Question on convoy boxes and other thoughts

[USMMA95]

Some ideas and thoughts I wanted to share with fellow AA players.

Will there be convoy boxes like in AA Europe and Pacific? The convoy boxes really added another important part to the game. Certain sea zones need to have some IPC value in order to simulate the merchant shipping during the war. I am refering to IPC values in the convoy center box. There is no complexity with rules or game mechanics since it is another territory as in Europe and Pacific. Not sure how that is confusing to folks. There should not be anything difficult with adding a few boxes exactly like in Europe and Pacific. If additional sea zones can be added to the board, surely this is easy by drawing a few more lines!

In the original, there is no IPC value to building ships and holding/clearing enemy-occupied sea zones. Europe and Pacific really made an IPC impact upon your opponent. Subs have little value except for the suprise attack, but get wiped out the following round by your opponent's aircraft. Subs had a significant impact to the war, in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. The result of naval forces in the game ends up defending transports from being attacked by your opponent so you can move your land units. This applies mostly for the Allies, but early on for Japan while it still has a Navy. The cost of a battleship is too much when one can buy two subs for less money and the same attack strength. The trade off is the shore bombardment. With destroyers added to the game, and if there is a shore bombardment capability, battleships will most likely not be purchased except for the US. From my experience, I would rather build a carrier with a fighter since it would be just 6 more IPCs with the same attack strength, but greater defense strength and the flexibility of the fighter unit with use in non-sea zone territories.

Since this is a game of attrition, the end of the game normally results with a carrier or two for the Allies and just transport navies remaining. Japan may have a battleship or a sub remaining. Every ship Japan makes results in fewer land units used on mainland Asia.

Germany cannot afford to build naval units since it is already on the defensive and stretched to far in the Soviet Union to be able to defend all of its territories from the Soviets, British, and American forces. The new IPC increase of 8 will be very helpful. With artillery units being added with the similar attack capability like in Europe and Pacific, Germany could be effective in taking more territories on the first three turns. However, the same applies for the Allies as well. For example, one infantry and one artillery has the same attack strength of one infantry and one tank, but the cost is only 7 IPCs vs 8 IPCs. For an offensive defense with Germany, that is more efficient in use of IPCs. For the Allies, one less transport is needed since one transport can move one infantry unit and one artillery unit versus two transports to move one tank unit and one infantry (even considering two infantry units could be moved).

Any thoughts?

[ January 07, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: USMMA95 ]

[Mike Selinker]

Unfortunately, convoy boxes were too complex to make the transference to the "basic" game. We had thresholds as to how much complexity we would add into the game, and convoy boxes were not deemed to have enough payoff to justify their additional complexity. (There was a huge list of items that fit this description. I've already mentioned that fighter escorts on bombing runs didn't make this cut, for example. But convoys were at the top of the list of things that we regrettably couldn't include.)

I expect convoys will be one of the first additions that internet players will add to their games, though. It's a popular option, and it's a great aspect of Europe and Pacific.

Mike

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:
Unfortunately, convoy boxes were too complex to make the transference to the "basic" game. This is very regrettable. I mean, most of the people who play(ed) Europe and Pacific games started with the original game. Up for now, I've never heard nor read anyone complaining about the concept of convoying as too complex.

Yes, there were unclear rules, but it shouldn't prevent design team including the original designer to come up with some sort of simplified convoy rules which would put submarines to do what they were designed for.

How difficult (or complex) was to put a number and Soviet national sign on the say, sea zone to the north of Karelia and say if Axis naval unit with an attack factor occupies this zone Soviets do not receive the number of IPCs printed on the sea zone?

Repeat this process for few more sea zones (it isn't that difficult to identify the main convoy routes during WW2) and you have convoy zones and something realistic for submarines and destroyers to do.

Drax

[simply4est]

I have to say failing to bring the convoy boxes into the new AA game is a definite step backwards. They brought out in the game what was truly relevant in the naval theatres - the economic connection.

If this is the case, there won't be that much improvement over the original - I mean enough to justify buying an expensive game. There are a lot of map improvements already out there for free on the web, and the little plastic pieces additions - artillery and destroyer - can be borrowed from other games.

[Desert Fox]

How can you not include convey zones? They are very easy to understand, and would have been a huge step foward in this game, especially for the battle in the Atlantic. Very disappointing.

[ January 09, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Desert Fox ]

[jbs_pocket]

NO CONVOY BOXES?! That's crazy! Sheez, that was one of the great new enhancements of the A&AE and A&AP!! Most unfortunate! Well, I kid you not that this is major alteration to my decision in buying the game.

