The aberration of the defenseless transport

[elevenjerk]

Yes, I agree that there were some transports that had defenses, but they are not heavily defended and are extremely vulnerable.  An air unit represents more than 100 aircraft- how many transports had air defenses to make them able to kill 100 aircraft 1/6 of the time?  These transports seem to be designed to defend against small surveillance squadrons at best.

I think that we can agree that with only six #'s on a dice, it can never be perfect.  But the transports did have weapons to fire at aircraft and warships, they were faster than warships so that they could escape.  1@1 is not heavily defended and makes them extremely vulnerable.  Especially if there are more than one transport.  AA Guns were designed to shoot down aircraft and its ok that they only fire 1@1 once.

How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?

This would counter what you said about infantry having AA with the unit.  Yet they defend at 2.  You think a ground infantry unit could take out 100 + planes with the AA they carry in their unit at 2/6 odd.

All this to say is that it cannot be perfect.  No matter what, there will be some sort of situation where it won’t make sense historically or even logically.  The thing in my opinion that makes the least sense is that there is a unit in a game about war that has 0 capability of protecting itself.  Especially like someone said earlier “in the spirit of the game” where rolling dice is the key.

[Derek]

I doubt transports were faster than warships

[baron Münchhausen]

@elevenjerk:

I still cannot picture these huge stacks of transports being used as fodder when we have a cheap nice little destroyer that not only attacks and defends but it stops subs!

The benefit would be 10 TT’s at 1 with 20 land units as opposed to 5 TT’S at 1 and 5 DD at 2 with only 10 available ground units.  I don’t think there would be huge stacks of just transports (cause you would lose the guys and the transport) but I think a navy would consist of way less capital ships with a bunch of TT’s.   It only takes 1 destroyer to stop all subs “special powers” :-D  Overall I agree with you though.  I dislike defenseless transports a lot!

I totally agree with you elevenjerk.  :-)

[BJCard]

Fair enough about the Infantry defending at 2- At least it is a military unit designed to fight whereas a transport many times was a converted ocean liner or purpose-built bare bones ‘liberty ships.’

In a perfect world we would be rolling d10s or d12s like the dice in Battle of the Bulge.  I would feel better about a transport that had a 10% chance or less scoring a hit on defense.

I suppose you could equate the units in game to be a proper mix of units of varying quality.  i.e. an Infantry unit having not just infantry but anti-tank and air support, but only enough to move one space and have a 1 att/2 def.

In that case you could say that a transport has some light escort vessels, but nothing large enough to make it have a 2 att/2 def like a destroyer.

[elevenjerk]

I doubt transports were faster than warships

The stuff I found on them stated that they were designed to be faster so they could get away.  Which carries over to BJCards point….

a transport many times was a converted ocean liner or purpose-built bare bones ‘liberty ships.’

This is also true.  In fact the titanic would have been a transport ship in the war.  White Star Line actually provided ships in WW1 and WW2 as transports.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Well i dont think one transport represents one transport either lol
Transports had AA defense but that was pretty much it.

Def would be helpless against the big long range guns of cruisers/battleships and would also be helpless against lurking submarines

Why not let each transport roll a dice that can ONLY target destroyers and aircraft

This adjustment is better than just aircraft because, in game terms, a unit that take out only aircraft is much a pain in the ass than one that let the attacker choose casualities. So by restricting the TT’s capacity it could mean making a bit more dangerous or “annoying” unit that it should be.

As some people said like BJCard, TP unit could be a very large number of TPs with a few close escort ships.
So it could be OK to give 1 TP unit Def@1 against every attacking units.
You can think mutatis mutandis about the courageous defense of the Taffy 3 Task Force against IJN (Leyte’s Gulf Battle).
They weren’t many DDs and destroyer escorts in it, but they make a hell of it against IJN cruisers.

[Derek]

@Baron:

You can think mutatis mutandis about the courageous defense of the Taffy 3 Task Force against IJN (Leyte’s Gulf Battle).
They weren’t many DD and destroyer escorts in it, but they make a hell of it against cruisers.

huh?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

@Baron:

You can think mutatis mutandis about the courageous defense of the Taffy 3 Task Force against IJN (Leyte’s Gulf Battle).
They weren’t many DD and destroyer escorts in it, but they make a hell of it against cruisers.

huh?

Sorry, english isn’t my first tongue.
I meant that few DD and DE force to retreat an entire fleet (BB and CA) of the Imperial Japanese Navy:

Kurita’s force caught Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague’s Task Unit 77.4.3 (‘Taffy 3’) entirely by surprise. Sprague directed his carriers to launch their planes, then run for the cover of a rain squall to the east. He ordered the destroyers and DEs to make a smoke screen to conceal the retreating carriers.

Kurita, unaware that Ozawa’s decoy plan had succeeded, assumed he had found a carrier group from Halsey’s 3rd Fleet. Having just redeployed his ships into anti-aircraft formation, he further complicated matters by ordering a “General Attack”, which called for his fleet to split into different divisions and attack independently.[5]

The destroyer USS Johnston was the closest to the enemy. On his own initiative, Lieutenant Commander Ernest E. Evans steered his hopelessly outclassed ship into the foe at flank speed. The Johnston fired its torpedoes at the heavy cruiser Kumano, damaging her and forcing her out of line. Seeing this, Sprague gave the order “small boys attack”, sending the rest of Taffy 3’s screening ships into the fray. Taffy 3’s two other destroyers, Hoel and Heermann, and the destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts, attacked with suicidal determination, drawing fire and disrupting the Japanese formation as ships turned to avoid their torpedoes. However, the Hoel and the Roberts were destroyed by the slowly advancing fleet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

I said “mutatis mutandis” because we have to make some “adjustments”, i.e. not taking account of the escort carrier’s fighters in the Task Force and that they were a group of warships, but the last defense to protect the marines transport.

Sometimes, David wins against Goliath.

[Derek]

Well you got me lost Baron lol

Not sure how what your talking about ties into the transport discussion

[elevenjerk]

Every time when it’s David and Goliath :-D.

Great example though.  My exact reason for supporting the expulsion of defenseless transports.

[elevenjerk]

Uncrustables are really good!!!  :-D

[Derek]

@elevenjerk:

Uncrustables are really good!!!  :-D

Yes they are!  :-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@BJCard:

In a perfect world we would be rolling d10s or d12s like the dice in Battle of the Bulge.  I would feel better about a transport that had a 10% chance or less scoring a hit on defense.

In that case you could say that a transport has some light escort vessels, but nothing large enough to make it have a 2 att/2 def like a destroyer.

I agree on all this points.
That’s why I prefer @1 against all units for TP.
The main difference along the tread is about this chance of scoring a hit.
Their is many ways to reduce the 1/6 against attacking units.

A) Give 1@1 for 1 paired of TPs, whether it worth 2 units (Baron M) or 1 unit (Uncrustable).

B) It could even be 1@1 for three transports.
(Ex.: 1-2-3 TP Def@1 or 1-2 TP Def@0, 3 TPs Def@1)

C) It could be 1@1 only for any number of TPs (Elevenjerk).
Or a little variation: for 2 or more TPs (Baron M)

But it is still 1/6 to hit 1 attacking unit. A, B, C just change the 1/6 per 1 TT, 2-3 TTs or a group of TT units.
For example, it will be different if it requires only 1/12 on a twelve sides dice.
The chances to hit attacking unit are strictly reduces in half.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Well you got me lost Baron lol

Not sure how what your talking about ties into the transport discussion

In this battle,
DEs and DDs were defending vulnerable escort carriers against a very superior ennemy.
And this whole Task Force has the mission to protect marines’ TT on the Island of Leyte.
Indirectly few DDs and DEs were protecting TT against 1 BB and some CA.

So their is an historical background for TT@1 hitting cruisers and even BB.

[Derek]

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

Well you got me lost Baron lol

Not sure how what your talking about ties into the transport discussion

In this battle,
DEs and DDs were defending vulnerable escort carriers against a very superior ennemy.
And this whole Task Force has the mission to protect marines’ TT on the Island of Leyte.
Indirectly few DDs and DEs were protecting TT against 1 BB and some CA.

So their is an historical background for TT@1 hitting cruisers and even BB.

I would argue that the small force of DDs, DEs, and Escort carriers would be represented in the game by a destroyer peice…
The destroyer is still outgunned for sure; 1@2 vs 1@3 or 1@4 Depending on whether or not the enemy force would be represented by a BB or cruiser
The transport with the destroyer escort would have a 6.1% chance of surviving vs the BB and a 49% chance vs the cruiser

[baron Münchhausen]

Sorry, if this doesn’t suit you.
My historical references about Transport in WWII are somewhat limited, that was the nearer I could think of a danger against marines TP because it was a small escort fleet.

Maybe there is something else in the first Japanese fleet attack on Guadalcanal, I don’t know.

Maybe someone has an idea where is the tread about the number of things a unit represent?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@BJCard:

In a perfect world we would be rolling d10s or d12s like the dice in Battle of the Bulge. � I would feel better about a transport that had a 10% chance or less scoring a hit on defense.

In that case you could say that a transport has some light escort vessels, but nothing large enough to make it have a 2 att/2 def like a destroyer.

I agree on all this points.
That’s why I prefer @1 against all units for TT.
The main difference along the tread is about this chance of scoring a hit.
Their is many ways to reduce the 1/6 against attacking units.

A) Give 1@1 for 1 paired of TT, whether it worth 2 units (Baron M) or 1 units (Uncrustable).

B) It could even be 1@1 for three transports.
(Ex.: 1-2-3 TT Def@1 or 1-2 TT Def@0, 3 TT Def@1)

C) It could be 1@1 only for any number of TTs (Elevenjerk).
Or a little variation: for 2 or more TTs (Baron M)

But it is still 1/6 to hit 1 attacking unit. A, B, C just change the 1/6 per 1 TT, 2-3 TTs or a group of TT units.
For example, it will be different if it requires only 1/12 on a twelve sides dice.
The chances to hit attacking unit are strictly reduces in half.

Here is a new way to reduce the defensive power of TT without using D12 and giving 1D6 to each TT without allowing odds at 1/6:
Still in the TT are taken last.
TT A0D0M2C7 can “disperse” after one round of enemy’s fire. Each unit can be taken as one casualities.
Limited defensive capacity: every TT present throw a D6. 1 attacker’s unit is destroy for every 2x “1” rolled.

Example:
Round 1: a fleet of 5 TT is attacked. They throw 5 D6, “1” “2” “3” “1” “1”.
So their is 3x “1”, it means 1 ennemy unit is destroyed.
You keep the “1” left for the other round if TT don’t flee.
Round 2: TT don’t flee. 2 were destroyed. There is still 3 TT now. Rolls: “1” “2” “3”.
So you destroy another attacker’s unit.

In this situation, only one TT can not destroy 1 attacker unit in 1 round.
But, it still can in 2 lucky round. Even though, it will surely flee after the first round, if it survives.

The odds of destroying unit increase with the number of TT presents.
(10TT means 10D6, for each pair of “1”, there is a hit.)
It starts at 1/36 for 2 TT but increase for each additionnal TT. With 3 TT, it is around 3/36= 0.5/6 to destroy 1 unit.

This is a middle way between Uncrustable and Elevenjerk.
Between 1/6 for each TT@1 and only 1/6 for 1 group of TT @1, no matter the number.

For sure, it is different from the standard combat rule, but not that much.

Transports are already treated differently.
It can be a way to let them defend without doing too much damage to the attacker.

[Derek]

I see where your coming from, though i will keep argueing my point that no transport(even in large numbers) was anywhere near equipped to fight off Battleships and cruisers.
For one the battleships and cruisers would be able to sink the transports far outside the range of any guns the transport could fire in defense.
Likewise i doubt any transport(even in large numbers) was anywhere near eqquiped to deal with submarine threats.

Transports need escorts(destroyers/submarines) if threatened by anything other than air units or smaller surface ships(destroyers)
I would say most transports had plenty of ‘small’ guns to deal with aircraft threats and smaller surface warship(destroyers) threats
No the guns would not be ‘ideal’ for taking on large numbers of aircraft or enemy destroyers but certainly much better odds than vs battleships/cruisers/submarines

And about the retreat deal that really goes against A&A (never has the defender been able to retreat save carrierless fighters/tacbombers)
and remember we are talking about vast areas of ocean(hundreds of miles) for each seazone. That is plenty enough room for attackers to chase down and slaughter every last defenseless transport  :evil:

so let transports roll dice hitting on a one ONLY ABLE TO TARGET ENEMY AIRCRAFT OR DESTROYERS
transports still must be taken LAST as casualties(they cannot screen)
transports would still auto die to submarines/cruisers/battleships (chased down and slaughtered before than can reach safety of the next seazone)

[baron Münchhausen]

@ Uncrustable,
Since you don’t accept a scattering capacity of TT (I explained it under “dispersion”), the TT unit you propose imply auto-kill if any CA or BB and even CV are present.
Are you OK with this?

Are you also aware of this drawback?
If their is only 1 plane, 1 sub and 1 BB against TT for instance: it means plane will be destroy (on a 1 of course) instead of letting the attacker choosing either BB if undamaged or the sub. So the attacker loose a more expensive unit and have no choice.

@Baron:

This adjustment is better than just aircraft because, in game terms, a unit that take out only aircraft is much a pain in the ass than one that let the attacker choose casualities. So by restricting the TT’s capacity it could mean making a bit more dangerous or “annoying” unit that it should be.

As some people said like BJCard, TT unit could be a very large number of TT with a few close escort ships.
So it could be OK to give 1 TT unit Def@1 against every attacking units.

Of course, I let aside the other layer of complexity (we are exploring possibility), it adds for TT not able to destroy a certain type of unit, when it comes the time to have a global picture about subs, aircraft, AAA which have special abilty against type of unit….

“Dispersion”:
@Baron:

Here is what I think is a more balance TT unit for those who prefer to keep the Transport are taken last and don’t want to affect too much the OOB set up and balance but don’t want to let them defenseless and give them some tactical choices.

TT A0D0M2C7 when paired to another transport give a +1 def. so a pair get 1@1
Ex.: 1TT get 0@1/ 2-3TT get 1@1 / 4-5TT get 2@1 / 6-7TT get 3@1, etc.
Can defend when no more warships are present.
Attacking’s unit against a lonely TT or a TT group get a double to hit rolls each.
Ex.: 1 Sb 2@2/ 1 CA 2@3 � / 1Fgt 2@3 / 2 StrB 4@4, etc.

“Dispersion”: 1 or more TT can retreat in the same sea-zone (as Sub submerge) after 1 round of enemy’s fire.
So they still share the same sea-zone with enemy’s warships, if their is.

Historical meaning:
They flee everywhere in the sea, so enemy attacking group units pick only 1 single transport boat at a time and this become a long time-consuming process to destroy them.

I think it is a middle term that reach many criterias presented in this tread.
Specially the comparison of a classic TT firepower against 1 BB unit.
1@1 vs 1@4 is very unrealistic but 1@1 for 2 TT vs 4@4 to 2 BB seems correct to me.
It brings also more fun since their is no automatic killing.
And the presence of 10 or more TT is still a dangerous task since 5@1 is something that can hurt.
And let the option to the defender to fight to the death or not.

I was inspired by this post:

@Der:

@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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

And about the retreat deal that really goes against A&A (never has the defender been able to retreat save carrierless fighters/tacbombers)
and remember we are talking about vast areas of ocean(hundreds of miles) for each seazone. That is plenty enough room for attackers to chase down and slaughter every last defenseless transport  :evil:

so let transports roll dice hitting on a one ONLY ABLE TO TARGET ENEMY AIRCRAFT OR DESTROYERS
transports still must be taken LAST as casualties (they cannot screen)
transports would still auto die to submarines/cruisers/battleships (chased down and slaughtered before than can reach safety of the next seazone)

We should look at how many real things a unit represent.
Because I think for BB, it’s at most 4 Battleships. Transports units, I think is probably 50 transport boats.
So, it is still possible to escape from powerful ships, just by not staying in a slower convoy. Every boat on his own going everywhere. I think it’s still plausible.

Even merchant’s convoy were able to pass through German’s Wolfpack. Their was many casualties but they get in UK.

I think there is a room not for a “retreat” because it’s not an attacker option we are talking.
That’s why I name it “Dispersion” maybe “scattering” is better, I don’t know. Surely somebody can better name this “fleeing” option.