute some comments here and there on historical aspects of the issues as they’re debated by Black Elk and Baron and whoever else wants to chime in, if that sounds all right, and also to have more expert hands than mine write up the discussion-status summaries for those parts of the house rule.]

@Baron:

About the Raiding mechanism, do you think this can be too complicated?

Any 1 Submarine raiding a Convoy Zone: auto destroy of all 3 IPCs.
The Merchant’s convoyed ships didn’t see them coming.

Any 1 surface warship (and up to 2 planes paired with Carrier) needs to make an attack roll against Merchant’s Convoy. Any hit makes for the destruction of 3 IPCs.

When there is warships defending the Convoy SZ,
attacking surface warship makes regular combat BUT the 3 IPCs Convoy is safe.
So any one can use a DD blocker to protect the Convoy SZ.

When Submarines are part of the battle, the attacker can choose to assign a Submarine’s hit to the Convoy, instead of an enemy warship chosen by the owner’s (as OOB combat rule for casualty).

This simply means that with Subs, the attacker can destroy enemy units AND the 3 IPCs Convoy.

In this case, the Convoy is played as an additional free hit (like these puts on Carrier or Battleship) without loosing a combat unit.

Just a comment: my concern isn’t so much whether this is too complicated or not, but whether it’s realistic for a convoy to be completely wiped out by a single attack.  I’d say it isn’t.  WWII convoys that suffered very high casualty levels (and fortunately for the Allies, such massive casualty levels were the exception rather than the rule) generally had their numbers whittled down over the course of several days of fighting by multiple attacks carried out by multiple attackers.  The so-called “wolf pack” sequence seen in the Humphrey Bogart movie “Action in the North Atlantic” is thrilling but completely unrealistic: it shows a huge swarm of U-boats cruising underwater in a large formation (almost like a fighter squadron), and it compresses into a five-minute battle (showing multiple cargo ships being torpedoed and multiple U-boats being blown apart by depth charges or rammed by destroyers) a level of carnage that, in real life, would typically have been spread over several hours or even days.  In WWII, if a convoy found itself in a hopeless situation against an overwhelming enemy force, the commodore might well opt to order the convoy to scatter – as was done in the Jervis Bay / Admiral Scheer confrontation, or with Arctic Convoy PQ17 – even though this was regarded as a desperate measure of last resort.

It think it would be more realistic to have the total destruction of a convoy only happen under two situations: in a single turn when there’s a massive strength advantage in favour of the attacker, or over several turns when the force ratios are more balanced (which would be a more typical situation).

Well, the simplest and most familiar method would be to just say these convoys work exactly like the convoys of the Original A&A Europe game (1999.)

In that case, there was no specialized “convoy attack” or “convoy defense.” It wasn’t a combat per se, so much as a combat movement. In that game, if a convoy zone was defenseless (no protecting warships) then all the raider had to do was enter/pass through the zone to deny their opponent the cash. If their opponent left a ship in the zone to defend the convoy, then this ship had to be destroyed first, and any attacking warship that survived the engagement would then occupy the sz denying the cash to the opponent.

That’s the most basic National Convoy system I can think of. Of course, we could try to improve on it with additional elements, but if you wanted to keep things as simple as possible, it might be worth just using those rules as the base.

I would be concerned about allowing negative IPCs (-3 ipcs etc) back into the game, mainly because it just seems kind of bizarre to me. Allowing a “raider” to destroy more IPCs than the convoy is worth, is hard to explain, even as an abstraction. I can imagine a way it might be interpreted, but I can’t imagine a way to readily explain it without violating the whole “National” convoy idea. So for example, it might be that the USA is sending Convoys of goods to the UK… and any goods that get through are +X ipcs to UK, any goods destroyed are -X ipcs to USA. But already that just looks way more complicated than its worth.

I would much prefer to keep everything in positive integers. If +3 ipcs isn’t enough, then raise the value to +6 etc, rather than going negative. Otherwise you have fallen back into the model that has ipcs being destroyed (taken from the cash on hand and returned to bank) rather than one which just diminished the amount of IPCs you can collect in the first place, which is much simpler and less distorting (e.g. you can’t be raided enitrely out of play.)

