This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.
The Escort unit is a sea unit, that has multiple tasks. The primary task is to protect Transports as part of a Convoy.
The aberration of the defenseless transport
-
I believe a simple ruling where transports must be taken last and leaving the old defense score would have been fine.
If it is the case, that would imply that against attacking destroyers, defending submarines (a warship unit) would be of an equal strength with defending transports.
If you like it, then pure hybrid transport at 8 IPCs is OK.But, for my part I don’t like this implication.
Example:
3 DDs vs 6 Subs, net results on No Luck, 1 round: 1 DD and 1 Sub destroyed.
Overall %*: A. survives: 16% D. survives: 83.2% No one survives: 0.9%3 DDs A2 vs 6 Transports D1, results for no Luck, 1 round, 1 DD and 1 Transport destroyed.
Overall %*: A. survives: 15.5% D. survives: 83.4% No one survives: 1.1%With “whichever is lower” roll @1:
3 DDs A2 vs 6 Transports @1, for one round No Luck: 1/2 DD (or 0.5 DD) destroyed and 1 transport lost.
It is probably around on average:
Overall %*: A. survives: 33.3% D. survives: 65% No one survives: 1.7%My last suggestion is keeping defending transport hit ratio max 1/6, but often lower than any warships, including Subs on defense.
-
Well subs at one point did defend at 2, but that’s a different story. Economy of force will always be an issue with this game. As far as scale and realism this game should only have three units land, sea and air, but what fun would that be?
As for transports I have no allusions to them ever returning to old stats. I would suggest however that if transports were allowed a defensive measure of defense @1 and equal in cost to the destroyer, the fodder dilemma would be resolved nicely. You could also perhaps raise the cost of subs and revise thier defensive to 2. Hence we could have three naval units all at the same cost but with different abilities.
Yes I realize the battle calculator is a useful tool. However it does not take into account strategy and maneuver. It is excellent in calculating odds stack vs.stack and helps calculate economy of force.
Although not directly related to the OP but related generally to the game, Black Elk in several threads has spoken about the evolution and development of the series. I cite this because I am in agreement with him in regards to the development of the game towards the more hard-core player. These players are generally speaking, playing patterned strategies against each other where margin for error is slight and even the slightest missteps could mean defeat.
Now this isn’t a criticism against the more hard-core player. However, this trend to appeal to an almost professional gamer in relation to the evolution and development of the series, has created problems for the more casual player. For the more hard-core gamer economy of force is absolutely essential and has made some pieces like cruiser essentially useless in the more professional strategies. AA50 reflects this a lot and especially Global.
Now, is the series great? Absolutely! Should we change anything? That depends on your opinion. I think DK is doing exactly what should be done and what Larry Harris should encourage like he did in the original versions of Classic. Give us the official rules and encourage house rules at the same time. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. I like playing a straight-laced OOB offical game as well a a house ruled game. I don’t understand why there can’t be room for both. There is no reason why there couldn’t be a page in the official rulebook where it says “House rules are okay…Larry gives his permission”.
-
@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.
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.Defenseless transports have some issues.
Some of them clearly depicted in #1 above.
In many of my previous posts I was more preoccupied by keeping OOB game balance and finding rules which can give us both worlds of classics and taken last transport effect.Assuming that balance issue is not such a terrible things because the classic transport pull back the balance toward Allies which in OOB need a bid somehow.
This would imply that along a large spectrum of ideas from OOB (on the left, for egalitarians transport situation) to classic (on the right, for traditionalist and more risk taking guys), the game would roll from pro-axis toward pro-allies and putting some transport house rule in between could be reaching an equilibrium.Now I’m trying to go forward and give more players options inside the A&A mechanics.
Even if it is a better historical depiction of warships protecting transport (not the other way around as in classic), the taken last rule create a predictable results in naval combat.
What would happen if we give more options for taking transport casualties to both attacker and defender?
