But, after too many games…if there is such a thing…I don’t see how the current 2nd edition rules for convoy disruption are fair play.
How can these rules be fair play when units attacking convoy sea zones can attack military units there AND conduct a convoy raid in the same round? How is it fair play that any unit can conduct two attacks in a single round?
Example: round one of 95% of all games, the UK attacks Italy in sz95. After they win that battle, those units that conducted an attack on the UK turn now get the opportunity to conduct a convoy raid on Italy’s collect income phase of the same round of play; those UK units, in effect, conducted two attacks in the same round.
For those that say a convoy raid is not an attack, how can it not be an attack when strategic bombing raids, an attack on a powers IPC rather than an attack on a powers military units, is an attack? Units conducting strategic bombing raids cannot also be involved in another attack in the same round. Units conducting a strategic bombing raid must choose, on their combat move, to conduct a combat attack or conduct a strategic bombing raid (an attack); they only get one attack per round. Units conducting convoy raids should also get only one attack per round.
If you don’t think this is an issue in the game, play a few games on tripleA with a bid; players use a bid to build subs for the UK to assist in the attack into sz95 and to then increase the damage they do on their convoy raiding of that same round.
Most games, in the pacific half of the map, because of turn order, this is not as obvious to players but it’s still happening, just in reverse order. It’s hard to see happening in the pacific and because it’s hard to see it happening it feels like fair play but I still believe it’s not fair play even on that half of the map.
For example, if an allied power, in the pacific, conducts a convoy raid on a Japanese convoy zone on japans collect income phase, they still have the potential to make an attack on their combat phase, so they could (and often do) conduct two attacks in the same round. Not fair, imo.
This double attack advantage of units attacking a sea zone and conducting a convoy raid can possibly be done by the axis against the allies but it’s very rarely happening primarily due to turn order and positioning of allied new build locations compared to axis new build locations in relation to their proximity to the convoy zones. For example, on the Europe side of the map, the UK can and often does build destroyers off the coast of Canada (sz) and air units in the UK to rid sz of axis subs. So while the axis can attack sea units and then could conduct a convoy raid there, they are not getting the opportunity to do so because of turn order and those location relations; this is a big part of the reason why the UK players don’t really fear convoy raids (like they should) but Italy gets crippled by convoy raids. Because in the med, and because of turn order, if Italy builds any destroyers to deal with subs in their Mediterranean convey sea zones, those destroyers will get sunk and they will still get raided in the same round by the same UK units. So not only is this not fair play, but it cripples the Axis more in Europe then it does the allies in Europe.
This double attack advantage also cripples Japan in the pacific…more than it SHOULD. Yes, japan should (and does) fear convoy raiding, but they should not be getting sea units attacked and convoy raided by the same attacking units in the same round. It’s not fair.
so, not that it matters, but that's what I think about the current rules.
I also still really dislike how the convoy zones function. I like their locations, and having them makes the "system" simple, but its still Bass Ackwards imo when you consider that Italy can get convoy raided for 80% of its starting income when only 20% of its starting income comes from "over seas" and the UK (for example) can only get convoy raided around their home island for a max of 28% of their starting income when (if they build all of their new units from the UK IC) they would need to ship in 62% of their income from over seas. its backwards!
When enemy ships park off your coast, essentially blocking incoming and outgoing trade, this is disrupts your convoys.
The enemy ships do not need to attack the convoy, merely block it to prevent it from reaching shore.
When you roll for convoy disruptions, you are not being attacked, you are rolling to see if and how much convoy will slip through the blockade.
If it was an attack would not the owner of the ships roll the dice?
Per the existing current letter of the rules, you’re correct; convoy disruptions are not an “attack”. But I’m arguing that a convoy disruption is an attack and should be treated as one.Uncrustable wrote:Convoy disruptions are not an attack.
