The aberration of the defenseless transport

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

Wow - still going I see. I think everyone needs to back up and look at what this game is. Axis and Allies is what’s known as a “Beer and Pretzels” game among game enthusiasts. It is by no stretch of the imagination a serious military simulation!

Because the game is played at the scale of the entire world on your kitchen table, it must paint with a wide brush as far as reality goes. Now you have rules in it like “subs can’t hit planes.” Why not? Why did u-boats all mount AA guns? “planes cannot hit subs without a DD present.” Why not? You’re telling me a plane never caught a sub on the surface while on patrol? These are attempts to force more realism into the game.

Special rules can enhance play if used sparingly, but they can also seriously reduce the fun factor and bog the game down.

My proposal to return to the classic transport fits it nicely with the guiding rules of Axis and Allies since its beginnings.

• Every attack involves chance
• Defender chooses his own casualties

Realism should NOT be the priority here. There is no weather in this game. There is no supply. Japanese tanks are just as effective as German ones. What the game does do well is allow players to have fun, make strategic decisions, and cuss or shout at dice rolls.

If you are worried about transport fodder, just bump the transports up to 10 IPCs. If your opponent wants to take his transport first as a casualty, let him. He’s still losing IPCs. He’s losing his ability to move units across water. Let the player be the commander. And you are still playing AXIS & ALLIES, not some mutant hybrid game that is attempting to match reality by flooding the classic game system with a bunch of forced extra rules.

Good to see you back.  :-)
It is a kind of closing the circle you started…
Or maybe extinguishing the fire you started?  8-)

I see that you still emphasis your preference for Classics.
It is still very appealing.
Strangely, there was many more suggestions of adjustment for the “Taken last” transport. It took me much more time than I expected at first to summarize the 15 variations and it maybe still going.

You said:

And you are still playing AXIS & ALLIES, not some mutant hybrid game that is attempting to match reality by flooding the classic game system with a bunch of forced extra rules.

Strangely, if you pick option one by one and take the time to understand it, you will see that most of them are just taking some little modifiers from existing rules, or used an A&A mechanics applied elsewhere and use it for their Transports rule.

Of course, their is still more or less simple variations, more or less realistic, more or less balance vs other units and have more or less  consequences on the play balance between Axis vs Allies. And I’m sure, many made their posts for the sake of those criterias, not to create a monster.

Actually, I think the more we directly revert back to Classic TP, the more it changes the balance toward Allies. But many think Global is too much pro-Axis, so they can try a different TP rule instead of a bid.
However, after all that have been said, I’m still wondering:
If I change for less defenseless transport Taken last, which one will I choose to introduce to my friends for playing?

Nonetheless, thank you very much Der Kuenstler for your initial post and question.  :wink:

It was a very stimulating one, I like all the thinking outside the box which generated from.

[Derek]

@Der:

Wow - still going I see. I think everyone needs to back up and look at what this game is. Axis and Allies is what’s known as a “Beer and Pretzels” game among game enthusiasts. It is by no stretch of the imagination a serious military simulation!

Because the game is played at the scale of the entire world on your kitchen table, it must paint with a wide brush as far as reality goes. Now you have rules in it like “subs can’t hit planes.” Why not? Why did u-boats all mount AA guns? “planes cannot hit subs without a DD present.” Why not? You’re telling me a plane never caught a sub on the surface while on patrol? These are attempts to force more realism into the game.

Special rules can enhance play if used sparingly, but they can also seriously reduce the fun factor and bog the game down.

My proposal to return to the classic transport fits it nicely with the guiding rules of Axis and Allies since its beginnings.

• Every attack involves chance
• Defender chooses his own casualties

Realism should NOT be the priority here. There is no weather in this game. There is no supply. Japanese tanks are just as effective as German ones. What the game does do well is allow players to have fun, make strategic decisions, and cuss or shout at dice rolls.

If you are worried about transport fodder, just bump the transports up to 10 IPCs. If your opponent wants to take his transport first as a casualty, let him. He’s still losing IPCs. He’s losing his ability to move units across water. Let the player be the commander. And you are still playing AXIS & ALLIES, not some mutant hybrid game that is attempting to match reality by flooding the classic game system with a bunch of forced extra rules.