Here is the idea:
1- When making combat move, the attacker declare if he is going to A) attack only warships, and leaving transports in the sea zone or B) attack warships and transport.2- The A situation will be conduct as OOB except that at the end, the remaining stack of transports is not destroy and can flee (or even stay in the SZ) anywhere on the next defending player’s turn.
3- The B situation, now give more options to the defending player with this rule:
Transport A0 D1* M2 C8, 1 hit.
*** Transport can roll @1 only when there is no more warships defending them, otherwise they only have 1 hit value (as AAA gun) and can be pick as a casualty with no defense roll.**
So, for the defending player, when he get to choose casualty, the option is to loose a transport before a defending warships or loosing a warship to protect a transport.So, for the essential, transport has always a 1 hit value but can only defend @1 when it is on itself against attacker.
This is nearer classic transport but keep one of the effect of taken last and no combat value of transport: segregating warships from transports.
This left to attacker the choice to make combat as OOB focusing on warships at the expense of letting transports survive.
And if he chooses to attack both, it will be part of the deal that transport units can be taken as fodder to protect costlier warship units.But when alone transport act almost like classic transport defending @1 (except can no more be blocker nor can be mandatory to fight them in a given SZ, most interesting features of OOB transport rule).
Do you think giving this option to attacking player could improve the game experience while being balance?
-
I remain interested in this subject. I still find defenseless transports problematic.
I still find defenseless transports working against the Allies generally, but also against amphibious capacity builds vs air (to destroy that capacity) in general, and this effect exists for pretty much all player nations. Makes transport capacity more expensive and longer to deploy in the movement of troops. So in addition to the increased cost (per land unit transported) the time delay is also major.
Instead of adjustments to the transport rules, I would have favored an adjustment to cost (retaining the old abilities), if the problem in Revised was fodder spamming, but since that went out the door with AA50, I think the problem with the current defenseless transport is an imbalance in starting unit set up and income distribution on these boards. If defenseless, the main players that need them to wage war (USA and UK) should be compensated when designing the starting balance, so that the large cost they have to incur building up defensive fleets is mitigated somewhat. That doesn’t really happen in aa50, or 1942.2, where the income parity of USA and UK doesn’t really match the requirement of their gameplay, whereas Japan (which can purchase production and cover transports more easily) has a much easier go of things. It seems strange how much harder it is for USA and UK to project power and push land units towards the center than it is for Japan. And this is directly a result of the transport rules in those games.
And here is the most controversial aspect:
No Combat Value: Even though a transport can attack or defend, either alone or with other units, it has a combat value of 0. This means that a transport cannot fire in the attacking units’ or the defending units’ fire steps. Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines. This lack of combat capability also allows enemy ships to ignore the presence of transports.
I believe that, combine with the taken last, the zero combat value is responsible for the unbalancing effect in naval battle with transports.
If we abstract the combat situation at the IPCs level, we can easily see what happen when a few warships can destroy the remaining defending warships. A sudden drop of many IPCs for the defending looser, and their is no limit (just the number of transports in the stack).
There is no similar situation. In any other combat, the net exchange stay inside some limits based on the numbers of attacking and defending units.So, every time a transport is bought, it is converting 7 IPCs in a zero combat value (which otherwise have give some hits to combat). And has the most impact on the Allies, which have few warships to protect them at the start. Making for a slow building of naval power and strategies, with stacking fleets.
While putting a same 7 IPCs in aircraft investment is maximizing IPCs for both air, ground and naval. With the most projection of power, air investment are clearly a bane against transport.
From my perspective, this no combat value need to be change.
I think the Classic issue is not just a problem of spamming.
There was also some historical depiction issue.
At some points, when a defender is clearly loosing or will loose precious naval units (12, 14 (or 16) and 20 IPCs) Cruiser, Carrier and Battleships, it will become a smarter choice to loose transport (at 8 to 10 IPCs) in most cases.
This I will called the “fodder effect”.