I don’t believe convoy disruptions are the same thing as a blockade. To blockade someone implies you’re not sinking their cargo ships that are carrying IPC. In the game, those IPC are clearly being sunk because the IPC that is lost during a convoy disruption is gone for good, never to be seen again. It’s at the bottom of the ocean, sunk. Blockade implies that those IPC that got “blockaded” are still floating around some place waiting to get beyond the blockade. Those IPC are not floating around some place, they are lost…for good, forever; their sunk. For a cargo ship to be sunk, it has to be attacked.Uncrustable wrote:When enemy ships park off your coast, essentially blocking incoming and outgoing trade, this is disrupts your convoys.The enemy ships do not need to attack the convoy, merely block it to prevent it from reaching shore.When you roll for convoy disruptions, you are not being attacked, you are rolling to see if and how much convoy will slip through the blockade.
Let’s compare the two; convoy disruptions & strategic bombing raids.
The current 2nd edition rule book says this about them….
Conduct Convoy Disruptions:
The economy of many nations is based on moving tons of resources across vast spans of ocean. In wartime, and especially during World War II, this movement was vital. Cargo ships (not to be confused with the game’s transport ships, which carry military units) often formed convoys for mutual support and protection. These convoys are subject to attack by enemy warships.
Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids:
A strategic or tactical bombing raid is a direct attack on a facility. During this step, you can bomb enemy industrial complexes, air bases, and naval bases with your strategic bombers. You can also bomb enemy air and naval bases (but not industrial complexes) with your tactical bombers. When you damage these facilities, their capabilities are decreased or eliminated, and your enemy must spend IPCs to repair them in order to restore those capabilities. Repairs can be made by the units’ controlling player during his or her Purchase and Repair Units phase (see “Purchase and Repair Units,” page 11).
While the mechanics of how convoy raids currently work give the impression that a convoy disruption is not an “attack”, the rule book describes both convoy disruptions and strategic bombing raids as an “attack”. and the reality of it is that they are both an attack, an attack against IPC instead of an attack against enemy combat units. So, Again, I argue that while convoy raids do not play as an attack in the game, they are an attack and need to be played as an attack.
I argue right now, because they grant players the ability to conduct two attacks in one round with the same units, that its not fair play. no unit in the game should be allowed to conduct two attacks in one round of play.
Yes, since a convoy disruption is an attack there should be a “defense roll” against convoy attacks just like there is a defense roll against bombing raids.Uncrustable wrote:If it was an attack would not the owner of the ships roll the dice?
It is a blockade.
Your convoys attempts to run the blockade, some ships and cargo are lost, some make it to to shore. Hence why you roll for your convoy on your turn.
It is not even remotely similar to strategic bombing raids.
SBR is an attack deep in enemy territory, against enemy facilities that are protected by AA guns, and in some cases interceptors.
And the attack does not even generate IPCs lost directly.
Rather it damages your facilities and you can choose to repair them or not.
It is actually by definition a defense.
Your convoy is attempting to get through a hostile sea zone.
My ships will defend said zone against your incoming convoy.
Each of my ships gets to roll a defensive dice
You roll simply to sea if any convoy survives 'running the gauntlet'
And I for one love the setup, its simple and makes a lot of sense
1) I guess you would set up convoy attacks at the same time as your normal battles (declare what units are doing what). You could also set-up sea battles to clear a convoy zone of enemy ships, and set your convoy attack to follow-up using ships or planes that didn't participate in other attacks. It would work kinda like an amphib in a sense, if you clear the sz you can do the 2nd attack (on convoy zone).
2) Also like you pointed out, should there be a defensive roll? Like for every unit attempting to convoy, the victim rolls a dice looking for a 1 (roll all units separately). This would keep an entire air force from doing flybys on convoy zones.
3) Should the victim of a convoy raid pay the bank immediately from their income stash, or should you place chips under their capital to be paid out on their own turn like SBR on an IC. That way convoying could effect their production.
4) Would convoying become to powerful. Would it also include land based air units?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests