Convoys

[Yoper]

I have two convoy questions:

1) The Murmansk and Soviet Far East Convoys- Are these two convoys only Lend-Lease convoys or are they dual purpose convoys like the ones in the North Atlantic?

I attacked the Murmansk convoy thinking that I could hit it like I do the UK convoys in the North Atlantic (the upper half of those convoys- not the lower half Lend-Lease part), but the USSR player and I then started to mull over that wording of the convoy.  We decided that the wording was more like the wording of the various Lend-Lease convoys that are on the map.

The Murmansk convoy is worded differently than the other Lend-Lease convoys in that it doesn't have the usual send (x) pp to get (y) pp through.  I take it that in its case, the full amount sent can actually reach the USSR.

2) The Japanese supply convoys in the sea zones south of the Philippines-  Can these convoys be attacked by the Western Allies even if the Japan doesn't control the seazone or any of the territories (islands) in the area? 

The game we are playing just had the Japanese attack Peral Harbor.  A lone US sub is down near Australia and is running up into one of the Japanese supply convoys that is actually south of the "Blue Line".  The Japanese have not passed into these sea zone yet in the game.   Are they viable targets at this time?

Craig

[Mark]

Hi Yoper - I hope you guys were able to play and not get bogged down into the rules too much - but it appears they were lots of questions - sorry for that.

1) The Murmansk convoy is lend lease only - so chips (PP) need to be placed there by the US or Britain for the Germans to have anything to sink - it does not have an intrinsic convoy value like the zones in the North Atlantic.  It is a 1:1 PP investment to return ration for the Soviets - it was the easiest way to get them war material (but also the most dangerous).

Note: Per the rules, the Japanese can't attack Lend Lease to Russia via the North Pacific unless they are at war with Russia

[Yoper]

What about the Japanese convoys?

Craig

[Mark]

The question regarding the Japanese convoy zones is a good one and not addressed in the rules (yet . . . but by GenCon it will be  ). I'll email you a fresh copy (and one to everyone else that bought a game once we have addressed all of your questions).

This is how I would suggest addressing the Japanese convoy question: Â They can only be strategically attacked if the sea zone is Japanese owned and "in supply" (i.e. the sea zone can trace a line of supply back to the Japanese home islands). Â I would play it this way and not consider ownership of certain islands - if the Japanese move into the Dutch East Indies - they better control the islands! Â Their merchant ships would be trying to ship oil our other raw materials out of their anyway.

That's my take on it and the way I will put it into the rulebook unless there are too many objections.

[Yoper]

I argued that they hadn't even taken control of those sea zones, let alone control the territories that the supplies would be coming from. 

The UK player talked about the supplies that were coming from the DEI prior to war breaking out. 

I let it slide, but wrote it down to ask you.

We only go in two more turns (three total for the '41 scenario so far) on Friday night.  The going is slow while we get used to the mechanics of the game.  The Japanese player is really our slowest learner when it comes to new games, so it has been a bit tough to move at a good pace.

Craig

[Mark]

I recall this question on the DEI convoy zones came up a while ago in play testing and I failed to write it down and address it at the time

I think, at the time, we took the same course of action as your group did:  There was some debate, but we let the Allies attack the convoy zones anyway.

Scratch my suggested "patch" above.  I could see a situation arising where the Japanese take the DEI while avoiding the convoy sea zones altogether and creating another loophole.

Without creating a more complex rule to cover this situation, I think you have to let the allies go ahead and attack Japanese convoys in the DEI for two reasons: 1) There would be considerable Japanese merchant traffic down there anyway and 2) It was a key strategic objective for the Japanese to take the DEI anyway - so they might as well take them, if they are going to potentially lose points to convoy attacks anyway.

My current take on this problem. . .

[Yoper]

Another example similar to the Japanese convoys in the DEI area is the Italian convoy in the Med.

What would these convoys really symbolize once the Italians are kicked out of North Africa?

It would seem that this convoy should become inactive once the Itallians no longer have a presence in NA.

It just adds insult to an already tough situation for them (the roll for collapse) to have some of their minuscule income strategically attacked when there is no actually territory that the resources can be coming from!

Craig

[Erc]

I would like to raise another convoy related issue.  In the strategic bombing rules, the amount of damage is limited to the value of the territory.  While the same holds true for convoys, they have a limit shown on the map, these limits in some cases exceed the amount of PP being shipped through these zones.

One example would be the Italian convoy when the Italians do not control any PP in NA.  Another would be the three convoy zones in the DEI area in which a max of 5 PP per zone for a total of 15 PP could be inflicted upon the Japanese.  I believe the entire DEI is only worth 8 PP.

I understand that a new rule revision limits the amount of total convoy damage that can be inflicted upon the UK and Japan.  Perhaps these limits could be tied to the amount of PP being transported through the convoy zones.  For example, the Italian convoy zone, the limit could be set at the current amount of PP that the Italians are drawing from NA and the Middle East.  This number could be greater or less than 3.

I know this would create some extra book keeping during the game, but it may be worth the extra effort. 

[Mark]

Yeah - I am not 100% happy with the convoy rules in the game - but they seem to work 'good enough' until something better gets suggested - need some good magic bullet rules here that have not come up yet. . .

I think (again this is in my head) that the convoy values do not represent production points getting shipped from one territory to another - I think this is a hlod over from how A&A tried to deal with convoys.

Instead they represent something more foundational I think.  Even if all of England's production points were in the UK - if the British were completely blockaded by U-boats, they would have no oil and not enough food to feed themselves for starters (same thing with Japan).  what I am trying to say is convoys are not production points moving - they really are "exposures" (only net negative) on the ability to build things - the dependency that certain economies had on the sea to get the materials needed to let their production points do the work.

Originally, we allowed England and Japan to get torpedoed down to no ability to build units.  But, in the end, felt that maybe that was to aggressive and that, even if completely blockaded, they should be able to build something - that's why we let them build to the home island limit - but maybe it should be something else - this'fix' does not feel completely like the tight way to do things either. 

[Yoper]

I agree that the country dependent on the convoys shouldn't be knocked down to O PPs. 

I also understand that the convoys represent the raw materials/resources that are moving from territories to the maufacturing centers.

I just think that there should be some instances where certain convoys are attached to certain territories.

There are Lend Lease territories/convoys that are tied in different ways to territories and/or ports.

Many of the UK convoys are understandably generic since they represent shipping lanes from many places, but the Italian and Japanese convoys are labeled as convoys coming from places that they may not control.

That is the problem I see.  If they don't control the associated territory, why would they be receiving resources from it?

This a place where the A&A Pacific idea, of the territory and the convoy being linked in such a way that one must control the convoy to receive the PPs from the territory, is a good one.

Craig

[Bobsalt]

An old topic, but here's my 2 cents nonetheless (and part of my effort to make the board more lively)...

In the Pacific, I don't have such an issue with the convoys being theoretically more than the DEI. The convoy losses there could be viewed as being not just the loss of the resources (oil?) being transported, but also the value of the merchant ships sunk, as well as the resources used in patrolling that area, etc.

With Italy, I think the Med convoy should be a viable target so long as Italy has at least one territory left in NA. Once they are completely out of Africa, I think they have a good argument that the convoy shouldn't be able to be attacked any longer (unless they get back into Africa, which would probably be unlikely). I guess you could do the same for Japan, but as an island nation with few natural resources Japan was far more dependent on the import of food and raw materials than Italy. I really doubt this would become an issue, though, since the Japanese really can't afford not to take the DEI once at war.

[John D.]

Wow - You are hitting on some of things we have recently playtested (and plan on changing).

Italy especially. 

[smckenzie]

In a similar vein.

last night I was plunking British Convoys.

Who decides what points are lost when there is a choice between Lend Lease and "regular" point losses?

We were playing that before you hit the LL points you need to inflict the 10PP lost that is the normal value of the Convoy printed on the map.  But this was becoming irrelevant to me, as the British had already lost much of their overseas PP.

[John D.]

Unless I am missing something, it really should not make any difference  -  just consider the sea zone to be vulnerable the total PPs that the zone is inherently worth plus additional lend lease. The source of the PPs does not have any bearing on production.

John

[smckenzie]

If the British had already been reduced to their 19 flagged VP, either because of conquest, or previously strategic warfare results, well then it would make a difference whether or not I had to hit the 10 intrinsic PP before I hit the LL, or if I could hit LL first.

The way we played it effectively some amount of my SW shots were lost, but nonethe less LL git through.

We subsequently reread the rule and doubted if we had played it right.

I had a ton of submarines.  Just about every British convoy was being fired at, by the time I got to the last North Atlantic convoy I had already eliminated PP so that all that was left was the Flagged PP, which I can't hit, and then the LL.