Submarines: Griffey / Krieghund

Closing in... This will be a slower and more deliberate process. It starts with Submarines and moves on from there. This is how I see it. Tell me what's wrong or right about each section. It's in your hands.
User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Submarines: Griffey / Krieghund

Post by Larry » Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:24 pm

...Griffey and Krieghund - I moved your posting to here. I want to keep the sticky clear. I'm kind of sticky about that. Let me answer your quesitons.

Griffey



Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Houston
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:22 am Post subject: ENR, Subs-on-Station

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Can only friendly destroyers, friendly cruisers, and enemy submarines enter a convoy zones? Or can aircraft carriers and their fighters defend convoy zones from ENR ? There is no mention of them, although small carriers played a big role providing air cover for convoys.

2. Or may any sort of friendly or enemy units enter convoy zones?

3 . If the answer to 2.) is "yes," is it accurate then to say that a convoy zone is simply a sea zone, different from other sea zones only because in it, IPC are vulnerable to special ENR attacks?

The answer is yes. I don't want to force a restriction on what can move in and what can't move in. I think I'm going to place the Convoy Zones "inside" the sea zones. In that way anybody entering the convoy zone will be there for convoy business - not simply moving through. Moving in and out of the CZ will cost you a movement.

4. Is there no maximum limit to the total number of IPC which submarines may destroy in a sea zone?

As Krieghund said "No more than the total IPC value of the convoy zone can be lost per attack."

5. If, by some odd twist of gaming fate, Axis surface combat units took control of the North Atlanitic, would they be unable to enter a convoy zone? If they could enter a convoy zone, what would be their effect on Allied IPC income be during the ENR Phase? The same holds for Allied surface combat units taking over Japanese convoy zones. It would be highly paradoxical if a complete blockade by enemy surface combat ships could have no effect on friendly IPC income, while a merely partial blockade by enemy submarines could have an unlimited effect on friendly IPC income.

Krieghund wrote -My take on this is that surface ships should also be allowed to do ENRs, but only if there are no enemy vessels in the convoy zone. If there are such vessels, normal naval combat should take place. I have suggested this to Larry, but he doesn't seem to be biting on it. --- I agree with all this. This makes perfect sense.

6. Can a sub-on-station during enemy combat movement or during enemy non-combat movement strike once each time a new enemy unit (or a new enemy taskforce) moves into its sea zone? This seems to be what the rule is saying. Or is the sub-on-station limited to striking once and only once per enemy movement phase? If the latter is the case, could a moving enemy "trick" the submarine into striking at a decoy enemy unit, and then later move his important units (say, loaded transports) through the sea zone?

I don't want little battles occurring each time a ship moves into a sea zone. Battles would be concluded after all movement is concluded in each movement phase. The combat movement phase and the non combat movement phase.
Back to top


Krieghund



Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 232
Location: Richmond, VA
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: ENR, Subs-on-Station

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Griffey wrote:
1. Can only friendly destroyers, friendly cruisers, and enemy submarines enter a convoy zones? Or can aircraft carriers and their fighters defend convoy zones from ENR ? There is no mention of them, although small carriers played a big role providing air cover for convoys.

2. Or may any sort of friendly or enemy units enter convoy zones?

3 . If the answer to 2.) is "yes," is it accurate then to say that a convoy zone is simply a sea zone, different from other sea zones only because in it, IPC are vulnerable to special ENR attacks?


IMHO, the answers to these questions will only be available when the final nature of convoy zones is decided.

As I wrote above... I don't want to restrict what can and can't enter a Convoy zone.

Griffey wrote:
4. Is there no maximum limit to the total number of IPC which submarines may destroy in a sea zone?


"No more than the total IPC value of the convoy zone can be lost per attack."

Griffey wrote:
5. If, by some odd twist of gaming fate, Axis surface combat units took control of the North Atlanitic, would they be unable to enter a convoy zone? If they could enter a convoy zone, what would be their effect on Allied IPC income be during the ENR Phase? The same holds for Allied surface combat units taking over Japanese convoy zones. It would be highly paradoxical if a complete blockade by enemy surface combat ships could have no effect on friendly IPC income, while a merely partial blockade by enemy submarines could have an unlimited effect on friendly IPC income.


My take on this is that surface ships should also be allowed to do ENRs, but only if there are no enemy vessels in the convoy zone. If there are such vessels, normal naval combat should take place. I have suggested this to Larry, but he doesn't seem to be biting on it. I agree with this

Griffey wrote:
6. Can a sub-on-station during enemy combat movement or during enemy non-combat movement strike once each time a new enemy unit (or a new enemy taskforce) moves into its sea zone? This seems to be what the rule is saying. Or is the sub-on-station limited to striking once and only once per enemy movement phase? If the latter is the case, could a moving enemy "trick" the submarine into striking at a decoy enemy unit, and then later move his important units (say, loaded transports) through the sea zone?


My take on the rule is that the strike happens each time an enemy unit moves in.

Lets just wait till all movement is concluded. I know that some are just passing through. These guys probably will have to be dealt with separately. I think the sub rules will have to be up dated to reflect these issues. Do you want to make suggestions to me how or what they may be?_________________
- Krieghund

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Griffey
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Houston

Sea Zones

Post by Griffey » Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:22 pm

What tangled webs we weave when new game zones we conceive.

Surely it would be easier simply to give IPC income to sea zones, in the same manner territories have IPC income. The map would also look nicer. Convoy zones look like the pox . . .

The IPC income of sea zones may be labelled with the abbreviated name of the Industrial Complex territory or territories which could use the income. "E.g., Japan," "U.K.," "Eastern USA," "Germany," "Italy," "New South Wales"etc.

Some sea zones would produce IPC for more than one Industrial Complex (IC) territory. For example, the Caribbean Sea, through which the tanker trade of oil rich, neutral Venezuela flowed, would be of subtsantial IPC value to both sides.

Some sz would produce different amounts of IPC income for different IC territories. E.g., the Borneo sz might produce 2 or 3 IPC for Japan, but only 1 IPC for the U.K.

Some sea zones' IPC income would be available to more than one allied power. For example, either Germany, Italy, or Japan would have benefited if its trade with neutral Argentina and Chile could have been reopened.

Control of sea zones by surface combat ships would assign the IPC income of the sea zone unambiguously to the controlling power. This would certainly give the new CRUISER unit something to do other than look pretty.

IPCs in sea zones would give players an unambiguous strategic reason to build naval units: control of sea zones. This, combined with substantial reductions in the IPC costs of naval units, would bring the naval war into play in an exciting way.

If the game starts in AD 1942, I imagine Japan's IPC income would be about 50% in sea zones; about 33% of the British Empire's IPCs would be in sea zones; about 15% of America's, and about 10% of the Axis's income would be in sz. This adjustement would involve reducing some of the UK's and Japan's IPC income and putting it in the sea zones.

Woodrow Wilson viewed unrestricted submarine warfare as a type of illegal warfare, a type of terrorism. The effect of it is to deny the economic benefit of a sea zone to its owner, without generating any economic benefit to the terrorist. Guerilla or terroristic warfare on land, when it is effective, is similar in its effect. Subs and terrorists both work by sneaking around inexpensively, and using surprise. The economic burden to the victim lies as much or even more in the expensive countermeasures he must undertake, as in the actual destruction of the attacks. Crime in civilian life has much the same effect.

That's why the mere presence of a submarine in a sea zone could subtract from the sea zone's IPC income value. But, if we want dice rolls for the submarine destruction of IPC, they should be on a very high hit number, such as three dice per submarine, at "11" on d12. Each destroyer, carrier, and fighter in the sz would have the effect of reducing the hit number of all submarines in the sea zone by one. For example, if there were two destroyers in the sea zone, the hit numbers of the subs there in the ENR Phase would be reduced from "11" to "9."

