The aberration of the defenseless transport

[baron Münchhausen]

@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.

Hi everybody,
their is some middleway here.

Keep at 7 IPCs. It is already a long road to buy an escort fleet, transport and ground units. And bridging from one island to another requires much more transport to travel the same two ground units. The chain of communication is easily outstreched and vulnerable in PTO.

Give any group (2 or more) of Transports a collective defense of 1.

Even in a naval battle with other vessels, give at the start of naval battle the transport group a defense @1.

Transports are still chosen last.

When their is no more combat ship, the attacker still rolls and destroy as many transports as he got hits.
It lasts until the last transport has sunk (which still have 1@1).

The capacity to take hits is already a good defense.
I see no need to add more than the single@1 for all the group.

However, keep a single isolated transport as an easy target with no defense.

Historically, we can think that there is some corvettes and frigates (but not much) inside a group of transports,  2 units or more (14 IPCs and +).

Another possibility is to limit this @1 as AA only for 2 or more transports. So no combat ship could be kill by the lighter guns on board any troop transports.

[toblerone77]

The old defense roll was fine and is reasonable.  How the hell is it realistic that ten transport flotillas could be simply destroyed by one squadron of destroyers? It’s frigging ridiculous that someone would buy transports over destroyers for defense when a destroyer has twice the chance to score a hit. Nobody is going to resort to TRN stacking as a defense. The reasons for this change are stupid and just plain spin doctoring a mistake.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

The old defense roll was fine and is reasonable.  How the hell is it realistic that ten transport flotillas could be simply destroyed by one squadron of destroyers? It’s frigging ridiculous that someone would buy transports over destroyers for defense when a destroyer has twice the chance to score a hit. Nobody is going to resort to TRN stacking as a defense. The reasons for this change are stupid and just plain spin doctoring a mistake.

I’m not quite sure. The capacity of taking a hit without damaging stronger units (@3 and @4) is a real strategy. It has a screening effect like a stack of Inf in front of 3 or 4 @3 Armors.

Even transports without Defense point, a mixed group of vessels will become a way more dangerous:
1 CV with 2 Fgts amongst 5 Trns (with 0@1) can take 2 or 3 rounds before being all destroyed.
Think of Germany StrB, TacB and Fighters lost in this battle and how much units is needed at first to get odds on Germany’s side.

That’s why Larry revised the rule about transport.

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

The old defense roll was fine and is reasonable. � How the hell is it realistic that ten transport flotillas could be simply destroyed by one squadron of destroyers? It’s frigging ridiculous that someone would buy transports over destroyers for defense when a destroyer has twice the chance to score a hit. Nobody is going to resort to TRN stacking as a defense. The reasons for this change are stupid and just plain spin doctoring a mistake.

I’m not quite sure. The capacity of taking a hit without damaging stronger units (@3 and @4) is a real strategy. It has a screening effect like a stack of Inf in front of 3 or 4 @3 Armors.

Even transports without Defense point, a mixed group of vessels will become a way more dangerous:
1 CV with 2 Fgts amongst 5 Trns (with 0@1) can take 2 or 3 rounds before being all destroyed.
Think of Germany StrB, TacB and Fighters lost in this battle and how much units is needed at first to get odds on Germany’s side.

That’s why Larry revised the rule about transport.

Yeah but why would that stop you from buying a destroyer? It’s nearly as cheap and can attack. and by that logic, no offense but are we going to have infantry loose thier attack capabilties? Sorry to Larry but just because he says it doesn’t mean it makes sense. Read some of Larry’s old quotes.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

Yeah but why would that stop you from buying a destroyer? It’s nearly as cheap and can attack. and by that logic, no offense but are we going to have infantry loose thier attack capabilities? Sorry to Larry but just because he says it doesn’t mean it makes sense. Read some of Larry’s old quotes.

From my point of view, the problem is that a destroyer doesn’t move any ground troops. The best maximize investment in amphibious assault would be only transport+ground troops. But when you need to protect transport, you add more warships.
A transport unit @1 requires far less protection (and less building of defensive warships) than TP @0 with no hits.

Actually, to get a single 1 hit DD @2 paired with 1 TP it costs 7+8= 15 IPCs. 12/36 ODDS only 1 hit.
For 2TPs @1=16 IPCs you would already get a better fleet.
2D@1= odds at 11/36 + 2 hits / after 1 hit, you still have odds at 6/36.

Adding TP @1, 8 IPCs will certainly unbalance the game in favour of Allies because USA, ANZAC and UK must get out of their islands to have impact on the game vs only Japan.

If you want something more historical, you need a far less powerful modification because that will require changes on the initial board.

[toblerone77]

The whole point of having a transport with a def of 1 is so that it is not a sitting duck. It’s no battleship but at least it’s not totally easy pickings. I like being able to send out a transport out by itself and taking a risk with it. By the same token it makes your opponent think twice before he sends out some lone fighter or bomber to attack you. It forces them to think about losing precious aircraft to attack a transport rather than simply wiping otu a unit of opportunity with no risk.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

The whole point of having a transport with a def of 1 is so that it is not a sitting duck. It’s no battleship but at least it’s not totally easy pickings. I like being able to send out a transport out by itself and taking a risk with it. By the same token it makes your opponent think twice before he sends out some lone fighter or bomber to attack you. It forces them to think about losing precious aircraft to attack a transport rather than simply wiping otu a unit of opportunity with no risk.

That’s why I suggest a 1@1 for 2 or more transports plus playing every hit on them.
If attacker throw only 1 Fg @3 against 3TPs, it will take at least 3 lucky rounds before all TPs get drowned. At each round, their is still odds at 1/6 (like a AA gun) to get this Fg down.
IMHO, this far risky that the attacker will put much more aircrafts to be sure not to have too many combat cycles with those TPs.

And as write it down, I was thinking about a house rule “Air Supremacy” which imply that an aircraft makes preemptive shot against naval only target with no air support. To counterweight the huge impact of 3 rounds with odds at 1/6 every time.

I eared only of Guadalcanal and Truk’s air raids against transports ships.
And they didn’t make the weight against fighters and TacB.
They were sitting ducks even with their on board AA guns.

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

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

I think most people like this. Perfectly reasonable.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

@Uncrustable:

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

I think most people like this. Perfectly reasonable.

Taken last is a must.
When are they allowed to defend @1?
Right at the beginning? Once their is no more warships?

But as soon as a pack of 3 or more transports get @1 each, it will hurt the attacker and changing the odds and how the game was set up initialy.

[baron Münchhausen]

Example: 1 Fg @3 against 3 TPs @1.
Very little luck:
0.5 TP/rnd or 1 TP/2 rnds, so at the end of round 6, Transports are all drowned.
But, at the end of the second round, the fighter is already blasted.

I think it is not very historically accurate for a group of almost only transports to be as effective against aircrafts.

You must add with transports many escort ships which are included as the DD unit in OOB 1940.

According to my suggestion applied to the example:
Transports needs 6 rounds @1, so the only Fg unit is destroyed at the end of round 6.

*Transports start to defend themselves when they reach 14 IPCs value (2TPs C7).
TP A0 D0 M2 C7 Paired with another TP get a single 1@1 for all Transports group.
They can be hit twice and defend @1, same strength as a carrier on offense in 1942.2 (14 IPCs) .

[Cow]

Transports have aa guns on them. Historically transports have rammed into subs. Not sure on aa gun kills or other ramming.

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

Example: 1 Fgt@3 against 3 TT@1.
Very little luck:
2 rnds/TT at the end of round 6, they are all drowned.
At the end of the second round, the fighter is blasted.

I think it is not very historically accurate for a group of almost only transport to be as effective against aircrafts.

You must add with transports many escort ships which are included as DD in OOB 1940.

Baron this game isn’t all that historically accurate in and of itself. Sending out squadrons of fighters to sink transports isn’t either, bombers or tactical bombers would most likely have done this.
So what if a lone fighter can’t simply wipe out a bunch of transports? Is it fair or unbalanced that ONE unit can wipe out and theoretically destroy an INFINITE amount of transports because they are unescorted? You add DDs to those transports and they have to bring in more aircraft anyway. You could make the argument that destroyers are too powerful for thier price.

There have been a lot of rule changes in the name of “anti-stacking”, simply by adding the other units into the mix such as destroyers and cruisers has already done this. There was no need to take away defensive capability for transports.

[toblerone77]

@Cow:

Transports have aa guns on them. Historically transports have rammed into subs. Not sure on aa gun kills or other ramming.

This^ Again, a token defense of one isn’t a game breaker in this “realisitic” game.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cow:

Transports have aa guns on them. Historically transports have rammed into subs. Not sure on aa gun kills or other ramming.

That’s true but we must think each unit represents a vast group of similar things.

Their was ramming, but how many transport did this?
They have AA guns but what was their killing ratio, for these transports which were exposed to combat situations?

Anomalies and exceptions are not the model that makes the A&A system rules.

Defenseless Transports are an aberration, true ; individually, they were not all sitting ducks. But globally what was their role in WWII?

[baron Münchhausen]

So what if a lone fighter can’t simply wipe out a bunch of transports? Is it fair or unbalanced that ONE unit can wipe out and theoretically destroy an INFINITE amount of transports because they are unescorted?

That’s the aberration portion.
You may play 1940 Global with Transport Def@1 8 IPCs.
But giving starting Transport Def@1 will have an impact.

I already thinking about a similar unit: TP+corvettes/frigates Def@1 for 9 IPCs.
And also keeping TP D@0 7IPCs.
And transport are taken as last casualties.

Just a way to upgrade starting Transport for 2 IPCs near IC or NB.
In this way, it follows the rule for navy unit: average is 2 IPCs for 1 point Att or Def.
Anyone can buy either Transport for 7 IPCs or TP lightly escorted at 9 IPCs.

It can simulate the progressive introduction of this small naval units during WWII specially to protect against Subs.

Probably no one will buy TP with no hit value after introducing TP D@1 C9…

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

@Cow:

Transports have aa guns on them. Historically transports have rammed into subs. Not sure on aa gun kills or other ramming.

That’s true but we must think each unit represents a vast group of similar things.

Their was ramming, but how many tranports did this?
They have AA guns but what was their killing ratio, for those transports which were exposed to combat situations?

Anomalies and exceptions are not the model that makes the A&A system rules.

Defenseless TT are an aberration, true ; individually, they were not all sitting ducks. But globally what was their role in WWII?

Â

Based on the game’s simulation of WWII era combat, using a D6 system, a defensive factor of 1 which is lowest defensive score is appropriate. The argument for no defense is still not valid, and the justification for removing it is as well. It is imposssible for one unit comprising of mostly fighters to destroy the equivalent of hundeds if not thousands of ships.

I’ll use the submarine argument against air vs. sub imbalance then. A transport should be able to retreat after one round of attack. The same way a sub can submerge. The TRN can be tipped on it’s side as if retreating. There were blockade runners in all kinds of wars.

Hell let’s just get rid of them and go for sea routes ala Risk! There were thousands of transports travelling alone all over the globe un-contested.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

@Cow:

Transports have aa guns on them. Historically transports have rammed into subs. Not sure on aa gun kills or other ramming.

This^ Again, a token defense of one isn’t a game breaker in this “realisitic” game.

Actually, I think it will unbalance Global.
You will generates a small core fleet of warships and “sheep pack” of TPs
Maybe the warships will be destroyed but as soon as 5 or more TPs are rollings @1, it will become the infantry of the sea in an extensive group.

Because they will do both defending and transporting units.
Not a high rate but just enough to keep many Fgts and StrB at bay.

[DizzKneeLand33]

For all of you who say that a stack of transports would never be used as defense, you have clearly not played the original game…. If Germany only had say 4 planes left, the U.S. could stack 12 trannies all by themselves and be pretty darn safe.  Run your odds calcs if you don’t believe me…

Now, to say that in a d6 game system each trannie should defend at a one… well, then that means that a trannie has 1/4 the firepower as a Battleship, and 1/3 the firepower of a cruiser.  lol.

But, just to please the naysayers… I’ve come up with this extremely cool unit.  Not only can it transport an infantry and another unit, it also not only defends at a two, but also attacks at a two.  And… it only costs 15 IPC’s…

Seriously.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

Based on the game’s simulation of WWII era combat, using a D6 system, a defensive factor of 1 which is lowest defensive score is appropriate.

The argument for no defense is still not valid, and the justification for removing it is as well. It is impossible for one unit comprising of mostly fighters to destroy the equivalent of hundeds if not thousands of ships.

I’ll use the submarine argument against air vs. sub imbalance then. A transport should be able to retreat after one round of attack. The same way a sub can submerge. The TRN can be tipped on it’s side as if retreating. There were blockade runners in all kinds of wars.

Hell let’s just get rid of them and go for sea routes ala Risk! There were thousands of transports travelling alone all over the globe un-contested.

It is possible to get a lower rate that 1 unit @1: 1/6 per unit.
AA guns get 3@1 once.
I suggested: 2 and more TPs get only 1D@1 but endure as many hits as they are.

A fleeing tactics can be imagine:
Philip Schwartzer from Gamers Paradise suggested that two or more TPs can be attack by 2@4 for each Sub and BB.

For a single round, you can double dice for every attacking units and let the remaining TPs as survivors: 1Fg @3 get 2@3/ 1StrB get 2@4, etc.

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

@Cow:

Transports have aa guns on them. Historically transports have rammed into subs. Not sure on aa gun kills or other ramming.

This^ Again, a token defense of one isn’t a game breaker in this “realisitic” game.

Actually, I think it will unbalance Global.
You will generates a small core fleet of warships and “sheep pack” of TT.
Maybe the warships will be destroyed but as soon as 5 or more TT are rollings @1, it will become the infantry of the sea in an extensive group.

Because they will do both defending and transporting units.
Not a high rate but just enough to keep many Fgts and StrB at bay.

How would that be when transports CANNOT attack offensively? The opposition could just as easily build destroyers to counter them.

How effective is AA on a one to one basis? It seems to me you heavily ephasize on fighter/aircraft attacks against transports which is great for the player deploying the aircraft. They get to spend less and have no risk against transports if unescorted.

Unless you build at least two destroyers per transport it’s an easy victory for one plane because you essentially knock out a transport, it’s cargo and it’s destroyer and if you lose even a bomber it’s the same risk attacking lone infantry except you wipe out a whole lot more oft the enemies IPCs. Especially for the Luftwaffe which is why players who play as Germany a lot love this ruling.

It really doesn’t matter what I think anyway. I doubt Larry Harris is reading this board and I doubt anything said here will change anything else within the game played by the community as a whole.

I still maintain that transports should have a defense and those of us here who agree will simply house rule it in our home games.