I don't get it. A&AE and A&AP had so many great new features to the ol' A&A -- why is it so difficult to join the two? It sounds like there are some interesting new features in the new A&A, but I fear too many backward steps are being taken since the changes that had come with A&AE and A&AP.

I might just wait for the D-Day game and skip the new A&A.

[Darksideknight]

You are basing your decision to buy the game on the sole fact of no convoys? In the whole scheme of the game, pacific and europe were dealing with much smaller areas than the whole world. This may of been impossible with the board size they were working with. Anyway I am not disapointed they don't have them in the new game. I am just waiting to see what the thirty optional rules are. Also what new territorys are used in the game and how the new gameboard map is divided up will influnce my choice to buy the game or not. No wait I already know for sure I'll buy it.

-Jason

[Mike Selinker]

In the whole scheme of the game, pacific and europe were dealing with much smaller areas than the whole world. This may of been impossible with the board size they were working with.There's a lot of truth to this. The original layout of the entire world with convoy boxes had somewhere between fifteen and twenty boxes, almost all of which belonged to the Allies. (The area in A&A Europe covered by convoy boxes represents one-eighth of the A&A board.) Not only did this create a tremendous amount of clutter on the map, it created many more sites that the Allies had to defend. On a global board, it slowed down the Allied effort, put them on the defensive, and led to a clunkier game.

In addition, the Allies had quite a bit more IPCs because of the boxes. That would have been even more IPCs we'd need to give the Axis to balance things out.

Mike

[Epicedion]

I generally agree that Convoys would just be a hassle. The reason I see for them being in Europe and Pacific is to give the Axis a way to cut Allied IPCs significantly without giving all those IPCs to the Axis -- a way to sort to temporarily 'destroy' or remove some IPC generation from the game entirely. If I remember correctly, there are about 25 IPCs worth of Convoys in A&A: Pacific. Imagine how much easier the game would be for Japan if those 25 IPCs were generated on capturable territories. You would see Japan up to nearly 50 IPCs a turn pretty rapidly, they would become an unstoppable juggernaut in the oceans, and the game would be over by Victory Points before the Allies could stop them.

In the full-world game, however, the players are more concerned with the general movements of fleets and large armies. Forcing players to divert single ships to clear/capture Convoys would just get annoying over the course of the entire game. I get the feeling it would also put the Axis at another disadvantage in the long run, since it would put Allied IPCs out there that could -not- be captured, forcing the Axis to spend precious resources on something that provides no return in order to slow down the Allies.

--Epicedion

[Drax Kramer]

I still don't get it. The territory of Karelia, by itself is a barren region with nothing worth capturing. However, the presence of the ports of Murmansk and Archangelsk served as a gateway for Allied IPCs to reach the Soviet economy. Since the game starts at time when Lend-Lease was in place, how difficult was to strip some IPCs from the Soviet territories (say useless tundra of Evenki Nat'l Okrug) and assign them to the "Convoy Zone" situated in the sea zone directly to the north of Karelia? As long as no Axis ship control the sea zone, USSR gets its IPCs.

United Kingdom territory has little or no domestic resources needed to maintain a modern army. How difficult was to remove some of 8 IPCs from the UK territory (say 3) and place it on the sea zone around the UK territory. Strip some of the 12 IPCs (10 IPCs) from Eastern (Western) US and put in within sea tone directly to the east (west) of the Eastern (Western) US. Do the same with the Eastern Canada.

In two short paragraphs I just created convoy zones, added no additional IPCs to the map, created no new sea zones and used no new or untested game mechanic.

I don't think I need to repeat this process for Japan (also a resourceless region by itself), Dutch East Indies, Celebes, Philippines and so on.

I can do nothing but express my deep dissapointment for inability and lack of imagination to include the convoy zones in the new game.

Drax

[Epicedion]

First, Drax, the way you have it written, however, the Allies will never be at an IPC penalty due to convoys. How often have you ever seen the Axis form a considerable Atlantic fleet and keep it there beyond a turn?

Second, removing IPCs from any territory with an Industrial Complex (to put them in a convoy) is just going to make strategic bombing -really- worthless, since it's apparently going to be capped by the IPC generation of the bombed territory. Unless you want to renege on 'simple' and say that the IPCs from the convoy count for the territory for the purposes of strategic bombing.

