The aberration of the defenseless transport

[BJCard]

Well, everyone knows the stories about the infamous WWII Transports killing aircraft and Battleships!  oh… wait.

Nope, defenseless transports are best.  Really does it make sense that a huge battle fleet would screen itself with Transports?  No- destroyers and submarines.

While there may have been instances where an ‘armed transport’ takes out a submarine or couple fighters- I know of exactly zero instances of a 100 transports taking out 500 planes or 20+ submarines.

Remember these units are representing a huge number of individual tanks, planes, etc.

[Der Kuenstler]

Larry Harris said this about transports in 2007 on his site:

“I will say this… Transports are considered to be lightly defended with escorts. Additional ships provide additional defense and so on.” (Posted: Fri 23.Feb, 2007)

So originally transports were not to be thought of as just transports.

Two maxims of the game have generally been:

1. every decision involves some risk (dice rolls)
2. defender chooses his own casualties

The new transport rules violate both.

[BJCard]

Looks like Larry’s position on Transports has ‘evolved’ then.

I can only imagine a Naval commander saying ‘Send in the Transports, we can’t have any damage to our Destroyers!’.

The addition of Destroyers and Cruisers negated the ‘Transports have defense’ line of thought.  Back in Classic day there were only BBs, CVs, TTs, and SSs…

[Der Kuenstler]

@BJCard:

I can only imagine a Naval commander saying ‘Send in the Transports, we can’t have any damage to our Destroyers!’.

LOL - And I can only imagine a Naval commander saying “we must try to keep this empty $7 transport at all costs! All $20 BBs, $14 CVs, $10 planes and $12 CAs, must die first!”

Both scenarios are absurd, but at least the first one is consistent with the rest of the game.

[bongaroo]

I hated the way transports worked in 2nd edition.  Most fleets were a bunch of transports with only a couple of carriers with planes and maybe a battleship.  The introduction of cruisers, destroyers, and multi hit capital ships makes a lot more sense.

You keep talking about how everything has risk, well you took the risk of sending an undefended transport.

-edit-

Yes, those battleships or other fighting ships better not just watch the transports get creamed when they could defend them.  What kind of heartless captain would let practically defenseless ships get slaughtered nearby?

[BJCard]

@Der:

@BJCard:

I can only imagine a Naval commander saying ‘Send in the Transports, we can’t have any damage to our Destroyers!’.

LOL - And I can only imagine a Naval commander saying “we must try to keep this empty $7 transport at all costs! All $20 BBs, $14 CVs, $10 planes and $12 CAs, must die first!”

Both scenarios are absurd, but at least the first one is consistent with the rest of the game.

I get what you are saying, but at least in land battles- however absurd some of it is, you can argue that some of it makes sense:

Infantry die first because, well, they mostly did die first… 
Artillery?  They are behind the Infantry so they should survive longer- 
Mech/Armor- well, they have mobility and are armored… 
Aircraft are a little strange- there probably should be an air battle before land battle ala A&A 1914, but without AA firing at them (which they do in this game), they will last the longest.
AA Guns are new…  I guess these don’t fit the mold because now they are always the first to die after they fire.

In sea battles, Transports are always defended- whether they are transporting troops or supplies.

[allweneedislove]

probably the single greatest change to axis and allies over the years is the defenseless transport.

i have played many games of revised. fleets would consist almost entirely of transports with the odd carrier and starting battleship for extra defense.

fleets would never get attacked, as there was too much transport fodder. navy battles and purchases are much more dynamic because of this rule.

[Der Kuenstler]

@allweneedislove:

fleets would never get attacked, as there was too much transport fodder.

I see your point how things were then, but would that still be true now that there are units (DDs) which would cost the same and attack and defend @ 2? Wouldn’t players only buy as many transports as is necessary to transport and then buy destroyers for battles?

Sure, you’d still see SOME of that “transport first” stuff, but it would be more incidental and not an overall strategy as when there were no other options.

[Seador]

Armed transports also only transported one heavy unit or 2 INF.  Personally, I like the 0 defence unit.  At 7 IPC they are far too cheap to be a troop mover and a capitol ship screen.  If they could fill dual role again, I think they would have to cost at least 50% more, not 1.  I speculate that a (now) warship that can move two land units would be worth at least 14 to the US and Japan, and correspondingly less to other nations, probably booking at 12.

I can just see walls of TRs moving from the US to Germany, adding defense constantly while still moving troops over.

[knp7765]

Making transports defenseless makes more sense. I remember playing classic and having fleets of 1 or 2 battleships, a carrier and a stack of 10+ transports. No one would attack your fleet because they would never get to the high dollar stuff. That is, unless they had a huge stack of transports to throw in as fodder, which is also ridiculous.

You should have to protect your transports with warships, or suffer losing them and not transporting your troops. Someone mentioned Japan taking those little Pacific islands and how it’s not worth it to divert your fleet to protect the transports. Well, you could do that or simply write off those transports. Yeah, it sucks wasting 7 IPCs but if you get the islands you need (I’m thinking that 5 island NO for Japan) then perhaps it is worth losing a few transports in the long run. Plus, since now those guys have no transport, you have garrisons on those islands and the Allies will have to invest more to take them back. It just depends on your needs I think.

One downfall of defenseless transports that I don’t like is when you have a whole stack of transports and a single plane or ship takes them all out. Perhaps a good idea would be to limit the killing of defenseless transports to something like 3 per attacking unit (warship, sub or plane).
For example: The US has goofed and left 5 unescorted transports sitting in SZ 91. Germany sees this but has only 1 U-boat sitting in SZ 105. Germany also has a bomber sitting on the air base in Paris. Germany wanted to SBR London with his bomber.
Now, if Germany wants to sink all 5 US transports, he will have to send the U-boat AND the bomber. If Germany wants to SBR London with his bomber, he can just send the U-boat but will sink ONLY 3 of the US transports.
In summary, every 3 transports require 1 attacking unit to sink them. 1-3 transports=1 attacker, 4-6 TT=2 attackers, 7-9 TT=3 attackers, 10-12 TT=4 attackers, and so on.
Attacking units can be submarines, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, fighters, tac bombers and bombers.
Doesn’t that sound better than just one single attack unit being able to kill a whole stack of transports?

[Der Kuenstler]

@PGMatt:

I can just see walls of TRs moving from the US to Germany, adding defense constantly while still moving troops over.

@knp7765:

I remember playing classic and having fleets of 1 or 2 battleships, a carrier and a stack of 10+ transports. No one would attack your fleet because they would never get to the high dollar stuff. That is, unless they had a huge stack of transports to throw in as fodder, which is also ridiculous.

It seems like you are envisioning these classic transports in their classic setting, which they would not be in.

PGMatt: You are telling me that you would continue to buy more and more transports every round, filling up the Atlantic with them, when you can now buy DDs for the same price and double the protection? Seriously, would you not buy just enough transports to do the job and the rest DDs?

@knp7765:

Doesn’t that sound better than just one single attack unit being able to kill a whole stack of transports?

Yes it does- and that is something that should be brought up. In the current rules, a single fighter unit can destroy 10 lone transports instantly. How much ordinance does this guy have, anyway? You might argue that the unit represents many fighters. Then you’d have to also say that each TP represents many TPs. When a group of TPs gets attacked, they are going to pop smoke and disperse everywhere. In classic, if a single fighter attacks 10 transports, odds say he’s only going to get one before he dies.

Many of you are thinking back to the classic world where BBs cost 24 IPCs and sank with one hit. Where bombers cost 15 IPCs and Fighters cost 12 IPCs. Put those classic transports in the modern ruleset with 8 IPC  DDs and 6 IPC subs. How would they do then? Would there be huge stacks of them moving around the ocean as fodder? Really? When DDs can do twice the damage, attack, and do ASW duty?

In another posting Commander Jennifer once suggested making TPs cost 9 IPC when using them as classic units in the modern ruleset. PGMatt also brought up a good point - that the new transports can carry more. So can anyone tell me why having 10 IPC classic transports in the modern game would not work? They would be expensive and you wouldn’t want to lose them so easily, yet they could protect themselves and still fit in with the rest of the rules of the game. If anyone can show me that I’ll shut up about it.

I don’t understand how you can fight seabattles where all your battleships are hit first EVERY TIME (free hits) when they are firing from 14 miles away, or take a sub first when only a periscope is showing, yet when you suggest taking a hit on a transport you hear the shouts “that’s not realistic!”

[BJCard]

Battleships may not necessarily be the first hit- it could be the Aircraft Carrier if an island is nearby (or they have no aircraft).

At least they are warships and are fighting.  Transports are not warships.  Perhaps let them retreat after the first round of combat- but they should not be able to bring down enemy warships (dozen or more ships) or aircraft (hundreds of aircraft).

[Der Kuenstler]

More research:

The typical troop carrying Liberty ship in WWII had 3 3"/50 cal guns, 1 5"/38 cal gun, and 8 20mm AA guns. How is this now represented in the auto-destroy rule?

The following escort vessels I found in a short search are not represented in this game:

Merchant aircraft carriers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier

Catapult Aircraft Merchantmen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship

Armed merchant cruisers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_merchantmen#Armed_merchant_cruisers

Corvettes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette#World_War_II

Frigates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate#World_War_II

Escort Carriers 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escort_aircraft_carrier

How do you represent them? Keep Transports defense@1.

And we are not talking about dry goods/grain/supply transports here - supply is not modeled in the game. These are all really Troopships - which were naturally more heavily defended.