I default to a gameplay rationale, as usual, I find something that I think would be fun for the gameplay, and then try to support it with the real world abstractions.
:-D

The whole point of creating a convoy system to begin with, in my view, is to attach IPC values directly to the Sea Zones in some way. Clearly this is an abstraction, even in real world terms. We’re not talking about fishermen pulling fish out of the sea, but rather the idea of a “Trade”, or National exchange, the concept that the same resources/goods can accrue in value, if you’re able to move them farther afield. In my suggested example, that’s what the +3 ipcs would represent, a bonus to the nation’s normal national production when it’s able to move across the sea.

In that respect I still think it is more fruitful to conceive of the convoy as a “shipping lane” rather than the actual ships/goods travelling along it. If you control the lane, it is possible to move the resources to a place where they have more value. If the lane is being contested, then you will lose that value (or at least some of that value), because now the logistics cost involved in defending/moving the goods will necessarily increase.

Keeping the broader gameplay in mind, the advantage of having convoys, is to encourage the purchase of more naval units. Just having more money in play (which the convoys would introduce) helps to facilitate this, but players are even more likely to buy ships, if that additional income is directly attached to a SZ rather than exclusively to land territories, as it is OOB, because then you need ships to disrupt it.

At every point along the way, you have to make a compromise. A&A is just too simplistic to model everything. It might be entirely conceivable for aircraft to sink a convoy vessel in the real world, and this surely happened in the war, but it’s worth considering whether the game really needs to model this? In A&A Europe (1999) it was not possible for Aircraft to disrupt convoy income, you had to have a ship. Not to suggest that we can’t improve on this, and somehow involve Air in the convoy disruption/defense, but just pointing out that it’s not strictly necessary.

I think there comes a point in these games, where the rules can get away from the gameplay enjoyment, if a mechanic is too complicated or if it’s application is too rare. It’s worth keeping in mind that players of the 1940/Global games have different expectations and more tolerance for complex rules, but for a game like 1942.2 I definitely favor simplicity. Put another way, it might be best to work out a bare bones system for 1942.2, and then build onto it for the 1940 games, if you want to add extra steps or nuances to the mechanics of it.

Here are some thoughts on the latest points discussed.

First, I agree that the method used for handling convoys should be as simple as possible.  Or to put it another way: the basic house rule for handling convoys should be as simple as possible, and individual players can then introduce additional details if they want as supplementary house rule modifications of the basic house rule.  I also agree that “negative IPCs” sound problematic and are a hard thing to visualize.  I’d prefer to stick to the concept of a convoy being worth 3 IPCs when it’s at full strength, 2 or 1 IPCs when it’s suffered partial casualties, and 0 when it’s been completely destroyed.  Its value should not go above 3 or below 0.

It’s a valid point that the attacker needs an incentive to attack a convoy, but I’m not sure that the correct incentive would be a model in which the attacker can sink a whole convoy all at once, but in which the convoy automatically reappears on the next turn.  To me as an attacker, the automatic reappearance of the convoy would discourage me from bothering to attack it because, in effect, this would mean that I’d have to keep sinking the same convoy over and over again to keep its IPCs out of my opponent’s hands – a task which would tie down my valuable naval units, which I could perhaps use more profitably elsewhere for other purposes.  A further problem is that this model would not be realistic.  In real life, cargo ships that have been sunk by enemy attack don’t magically float back up to the surface and continue towards their destination; instead, replacement ships have to be built and launched and loaded and sent on their way across the seas, all of which takes time and money.  And to draw a parallel with land warfare (both in real life and on the A&A game map): when a territory gets conquered by an invader, the territory doesn’t automatically liberate itself after a set amount of time and the invader therefore doesn’t have to keep conquering it over and over again in order to keep it out of enemy hands.

To me, the biggest incentive to attack a convoy would actually be a model in which the convoy doesn’t automatically regenerate itself, and in which convoy losses therefore cause serious harm to my opponent.  In such a model, I wouldn’t be worried about whether I could or couldn’t knock out the whole convoy at once; any damage I inflicted, whether it be the loss of 1 or 2 or 3 IPCs by the convoy, would be worthwhile.

That being said, I think it would be a good idea if convoy losses could be replaced under certain circumstances, provided that this was handled in a way that’s realistic and that doesn’t remove the incentive for an attacker to attack a convoy.  I think the way to handle this would be as follows.

Remember that a convoy is a group of cargo ships: freighters, tankers and other merchantmen.  They’re represented in the house rule by a marker, but conceptually they still consist of ships; in a sense, the ships are really represented by the grey plastic chips under the convoy tokens.  (Perhaps more accurately, these chips represent columns of ships within a convoy, each column consisting of several vessels).  Regular A&A ships, such as naval transports, are units that can be purchased, and the cargo ships in the convoys could be thought of in the same way.  Each player starts the game with a specified number of convoys, which don’t have to be purchased – but if a player’s convoys starts taking casualties, he would be able to replace the lost cargo ships by buying replacement ones (in effect, by buying replacement grey poker chips).

