The aberration of the defenseless transport

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

I would support transports costing 8 IPC and defending at a one.

However i dont think they should be able to be taken as casualties before surface warships/planes/ or subs.

So best of both worlds ;)

I suggest to anyone reading this thread here, to actually read the whole thing. If you ingnore Baron Munchausen’s endless Post-Edit-Post-Edit streams of higher math lessons, and total de-railing of the thread it will all make sense and only go around 3-5 pages tops.

[Derek]

I want to know whats wrong with playing axis and allies online lol
it is a much better way to feel out a game, as in the time it takes to play 1 F2F game, you could prob play a dozen games online

this takes nothing away from F2F, it is just not always possible. where online even if you are working full time with other obligations, you can still hash out a turn or so every other day and enjoy a couple games a month.

on GTO, you can easily complete a game within 4 hours, or run several PBE games at a time

online play is a huge reason the game is as strong as it is at this point

back on topic:

even at 10 IPC, it would make more sense to build more transports than destroyers, simply because the destroyers are one dimensional, whereas your transports can defend, cock block (as garg put it  :evil:), amphib assault, and just the threat of those transports being able to hit all over the place at any given time really gives your opponent a massive headache,
it almost follows the discussion on bombers currently going on, no they wont hit everywhere at once, but they can hit anywhere, and you must either protect everywhere or give up ground

classic transports also kill any KJF strat because a good german player will add transports to his starting fleet, and thus severely threaton sealion on everyturn, UK must defend it, or risk losing the game

so classic transports = no KJF and horrible stale naval warfare
how many times do you see KJF in revised? extremely rare
yet i see many successful KJF in 42 with the new transports, this is because germany cannot afford both transports and the fleet necessary to protect them

it is also just plain fun to battle back and forth with destroyers subs and fighters rather than a bunch of transports
and i would argue this is magnified in F2F

as far as history is concerned…did not the allies at first not adequately protect their shipping against german u-boats? they were forced to send warships (god forbid) to protect their shipping
id like in the game it be necessary to build and use warships to protect the shipping, this better reflects historical accuracy

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

I want to know whats wrong with playing axis and allies online lol
it is a much better way to feel out a game, as in the time it takes to play 1 F2F game, you could prob play a dozen games online

this takes nothing away from F2F, it is just not always possible. where online even if you are working full time with other obligations, you can still hash out a turn or so every other day and enjoy a couple games a month.

on GTO, you can easily complete a game within 4 hours, or run several PBE games at a time

online play is a huge reason the game is as strong as it is at this point

back on topic:

even at 10 IPC, it would make more sense to build more transports than destroyers, simply because the destroyers are one dimensional, whereas your transports can defend, cock block (as garg put it  :evil:), amphib assault, and just the threat of those transports being able to hit all over the place at any given time really gives your opponent a massive headache,
it almost follows the discussion on bombers currently going on, no they wont hit everywhere at once, but they can hit anywhere, and you must either protect everywhere or give up ground

classic transports also kill any KJF strat because a good german player will add transports to his starting fleet, and thus severely threaton sealion on everyturn, UK must defend it, or risk losing the game

so classic transports = no KJF and horrible stale naval warfare
how many times do you see KJF in revised? extremely rare
yet i see many successful KJF in 42 with the new transports, this is because germany cannot afford both transports and the fleet necessary to protect them

it is also just plain fun to battle back and forth with destroyers subs and fighters rather than a bunch of transports
and i would argue this is magnified in F2F

as far as history is concerned…did not the allies at first not adequately protect their shipping against german u-boats? they were forced to send warships (god forbid) to protect their shipping
id like in the game it be necessary to build and use warships to protect the shipping, this better reflects historical accuracy

Again not arguing against DDs. DK and others weren’t either. Point has been that SOME defense isn’t un-called for. Ealier in the thread you said so yourself. Transports as a last casualty isn’t a problem either which you were also for.

This thread got revived because DK gave an after action report for a F2F favoring his house rule and some people wanted to attack it.

As far GTO or TripleA that’s fine too. I’m not calling it a bad thing. You’re the one who kept citing it as proof that there is no valid reasoning for DK’s or other’s similar HR in light of your experiences online. You my friend made it personal and ignored much of the conversation and contradicted yourself when it looked like the arguement was going the other way.

As far as I see it thread was simply giving reason for it to be a house rule and then reported it online for others who may want to use it. You acted as if somehow a house rule was going to make it to Larry Harris’ desk and send some edict in favor of it.

I don’t care who plays online that’s why GTO and TripleA are there but they are not definative in how every game is going to play out and don’t determine who’s HRs are valid and who’s are not.

[Craig Yope]

@toblerone77:

@Craig:

We (playtesters for the AA50) talked him into/worked with him to come up with defenseless transports based on our experiences with other games. �

The main example being this game (the first edition):
http://www.ww2wargame.com/

That game along with Xeno’s Europe/Russia at War have more involved combat systems that allow for air to air combat prior to each round of ground or sea combat. � As such, nuances like naval AA and extra warships (cruisers and destroyers) allow for defenseless transports.

Classic (and even Revised) transports could be said to have escorts (corvettes, destroyer escorts, etc.) that are included in the unit but not big enough to warrant an individual piece at this scale. � That way they have a defensive number but not an offensive number. � Also, the inclusion of two hit battleships and now two hit carriers have shifted the damage taking to warships.

Is it perfect? � No. � But the using of transports as hit takers is a joke. � On the scale of the Classic and Revised games, it is a necessary evil. � Only by giving the map more sea zones can you then bring in more units and start differentiating better between the unit capabilities.� � We were able to start that transition in AA50 because of the expansion of the map.� � And it continued in Global.

Craig, that’s fine. However showing a game that isn’t Axis & Allies but similar doesn’t outright invalidate others opinion. Secondly, totally away from this particular subject discussed in this thread, play testing hasn’t exactly hit the mark of perfection in quite a few releases since revised. I don’t think I need to list all the problems including the latest game 1914 that have come up.

The transport issue wasn’t about absorbing hits. It was about transports having some protection. DK suggested a 10 IPC TRN, costing more than what a DD costs, at a 1 defense only roll. who in thier right mind is going to use a weaker transport that costs more as fodder?

Lastly, I simply pointed out that I leave it up to my play groups as to give a defensive roll to transports or not. My arguement was that at the right cost DDs and TRNs play thier intended role and keeps easy picking air raids to a minimum in some games. This entire thread started as a way to give LIGHT protection to transports while not negating the role of a destroyer as the workhorse of naval engagement. It was also brought up that in several editions of Axis&Allies the destroyer has performed differing roles constantly. This may seem ridculous when it applies to transports to some, but ask those same people what they think about Cruisers. You’ll hardly get a standing ovation for the addition of that unit. MANY HAVE CALLED THOSE GIMMICK. In fact our Liason Imperious Leader has suggested increasing the movement to 3.

So I simply ask WTF is so outlandish about DK’s HOUSE RULE? It’s not going to change anyone else’s game here unless they choose to use it. Why throw venom at those who choose to use it in thier own house games or even thier own tournies?

Well, I wasn’t trying to attack anyone, I was just giving some background on where the defenseless transport came from.

As always you have to put the info into its proper context and that is why I gave some other games as examples of where the idea came from and how it is used is said games.

The biggest difference between a game like Struggle and A&A is the ability of the defender to retreat (or not).  But the complexity of the combat system also affects how the various units are used and what combat values they have.

All that has to be weighted when balancing the needs of something like the transport.

As for the playtesting, we did a good deal of work on AA50, but were brought in late on Global.  Only got in three sessions on Europe and then only three sessions on the Global rules.  REALLY unhappy with that situation.  We haven’t done anything since, so I won’t take any responsibility (or acclaim) for 1941, 1942 2nd Edition, or 1914.

Really to get the interaction that most seem to want concerning transports you are going to have to change many of the variables concerning naval combat and pricing.  Maybe even the unit line up.

But I don’t see that ever going anywhere with Larry.  Global is about as far as I ever see him going in complexity.  And that may have even been too much for him in hindsight.

[toblerone77]

@ Craig. The games you reference look like good games I’m not debating that. I’m also not debating the need for destroyers or making changes to accommodate a changing game. The original thread and debate was to give transports a light defense while negating them becoming an OP screen.

Some of those who particpated either de-railed the thread with streams of not necessarily relevant commentary, or simply did not read the thread and further more discounted the original topic as reminiscent drivel and stupidity.

While Larry Harris should certainly be commended for his creation and innovation, it doesn’t make him infallible.  Larry like all of us makes descisions for good or for bad. With that said using a comment made recently or in the past by LH doesn’t negate the opinion nor commentary simply upon his word in regards to house ruling. Many or the same arguements applying to transport vessels has been expressed in the exact some way regarding other rules and units. Yet usually are debated civilly.

Lastly, some of the commentary, not necessarily yours, seemed to come off as simple contradiction and un-constructive name calling.

[Derek]

I suggest a retread, and stop talking like a politician
Lets use historical reasons and in game scenarios to debate, rather than mindless babble

even at 10 IPC, it would make more sense to build more transports than destroyers, simply because the destroyers are one dimensional, whereas your transports can defend, cock block (as garg put it  :evil:), amphib assault, and just the threat of those transports being able to hit all over the place at any given time really gives your opponent a massive headache,
it almost follows the discussion on bombers currently going on, no they wont hit everywhere at once, but they can hit anywhere, and you must either protect everywhere or give up ground

classic transports also kill any KJF strat because a good german player will add transports to his starting fleet, and thus severely threaton sealion on everyturn, UK must defend it, or risk losing the game

so classic transports = no KJF and horrible stale naval warfare
how many times do you see KJF in revised? extremely rare
yet i see many successful KJF in 42 with the new transports, this is because germany cannot afford both transports and the fleet necessary to protect them

it is also just plain fun to battle back and forth with destroyers subs and fighters rather than a bunch of transports
and i would argue this is magnified in F2F

as far as history is concerned…did not the allies at first not adequately protect their shipping against german u-boats? they were forced to send warships (god forbid) to protect their shipping
id like in the game it be necessary to build and use warships to protect the shipping, this better reflects historical accuracy

And as far as playing online vs F2F, are not the rules the same?
I play both and while it may ‘feel’ different, it is the exact same game
The exact same strategies that work online will work F2F and vice versa

This of course assumes no house rules

[toblerone77]

Politician? You just said the same thing you did on page 22. You also were originally for a modified transport earlier in the  thread. To me this just seems like trolling at this point. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. This is a topic about a house rule not a design session with Larry Harris. I guess I am dumb and old for feeding the trolls.

[Derek]

You are the troll lol
And you are acting like a child :p
You offer no argument, you only bring up past comments made by me, thus a politician

But it’s ok lol

I’d prefer to have a good debate, but you succeeded in completely derailing the topic

Where I use history, and my own personal experiences from both F2F and online you just ramble on about a bunch of childish nonsense

Seriously, grow up

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

You are the troll lol
And you are acting like a child :p
You offer no argument, you only bring up past comments made by me, thus a politician

But it’s ok lol

I’d prefer to have a good debate, but you succeeded in completely derailing the topic

Where I use history, and my own personal experiences from both F2F and online you just ramble on about a bunch of childish nonsense.

Seriously, grow up

Dude I’ve seen plenty of your posts. How is it that I’m the child when you frequently start posts by being condescending?  Calling me  old and gramps whose childish? As far as reminiscing maybe you should read your own posts about AA guns. Youve changed “sides” on this thread continually I did debate and argue my point as well as others. You simply didn’t agree at least most of the time. Your just bent because your opinion doesn’t offfer “proof”. Why can’t you be civil and simply agree to disagree?

[eddiem4145]

May I suggest a solution.

Make transports cheap. Like $4 cheap now that they are defenseless. It may require an adjustment to the beginning set up but I don’t think so. It would require Britain to spend more on defending its island on the first turn which may alter N. Africa more than it should, but ultimately those transports would be useless to Germany unless it spends foolishly to defend them, but then again, it would cause Britain to spend more to go after them.

With that idea, KJF I though was always foolishly unrealistic. BUT, I also agree that the lack of Pacific action is a problem. I do not like the unrealistic NO’s in the Pacific needed to entice SOME Pacific action.

I think if Navy’s as a whole were dramatically cheaper, that could solve the problem. What do you guys think. It would be less expensive to defend defenseless transports.

[toblerone77]

@eddiem4145:

May I suggest a solution.

Make transports cheap. Like $4 cheap now that they are defenseless. It may require an adjustment to the beginning set up but I don’t think so. It would require Britain to spend more on defending its island on the first turn which may alter N. Africa more than it should, but ultimately those transports would be useless to Germany unless it spends foolishly to defend them, but then again, it would cause Britain to spend more to go after them.

With that idea, KJF I though was always foolishly unrealistic. BUT, I also agree that the lack of Pacific action is a problem. I do not like the unrealistic NO’s in the Pacific needed to entice SOME Pacific action.

I think if Navy’s as a whole were dramatically cheaper, that could solve the problem. What do you guys think. It would be less expensive to defend defenseless transports.

eddie,

It seems like you’re really thinking about this. I like to play around with ideas too. It’s a good thing bro. The best way to present it though is to playtest it and then give an after-action report. You’re going to have to house rule it but be detail it in your report. If it works people may try it.

When all there was was the Milton Bradley version A LOT of players made different rules, added pieces , etc.  Just test it out and post your results. People might like it.

Cheeers.

[Der Kuenstler]

Wow - just got back from vacation to see this.

I’ve been reading Richard Frank’s historic account called Guadalcanal. On pp 79-80 he describes a Japanese air raid on US transports:

“Twenty-three Bettys …burst out of the East in several groups to charge the fat transports just before noon…the Japanese suffered grievously at the hands of the ship’s gunners. The Bettys rippled the sea surface from an altitude of only 20 to 40 feet in accordance with tactics that brought success early in the war against weak AA defenses. But now the Japanese faced more heavy guns guided by sophisticated fire control systems and, more important a proliferation of the deadly 20 mm antiaircraft machineguns…12 or so adorned each of the sluggish transports, and from some vessels came a further barrage of automatic rifle and submachinegun fire…only five of the attacking Bettys fluttered back to Rabaul…”

That is history. Under global transport rules, it would have read something like this: “then a single Japanese Betty flew over and all the transports were auto-sunk without firing a shot.”

To answer some of the requests for more details of our game, what happened was people would decide that they would invade somewhere, then buy ENOUGH TRANSPORTS TO DO THE JOB, and quit. That makes sense - at $10 a pop you are not going to keep spamming transports to use in battles when you can be twice as effective using DDs which cost $8 and attack and defend @2.

In the new naval setting, BBs need not fear transports - remember they can take the first hit free, and in some versions they are auto-repaired at the end of the battle. If you’ve bought five 10 IPC transports that is $50 worth of shipping there - do you think sane people will run them into battle situations as a regular strategy? We didn’t - it might have happened in dire situations but spamming transports was never strategy used in our group, with DDs available.

Remember, we’re not talking about going back to the old classic game world with 1 hit BBs and no DDs. We are advocating bringing the classic-type transport into the new global world which is a whole different story.

[Derek]

I would be in favor of letting transports have an AA shot
I’ve argued this before

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

I would be in favor of letting transports have an AA shot
I’ve argued this before

Then autodestroy as regular AAA (when alone in a territory)? TP will be like naval AAA.

I still think giving them AA capacity is the more historical way of rationalizing a TP unit with no escorting vessel included in the unit.

However, it makes TP far more dangerous than Classic TP when their is some Subs or DDs attacking with aircrafts. Attacking player will rather loose subs or DDs instead of aircraft.

So, this TP treated as naval AAA will be more annoying than ever.

Besides, it still be a nonsense that TP unit (excluding any escort vessel) can sink a capital ship like BB or CV and even cruiser.
And TP’s weaponry is not really fit to fight against subs.

[Derek]

That’s why giving them an AA shot makes sense
Roll an AA for each plane or each TRN whichever is less, if TRN are alone after AA casualties have been removed then they die just like now

[baron Münchhausen]

Preemptive strike will be a real “pain in the ass” compare to the OOB TT defenseless.

I prefer (for better balance) roll an AA for each plane or each TRN whichever is less but without the preemptive effect.
Said otherwise, 1 TT can only attack @1 1 plane once, and never more than 1 attack per plane.

[Black_Elk]

Why I am frustrated and disappointed by the new transport rules…

Before writing me off as a naysayer, I make this point because I believe the new transport rules have had the exact opposite of their intended effect. They do not, as has been stated elsewhere in this thread, encourage conflict between capital ships. What they do do is the following:

1. Half of the world’s navies are destroyed and sink to the bottom of the sea, before ever getting to move in the first round!

Because transports have no defense value, and the set up being what it is, scripted air on navy combat in the first round is even more scripted and more essential than in any previous edition of A&A. Basically you have to destroy as many ships as you can, trading your air for the enemies naval units and transports, before they have a chance to move together. Literally half the naval units on the board at the beginning of play, are destroyed right out the gate. Just nixed before ever becoming effective, and at the same time forcing a number of ‘standard’ openings.

2. Players are even less likely than ever before, to split their navies and attempt island hoping actions, or risking round 1 deployments that might put their transports (and the ships defending them) in harms way. Nixed, all those interesting opening plays that involved coordinated/but separate naval actions from smaller fleets.

3. The cost of transports, while seemingly less than in revised, are in effect raised prohibitively, due to the large number of ships required to defend even a single transport from attack from the air. Compare an 8 ipc cost transport unit that defends at 1 in deterring Air attacks vs a 7 ipcs transport unit with no defense + the Carrier, fighter and destroyer now required to protect it anywhere it moves.

Once again, new rules (and unit specific rules at that, which add even more complexity) have been introduced unnecessarily into the game, to fix a problem which could have easily been solved by just adjusting the unit cost structure.

The problem as stated elsewhere in this thread, is this: cheap transport fodder has traditionally been used to defend warships, (instead of the ideal where more expensive warships are purchased to defend transports.) I agree, that this was a problem. Maybe less of a problem than others think, but granted, it is a problem that should have been fixed. But the way to fix it is not to remove transports from combat altogether. A much simpler, and more consistent solution would be to raise the cost of transports, and have them use the same old combat mechanics/rules that they used in Classic and Revised.

A Transport at 10 ipcs is no longer cheap fodder. Or if 10 is too cheap for you, then raise it 12. I guarantee no one will be needlessly throwing away transports to defend other ships when their relative cost is that much higher. But 10 seems ideal to me (given the cost of every other ship and air unit as it stands in 1942 second edition.) And it could have been done without introducing such a Major Major rules change to naval combat, which itself doesn’t even accomplish the goal.

Under the new transport rules, fleets are even larger and more consolidated now than ever, with more time and more expensive warships required to move anywhere. What’s more, any ship that is purchased can be countered so easily with cheap air (and even cheaper bombers, but that is a separate digression. Why you would take the most overpowered unit in classic/revised, and make it less expensive is beyond me, but still…) Because the western Allies are so dependent on transports to get into the fight, this means that there is a built in Axis advantage to the game. I still can’t believe no one saw this coming?

Comparatively few alterations were made, either to the overall economy of the board, or to the starting unit placements, to accommodate this massive change, that is the new transports, which effects almost every aspect of allied gameplay. And so now we have an Allied bid to open?

I don’t want to come off too negative here, obviously I still love this game, but I mean come on… Just looking the options for Air attacks on G1, playtesters should have seen this, and called out the new transport rules back when AA50 came out.

The simplest solution I have found, to satisfy my own nagging annoyance, and more importantly to balance the clearly off kilter set up, is just to play the game using the old transport rules. The game is immediately, without doing anything else, re-balanced away from the Axis advantage, and more comfortably into Allied advantage territory.

But again, just to reiterate, with all the other unit cost adjustments, I do not find the new rules for transports compelling. The destroyer is a perfectly adapted fodder unit, that never got the chance to shine, because of this weird alteration to the transport rules. And now, I have to say again, I see the same problem occurring that occurred in all previous versions: Massive, slow moving, single navies that only engage one another when one side can bring a massive-land-based air force to bear!

My thoughts on this issue
thanks for listening
J

[Imperious Leader]

I remember you from before. You used to post on Larry’s site some good house rules.

Glad to see you have returned!

[Black_Elk]

Imperious leader! I recall you as well, and as a font of usefull information! How’s it going man?

Yeah, I must admit, my A&A dips and then recovers in wild swings (like a battle in the Ukraine hehe), but I always come back for more in the end. Usually this coincides with the purchase of a new board, like 42 second edition, or 1914 which I just picked up.

The thing about 1942 second ed, is that I really really love the updated map, the new unit pricing structure (for the most part anyway), the new anti-aircraft art rules and almost every other change that’s been made. I don’t even mind the loss of the paper money, or plastic factories. The only thing that bugs, and which I can’t get my head around is this decision to drop transports from the combat phase, and the fact that in this version Allies seem to need a bid rather than Axis.