I imagine targeted attacks against submarines, in the normal combat phases, at a special low hit number, such as "1" on d12, by destroyers, fighters, bombers, and carriers only. The hit number should be increased to "2" on d12 if a special "ASW" tech is acquired.

Submarines, as usual, should be able to "submerge" and leave the combat after one round.

In the normal combat phases, submarines should target enemy ships lacking a 1:1 destroyer escort, and hit them on a high d12 die roll of "8." If all ships are escorted, then the sub would fire in combat at "4" on d12.

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:28 pm

I must admit, I’m intrigued.
Please answer the following questions –

What exactly does a sea zone income represent?
I assume that most sea zones would not have a value. (?)
Would there be a need for Convoy zones?

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Submarines In Advanced A&A

Post by Krieghund » Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:06 pm

Larry wrote:...Griffey and Krieghund - I moved your posting to here. I want to keep the sticky clear. I'm kind of sticky about that. Let me answer your quesitons.
Glad to see you're policing this - it was getting confusing!
Larry wrote:Krieghund wrote:
My take on this is that surface ships should also be allowed to do ENRs, but only if there are no enemy vessels in the convoy zone. If there are such vessels, normal naval combat should take place. I have suggested this to Larry, but he doesn't seem to be biting on it. I agree with this
Woo hoo!
Larry wrote:Griffey wrote:
6. Can a sub-on-station during enemy combat movement or during enemy non-combat movement strike once each time a new enemy unit (or a new enemy taskforce) moves into its sea zone? This seems to be what the rule is saying. Or is the sub-on-station limited to striking once and only once per enemy movement phase? If the latter is the case, could a moving enemy "trick" the submarine into striking at a decoy enemy unit, and then later move his important units (say, loaded transports) through the sea zone?

I don't want little battles occurring each time a ship moves into a sea zone. Battles would be concluded after all movement is concluded in each movement phase. The combat movement phase and the non combat movement phase.
Sorry, I just read this one wrong the first time. I agree it is better to do sub attacks at the end of each movement phase, and I realize that was your intention.
Larry wrote:Lets just wait till all movement is concluded. I know that some are just passing through. These guys probably will have to be dealt with separately. I think the sub rules will have to be up dated to reflect these issues. Do you want to make suggestions to me how or what they may be?
I think the best thing to do here is treat subs on station kind of the way AA is treated now. After all movement is declared and executed, resolve any sea zones containing subs that were passed through in the order desired by the moving player, with all zones "passed thru" resolved before destination zones. If a ship was destroyed passing thru a zone, just remove it before resolving the destination battles.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:13 pm

Griffey, the biggest problem I have with this sea zones having IPC values concept of yours is that it divorces convoy zone values from the income of land territories. This means there is no way to interdict income traveling by sea from remote areas. This is purely a "realism" issue for me, rather than a game mechanics one.

I feel that convoy zones should represent the connection between "home areas" and remote provinces and the vulnerability of moving resources by sea. This was best embodied in the A&A Pacific convoy zone paradigm, and was much better than the A&A Europe representation of boxes at sea representing abstract income.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Griffey
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Houston

What Sea Zone Income Represent

Post by Griffey » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:17 pm

Dear Larry & Krieghund,

The answer to Larry's first question is rather lengthy, as it also answers Krieghund's objection. The answers to Larry's questions 2) and 3) are much shorter.

1. Sea zone IPC income represents all economic utilities from trade, and also from fishing and whaling, which were considerable economic activities for countries such as Japan, the USA, Britain, and Canada.

It also represents POTENTIAL IPC income, which is cut off due to enemy surface naval unit blockade. For example, the Axis has potential IPC income in the Western Mediterranean, in the sz west of Gibraltar in the Atlantic, and in the North Sea and the North Atlantic, that is cut off by the occupation of these sz by British cruisers and other Allied surface warships.