Finally, sea zones represent potentially millions of square miles of ocean. In Pacific and Europe we saw convoys as small boxes that bordered on larger zones, but were easily bypassed. In fact, it was quicker to go around them then through them. It would be cruel to allow a player with a large navy to both cripple a player's resources -and- block movement through the sea zones. If convoys were going to exist in this version, they should be a trade-off between control of the oceans and the loss of IPCs. They should not be both.

To sum up, there's no point in adding convoys without adding sea zones and rebalancing the IPCs to fit, but to do so would be time-consuming in the development process and just make for a more tedious game at home. There is no point to adding convoys the way you described, Drax, because it would be unnecessarily half-assed. Try playing it as an optional rule and see how it works out, and how much of an impact it has on the game.

--Epicedion

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

First, Drax, the way you have it written, however, the Allies will never be at an IPC penalty due to convoys. How often have you ever seen the Axis form a considerable Atlantic fleet and keep it there beyond a turn?How is that different from keeping these IPCs in UK, East Canada and East US territories? How often did you see these territories captured by Axis? And you don't need a considerable fleet to control a convoy zone, a single U-boat will do just fine.

Second, removing IPCs from any territory with an Industrial Complex (to put them in a convoy) is just going to make strategic bombing -really- worthless, since it's apparently going to be capped by the IPC generation of the bombed territory. Unless you want to renege on 'simple' and say that the IPCs from the convoy count for the territory for the purposes of strategic bombing.If it were up to me, I'd never curtail the already cost ineffective strategic bombing as designers did so I'll just pass this buck to them. It was their idea, not mine.

Finally, sea zones represent potentially millions of square miles of ocean.Please, just don't call the geographic realities into the discussion. Japanese bombers bombing Ural from Manchuria? And if that was not enough we have the long range aircraft tech development? Take a look how far Hawaiin islands are from California and say that A&A map has anything to do with our planet.

It would be cruel to allow a player with a large navy to both cripple a player's resources -and- block movement through the sea zones. If convoys were going to exist in this version, they should be a trade-off between control of the oceans and the loss of IPCs. Remember the actual mechanism of convoy zones. Axis submarine enters the zone and the convoy owner has his turn to try to clear the zone. If he succeeds he both, gets the IPCs and opens the sea zone.

To sum up, there's no point in adding convoys without adding sea zones and rebalancing the IPCs to fit, but to do so would be time-consuming in the development process and just make for a more tedious game at home. There is no point to adding convoys the way you described, Drax, because it would be unnecessarily half-assed.You're entitled to your opinion, of course. If you think my idea needs work, well I spent the whole five minutes developing it.

What I do know is that if such rules like "stukas over London" or "each rocket launcher must fire on the different factory" were thought of, developed, implemented and playtested then there was plenty of time to develop a system that might turn submarines into something useful.

Drax

[Epicedion]

Well, Drax, you really didn't address any of the issues I had with your post. You just set up a straw man and attacked it.


How is that different from keeping these IPCs in UK, East Canada and East US territories? How often did you see these territories captured by Axis? And you don't need a considerable fleet to control a convoy zone, a single U-boat will do just fine.
The point isn't in the ability of the Axis to take the convoy, it's in the ability of the Allies to -very easily- take it back. If you stick one German U-boat in the Atlantic, it will die to Allied retaliation almost immediately. The Allies don't even lose the IPCs that turn. Thus, a considerable Axis fleet would be needed to take and hold the convoy. Especially if you don't make the ships take a detour to get to the convoy.


Please, just don't call the geographic realities into the discussion. Japanese bombers bombing Ural from Manchuria? And if that was not enough we have the long range aircraft tech development? Take a look how far Hawaiin islands are from California and say that A&A map has anything to do with our planet.
The line about the sea zones representing large amounts of ocean was a lead-in to what followed, not the meat of the paragraph. In writing, it is common to use what we call 'transitions' to draw your attention out of the previous topic and into a new one. This was a transition to draw attention to the topic of convoy-blockade versus travel-blockade that I was about to address.


Remember the actual mechanism of convoy zones. Axis submarine enters the zone and the convoy owner has his turn to try to clear the zone. If he succeeds he both, gets the IPCs and opens the sea zone.
The mechanism has nothing to do with it. Without adding a convoy zone, you are allowing someone with a large fleet to completely blockade both travel -and- Convoy IPCs with a single fleet. That is unnecessary and unfair. In Europe, there are 2-4 ways into any given convoy zone. A single fleet can -discourage- traffic around a convoy zone, but not block it altogether. Thus, to contradict your original statement, to make it fair and playable, you would -have- to add new sea zones.