Well i couldn’t disagree with you more on transport rules.
I think naval combat/fleet compositions, and the game as a whole, is better off with the new transport rules, and i’m glad i see it the way Larry apparently does.

Transports to transport
Warships to protect/attack transports
Simple

[toblerone77]

I just got my wife playing 1941 with me she likes the game a lot and is picking it up quick to the point where she’s downloaded the PDF on her iPad and Droid so she can read it at work when time allows.

That being said we fudged some of the rules like allowing shore bombardment for BBs. She asked what TTs defended at? I had to laugh and explain the whole saga. During the game she had to ask twice about whether or not she would have to fight against TTs I explained no, due to having no combat value. All in all she learned not to leave the transports un-escorted (which usually doesn’t happen anyway) which she did.

Whole point is that you may want to send out a lone transport out once in a while and it would be great if it had a fighting chance. The newer rule is do-able but adds the need to essentially double your amphibious assault costs.

My conclusion is that during a F2F, table-top, non-tourney game classic transport (or DK’s) rules have thier place. Larry Harris is never going to change it back and most people here won’t adopt it. So. DK and anyone else who likes the old(ish) rules, If we ever play F2F I’m game for those rules otherwise I’m not going to argue the point.

IMO the rule change since AAGC and AA50 is dumb as hell to me but that is how it is, and I don’t think believing so makes one an idiot for thinking so.

Anyway cheers to DK for such a great thread!

[Cow]

5TT, which can under your house rule, attack, so 5@1, a 1 DD Def@2.
If the DD hit, the 5 TT are all sunk. But if 1TT marks a hit then DD is destroy and 4TT are still alive. Is it?

Scenario 1. DD miss + transports miss = all transports dead
Scenario 2. DD hits + transports hit = 1 transport dies rest survive.

There you go. :D This is better because it allows attackers the same flexibility as before when it comes to choosing casualties in those bigger battles. Also I would give transports an attack value as well. They all die if they miss their attack.

This may lead to some pretty epic ramming!

This is a nice balance between people traumatized by classic transports and people super board looking at America post transport rule change.

Their blood may boil again! hip hip hooray!

We have found a middle between trauma and boredom. Now how to get both sides to agree…

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks for the explanations.

Interesting idea that TT can be use as attack@1 but to a great danger for them.

Did it take a long time to come with it?

The more I think about it the more it seems simple to play with it.

Attacking units will make 100% casualties if only 1 survive the TT defensive rolls.
They could still do damage to TT group even if they didn’t survive.

I’m wondering why I didn’t think about it, it seems an obvious possibility now. :mrgreen:

I insert your option in my summarize post “Reply #184” and formulate that way, is it OK?

TTn1.5 Cow A1D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill.

Sorry, I’m not very good and fast thinker:

it allows attackers the same flexibility as before when it comes to choosing casualties

Are you in the TT Classic paradigm: defender [attacker, for this rare TT type] can choose casualties?
Because I thought you were elaborating a “Taken last” TT house rule.

[Cow]

I mean that… attackers can send their boats in for the attack… sure you can’t choose them as casualties but you are attacking with them like before and when you choose your casualties before retreating you are not totally screwed, you have some flexibility as far as choosing what you want to defend with.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cow:

I mean that… attackers can send their boats in for the attack… sure you can’t choose them as casualties but you are attacking with them like before and when you choose your casualties before retreating you are not totally screwed, you have some flexibility as far as choosing what you want to defend with.

Still me, I little short example will help me surely understand what your words mean. Please.  :-)

I thought that even in the “good older times” transport have no attack value, and it can participate into an amphibious assault. Of course, it was also used as cannon fodder (taking hits as the carrier can do in OOB rules) in naval battle, but still didn’t get A1.

[Cow]

Yeah it is just to make it fair for both sides of a big naval conflict. Before you could take them as losses in classic… the defender got a roll at 1, which kind of made it better to defend.

Now it is lopsided. The defender losses out and the attacker gets an even bigger payday because the risk is small. If he has to make the same commitment and lose out on a possible counter attack… then the game better promotes action for both sides.

One side has a reason to advance and the other side has a reason to attack.

[Cow]

I thought of this idea the moment someone said AA gun roll… I was like… you know what… how about transports roll at 1 on attack and defense… but none of that casualty stuff. That is a good middle. Plus it is cool rolling more dice.

It is nonsense to play a board game and get no dice out of a unit. Even a bomber rolls a 1 on defense.

Plus all the people that complain about it, they really only want a dice. They do not care if it is a casualty or not, they just miss the roll.

All the people that complained about the classic transport… were mad about 4 lone transports defeating their 3 fighters attacking. The odds are much better for them to kill lone transports, but it is not 100%.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cow:

Yeah it is just to make it fair for both sides of a big naval conflict. Before you could take them as losses in classic… the defender got a roll at 1, which kind of made it better to defend.

Now it is lopsided. The defender losses out and the attacker gets an even bigger payday because the risk is small. If he has to make the same commitment and lose out on a possible counter attack… then the game better promotes action for both sides.

One side has a reason to advance and the other side has a reason to attack.

I still didn’t see the attack part but only defense…
By “on a possible counter attack…”, you mean the 1 round Defense@1 from each TT?

Here, I’m lost:

One side has a reason to advance and the other side has a reason to attack.

One  side? Attacker? is “advancing” ? Correct?
Other side? Defender and his TT? is counter-"attack"ing? Correct?

I dont’t see where we can use the A1 from a TT.
If there is 1DD and 1TT, it would mean: 1@2 and 1@1 for first round.
What happen after?
Does the TT still can fire 1@1 if it haven’t been hit on 1st round?
Which unit from the attacker will take the first casuality?
Is it possible that attacker choose one unloaded TT as cannon fodder and keep is DD for another round?

Help!!! :?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cow:

I thought of this idea the moment someone said AA gun roll… I was like… you know what… how about transports roll at 1 on attack and defense… but none of that casualty stuff. That is a good middle. Plus it is cool rolling more dice.

It is nonsense to play a board game and get no dice out of a unit. Even a bomber rolls a 1 on defense.  :-D

Plus all the people that complain about it, they really only want a dice. They do not care if it is a casualty or not, they just miss the roll. :-D :-D

All the people that complained about the classic transport… were mad about 4 lone transports defeating their 3 fighters attacking. The odds are much better for them to kill lone transports, but it is not 100%.  :evil:

I agree all the way.

The more I think about, the more I wonder that is not so complex and you get some dice rolls, why does Larry and all play-testers didn’t explore that opportunity?

[Cow]

Yes, attacking transports would be allowed to retreat, if the dd hits, you lose the transport.

The play testers and Larry Harris probably thought everyone would prefer a defenseless transport. In fact for the most part people do. I am split personally. I just do not enjoy playing USA in the board games past aa50 and global. Even aa50 gets kind of lame when Germany buys air every round and the axis go into turtle mode… game can turn into a stalemate.

I hardly see much Europe play in global. Mainly because of the whole defenseless transports for infantry that already have one way tickets.

Still if you got 6 transports, you kind of expect 1 hit, that can make a big difference when your nest egg is under attack. ~it just makes it a little easier for USA to plan out his Atlantic buy. I mean you get too much naval you can’t take any territories… you get too little naval your stuff gets sunk… Germany/Italy see you coming and can prepare 2 rounds before you can use your stuff.

USA gets kind of predictable from an axis point of view. I do not like that so much.

[BJCard]

I understand everyone wanting transports to be able to defend; but I just don’t see it since escorts have been decoupled from transports in the form of Destroyers.

I could get behind retreating transports after they survive a round of attack, but otherwise it changes game balance too much and would need an entirely different setup.  Suddenly sealion is easier, Italy’s fleet is more survivable, and Japan’s fleet is even more invincible than it already is.

In the case of ramming transports- you think you can get a dozen transports ramming a dozen subs for the kill (1/6th of the time?).  (1 sub vs. 1 transport)

Or to the guy saying subs should be able to hit aircraft- sure maybe one or two, but a dozen subs against 100 aircraft?  (1 sub vs. 1 fighter) yeah right- those subs should submerge.

[Cow]

BJCard what do you think of my proposal? Transports roll @ 1, cannot be taken as a casualty, die at end of round of alone against remaining attacking force, can retreat when on attacking only (just like amphi assault stuff).

