Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

The War: Europe 1939-1945» Forums » General

Subject: design question: U-Boat war after 1943 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Robin Lapinou
France
flag msg tools
Hi

I have a concern about the balnce of the U-boat war: the amount of NARFs inflicted to the Allies is equal to 3 NARF per SUB in excess of ASW (after rolling). That obviously means that if there are more ASW than subs, no NARF loss will be inflicted at all.
Looking at the force pools and the U-Boat CRT (knowing that the Germans are the attacker and that you always round down in favor of the defender), the Germans will always be at 1 vs 2 (before rolling) starting in spring 1943, the DRM being insufficient to bring them back to position of sinking a single fishing boat until the end of the war even with the best possible die rolls.


That seems completely wrong from a historical point of view, and worst, it completely kills the game (well the little U-boat game inside the game): why would the Germans care about sending U-boats to death after spring 43 since there is no hope at all to inflict a single NARF of damage?

It is easy enough to deal with with some house rule (I personally really miss a few Italian Subs) but I am curious about the designing idea ?

I have a plan to try the Atlantic life line scenario with a different rule to calculate NARF losses: 2 NARF/SUB minus 1 NARF/ASW (after die roll on UBCRT) plus 1 NARF/SUB in case of Ambush and again 1/SUB in case of Massacre. I think it will be more even across the game, and still keep some incentive to keep fighting in the Atlantic after 1942. I will let you know

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Pilkus
United States
South Riding
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Robin,

I
ll let ernie know that you've asked a design-related question as he spends most of his time over at ConSimWorld.

Cheers,
Joe
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernie Copley
United States
Cumberland Center
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
Agabdir wrote:
Hi

I have a concern about the balnce of the U-boat war: the amount of NARFs inflicted to the Allies is equal to 3 NARF per SUB in excess of ASW (after rolling). That obviously means that if there are more ASW than subs, no NARF loss will be inflicted at all.
Looking at the force pools and the U-Boat CRT (knowing that the Germans are the attacker and that you always round down in favor of the defender), the Germans will always be at 1 vs 2 (before rolling) starting in spring 1943, the DRM being insufficient to bring them back to position of sinking a single fishing boat until the end of the war even with the best possible die rolls.


That seems completely wrong from a historical point of view, and worst, it completely kills the game (well the little U-boat game inside the game): why would the Germans care about sending U-boats to death after spring 43 since there is no hope at all to inflict a single NARF of damage?

It is easy enough to deal with with some house rule (I personally really miss a few Italian Subs) but I am curious about the designing idea ?

I have a plan to try the Atlantic life line scenario with a different rule to calculate NARF losses: 2 NARF/SUB minus 1 NARF/ASW (after die roll on UBCRT) plus 1 NARF/SUB in case of Ambush and again 1/SUB in case of Massacre. I think it will be more even across the game, and still keep some incentive to keep fighting in the Atlantic after 1942. I will let you know



Hi Robin - interesting post. My thoughts, in order:

1) the critical phrase in your first sentence is "...(after rolling)...". If there are more surviving ASW after rolling, they Axis player will indeed inflict no damage. But that simply means on the U-Boat CRT, the Axis player in Spring 1943 needs to kill some ASW in order to make an impact. In this respect, the modifiers are crucial. More on that in a moment.

2) Historically, the U-Boat effort peaked in March 1943; the U-Boat war turned decisively against the Axis after March 1943. U-Boat losses began to climb significantly beginning April 1943. Spring 1943 is tricky to handle from a design point since March is part of Spring 1943, but so are April and May 1943...meaning that one turn contains both a peak in U-Boat success and the beginning of a long and disastrous decline of the U-Boat arm. According to Clay Blair's 2-volume work Hitler's U-Boat War, I believe something like 92% of all Allied cargoes made it safely across the Atlantic during the war. The U-Boats certainly had a few individual successes after summer 1943, but their total impact on the war after that time was negligible. Admittedly, it's an oversimplification to reduce it to zero in 1943, but not by much. And in any case, the Axis player can prolong the U-Boat war via modifiers. Now, back to those modifiers;