"Trade" as I conceive it includes both the domestic coastal trade, which was and is massive, and also the international and transoceanic trade.

Sea zone IPC income represents the added war-making economic power produced from all of the above activites. And it represents more:

Economic trade utility in a sea zone is not just the actual trade item moved from an economic colony or fishing area to an industrial complex. It represents the time, money and fuel saved by using the direct sea route through the sea zone INSTEAD of the alternatives, viz.:

a) a more expensive sea trade route (e.g., using the Cape of Good Hope instead of the Mediterranean),
b) dubious and expensive neutral country trade go-betweens (e.g., the Portuguese, Swiss or Swedes, and neutral carriers);
c) expensive overland routes (e.g., the Burma Road);
d) air transportation.

The IPC income of sea zones also represents the economic benefit of using items moved by sea rather than using home substitutes. (Ersatz, as the Germans said.) For example, in World War One the British stopped using timber beams in the construction of homes and businesses, because the beams were needed to support the all-important coal mines. The Germans had looked at the pre-war figures on how much imported timber the British coal industry used, and calculated that a U-boat blockade of timber imports would cause the British coal industry to collapse. They underestimated how much substitute timber could be salvaged from demolished buildings, unused mines, etc. In game terms, they overestimated how much of Britain's IPC war income was sea zone dependent. (That's why I don't think that more than 33% or so of the British Empire's IPC income should be in the sea zones.) But the main point is that when a trade good fails to make it to a consuming industrial country, the consumer country can always to some extent offset the loss with some home economy. The unavailable good's value is not entirely lost, it is partially substituted with something else. Still it would be better to have the imported good, and this increment of utility is what the sea zone IPC income represents, among other things. All of this is why I favor treating trade abstractly rather than by moving tokens. Also, it's a helluva lot easier as in game mechanics.

Many territories had virtually no war value except for their sea trade through the ambient sea zones. For example, Sumatra and Borneo had no economic use to Japan except as the Japanese oil tankers could make it there and back to Japan. In their case, I would make the actual islands worth very little, the sea zones surrounding worth much more. E.g., the Japanese used their new southeast Asian colonies for slave labor and for production of food and other comforts for their troops, but most of their war utility from controlling these places was strictly sea-dependent. That was not true of places like Australia and India, where the colonial power had light industry and loyal subject-warriors.

2. Many sea zones in the game would not have any IPC income value. In the south Indian Ocean, the far South Pacific Ocean, the far North Pacific, and the middle South Atlantic, there wouldn't be much IPC income, because there wasn't any trade or potential trade there. Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, San-Francisco-Sydney (@ Solomon Is.) and Australian Bight zones would be exceptions.

3. There is no need for convoy zones, as the sea zone is itself an area of economic activity, just as much as a territory is.



[/i]

Griffey
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Houston

Sea Zone IPC income list

Post by Griffey » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:42 pm

Dear Larry,

Using the A&A Revised Map's sz identification numbers, I'd be happy to make out a revised list of IPC income at various territories and sea zones, as of June 1942, which is the approximate start date of that game. The scheme could easily be translated to a new, more detailed map for A&A Advanced.

Your humble servant,

Griffey.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:17 am

I understand what you are saying, Griffey, and for the most part I agree. But I think what is missing is the relationship between the sea zone income and the land territories the sea zone relates to. Control of the sea by itself will not net you all of the benefits, just as control of the land will not. True, control of the sea zone gets you the benefits of the sea itself, but controlling the land territory gets you the labor and raw materials, as well as the port facilities to move them. Both are needed to realize the full income potential of the area, and the economic value of each is dependent on the other.

As I mentioned earlier, the economic system in Pacific captured this interrelationship simply, but that is not to say it cannot be improved upon. Perhaps each should have its own value, but a bonus should accrue for owning "the set".
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests