The aberration of the defenseless transport

[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My historical references about Transport in WWII are somewhat limited, that was the nearer I could think of a danger against marines TP because it was a small escort fleet.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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Ive thought about letting transports defend in ‘pairs’

Each ‘pair’ of transports is considered one unit, rolls ONE dice hitting on a one and can be taken as a casualty. (both transports are sunk)

Odd numbered transports do not participate.

@Uncrustable:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

The biggest argument in this thread is whether or not player can choose their own casualties (even transports)

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….

Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.

I will devellop another type of TT rules based on these suggestions of Uncrustable:
This time it will be Classics paradigm:
Transport are casualities as the defender chose.
TT A0D0M2C7 when paired with another TT it get Def@1. Except when alone, a TT is either paired or join a pair of TT.
For casualities determination, all TT units either 1, 2 or 3 TT count only as 1 hit.

Example 1: 1BB@4 1DD@2 1TTD@0 are attacked and takes 2 hits:
Defender can damage BB and lose 1TT.

Example 2: 1BB@4 1DD@2 3TTD1@1 are attacked and takes 2 hits:
After damaging BB, if the TT take the hit, they will be all destroyed (Cost: 21 IPCs).
So it becomes a must to destroy the DD instead.

Example 3: 1BB@4 1DD@2 5TTD2@1 are attacked and takes 2 hits:
Defender can damage BB, if the TT take the hit, instead of the 1DD (C8 IPCs), and loose 1 group of TT (either the paired one 2TT C:14 IPCs or the group of 3TT C:21 IPCs).
So it becomes obvious to destroy the DD instead of any TT group, unless their is too many Subs attacking (defender can still prefer to keep this Anti-Sub Weapon and sacrifice 2 TT at least).

So their is no need to treat the third transport differently.
You see what I mean?

[baron Münchhausen]

Of course, it didn’t mean the end of transport screening, but it will be a last resort I think. It is the flaw of Classics TT but…

Paying 14 IPCs or even 21 IPCs, anyone will do it to protect a BB@4 (like in the example), but DD and Sub will be the real screen first.

[Cow]

I said I like that transports cannot be taken as a casualty.

I just hate not rolling an attack value for them. They should roll a 1. They can ram naval and pew pew with their 50 cal mounted.

[Derek]

@Baron:

@ 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.

I said nothing about a carrier…also spell out the units lol i do not know which is CV or CA or DE…lol

But this is an absurd scenario which you have proposed because the attacker would just choose to retreat the units that can be hit by the transport and instead only attack them with subs/battleships/cruisers…therefore no casualties to the attacker if the transports were without escort

do you really beleive that lone transports (WITH NO ESCORT) were capable of sinking battleships? submarines? cruisers? i think not
and ramming them means the transport dies on its first die roll…roll a 1 then the trasnport is dead

i do not buy into the argument “transport unit includes built-escort” as we have the units for escort now (destroyer at 8 IPC and submarine at 6 IPC, cruiser at 12 IPC carrier…etc)

to me a transport on the game board represents a group of lone transports, with some guns (AA mostly) but not enough to deter large long range guns or underwater attacks

[BJCard]

@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:

Not true- in A&A Classic Submarines could retreat from battle to an adjacent friendly SZ- of course there was no submerging then, but it isn’t unheard of.

I agree that Transports could fight off a few planes here and there, but not heavier ships and/or 100’s of aircraft.  Escort ships have been ‘decoupled’ from transports in the form of destroyers.

Earlier I mentioned possibly some smaller escort ships in the transport unit, but the more I think about it the less I like that.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

But this is an absurd scenario which you have proposed because the attacker would just choose to retreat the units that can be hit by the transport and instead only attack them with subs/battleships/cruisers…therefore no casualties to the attacker if the transports were without escort

It is not that absurd scenario, according to OOB rules, if attacker decides to retreat, their is no partial retreat: it is all or nothing.
(Exception, maybe, is amphibious assault.)

Do you see now, here is the devil in the details.
You would have to add another special rule for the attacker:
“Aircrafts can retreat from a naval battle when their is only transports in defense.”

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cow:

I said I like that transports cannot be taken as a casualty.

I just hate not rolling an attack value for them. They should roll a 1. They can ram naval and pew pew with their 50 cal mounted.

It is plausible that some of US Marines TPs for examples decide, for the sake of the many, to ram into a battleship or a cruiser.
The remaining units will survive while the battleship had to mend his wounds.
I agree with you on this.
There is much more boats in a TP unit than a cruiser or BB unit.

[theROCmonster]

I like the idea of keeping the transport as is, but maybe have another transport unit that is 9-10 IPC’s that functions like the transport from revised. This way you would have a mix of both transports being purchased possibly.

[baron Münchhausen]

@theROCmonster:

I like the idea of keeping the transport as is, but maybe have another transport unit that is 9-10 IPC’s that functions like the transport from revised. This way you would have a mix of both transports being purchased possibly.

@theROCmonster
So you agree with this kind of unit ?
The difference is that 9-10 unit will be part of the warships group and can be choose as a first casualities by the defender.
Isn’t it?

@Baron:

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

Just a way to upgrade starting TT 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 TT at 7 IPCs or TT 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 TT with no hit value after introducing TT@1 C9…

[baron Münchhausen]

@ShadowHAwk:

@Baron:

@Cow:

I said I like that transports cannot be taken as a casualty.

I just hate not rolling an attack value for them. They should roll a 1. They can ram naval and pew pew with their 50 cal mounted.

It is plausible that some of US Marines TPs for examples decide, for the sake of the many, to ram into a battleship or a cruiser.
The remaining units will survive while the battleship had to mend his wounds.
I agree with you on this.
There is much more boats in a TP unit than a cruiser or BB unit.

It isnt plausible at all, they would have been destroyed before they would get in reach. Besides only the japanese where fanatic enough to do suicide attacks.
That is also 1 of the main causes the marines actualy did so wel japanese would do WW1 style wave attacks against fixed positions.
The chance of getting in reach with a destroyer would be nearly 0 a transport that is slower then a combat ship cannot ram the other 1 because it cannot catch up.

That is the point: is all TPs slower than destroyer? And about a damage DD (because some posts shows transports have some cannons)?

[KimRYoung]

It is plausible that some of US Marines TT for examples decide, for the sake of the many, to ram into a battleship or a cruiser.

Say WHAT?!

This is neither plausible nor even possible, as tactical doctrine would force the ships commander to get as far away from a capital ship as fast as possible. Exactly how many hits from an 8" to 15" shell do you even think a transport could take trying such a manuever? (let alone secondary armament).

Sorry this whole thread has devolved into a complete bunch of “House Rules” ideas and should be moved there. There is zero chance Larry will be changing back the rules for how transports work at this juncture in any of the game series.  Nice try though.

Kim

[baron Münchhausen]

About your first comment, it seems that between giving TT@1 and the OOB rule, you prefer the second.
However, your historical oriented comment let us think that instead of auto-kill TT, it would have been better to let a space for escaping maneuver for TT.

About Larry and WoTC, I think we all agree with you.

But initial question stay, how far can we go to revert back to Classics TT in Global 1940?

Der Kuenstler is asking a good question and help to think outside the box.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

I said nothing about a carrier…also spell out the units lol i do not know which is CV or CA or DE…lol

@Uncrustable
I’m not sure if it is ironic or if you are asking for the sake of everybody?
Should I use the name or not?

[BJCard]

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

I said nothing about a carrier…also spell out the units lol i do not know which is CV or CA or DE…lol

@Uncrustable
I’m not sure if it is ironic or if you are asking for the sake of everybody?
Should I use the name or not?

We go through this every few months.  Some people have little background in wargames or in military nomenclature.  There is a thread somewhere in the forums that gives definitions for the common acronyms.