3) If the Germans are serious about the U-Boat war, they'll go for the Schnorkel Variant to get a -1 modifier, beginning Fall 1941 (if memory serves - I am at school right now and do not have my game in front of me). Even more important, I believe the U-Boat Technology Variant (-2 modifier) takes effect in Fall 1943 (assuming the Germans get that one). If the Axis player gets both, the net result should extend the life of the U-Boat war. Another wildcard (from the Allied point of view) are the U-Boat/ASW cards. Keep in mind that the Axis player can get up to a -3 modifier due to the cards (again, this is from memory - my game is at home). The Expansion Kit has additional useful raider/sub variants for the Germans, so the curtain need not fall automatically in Spring 1943;

4) I'd be interested in your feedback re: your game,

hope this helps,

ernie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernie Copley
United States
Cumberland Center
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
The Professor wrote:
Robin,

I
ll let ernie know that you've asked a design-related question as he spends most of his time over at ConSimWorld.

Cheers,
Joe


Hi Joe - you were right to punt this one to me - the only person who can really dig into the design assumptions is the designer himself.

best regards,

ernie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Lapinou
France
flag msg tools
Hi Ernie,

Thank you for answering. It took me some time to look at this point again (babies and wargames don’t seem to synergize so well…), but there I am back with some ideas.

Looking at the UBCRT, you can see that on the 1 vs 2 column (which will be used as soon as the U-boats are 11 vs 14, so starting in spring 43), you (the attacker) need a modified -2 or lower to inflict just 3 NARFs of losses.
With standard DRM (-3 for control of France & Norway) that is only on natural 1, and will never happen at all if the Brits play their Espionage chit. As you point out, this is playing without cards or variants, but these can go either way so I didn’t count them in the balance.

It means the U-boat war is pretty much over at the end of the “Happy Time “. It also means that 11 of the 23 Allied ASW are completely useless and should never been built, since you achieve 1 vs 2 with only 12 of them. So basically after playing a few times the Atlantic Lifeline scenario I did not find it satisfactory.

So after a bit of looking up to confirm my thoughts about the U-boat war (see this link for example, which you surely already know: https://uboat.net/allies/merchants/losses_year.html), I am thinking I would like the game design to reflect the following historical facts:
- 1943 saw at least as many Allies losses as 1941 (a bit more actually)
- The Germans managed to keep inflicting high losses (though decreasing) in 43-44, but the price they paid for that was getting higher and higher (making the strategical choice questionable).

I have conducted a good number of trials and simulations based on diverse alternative rules (involving Excel sheet and macros to simulate dice rolls during my working time, for which I am duly ashamed) and the most convincing I found was with modifying the U-boat war sequence into the following:
Note: I added 3 Italian SUBs to their at start forces, both for my personal taste and for balancing the odds, and to reflect historical facts. They cost 2 NARFs like the Germans but inflict 1 less NARF loss/turn, (more on that later). They obviously quit the game when Italy surrenders. SUB losses are Axis player choice.

1.Compute odds and roll on UBCRT and apply results as usual.
I recommend keeping the French/Norwegian ports DRM all game long, for simplicity, realism and balance. I keep all others DRM unchanged.

2.Apply NARF losses: 2 NARFs per surviving SUB (only 1 NARF/ Italian SUB). ASW do not matter here. Surviving meaning that Lost and Abort SUB do not count. Inflict +1/+2 NARF loss per U-Boat in case of Convoy Ambush/Massacre. Other effects (SMP, bombing DRM…) as in rulebook.

3.Apply attrition using only surviving ASW (Lost and Abort ASW do not count):
SUB destroyed = 1/3 of surviving ASW(round-up) + roll on attrition table (as in 29.17)


Using these test rules several times and considering average rolls and DRM and I got the following results (I assumed the max number of ASW and U-Boat involved and rebuilt each turn. Results are per SW turn in that year, so should be doubled for yearly outcome):

1940 : 13 British NARFS to 2 German NARFs (in SUB losses) per SW turn

1941: 19 to 4
1942: 53 to 2 (assuming Convoy massacre because of the -4 Happy time DRM. Not sure whether the rule intends that the max 40 NARF/turn applies to the US? I think yes. Ernie?)
1943: 21 to 24 (feeling the tide recessing? That’s 12 out of 13 Axis SUBs lost on average rolls)
1944: 16 to 22 (assuming the Germans re-built all their lost SUBs, they will likely lose them all again)
1945: 12 to 18 (same assumption as above)

If you look at the number of sunk ships on the link above, we are not too far fromthe right trend.
The NARF losses are very close to the rulebook outcome until 1942, where they go higher (but there is the 40 NARFs /turn limit anyways, to be discussed). They will stay high until the end on the condition that Germany agrees (and can afford) to spend at least as many NARFs on re-building its U-Boats. Historical I believe.

And in terms of playability and game flavor, I also see the following improvements (all that being personal taste really):
- The U-boat war keeps its incentive for both players until the end. It is more open strategical options.
- There is no change in the attrition formula during the game. This is simpler (no risk to forget the change in 1942), and the dynamic is given only by the force pools and players resource allocation instead of “inelegant” calendar fixed modifiers. You could also drop the German U-Boat disappearing in 1945, this doesn’t change a thing anyways.
- I used to find it really annoying in the basic rule to have to keep the lost and Abort ASW aside (one pile each) to compute attrition at the end of the phase. So this version is more player-friendly I believe, because right after rolling on UBCRT you just put the counters where they belong.
- Similarly I found the attrition rule too strict and predictable, but the table in 29.17 way too variable so adding both of them, but with only surviving ASW brought me where I felt better.

I will now work on adapting a similar system for the bombing war. I believe that for player-friendliness’s sake both sub-phases should have similar steps if possible (and God knows that The War needs some player-friendliness, it might be all it needs to be the best Grand WW2 game out there…)

Happy to read your thoughts on that huge (but geekily fun) waste of brain availability 
Robin
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Pilkus
United States
South Riding
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Robin,

That's both an excellently researched and thoughtful response to the issue, and look forward to hearing from ernie, as well.

Cheers,
Joe
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Lapinou
France
flag msg tools
Re-reading my own post, I would like to complete it with 2 more rule questions and one comment:

1. Does the 40 NARF limit of loss/turn apply to the US as well ?
Actually the limit is not 40 but 1/3 of England's base (which is 120 at start of the game and may grow a little afterward)
during happy time (the only time this limit is likely to be reached), NARF are taken from US stock,does the limit become 1/3 of US base ?
That seems huge... I would keep it at a fixed 40 once and for all for rule simplicity. But the question is open.

2. How does US SMP losses affect their ability to Stratmove to Europe ? 1 SMP lost due to U-boat is taken out of the 5 tran-Atlantic SM ? or from the on-map ones ? That is key question in the U-boat debate.

3. Comment on game material: I find the game lacks a few DRM markers. For example U-boat war has impacts on SMPs, on the bombing war; The bombing impacts the RailMove etc... but there are no -1RM, -1 SMP etc.. markers available. They would be one of the material improvements more than welcome in a re-edition or for the Pacific version
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernie Copley
United States
Cumberland Center
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
The Professor wrote:
Robin,

That's both an excellently researched and thoughtful response to the issue, and look forward to hearing from ernie, as well.

Cheers,
Joe


Hi Joe - This post is in response to Robin's posts as well as your own. This is a really busy week, so I may not be able to respond to Robin's points right away. I think a detailed answer is in order, but I want to do some research first.

I'll get onto this soon,

ernie

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Finch
United States
Pearl River
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
this is an interesting conversation / analysis
thanks gents!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernie Copley
United States
Cumberland Center
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
Agabdir wrote:
Hi Ernie,

Thank you for answering. It took me some time to look at this point again (babies and wargames don’t seem to synergize so well…), but there I am back with some ideas.

Looking at the UBCRT, you can see that on the 1 vs 2 column (which will be used as soon as the U-boats are 11 vs 14, so starting in spring 43), you (the attacker) need a modified -2 or lower to inflict just 3 NARFs of losses.
With standard DRM (-3 for control of France & Norway) that is only on natural 1, and will never happen at all if the Brits play their Espionage chit. As you point out, this is playing without cards or variants, but these can go either way so I didn’t count them in the balance.

It means the U-boat war is pretty much over at the end of the “Happy Time “. It also means that 11 of the 23 Allied ASW are completely useless and should never been built, since you achieve 1 vs 2 with only 12 of them. So basically after playing a few times the Atlantic Lifeline scenario I did not find it satisfactory.

So after a bit of looking up to confirm my thoughts about the U-boat war (see this link for example, which you surely already know: https://uboat.net/allies/merchants/losses_year.html), I am thinking I would like the game design to reflect the following historical facts:
- 1943 saw at least as many Allies losses as 1941 (a bit more actually)
- The Germans managed to keep inflicting high losses (though decreasing) in 43-44, but the price they paid for that was getting higher and higher (making the strategical choice questionable).

I have conducted a good number of trials and simulations based on diverse alternative rules (involving Excel sheet and macros to simulate dice rolls during my working time, for which I am duly ashamed) and the most convincing I found was with modifying the U-boat war sequence into the following:
Note: I added 3 Italian SUBs to their at start forces, both for my personal taste and for balancing the odds, and to reflect historical facts. They cost 2 NARFs like the Germans but inflict 1 less NARF loss/turn, (more on that later). They obviously quit the game when Italy surrenders. SUB losses are Axis player choice.

1.Compute odds and roll on UBCRT and apply results as usual.
I recommend keeping the French/Norwegian ports DRM all game long, for simplicity, realism and balance. I keep all others DRM unchanged.

2.Apply NARF losses: 2 NARFs per surviving SUB (only 1 NARF/ Italian SUB). ASW do not matter here. Surviving meaning that Lost and Abort SUB do not count. Inflict +1/+2 NARF loss per U-Boat in case of Convoy Ambush/Massacre. Other effects (SMP, bombing DRM…) as in rulebook.

3.Apply attrition using only surviving ASW (Lost and Abort ASW do not count):
SUB destroyed = 1/3 of surviving ASW(round-up) + roll on attrition table (as in 29.17)


Using these test rules several times and considering average rolls and DRM and I got the following results (I assumed the max number of ASW and U-Boat involved and rebuilt each turn. Results are per SW turn in that year, so should be doubled for yearly outcome):

1940 : 13 British NARFS to 2 German NARFs (in SUB losses) per SW turn

1941: 19 to 4
1942: 53 to 2 (assuming Convoy massacre because of the -4 Happy time DRM. Not sure whether the rule intends that the max 40 NARF/turn applies to the US? I think yes. Ernie?)
1943: 21 to 24 (feeling the tide recessing? That’s 12 out of 13 Axis SUBs lost on average rolls)
1944: 16 to 22 (assuming the Germans re-built all their lost SUBs, they will likely lose them all again)
1945: 12 to 18 (same assumption as above)

If you look at the number of sunk ships on the link above, we are not too far fromthe right trend.
The NARF losses are very close to the rulebook outcome until 1942, where they go higher (but there is the 40 NARFs /turn limit anyways, to be discussed). They will stay high until the end on the condition that Germany agrees (and can afford) to spend at least as many NARFs on re-building its U-Boats. Historical I believe.