So I tried playing with the old transport rules on the new board

and lo and behold, the game more or less reverts to the familiar dynamic. With a slight Allied advantage initially… Except that now, because of G’s stronger starting position on the eastern front, and the new Pacific dynamic, the game plays and balances more like I always wished it would. The ability for UK to potentially keep one battleship afloat, and transport in round 2 removes the need for the Allied bid I find. But the increased distance between E. USA and Europe, also prevents a total creeper of allied units getting shuck shucked for the same old KGF. USA also has a fight now in the pacific, instead of a wash under KJF scenerios, where Japan is just forced to cat and mouse, after getting thoroughly trounced by the UK in the first round. I find that old transport rules, also alleviate some of the pressure to totally tank stack India with the UK, since you have more flexibility into Africa.

That is my gripe, that in every other respect the game is beautiful… More beautiful than it’s been in years!
and then the new transport rules go and screw it all up again…
Alas. So close. Why this unnecessary change?

In house games, I do think a cost of 10 ipcs per transport makes more sense than the old 8 ipcs, to reflect their defensive ability, but I still find something about it much more appealing with the old rules. I mean, you can’t just take away the unit’s roll can you? or the defender’s choice to select their own casualty priorities? It feels wrong somehow to me under the new rules, and I was hoping they might just be an Anniversary experiment. But now it seems they are in for sure?

So I just wanted to voice my opinions on the subject, in the post above, to give my reasons for why I think the change to defenseless transports is problematic, and doesn’t really accomplish what many people claim it does for the gameplay. I still see round one blowouts that kill half the ships on the board, in scripted/standard air on ship round 1 attacks. Then a slow, tortuously slow naval rebuild and stacking, with single fleet armadas inching along, and only really getting hit when they come in range of land-based enemy aircraft… And the reason is entirely because of the transports!

All the other changes to the naval game are fantastic, the new units and new pricing, and these would lead to a brilliant naval game if it weren’t for these weird transports that play by their own rules! I wanted to share my thoughts on that, and of course, also to offer a house fix for anyone who might be interested.

A simple addendum to rulebook, stating the old transport rules and allowing them as an “option” would go a long long way in improving this game for me.

best again,
and good to be back
J

[knp7765]

So you advocate raising the transport’s cost to 10, letting them defend @ 1 and allowing the player to select them as casualties BEFORE any warships? I don’t think that is a good idea. Even with the increased price, you are still going to end up with some players using transports as fodder even in attacks. I remember that from Classic, when someone would have a “fleet” made up of a couple of battleships and 10 transports and would attack another fleet, sinking it while only losing 5-6 empty transports.

However, I will agree that making transports totally defenseless is an overstretch. One thing I have never liked is seeing a single fighter or sub wipe out a big stack of transports. So I suggested that each warship or plane be limited to 3 transports. So, for 1-3 transports = 1 attacker, 4-6 transports = 2 attackers, etc. So if you want to kill a stack of 10 transports, you would HAVE to commit 4 attacking units.

As for transport defenses, simply giving them a hit @ 1 isn’t right either. As stated in previous posts, transports were not equipped to deal with submarines and it’s really ridiculous to think of a transport being able to hit a warship. I do like Baron Munchhausen’s idea of giving transports an AA shot. It’s not unbelievable to imagine a transport being able to shoot down an enemy plane. It shouldn’t be an automatic destroy of the aircraft like on land though. I would combine this with my 1 attacker per 3 transports idea. For example, 1 fighter flies out to kill 3 transports. Each transport gets to roll @1. If one of them gets a hit, then the fighter rolls to get a 3. If the fighter gets a 3, then it destroys 1 transport and the fighter is destroyed by the transport AA hit. If none of the transports get a hit, then the fighter automatically destroys all three transports without having to roll. This gives any attacker that goes “air heavy” an element of risk when going after unescorted transports.
As for transports that are escorted by warships and attacked by only aircraft, I would say roll the battle between the aircraft and warships first. If the aircraft destroy all escorting warships, then they take on the transports AA defenses. However, in the battle if the aircraft get more hits than needed to sink the warships, any extra hits are applied to transports and only the surviving transports would be able to use their AA shots. EXAMPLE: 5 fighters attack 2 destroyers and 3 transports. Fighters get 4 hits, killing both destroyers and 2 transports leaving 1 transport left. The destroyers manage 1 hit, leaving 4 fighters. That last transport would get 1 AA roll against the remaining fighters. If it hits, 1 fighter will be killed. You wouldn’t have to roll for that fighter because the remaining 3 would automatically kill the last transport.