What I do know is that if such rules like "stukas over London" or "each rocket launcher must fire on the different factory" were thought of, developed, implemented and playtested then there was plenty of time to develop a system that might turn submarines into something useful.
You have absolutely no idea how long it took to design and playtest those ideas. You sound like Bone_Roller claiming that 99% of all Axis and Allies players play on-line at MSN.

Perhaps if you would propose serious ideas with development, thought, and supporting information instead of trivializing the design process to


In two short paragraphs I just created...
you would get a better reaction.

--Epicedion

[simply4est]

Well, actually, the Allies usually could NOT get the convoy zones (and IPCs) back right away. If the Axis player is sharp enough, it will take the Allies 2-3 turns to clear the Atlantic, for example, and get back up to their full economies.

The convoy zones may not be the only way to achieve the effect I believe they were important for - making the naval struggle worthwhile and relevant (I mean otherwise why even bother with the differentiation and weapons development in naval forces) - but it worked well with AAE and AAP, and another way is yet to be shown. I will be happy if a good one is brought out during the course of these article revelations.

Mike, I can see the difference of scale reasoning for not having the same number of convoy boxes, but then why not provide convoy boxes that fit the scale the way different sized land areas are used for different scaled games?

[Epicedion]

In the familiar set-up, Germany starts with what.. one submarine in the Atlantic? And unless you enforce a Russian first-turn truce, that sub has a good chance of losing to the Russian sub in round 1. Germany would barely have a -chance- of knocking out a convoy, and would be completely unable to hold it for more than a turn.

Adding convoys would therefore necessitate the addition of a major German submarine fleet. While Germany -should- have a better submarine fleet (especially if the Allies are getting initial destroyers), it would be tricky to balance it so that Germany is not in a situation where they are virtually invulnerable in the Atlantic. Remember that with the addition of destroyers, aircraft are likely going to be unable to target submarines without destroyer assistance (which is an excellent rule).

While convoys are a very neat addition to Axis and Allies, remember that we're not just dealing with an individual theatre. We're dealing with a war on six continents. We should focus on the Big Picture<tm>, not the supply war.

--Epicedion

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

The point isn't in the ability of the Axis to take the convoy, it's in the ability of the Allies to -very easily- take it back.I am aware of it. I was merely following the general philosophy of the designer team to change as little as possible. Presuming that they tried to balance the IPC ratio, the IPCs placed in the Allied convoy zones have been taken from Allied territories least likely to be captured by Axis in the opening turns.

If you stick one German U-boat in the Atlantic, it will die to Allied retaliation almost immediately. The Allies don't even lose the IPCs that turn. Thus, a considerable Axis fleet would be needed to take and hold the convoy. Especially if you don't make the ships take a detour to get to the convoy.I'm aware of this too. We still don't know how the submarines interact with opposing air and naval units. If they are difficult to attack Allies would need overwhelming forces to sink a single sub and would be delayed from launching direct attacks on the "Fortress Europe" which was the main point of the U-boat campaign in the first place.

Without adding a convoy zone, you are allowing someone with a large fleet to completely blockade both travel -and- Convoy IPCs with a single fleet. That is unnecessary and unfair.Why? I mean, if one power maintains strong fleet in some part of the ocean this fleet is going to prevent both naval and merchant traffic through that part of the ocean until removed by force.

When Bismarck sortied (battleship and heavy cruiser are well bellow the strength of the battleship unit in A&A), British stopped all the convoys until they dealt with the threat. It is only natural for a powerful fleet to stop convoys sailing through the sea under its control.

Thus, to contradict your original statement, to make it fair and playable, you would -have- to add new sea zones.I see nothing unfair with powerful fleet exercising control over the sea it is in. When Germans concentrated most of their remaining surface fleet in the northern Norway British stopped the convoys for Murmansk.

You have absolutely no idea how long it took to design and playtest those ideas.A single minute spent on developing a rule allowing fighters to bomb enemy factories is a minute too much in my opinion. Why? Luftwaffe did not send stukas to bomb factories because there were too few of them, they were too slow and too vulnerable. In fact, they were withdrawn from the Battle of Britain due to their ineffectiveness.

So, we have designers spending their valuable time to introduce rule about something that almost never happened (and when did was ineffective), but abstaining from introducing the concept representing one of the most important and the longest campaign in the entire war.

Drax

[ January 14, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Drax Kramer ]

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

In the familiar set-up, Germany starts with what.. one submarine in the Atlantic? And unless you enforce a Russian first-turn truce, that sub has a good chance of losing to the Russian sub in round 1.This Soviet submarine had no business being there in the first place and should have been removed from the new edition. Why? Because Soviet submarine fleet spent most of the war locked in Leningrad and Murmansk and occassionally sinking some German small boats. The mere idea of Soviet submarines sortieing into Atlantic and attacking German U-boat flottilas is ridiculous.

In fact, the whole idea of submarines attacking submarines in the grand strategic game is flawed. There were occassional surprise sinkings of submarines by other submarines, but way bellow the level of Axis & Allies. The only Axis&Allies game that had it right was the Nova version.

Germany would barely have a -chance- of knocking out a convoy, and would be completely unable to hold it for more than a turn.Sad, but true. But it was up to the design team to grab a book, see how many U-boats was there in the Atlantic, compare this with the number of submarines deployed by other powers, represent this ratios in the initial deployment and come up with reasonable rules for submarine warfare.

Adding convoys would therefore necessitate the addition of a major German submarine fleet. While Germany -should- have a better submarine fleetGlad that we're in agreement about something. Don't forget the substantial Italian submarine fleet that was as strong as British or Japanese submarine fleet in 1942.

(especially if the Allies are getting initial destroyers), it would be tricky to balance it so that Germany is not in a situation where they are virtually invulnerable in the Atlantic. Remember that with the addition of destroyers, aircraft are likely going to be unable to target submarines without destroyer assistance (which is an excellent rule).The rule is satisfactory. It's a patch for the flawed treatment of submarines in MB version. Aircraft, of course, did not need destroyers to spot the submarines for them in the real life.

While convoys are a very neat addition to Axis and Allies, remember that we're not just dealing with an individual theatre. We're dealing with a war on six continents. We should focus on the Big Picture<tm>, not the supply war.The Battle for Atlantic _was_ a part of the Big Picture. In fact, without it being won, there would have been no other parts of the Big Picture to take place, no strategic bombing, no Lend-Lease, no Torch, no D-day.

The contribution of US submarines to the defeat of Japan in Pacific can't be emphasised enough. Japan was effectivelly defeated and its overseas possesions cut off from the homeland by the submarines.

Without submarine campaigns, there is no Big Picture to focus on.

Drax

[Epicedion]

In fact, the whole idea of submarines attacking submarines in the grand strategic game is flawed.
Agreed. Unfortunately the submarine was the only affordable naval combat vessel, being a third of the cost of a battleship. In A&A: Europe, I rarely see subs attack other subs, since Destroyers are so effective at the task.


Aircraft, of course, did not need destroyers to spot the submarines for them in the real life.
True, however sending a fighter out to try and find a submarine on the open ocean is crazy. The Destroyer ASW rule is a nice limiting factor to prevent what happened in the MB version: submarine goes off by itself, single fighter with no risk factor takes off from Britain and sinks sub.


The contribution of US submarines to the defeat of Japan in Pacific can't be emphasised enough. Japan was effectivelly defeated and its overseas possesions cut off from the homeland by the submarines.
This is one of the things that can actually happen in the MB version: Japan overextends itself in the Pacific, and the American sub fleet cuts off the Japanese transport fleet on its way to invade Hawaii/Alaska/wherever (it is more likely that the Japanese player will withdraw to focus on Asia before that, though). You don't need convoys to represent it, especially since there are only a very few islands that are worth IPCs. Remember that the argument isn't that convoys wouldn't add anything to the game. The argument is that convoys would be unnecessarily complicated given the scale of the game, and more importantly would slow down a game which can already take 6 hours to play.

I like convoys, but they really only belong in the theatre games, where the detail is appreciated.

--Epicedion

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

Unfortunately the submarine was the only affordable naval combat vessel, being a third of the cost of a battleship. In A&A: Europe, I rarely see subs attack other subs, since Destroyers are so effective at the task.The only Allied sub in the game was Soviet one despite the sizeable historical British submarine fleet. Sometimes British purchase subs to substall potential Sea Lion threat. But, as you pointed out, destroyers are so much more versatile that their purchase is almost mandatory.

Anyway, there was nothing that prevented Mike and the team from removing sub-to-sub combat from incoming game.

True, however sending a fighter out to try and find a submarine on the open ocean is crazy. The Destroyer ASW rule is a nice limiting factor to prevent what happened in the MB version: submarine goes off by itself, single fighter with no risk factor takes off from Britain and sinks sub.I never envisioned fighter unit in A&A as collection of single engined fighters. Such unit represents a large group (~1000 aircraft) of various types with predominantly fighter, ground support, dive and torpedo bomber aircraft which performs various missions from turn to turn. Not all aircraft from that large group participate in each mission.

Saying that, I would be perfectly confortable with more precise specification between two air units in the game. I would say that land based fighter units can't shoot at naval targets. The only aircraft capable of attacking naval units would be bombers (representing long range formations specialised in ASW and anti-shipping duties as well as navigation over the sea) and carrier based fighters. Land based fighters could only shoot at opposing aircraft during naval combat.

The argument is that convoys would be unnecessarily complicated given the scale of the game, and more importantly would slow down a game which can already take 6 hours to play.I think that strategic effect of the presence of enemy submarines in sea zones is precisely what every grand strategic game needs. Submarines were strategic weapons, just as heavy bombers were. In fact, I'd reduce the participation of bomber units in land combat to no more than one-shot support like battleships in amphibious assaults. This would emphasise bomber units as strategic weapons what in reality they were.

In reality, Japanese IPCs were either in Pacific (Dutch East Indies) or reachable only over the sea (Indochina-Burma). Since simplicity of A&A will not allow for the complex rules about the transfer of IPCs from the territories to industrial complexes or other supply rules, convoy zones were simple attempt to introduce more reality without losing playability nor simplicity.

It is still possible for Mike to surprise me with an article about the submarine combat that will render my complaints misdirected and I'll be first to publicly admit that convoy zones are not necessary. Let's wait and see.

Drax

[simply4est]

Yes, but I would say the naval struggles and their consequences affect both individual theatres and the global situation as Drax pointed out. It seems not mere ahistorical, but ludicrous that one feasible idea for Japan (many players claim the best strategic one) is to ignore the titanic and still growing oncoming US forces, and just focus in the other eastern direction.

I could maybe agree with 'Epic' that convoy boxes aren't the best way to represent the situation, but there should be a way to make naval concerns relevant and not just doing ferry duty. It seems the original and current designers had a sense that the naval aspect is as important as the land in both theatre games and global ones. They included as much differentiation and nearly as much weapons development for both areas (if you consider air separately)

There is one other possibility I can think of - having key sea zones have values like land areas. I dont know if this would be a well-received idea, but it would give at least some legitimate incentive to pursue serious naval aims.

[Epicedion]

I never envisioned fighter unit in A&A as collection of single engined fighters. Such unit represents a large group (~1000 aircraft) of various types with predominantly fighter, ground support, dive and torpedo bomber aircraft which performs various missions from turn to turn. Not all aircraft from that large group participate in each mission.
This is sheer digression: I think 1000 might be a little ambitious, but in truth it's probably representative of an agglomeration of actual aircraft and trained pilots (let's ignore things like ground crews, et cetera). Remember that Britain had far more aircraft than qualified pilots during the Battle of Britain. The point remains that most of them didn't have radar, making it very difficult for even a large-ish group of them to find a lone sub in, say, the North Atlantic.


The only aircraft capable of attacking naval units would be bombers (representing long range formations specialised in ASW and anti-shipping duties as well as navigation over the sea) and carrier based fighters. Land based fighters could only shoot at opposing aircraft during naval combat.
Most carrier-based fighters were also used as land-based fighters. Making distinctions there would be better reserved for a much smaller-scale game, especially since Germany (with its distinct lack of aircraft carriers) would be more-or-less completely unable to use fighter aircraft against ships.

As for the aircraft-versus-subs debate, I think it would be -fair- for aircraft to openly attack submarines in a sea square adjoining a friendly land territory (subs blockading Britain, for example), but be unable to attack other subs except in the presence of a friendly destroyer.


I think that strategic effect of the presence of enemy submarines in sea zones is precisely what every grand strategic game needs. Submarines were strategic weapons, just as heavy bombers were. In fact, I'd reduce the participation of bomber units in land combat to no more than one-shot support like battleships in amphibious assaults. This would emphasise bomber units as strategic weapons what in reality they were.
I agree with you that the rules for subs are a little weak. They only have a 1-in-3 chance of hitting, and are so cheap that it's economical to take them as early casualties to save your other ships. With destroyers in the game, I think that subs should be more powerful and more expensive, but more limited. Here is a short list of ideas, not all (any, really) of which are meant to be used in conjunction with the others:

1) Submarines attack on a 3, defend on a 1. Submarines are -attack- craft, and reasonably good at it. Super subs could make this a 4 attack, making them very fearsome, especially in groups.

2) Submarines which can first-strike can choose their own targets. This one is okay, but would also lead to someone ganging up 10 subs on a battleship.

3) Submarines which can 'first-strike' can attack and then immediately submerge with no chance of retaliation. This would be fun, especially combined with number 4.

4) Submarines first-strike on the defense, as well as the attack. This would allow subs to immediately submerge, unless an enemy destroyer were joining the fight.

Of that list, I would best like to see 3 and 4 (or some variation thereof) in the game. I'd -really- like to see 1, 3, and 4 in the game, making subs very powerful except against destroyers. In that case, I think the cost of subs should be raised to 12. That way, submarines would rival destroyers in attack power, be useless in defense, but be able to avoid combat except when directly threatened by ASW-capable enemies.

--Epicedion

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

This is sheer digression: I think 1000 might be a little ambitious,RAF had around 1500 fighters in UK in mid 1942. Add the various light bombers, ground support aircraft and other types represented by fighter unit and there is enough to justify the 1000 aircraft per unit. In 1942 Bomber Command staged a famous "Millenium Raid" against Cologne using 1000 bombers although most of them were older two engined types.

The ratio matches the combined strengths of Luftwaffe, Regia Aeronautica and Rumanian, Hungarian and Finnish air forces. Soviet air forces is underrepresented while Japanese is overrepresented.

The point remains that most of them didn't have radar, making it very difficult for even a large-ish group of them to find a lone sub in, say, the North Atlantic.This is why I argue against fighters employed in ASW.

Most carrier-based fighters were also used as land-based fighters. Making distinctions there would be better reserved for a much smaller-scale game, especially since Germany (with its distinct lack of aircraft carriers) would be more-or-less completely unable to use fighter aircraft against ships.It's not about the aircraft. It's about the pilots. Relatively small percentage of air force pilots were trained in navigation over the ocean and the anti-shipping combat. Such training is more expensive too. Thus, it makes sense to me that only more expensive units (that are also long ranged) should be allowed to stage attacks on the naval targets.

And yes, I do want to prevent completely ahistorical wipe up of the Royal Navy by Luftwaffe on the turn 1 of both, regular A&A and A&A: Europe.

Most Luftwaffe pilots had absolutely no training in anti-shipping combat in 1942. If German player wants to attack ships, let him train (purchase) the specialised units (bombers) to do so.

I would not like for submarines to become as strong as destroyers or battleships. In WW2, submarines were slow submersible torpedo boats capable of sinking even slower merchants and ambushing the warships. Historical "supersubs" (German Type XXI U-boats) did not "attack at 3". They were more difficult to track. In game turns, they should be impossible to attack, even by destroyers.

Drax

[thrasher]

FROM MIKE: The original layout of the entire world with convoy boxes had somewhere between fifteen and twenty boxes, almost all of which belonged to the Allies. (The area in A&A Europe covered by convoy boxes represents one-eighth of the A&A board.) Not only did this create a tremendous amount of clutter on the map, it created many more sites that the Allies had to defend.

Hmmm. Did you try a board with only 8 or so boxes (3 in Atlantic, 4 in Pacific, 1 in Indian Ocean for example)?

Personally I really hoped for AAE/AAP-style boxes in this upcoming game!

thrasher,
http://axisandallies.TK
FORUM: http://pub50.ezboard.com/bthrashersaxisandalliesforums

[fldmrshl]

Uhh.. wait a minute.. I see a convoy box in the picture on this week's update... Didn't someone proclaim that they were not going to happen?

[Epicedion]

Look closely and you'll see that that's a shot of the A&A: Europe board.

--Epicedion

[Desert Fox]

Yeah, to bad they didn't show us even a tiny bit off the new board. :(

[Epicedion]

Submarine 'strategic bombing' is an idea with merit, and would solve the convoy debate quite nicely. I'm concerned, though, that a 'strategic bombing' ability for submarines would not work very well, or very often. Maybe this would work as a mechanic:

1) Submarine(s) can declare a 'convoy attack' by combat-moving into a sea square adjacent to an enemy Industrial Complex.

2) Opposing Destroyers and Fighters in the sea zone can each make one attempt to destroy the submarine(s) before it attacks, each getting a 'hit' on a d6 roll of 1, like with Anti-Aircraft fire (maybe Destroyers should hit on a roll of 2, would require testing).

3) If submarine(s) survives, d6 (per surviving sub) IPCs are lost by the country that owns the IC, due to the sinking of transport and merchant vessels.

4) Submarine submerges, no further retaliation possible that turn.

It would be a little too much for the 'basic' game, but might make a nice optional or house rule.

--Epicedion

[amazingmg]

Unfortunately, convoy boxes were too complex to make the transference to the "basic" game. We had thresholds as to how much complexity we would add into the game, and convoy boxes were not deemed to have enough payoff to justify their additional complexity. (There was a huge list of items that fit this description. I've already mentioned that fighter escorts on bombing runs didn't make this cut, for example. But convoys were at the top of the list of things that we regrettably couldn't include.)

I expect convoys will be one of the first additions that internet players will add to their games, though. It's a popular option, and it's a great aspect of Europe and Pacific.

Mike Why not just include the convoy zones on the map, but make it an optional rule?

That way there would be a concensus among players who do want to use the convoy zones as to where they are, what their values are, etc.?

I know you have to make the game palatable for the masses, but it does seem like you are watering down what could be the ultimate A&A game for die hard fans.

<shrug>

Not trying to be overly critical, just honest.

[solitaire77]

Ironically only 5.8% of U-boats lost in the war were lost due to combined actions of surface ships and airpower.

(38.7% due to airpower at sea and 29.0% due to ships)

Gamebalance is clearly more important than historical statistics though! Historically Germany lost 100% of the world wars that they entered. Not much of a game.

...but I digress... Here's my logic on A&A subs (for better or worse)...

1. Axis and Allies is a strategic game with tactical considerations
2. Bombers are (to subs) the only other unit that was used tactically and strategically.
3. Bombers have special rules for their strategic use.
4. Therefore submarines should have special rules for their strategic use.

As A&A rules stand, subs are used tactically... 100% of the time. Historically they were used tactially 14.4% of the time in the Pacific war (meaning US subs sank 7 merchants for every 1 warship 1941-45).

My suggestion for a rule to test would be:
Submarines using combat movement to enter a seazone with a corresponding industrial complex should be able to use their combat move to roll a D6 to destroy that many IPC just like a bomber, in place of their combat movement.

I can't say I've tested it, but it is the sort of idea that I think historians among us are looking for.

[ January 18, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: solitaire77 ]

[Darken]

1) Submarines attack on a 3, defend on a 1. Submarines are -attack- craft, and reasonably good at it. Super subs could make this a 4 attack, making them very fearsome, especially in groups.Nice idea. Perhaps you also like my two additions to your idea.

Subs attack on a 3 and defend on a 1. If a sub is hit in an opponent's turn by enemy vessels/planes and you throw a 1 you can decide whether the sub also sinks an opponent or dives in time (this saves the sub).

A player loosing transports by attacking (not defending) subs looses 1D3 IPCs per sunken transport, too. This represents a successful strike against freighters and tankers.

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by Epicedion:
I'm concerned, though, that a 'strategic bombing' ability for submarines would not work very well, or very often. Undoubtedly I am concerned about allowing an eight IPC unit a d6 IPC attack per turn, since it is now reserved for a fifteen IPC unit.

Maybe this would work as a mechanic:

1) Submarine(s) can declare a 'convoy attack' by combat-moving into a sea square adjacent to an enemy Industrial Complex.

2) Opposing Destroyers and Fighters in the sea zone can each make one attempt to destroy the submarine(s) before it attacks, each getting a 'hit' on a d6 roll of 1, like with Anti-Aircraft fire (maybe Destroyers should hit on a roll of 2, would require testing).

3) If submarine(s) survives, d6 (per surviving sub) IPCs are lost by the country that owns the IC, due to the sinking of transport and merchant vessels.

4) Submarine submerges, no further retaliation possible that turn.

Not a bad idea.

I must admit, my thought was much simpler (although not necessarily better). I was actually thinking that the seazone would have to be clear of enemy units (or atleast clear of DDs, and CVs) to do a strategic submarine raid... which from my Axis and Allies games would mean that the rule would come up rarely.

I rarely see the Eastern USA, or British Isle seazone empty, and I can't remeber an empty sea zone around Nippon unless the war was already effectively over.

I might just have to figure this one out for submarines once the game is out if there isn't a strategic rule for them already.