And in terms of playability and game flavor, I also see the following improvements (all that being personal taste really):
- The U-boat war keeps its incentive for both players until the end. It is more open strategical options.
- There is no change in the attrition formula during the game. This is simpler (no risk to forget the change in 1942), and the dynamic is given only by the force pools and players resource allocation instead of “inelegant” calendar fixed modifiers. You could also drop the German U-Boat disappearing in 1945, this doesn’t change a thing anyways.
- I used to find it really annoying in the basic rule to have to keep the lost and Abort ASW aside (one pile each) to compute attrition at the end of the phase. So this version is more player-friendly I believe, because right after rolling on UBCRT you just put the counters where they belong.
- Similarly I found the attrition rule too strict and predictable, but the table in 29.17 way too variable so adding both of them, but with only surviving ASW brought me where I felt better.

I will now work on adapting a similar system for the bombing war. I believe that for player-friendliness’s sake both sub-phases should have similar steps if possible (and God knows that The War needs some player-friendliness, it might be all it needs to be the best Grand WW2 game out there…)

Happy to read your thoughts on that huge (but geekily fun) waste of brain availability 
Robin


Hello, Robin – thanks for a useful and thoughtful post. I disagree with some of your points, but it’s a useful basis for discussion. Let’s deal with the game context first, the history second, and your specific points third.

First, the game context: I’ll assume that you are looking at the U-Boat war through the prism of the Atlantic Lifeline Scenario (note – there’s a typo in the scenario – the US enters in Winter 1941, not Winter 1942). The distinction is important because the game’s rules were written primarily for the 1939-1945 Campaign Game, and modified somewhat to hive off the U-Boat war into a separate scenario playable as a mini-game. I’m much more open to potential rules changes in the Atlantic Lifeline scenario than in the 1939 Campaign game.

So, on to history. I’ll quote at length from Clay Blair’s Hitler’s U-Boat War: 1942-1945, Vol. II, The Hunted (p.511):
“By the end of April 1943, the Germans confronted a naval rout in the Atlantic. Allied centimetric-wavelength radar, land- and ship-based Huff-Duff, land-based aircraft, skilled surface and escort support groups, Enigma code breaking and superb intelligence evaluation and operational research in London and Washington had finally defeated the U-Boat force. No existing production U-Boat could enter the North Atlantic with even the slightest degree of confidence. Attacks on Allied convoys had become near-suicidal endeavors and would only become more dangerous.”

The hard data on convoy losses versus Allied shipbuilding are stark: from 1942 to 1945, 953 convoys crossed the North Atlantic to Britain and Gibraltar, or 43, 256 ships; according to Blair, total losses of these ships travelling in convoy on the vital North Atlantic run amounted to approximately 1%. You have pointed out (correctly) that the Germans and Italians did indeed go on sinking ships after the Happy Time. It is also true that sank almost as many ships in 1943 as they did in 1941: to be exact, the U-Boats sank 2,510,304 gross tons of shipping in 1943, versus 2,462,867 tons in 1941. Unfortunately for the Axis, the Americans alone produced 13 million gross tons of shipping in 1943 alone, and close to that figure in 1944 (12.26 million gross tons.) From Fall of 1942 to Spring 1945, the American alone built a staggering 32 million tons of shipping. And that's leaving out Canadian and British shipbuilding.

From roughly late Spring 1943, U-Boat losses were out of all proportion to the gains: from 46 U-Boats lost in 1942, to a ruinous 241 boats in 1943, and an equally disastrous 254 boats in 1944 (see Blair, p.709). The Allies began seriously hunting the U-Boats in the Bay of Biscay in May of 1943. Any French port modifiers given to the Axis after May of 1943 spots them an advantage they did no longer possessed. German attempts to fight it out with Allied aircraft in the Bay of Biscay with new 20-mm quad flak guns, and even some 37-mm flak guns proved futile. After equally futile attempts to harass the Overlord build-up and invasion from May to September 1944, the Germans essentially gave up and by September 1944 the U-Boats had abandoned the French ports altogether and fled to Norway.

I could go on, but this is a post and not an article, so I'll comment on some of your specific points:

1) I can't say I agree with you re: the cards and variants; re: Variants, they are there not only to provide what-ifs but also to provide balance. When playing the Atlantic Lifeline scenario, why not just give Germans successful results for Variant #9 and Variant #15? Re the optional cards, they are there precisely because I don't want results on the UCCRT to become formulaic;

2) I'm not sure I follow about surplus Allied ASW. Under 5.1.3.3, U-Boat attrition is computed based on the number of Allied ASW deployed to the U-Boat War Box. It's true that at a 1:2 attrition ratio, they Allies have more ASW than they need Spring 1944 and later, but I don't see that as a big problem. One could adopt a house rule (or I could create an optional rule for the AL scenario) that the 1:3 attrition ratio is constant throughout the war. In any case, if the fixed ratio of U-Boat attrition gets too predictable, the optional U-Boat attrition table in 29.17 is there for exactly that reason;

3) I checked out your link to U-Boat.net. It's a good source, but it really doesn't contradict Blair. Here's why: the game is concerned only with the North Atlantic run. I've deliberately ignored the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean. What matters to the game design is not total U-Boat losses, but when and where they occur. As Blair and others have noted, the Germans had basically lost the Atlantic naval war by May 1943.

Even more importantly is what I've left out for playability purposes: there are shipbuilding tracks for warships in TWE, but not merchant ships. You can't just look at U-Boat sinkings to make your case - you also should consider the fact that those sinkings mattered only in the context of sinkings vs. Allied shipbuilding, which soared from 1943 onward. A complete analysis would compare merchant ships losses in 1943-1945 compared the Allied construction of new vessels. Rather than a whole set of rules for merchant marine shipyards I've abstracted and simplified the whole 1943-1945 sinkings vs. merchant ship construction issue into a relatively simple approach. That approach simply lets the U-Boat war fizzle out after Spring 1943, barring great luck and technical breakthroughs by Germany. Perhaps the scenario should simply end in Fall 1943.

4) I like the idea of Italian subs, but the Axis player should have to roll to get them (to reflect getting through the Gibraltar Straits) - they weren't very effective, but they did exist and did do some damage.

5) I also like the idea that the U-Boats will inflict some damage, regardless of the odds. How about this: on the optional the U-Boat Attrition Table, the result indicates not only how many U-Boats are lost, but also the minimum # of NARFs the Allies lose? Thus the column header isn't just "Number of ASW" but "Number of ASW/# of U-Boats."

6) speaking of Attrition, the phrasing of 5.1.3.3 reads "...each turn he inflicts any damage at all..." If no damage is inflicted, there's no attrition.

7) I can't say I agree with the comment that the standard U-Boat attrition rules are too restrictive, but the optional attrition table is too variable. As per my item #5 above, I would be open to revisiting that optional table.

Your post covers a lot of ground, but I'll halt here and save other comments for another post.

Regards,

ernie

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernie Copley
United States
Cumberland Center
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
Agabdir wrote:
Re-reading my own post, I would like to complete it with 2 more rule questions and one comment:

1. Does the 40 NARF limit of loss/turn apply to the US as well ?
Actually the limit is not 40 but 1/3 of England's base (which is 120 at start of the game and may grow a little afterward)
during happy time (the only time this limit is likely to be reached), NARF are taken from US stock,does the limit become 1/3 of US base ?
That seems huge... I would keep it at a fixed 40 once and for all for rule simplicity. But the question is open.

2. How does US SMP losses affect their ability to Stratmove to Europe ? 1 SMP lost due to U-boat is taken out of the 5 tran-Atlantic SM ? or from the on-map ones ? That is key question in the U-boat debate.

3. Comment on game material: I find the game lacks a few DRM markers. For example U-boat war has impacts on SMPs, on the bombing war; The bombing impacts the RailMove etc... but there are no -1RM, -1 SMP etc.. markers available. They would be one of the material improvements more than welcome in a re-edition or for the Pacific version



Hi Robin - in order:
1) the limit applies only to Britain - there's no cap on US losses due to subs/raiders;
2) Both - just as additions to SMP capacity are added to both transatlantic and on-board US SMPs (per 8.4.1), reductions are subtracted from both;
3) well, the tracks at the bottom of the west map of the game has tracks for SMPs and Rail moves - there are markers to use on those tracks.