[BJCard]

@Cow:

BJCard what do you think of my proposal? Transports roll @ 1, cannot be taken as a casualty, die at end of round of alone against remaining attacking force, can retreat when on attacking only (just like amphi assault stuff).

Cow, it isn’t a bad proposal, I like it as a hybrid- it gives fleets a bit more ‘oomph,’ but we would have to look at balance.  If it turned out to be as balanced as 2nd edition, then sure, no problem.

[Cow]

Would make the allies more fun to play.

It has been an axis favored game since AA50.
~
Sadly my Germany guide is not as big of a hit as my Japan one, but my Germany guide came out much later. I should have put it out when the game was still new, but I had been heavily requested to wait on it. Allies players did not like the sudden shift to Japan declaring war sooner.

Now it is very rare to see G3 and J3.

[Derek]

I would be more ok with rolling a 12 sided die for transports and let them hit on a 1.
I would be ok with giving each transport an AA dice.

NOT ok with them attacking lol, that is absurd. Carriers dont get an attack value and they carry more weapons than transports.

Comparing transports to bombers is ludicrous. Bombers once taken to the skies are war machines (flying fortresses if you will)

Honestly the more i think about it the more i love the current system, i do not want a game where rarely any warships are built and its just mass transports.
Revised edition has some pretty horrible naval combat as rarely anyone attacks or buys navy other than transports. I do not want that.

If you want an escort buy a destroyer.
If your transports keep getting killed because you cant count, then learn to count lol

[BJCard]

@Cow:

Would make the allies more fun to play.

It has been an axis favored game since AA50.
~
Sadly my Germany guide is not as big of a hit as my Japan one, but my Germany guide came out much later. I should have put it out when the game was still new, but I had been heavily requested to wait on it. Allies players did not like the sudden shift to Japan declaring war sooner.

Now it is very rare to see G3 and J3.

There are still some strong advocates of G3/J3, and even some G4:J4; which I think is kind of absurd.  I was surprised you haven’t interjected into the topic about holding off the US by attacking the Aleutian islands that turned into a debate on why waiting to attack as the Axis is better.

I think the Axis have been favored since A&A Revised to tell you the truth- just more pronounced since AA50.  the original Europe and original Pacific were both heavily favored to the Axis as well.

[Gargantua]

@Der:

Let me start this off first with a quote:

“All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward” - Glasgow

For six editions and the first 24 years of AA history, the transport has cost 8 IPCs and defended @1. Starting with AA Guadalcanal, transports became defenseless (the unit pricing scheme was all different). In the 50th Ann edition, transports became defenseless and cheaper, costing 7 IPCs.

I understand new rules create sales, so from a business standpoint, changing things is good. But IMO changing the transport rules hurt the overall game and here’s why:

1. The “auto-destroy” rule violates the spirit of the game.

Everything in this game involves decisions and risk, and has since the beginning. That’s what makes it so much fun. As Alexander Smith said “Everything is sweetened by risk.” Now we have a rule introduced where there is no risk - only auto-destruction. It is an exception to every other rule and every other unit in the game. All excitement in dice rolling to see what happens is removed. What happens is already decided with no variants at all - no anticipation. Lone transports just get swept off the board. yawn.

2. The 7 IPC rule makes amphibious assaults easier and cheaper.

Honestly, this rule seems to have been added only because transorts were made weaker by the first rule. To me this is going in the opposite direction of the way it should. It’s already too easy to take islands like Okinawa and such with bombardment. Amphibious assults ought to be hard and EXPENSIVE - that’s why it took the allies so long to achieve one in Europe.

OBJECTION: Transports defending @1 is unrealistic!
ANSWER: how often in WWII were transports left completely alone? To me this defense value reflects smaller DD escorts, PT boats, AA batteries and such that would normally be in the vicinity of transports. Plus some transport vessels were lightly armed.

VERDICT: I say they should have left transports the way they were!Â

The problem with the old system is that transports were always taken as casualties first.

Naval battles became a transport trading fest.

You could make defend at 1, for the cost of $1 more, but only so long as the “chosen last” system remains in place.

It’s that, or for $1, transports reserve the right to retreat on a die roll instead of defence.

[Cow]

what about my hybrid plan garg? Transports roll 1 attack and defend. Cannot be taken as casualties, instant die if unprotected at the end of an attack and defend roll against 1 or more attacking units.