[BJCard]

Well, anything that isn’t strictly a transport- as in:
Corvettes, Frigates, Escort Carriers
are modeled with Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers in game.

Armed merchantmen would do well against easy targets- a surfaced submarine or a small fighter squadron.  We are talking about a dozen submarines doing a night raid or 100 fighters descending on the transports.

[Seador]

PGMatt: You are telling me that you would continue to buy more and more transports every round, filling up the Atlantic with them, when you can now buy DDs for the same price and double the protection? Seriously, would you not buy just enough transports to do the job and the rest DDs?

Well, in this case that is exactly what I would do.  I never bring US TRs home, they drop once and then I let the UK use them.  It takes an extra turn to cycle but allowing the UK to not build ships and focus on ground builds for the UK and Africa works for me.  Once the US has 10 TR in the channel the UK can move a full build across every turn, man and money providing of course.

Armed transports in this case just reduces the overall naval investment for the Western allies.

[Derek]

Why not give transports a defense of 1 but still must be taken as casualties last ?
Increase their cost to 8

[BJCard]

@Uncrustable:

Why not give transports a defense of 1 but still must be taken as casualties last ?
Increase their cost to 8

Because a transport having a defense of 1 is too generous.

In Classic, transports represented actual transports and escort ships- now escort ships have been decoupled from transports in the form of destroyers.

[Spendo02]

Simple fix, really:

TT only roll@1 when at ANY point there are no friendly warships present, and cannot be taken as losses until all friendly warships have been sunk or submerged.
TT cannot be forced into defensive combat in conjunction with scrambling aircraft from an AB.  However TT can be defended by scrambling aircraft if no amphibious assault has been declared from that SZ.

Example 1:

BB, CR and 2 TT are attacked.  CR and BB roll until sunk.  Normally, once they are the TT are just picked up off the board.  Instead it flows to this:  When TT are the only remaining surface ship they get to roll @1 to defend against an attack.

This could mean you only needed 1 hit to sink the BB, however you scored 3 hits during your attacker roll phase.  The defender would roll 1 die @4 because the BB was present when the hits were scored on the TT as well.

If 2 hits were scored to sink the BB, the defender would roll @4 and remove a BB and TT from the battle.  The following turn the attacker would roll and the lone TT would roll @1 to defend.

If you only scored the single hit to sink the BB, which missed on its defensive roll.  You’d follow up with a second round of rolls against the 2 TT, which now get to defend @1 until sunk or you withdraw.

Example 2:

2 TT were left undefended against 2 Ftr and 1 Tac.  The 2 Ftr roll @3, the Tac @4 scoring 3 hits.  Both TT would roll @1 to defend scoring a single hit.  Both TT are sunk, and one Ftr is lost.

Example 3:
2 TT are blocking a SZ you wish to move though - even though they defend @1, you can ignore them and sail straight past without having to stop for battle.

Example 4:

You attack 2 DD and 2 TT with 4 BB.  The BB scores 2 hits and the defender none.  The defender has to take the 2 DD as losses first per the rules after they rolled and missed.  The BB would then roll again and scores 1 hit.  Both TT then roll @1 and both score hits.  2 BB are tipped and 1 TT is lost.  The BB roll again and sink the final TT, which misses, and the battle ends.

Example 5:

3 TT and 1 SS are defending against 3 DD.  Due to the presence of the DD, the SS cannot submerge to avoid combat.  The 3 DD roll and score 2 hits.  The SS rolls and misses.  One SS and 1 TT are removed.  The 3 DD then roll against the 2 remaining TT which defend @1 now that the sub has been sunk.

Example 6:

3 TT and 1 SS are defending against 3 CR.  The SS elects to submerge to avoid battle.  The 3 CR roll against the 3 TT, which roll @1 due to the SS submerging and not being present in combat.

Example 7:

There is an AB on Norway and WGr with 6 Ftr capable of scrambling.  Germany has 10 TT in SZ 112.  The allies are attempting to land on Denmark via an amphibious assault with 3 BB, 2 CR, 2 DD and 5 TT and elect to ignore the German TT.  Germany elects to scramble and places ONLY the 6 Ftr as TT cannot be forced into defensive combat due to a scramble caused by an Amphibious assault being declared from that SZ.

Note if you change a German TT to a DD, you could still not get the TT into the battle as TT cannot be forced into a sea battle due to an amphibious assault being declared from that SZ.  The DD, however would be included in the defenders scramble.

However, those TT WOULD be included if no assault was declared and the Allies moved into the SZ to solely attack the ships present.

[BJCard]

Well, ignoring just transports is already the case- transports cannot be used to block.

I do like some of your ideas, maybe in need of refinement; could be a fun houserule to give defending transports some hope.  I kind of like the idea that transports that survive the initial attack could elect to retreat to a safe SZ.

[Spendo02]

Might as well just eliminate TT’s all together then and allow naval warships to transport units, no?