Hope this helps,

ernie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Lapinou
France
flag msg tools
e_copley wrote:
Agabdir wrote:
Re-reading my own post, I would like to complete it with 2 more rule questions and one comment:

1. Does the 40 NARF limit of loss/turn apply to the US as well ?
Actually the limit is not 40 but 1/3 of England's base (which is 120 at start of the game and may grow a little afterward)
during happy time (the only time this limit is likely to be reached), NARF are taken from US stock,does the limit become 1/3 of US base ?
That seems huge... I would keep it at a fixed 40 once and for all for rule simplicity. But the question is open.

2. How does US SMP losses affect their ability to Stratmove to Europe ? 1 SMP lost due to U-boat is taken out of the 5 tran-Atlantic SM ? or from the on-map ones ? That is key question in the U-boat debate.

3. Comment on game material: I find the game lacks a few DRM markers. For example U-boat war has impacts on SMPs, on the bombing war; The bombing impacts the RailMove etc... but there are no -1RM, -1 SMP etc.. markers available. They would be one of the material improvements more than welcome in a re-edition or for the Pacific version



Hi Robin - in order:
1) the limit applies only to Britain - there's no cap on US losses due to subs/raiders;
2) Both - just as additions to SMP capacity are added to both transatlantic and on-board US SMPs (per 8.4.1), reductions are subtracted from both;
3) well, the tracks at the bottom of the west map of the game has tracks for SMPs and Rail moves - there are markers to use on those tracks.

Hope this helps,

ernie


Hi Ernie

Thanks for the replies. I will post a few more rules questions about the U-boat in the Rules section so as to keep things tidy.
About 3/ Yes you are right; I was looking for a way to track both RM/SM base level and modified values; but the Massacre/Ambush etc.. markers are just fine for that actually.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernie Copley
United States
Cumberland Center
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
Agabdir wrote:
e_copley wrote:
Agabdir wrote:
Re-reading my own post, I would like to complete it with 2 more rule questions and one comment:

1. Does the 40 NARF limit of loss/turn apply to the US as well ?
Actually the limit is not 40 but 1/3 of England's base (which is 120 at start of the game and may grow a little afterward)
during happy time (the only time this limit is likely to be reached), NARF are taken from US stock,does the limit become 1/3 of US base ?
That seems huge... I would keep it at a fixed 40 once and for all for rule simplicity. But the question is open.

2. How does US SMP losses affect their ability to Stratmove to Europe ? 1 SMP lost due to U-boat is taken out of the 5 tran-Atlantic SM ? or from the on-map ones ? That is key question in the U-boat debate.

3. Comment on game material: I find the game lacks a few DRM markers. For example U-boat war has impacts on SMPs, on the bombing war; The bombing impacts the RailMove etc... but there are no -1RM, -1 SMP etc.. markers available. They would be one of the material improvements more than welcome in a re-edition or for the Pacific version



Hi Robin - in order:
1) the limit applies only to Britain - there's no cap on US losses due to subs/raiders;
2) Both - just as additions to SMP capacity are added to both transatlantic and on-board US SMPs (per 8.4.1), reductions are subtracted from both;
3) well, the tracks at the bottom of the west map of the game has tracks for SMPs and Rail moves - there are markers to use on those tracks.

Hope this helps,

ernie


Hi Ernie

Thanks for the replies. I will post a few more rules questions about the U-boat in the Rules section so as to keep things tidy.
About 3/ Yes you are right; I was looking for a way to track both RM/SM base level and modified values; but the Massacre/Ambush etc.. markers are just fine for that actually.


Hi Robin - okay, good - happy to help,

regards,

ernie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.