There are, however, a few things that we’d need to figure out about this concept because it represents the process of building and launching replacement ships, loading them with cargo, and having them travel along their cargo route (which takes time and money in the real world).  I think there are basically three possible options for doing so:

1. A player acquires replacement cargo ships (poker chips) in the same way that other naval units are purchased: each poker chip costs $x (we’d need to figure out a fair price), it’s built at a coastal Industrial Complex, and it has to sail from there to its designated convoy location before it’s considered fully operational.  I think this would take too much time, and it would introduce too many confusing complications by having poker chips moving across the map.

2. A player buys replacement chips for $xxx – a much higher price than the cost of $x in option 1 – and gets to add the chips directly to the desired convoys, without any transit time.  This could work (though we’d once again have to figure out a fair price), but it’s not my preferred option.

3. A player buys replacement chips for $xx – let’s call these mid-priced cargo vessels – and adds the chips directly to the desired convoys…but he has to wait one full turn before doing so.  In effect, he skips a turn (meaning that he has to live with an under-sized convoy for a full turn) to represent symbolically the time it takes for the newly-built cargo ships to join the operational convoys.  This is my favourite option: it imposes a time delay in the replacement process (which is realistic), but the delay is of standard length (one turn)  and it does not involve any chips moving across the game map on their own.  As always, we’d have to figure out a fair price.

And on the issue of fair pricing: I think that the calculation of the replacement cost for convoy poker chips is probably the best way to find the right balance between the attacker and the defender of a convoy, while keeping the combat system itself very simple.  If we determine that the attacking and defense mechanisms for convoys provide too much incentive for the attacker, then the solution would be to lower the cost of the replacement chips.  If on the other hand we determine that the attacking and defense mechanisms for convoys provide too little incentive for the attacker, then the solution would be to increase the cost of the replacement chips. Adjusting this variable, rather than adjusting the attacking and defense mechanisms themselves, would allow us to come up with a convoy combat model that is simple and realistic and which doesn’t take up too much game time.

Now to switch to a different topic: convoy “conditions” or requirements, the topic whic is addressed in the right-hand column of my draft chart.  I’m thinking more and more that we do need to define operating conditions (at least in simple terms) for each convoy on the map.  The reason is that, conceptually, a convoy needs three things to operate: a port of departure (where the transported goods come from), a port of arrival (where the transported goods are going), and of course the actual ships in the convoy (the topic discussed in the paragraphs above).  Without all three components, convoys can’t operate in the real world – so the game should reflect this.

Fortunately, modeling this in A&A both simply and realistically would be pretty straightforward.  For each convoy, we’d simply need to specify one or more ports of departure and one or more ports of destination, and require that the convoy owner (or one of his coalition partners) control one or more of the specified territories at each end of the convoy route in order to collect his bonus IPCs.  The departures and arrivals could be tied to a single specific territory (for example Java in Global 1940, which would be a single port of departure) or to a multi-territory area (for example “United Kingdom or Scotland”, which would be an either/or port of arrival in Global 1940, and which we could designate collectively as “British Isles”).

As an added refinement: if we assume that all convoys have a standard maximum value of 3 IPCs, we could retitle the second column in my draft chart as “Convoy Name”.  This would be kind of cool, and also a useful memory aid in game play.  In WWII, convoy routes sometimes had names and individual convoys usually had code numbers.  These designations sometimes referred to ports of departure or ports of arrival – for instance the Gibraltar run, the Murmansk run, the HX convoys that departed from Halifax, and the SC convoys that departed from Sidney, Cape Breton.  So we could give each convoy route its own name, as well as specified operating conditions.

Note, by the way, that an opponent would actually have multiple ways to shut down a convoy: from the sea, by sinking it, or from the land, by conquering either its port of departure or its port of arrival.  A land power like Germany, therefore, might be more inclined to try to shut down a convoy route “from the land” (by territorial conquest), while a naval power like Japan might be more inclined to shut down a convoy route “from the sea” (by using parts of its fleet).  As a bonus, this would nicely illustrate some of the relationships that exist between land warfare and naval warfare.

Here’s the second version of the working chart:

Blank Convoy Chart Global 1940 v.2.doc