The aberration of the defenseless transport

[Der Kuenstler]

Remember Sesame street?

“One of these things is not like the other”

BBs, CVs, CAs, DDs, SSs, Bombers, Tac, Fighters, Tanks, Mech, Art - choose your own casualties in the order you see fit as commander.

Global Transport - NO CHOOSING! Transports MUST ALWAYS be taken last!

BBs, CVs, CAs, DDs, SSs, Bombers, Tac, Fighters, Tanks, Mech, Art -
All involve risk when attacking them

Global Transport - NO RISK - all are swept away with no loss to the attacker. (even taking off from and landing on a carrier without doing any battle involved SOME operational risk)

BBs, CVs, CAs, DDs, SSs, Bombers, Tac, Fighters, Tanks, Mech, Art -
All battles resolved with dice rolls. Results are happy or sad.

Global Transport - All battles are resolved by picking up the dead transports and dropping them back in your tray. Results are pre-decided and a bore.

@Baron:

1- Increase TTc cost because it is a more usefull unit than TTn. So loosing a higher IPCs TT unit vs cheaper (DD and Subs) seems a bad choice.
However, this cost affects directly all amphibious strategies: higher prices mean less transports or lack of Inf to move on board.

Not really, as I favor keeping the extra transport capacity of the Global unit. Plus the classic unit defending @1 will mean it will have to be replaced less often. So the extra cost should be negligible.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

Global Transport - All battles are resolved by picking up the dead transports and dropping them back in your tray. Results are pre-decided and a bore.

@Baron:

1- Increase TTc cost because it is a more usefull unit than TTn. So loosing a higher IPCs TT unit vs cheaper (DD and Subs) seems a bad choice.
However, this cost affects directly all amphibious strategies: higher prices mean less transports or lack of Inf to move on board.

Not really, as I favor keeping the extra transport capacity of the Global unit. Plus the classic unit defending @1 will mean it will have to be replaced less often. So the extra cost should be negligible.

Very funny analogy. :-D
Did you played Global once both Classic and Chosen last? I’m curious.
Does this really have no impact on overall game (dis-)balance [some would say] when TT are at 8 IPCs?
The same strategic moves even if battle outcomes vary and the number of TTs available is different?
Will it be different?
TT won’t be used in large masse as naval cannon fodder, just to get sea domination?

Global Transport - All battles are resolved by picking up the dead transports and dropping them back in your tray. Results are pre-decided and a bore.

Predictable results is what we want disappear: many will agree on this.

However, their is two means to escape from defenseless transport.

After that, even a no more defenseless transport didn’t solve the other issue.

[Derek]

If you dont want your transports being ‘swept off the board and returned to their tray’…
LEARN TO COUNT and BUILD A FLEET TO ESCORT THEM.
If they are ESCORTED and your opponent attacks them, he is taking a “risk” by battling with the escorts to get to the transports.
If you choose not to escort them, YOU are taking a “risk” by leaving them defenseless.
It ADDS to the game it doesnt take anything away from it.

I absolutely hated the old transports, and was so relieved when Larry changed them to a defenseless unit.
Naval battles were rare and dull transport fodder trade offs before the change.

[BJCard]

@Uncrustable:

If you dont want your transports being ‘swept off the board and returned to their tray’…
LEARN TO COUNT and BUILD A FLEET TO ESCORT THEM.
If they are ESCORTED and your opponent attacks them, he is taking a “risk” by battling with the escorts to get to the transports.
If you choose not to escort them, YOU are taking a “risk” by leaving them defenseless.
It ADDS to the game it doesnt take anything away from it.

I absolutely hated the old transports, and was so relieved when Larry changed them to a defenseless unit.
Naval battles were rare and dull transport fodder trade offs before the change.

1000x this

[Cow]

The old transports did allow america to invade territories instead of sit around with boats n oceans.

[Derek]

@Cow:

The old transports did allow america to invade territories instead of sit around with boats n oceans.

Yes, now they have to purchase/operate/maintain fleets, and conduct battle on the high seas against the enemy in order to move troops from its mainland to the front lines. This makes the game more both more interesting/entertaining and historical.

[toblerone77]

I’d like to know what the poster’s preferred countries to play are.

[Cow]

If I play America… it is full pacific for me in global.

The atlantic is not interesting. If you do anything in the atlantic you only buy for it up to the first 3 rounds. You pretty much are just supplying uk with some transports and naval to protect his stuff so he can load and off load units every other turn.

That is it.

It is simple, it is boring, and there is not much else you can do.  You can try to do other things sure, but it almost always never pans out. You are needed in the Pacific, Japan is powerful.

Since you do not need many transports the pacific is where you got to be… plus you get help from anzac plus Japan is an island so you are both on equal footing… where as germany can just drop 10 inf and all of a sudden your 5 boat loads just got matched.

[Cow]

See when I am Germany and I see atlantic buys from America. I get three options, naval, air, or ground to defend against it. I see you coming. I can plan to attack your fleet if you do not get enough naval. I can plan to counter attack your ground if you do get enough naval.

You need a high amount of luck for whatever plan you go with. Sometimes if you can get Germany to dedicate enough to defend against you, then you can contain him from advancing deep into russia… problem is… everything germany needs for Russia is bought and moved in the first 3 rounds.

So that is a tight window and you only start with 1 transport in the atlantic with 1 cruiser.

[Cow]

It costs much to protect them, it would reduce the cost a little if they had some defense value.

That is all people are getting at.

It has nothing to do with how good their strategy is or is not. The fact of the matter is, USA spawns far away so no matter what USA does the axis know how they will react in advance.

You get heavy transport, they plan to sink it, you get heavy naval, they ignore it.

The pacific is much more forgiving for USA to do a variety of buys.

[Krieghund]

@Baron:

@BJCard:

@Krieghund:

How about this for a house rule idea: leave the transport rules exactly as they are, except transports in excess of combat units can be taken as casualties.  This allows combat units to “screen” transports, but unscreened transports can be lost.

Example:
A fleet containing a carrier, 2 fighters, a destroyer, and 5 transports is attacked.  The first hit could be taken on the carrier, damaging it.  The next hit may be taken on a transport, as there are 5 transports but only 4 combat units.  However, the following hit must be taken on a combat unit, as the number of transports and combat units is now equal.  The remaining order of loss could be destroyer, transport, carrier, transport, fighter, transport, fighter, transport.

I actually like Krieg’s solution a lot.  transports are defended on a 1-1 basis.

I still cannot see why is this a solution?
TT become a 1 unit value @0 like AAA after first round.

They will play a similar role, mostly if defender thinks he couldn’t make it against attacker’s units.

TT becomes cannon fodder or tampering unit for the defensive valuable unit (D2/D3/D4) like what many critics about classic pointed out.

What it does, is only regulate the rate of attrition amongst TT.

Exactly, but at a much weaker value than in Classic.

@KimRYoung:

Transports still get used as a cheap soak off, when in reality attacking units would go for capital ships. Transports should get the hell out of a combat zone ASAP since the only thing they want is to survive!

Yes, but as someone pointed out, A&A is about choices.  This gives the transport owner more control over order of loss, without using transports completely as a shield.  However, it would probably be necessary to also outlaw attacking with transports unless doing an amphibious assault (and them only with loaded ones).

@Cow:

It costs much to protect them, it would reduce the cost a little if they had some defense value.

That is all people are getting at.

I believe that’s exactly what I proposed.  Allowing transports to be conditionally taken as casualties gives them “some defense value” by allowing preservation of some combat unit firepower for a little longer without using them completely as cannon fodder.  This leverages the value of your combat units, allowing you to purchase fewer of them for the same effect.  You still have to protect your transports, but it’s a little easier to do so.  It also preserves the requirement to give transports adequate protection, as they are still completely defenseless on their own.

Another example may illustrate this.  Say you have a fleet consisting of a cruiser and three transports.  Under the official rules, all an attacker need do is sink the cruiser, and the whole fleet goes down.  Under my proposal, two of the transports can be lost before the cruiser.  This gives the defender some cushion, but not nearly as much as it would in Classic, as the transports can’t fire.  This extra bit of defense forces the attacker to bring more to the table than he would need to do under the current rules.  However, the defense is still relatively weak, as the defender only gets one shot per round, so it’s still wise for the defender to provide more warships.

[Der Kuenstler]

Pretty good, Krieghund, except you won’t please all those shouting “warships are there to protect transports, not the other way around!” The transports you take early are essentially protecting the warships, aren’t they?

I can point to another unit example for my argument.

A bomber defends @1. Why? Doesn’t this represent a bomber getting caught on the ground like at Pearl Harbor? If you are OK with the transport having no defense, then to be consistent the bomber should also have no defense and be “auto-destroyed”.

Surely the bomber parked on the runway did not have a viable means to defend itself in the war, at least not to the point that it could be represented in this game. What about AA? Well, the Liberty Transport ships each had 8 AA guns. Besides, you already get an AA roll at an airbase. So why is everyone OK with a bomber defending @1? No one seems to have a problem with that at all, despite its unreality. Probably because bombers are so danged expensive.

My proposal does not create inconsistency. Rather it fits in with the rules of the rest of the game as it has been played since the early 80’s. I favor a 10 IPC “Troopship” which has the larger capacity of the Global ransport but with a classic attack of “0” and defense of “1”. It’s going to be too expensive to regularly use it as fodder, except in some desperate situations, and it has no new “special rule” baggage with it to fog your mind.

[Derek]

I would argue that a bomber would have time to get airborne, however at a severely reduced capacity.

A bomber is a combat unit, a transport is not a combat unit (it is simply there to TRANSPORT). Please stop comparing apples to oranges to prove points.

I for one, (don’t care if i’m the only one) hated classic transport rules. The naval system was stale and pungent. Naval buys (other than transports) were very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs. How stupid.

The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

I would be happy to add a ‘frigate’ unit to the game that cost 4 IPCs A/D at 1/1, movement of 1 (+1 movement when paired with transports 1:1). Would make a great transport escort. But it still would be a COMBAT unit transporting a NONcombat unit.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

I would argue that a bomber would have time to get airborne, however at a severely reduced capacity.

A bomber is a combat unit, a transport is not a combat unit (it is simply there to TRANSPORT). Please stop comparing apples to oranges to prove points.

I for one, (don’t care if i’m the only one) hated classic transport rules. The naval system was stale and pungent. Naval buys (other than transports) were very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs. How stupid.

The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

I would be happy to add a ‘frigate’ unit to the game that cost 4 IPCs A/D at 1/1, movement of 1 (+1 movement when paired with transports 1:1). Would make a great transport escort. But it still would be a COMBAT unit transporting a NONcombat unit.

Do you disagree with the principles: defender chooses casualities or, more generally, each player picks is own casualities?
The Transport are taken last rule broke this principle.

I think that is the consequence of the first principle in the Naval battles with TT that most people hate.

For my part, I don’t like either that Warships always protect transport. Historically, I’m sure that on some occasions some TTs were destroyed first. For instance, if the battle of Leyte gulf was made according to Japanese, they would have lured warships away and destroy TTs before retreating. They would have keep their warships for later battles. The plan was to gain time and destroying invasive capacity of the attacker. For them, it was the best way to delay USA.

To keep the core principles of A&A system, we need to find incentive in which defender will find a bit foolish to pick TT before warships. So anybody can hit first TTs then warships but doesn’t see great tactical advantage in it.
You already get into it when you suggested: need 2 TTs to get 1 unit able to @1 and take 1 hit.

Now I have another incentive:
When TT are mixed with warships they don’t get any @1.
It is only when their is no more warship with them that each unit can get 1@1 on defense.
But in any situation a TT worth 1 casualities.
So in a this way any defender will lose some chances to make more hit by picking them first over warships.
Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to six hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2.
Or after 2 hits, can now got 6TTs def@1 and 6 hits.

You see now that it can simulate the warships screening even under the defender choose casualities.

Of course, we can combine with your idea to get it tacticaly less interresting:
1 TT is @0 and Auto-kill. 2TTs is 1@1 and worth 1 hit. But when in any warships group they loose the @1.
However, defender can still decide to loose first TTs then loose warships.
And, according to my addition, if defender has only 3TTs amongst warship and prefer to pick TTs as casuality, he must destroy all the three TTs in 1 shot (a 21 IPCs hit for the attacker!) It hurts just to soak 1 hit!
But it is still defender’s choice.

Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to 3 hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2 but every hit cost him 14 IPCs vs 8 IPCs for 1 DDs.
Or after 2 hits, can still have 6TTs for 3def@1 and 3 hits.

All in all, the real ennemy of Defenseless TT his :

very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs.

[toblerone77]

I’m not sure if someone said this, through the flurry of posts here on this thread, but I say give transports a plus one to defense when accompanied by a destroyer not unlike any of the other combined arms rules.

For the record I’m in favor of the old rules or DK’s original proposal. However if there’s ever going to be a change from the top I say give transports a 1:1 combined arms defense with destroyers.

M2 A0 D0/1* C7     *When paired (1:1 ratio) with destroyer. Transport still must be chosen last in the order of battle.

[Cow]

The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

I disagree. There are games I really do not feel like doing boats n oceans and rather invade some capital… except this is global… so that does not happen.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

I would argue that a bomber would have time to get airborne, however at a severely reduced capacity.

A bomber is a combat unit, a transport is not a combat unit (it is simply there to TRANSPORT). Please stop comparing apples to oranges to prove points.

I for one, (don’t care if i’m the only one) hated classic transport rules. The naval system was stale and pungent. Naval buys (other than transports) were very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs. How stupid.

The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

I would be happy to add a ‘frigate’ unit to the game that cost 4 IPCs A/D at 1/1, movement of 1 (+1 movement when paired with transports 1:1). Would make a great transport escort. But it still would be a COMBAT unit transporting a NONcombat unit.

Many discuss the historical plausibility of TT Def@1 or not. And the nature of 1 unit.
I think their is in either way acceptable rationalization. The main focus should be on game mechanism and rules if we want to find out a better rules with TT with the less drawback.

Der Kunstler option, is like making wishfull thinking when he hopes than in a tactical calculation (and trying to survive against an overwhelming attackers) someone would prefer to loose a Fg@4 at 10 IPCs before loosing 10 IPCs TTs@1 just to not recreat transport screening battle. Impossible.

Example: 1CV 2Fgs 1DDs and 6TTs vs 7 Subs
In this case, even the DD (8 IPCs) will be preserve to let the Fgs destroying Subs.

In the Taken last, it take only 3 hits from the Subs to destroy all the defender’s fleet.

With DK’s, it requires 9 hits and 6 will be defending @1!
First TTs will be sink, then either DD or CV depending on the number of surviving Subs.

With this example, do you see that the transport screening still effective and the impact on naval battle and (the impact on Germany, not worth the mention).

That’s why other option for “Defender choose casualities” must be find out and promote.

Even my last post solution, isn’t that good but has some advantages.

The defender will probably still use TTs has screen.
However, the subs won’t be attacked by numerous @1 defense unless the attacker decides to sink first DD and CV, then the 6 TT@1 will be against the surviving Subs.
But, I think the best tactical option will be to keep DDs because of the 2Fg@4 and soak hits with TTs then CV.

In the 2 TTs for 1@1 and 1 hit, you see that there is only 3 hits to soak by TTs and it is much less unbalancing against Subs (and nearer the TTn0 version of Taken last.)

I’m still thinking under the assumption that we are making adjustment to the actual game, not creating a new one like changing placement of starting units for an other historical period (ex.:1939). Because, in this case, DK’s option is viable for the lover of Classics.

For me, I want the best of both world:
No Warships always protect TTs neither It is almost always preferable to screen my Warships with TTs.
I will always prefer a defender choose casualities over the Taken last rule.
But the game was balance under this last rule and must still be taken in account.

[Krieghund]

@Der:

Pretty good, Krieghund, except you won’t please all those shouting “warships are there to protect transports, not the other way around!” The transports you take early are essentially protecting the warships, aren’t they?  Â

No, they are failing to be protected by the inadequate number of warships available for that purpose.

[Derek]

@Krieghund:

@Der:

Pretty good, Krieghund, except you won’t please all those shouting “warships are there to protect transports, not the other way around!” The transports you take early are essentially protecting the warships, aren’t they?�  �

No, they are failing to be protected by the inadequate number of warships available for that purpose.

So why not let warships protect transports one a 1:1 bases, any transports not protected do not participate in the battle, however all transports that are protected both roll a defense dice and can be taken as casualties as the defender sees fit.

EX: Germany attacks  a SZ containing both UK warships and transports (1 BB 1 CV 1 DD 1 Fighter and 5 transports) with 7 submarines and a CA.
Germany rolls 6 hits, UK can decide to take up to 4 of those hits on transports or any combination. Once casualties are chosen UK rolls for its warships and the 3 protected transports.
Unprotected transports are temporarily removed from the board untill the battle has concluded. If Germany is victorious (that is all 3 warships AND all 3 transports are sunk with atleast 1 German unit remaining) The unprotected transports are removed permanently.
If UK wins the battle (All German attackers were sunk OR Germany retreated from the battle, or submerged) the unprotected transports are then placed BACK on the board, and are not lost.

So this follows along with Kreigs idea but gives SOME transports classic dice rolls and casualty choices.
So on a 1:1 bases (THIS INCLUDES ALL FREINDLY UNITS THAT WOULD DEFEND THE SEA ZONE, scrambled planes, planes on CVs count) All protected transports act as classic transports while all unprotected transports act as defensless transports under the post classic rule.

This would be a ‘combined arms’ ability

[Cow]

ah screw it just give usa more starting inf.