This is against historical depiction.
This also happen with the subs issue.
Krieghund tells us that adding the rule “planes needs DDs to hit subs” was for making destroyers the real fodder for warships instead of subs spamming making a perfect fodder at 6 IPCs.
Having a lot of subs but no DDs make a defending fleet vulnerable to incoming planes. Hence this additional layer of complexity for planes vs subs.
Destroyers are protecting fleet against everything, not subs.So, this counter-historical transport “fodder effect” was resolve with the taken last rule.
I made my last rule suggestion to counter somehow the “fodder effect” above, when attacker agree to attack both warships and transports, then transport become eligible target for attacking combat unit and it stay within historical depiction.
For example, IJN decided to go specifically against troop transports in the Leyte’s Gulf Battle, but before they were mainly against warships and planes.
Otherwise, the attacker focusing on warships, defender will not be able to use transport as fodder. (And so even if we give a defending capacity to transport.) -
As for transports I have no illusions to them ever returning to old stats. I would suggest however that if transports were allowed a defensive measure of defense @1 and equal in cost to the destroyer, the fodder dilemma would be resolved nicely.
Although not directly related to the OP but related generally to the game, Black Elk in several threads has spoken about the evolution and development of the series. I cite this because I am in agreement with him in regards to the development of the game towards the more hard-core player. These players are generally speaking, playing patterned strategies against each other where margin for error is slight and even the slightest missteps could mean defeat.
Now this isn’t a criticism against the more hard-core player. However, this trend to appeal to an almost professional gamer in relation to the evolution and development of the series, has created problems for the more casual player. For the more hard-core gamer economy of force is absolutely essential and has made some pieces like cruiser essentially useless in the more professional strategies. AA50 reflects this a lot and especially Global.
Now, is the series great? Absolutely! Should we change anything? That depends on your opinion. I think DK is doing exactly what should be done and what Larry Harris should encourage like he did in the original versions of Classic. Give us the official rules and encourage house rules at the same time. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. I like playing a straight-laced OOB offical game as well as a house ruled game. I don’t understand why there can’t be room for both. There is no reason why there couldn’t be a page in the official rulebook where it says “House rules are okay…Larry gives his permission”.
Just some thoughts on the evolution of transport rules.
I just realized that the two last rules on transport I suggested were not possible before second edition game mechanics evolution.Larry Harris make them appear while revising AA gun mechanics.
Before, AA guns were undestructible and @1 against all planes.
If anyone have introduce actual AA gun rules, this would have appear complicated and weird house rules. And rejected by many, if not all.But, since he is the designer, he created this new game mechanics and everyone goes forward, at least, to learn it whether to decide to implemented it or not in their games.
By trying to resolve some issues on transport, I realized I combined to transport rules two new games mechanics from AA guns to develop a different way of playing transport.
Until second edition, both “whichever the lesser” and “1 hit fodder” with no defending roll was alien to A&A, now it is possible to combined them somehow to defenseless and classic transport rules to going just somewhere else.
It will remains in a “house rule” state at least until a third edition is produced (maybe forever, IDK) but, I’m pretty sure, both elements are part of shared A&A mechanics and can bring some possible cure (not necessarily in the way my HRs work) to the defenseless issues DK clearly outlined to all the community.
Maybe AAgun mechanics (and even other 2nd edition rules evolution) can provide us the next step further for solving transport issue…
-
As for transports I have no illusions to them ever returning to old stats. **I would suggest however that if transports were allowed a defensive measure of defense @1 and equal in cost to the destroyer, the fodder dilemma would be resolved nicely. **
Yes I realize the battle calculator is a useful tool. However it does not take into account strategy and maneuver. It is excellent in calculating odds stack vs.stack and helps calculate economy of force.
Based on your game experiences with 2nd ed rules combined with Classic transport rules, does it have a big impact toward Allies and against Axis?
With the many transports able to roll @1 with all other warships does these transports provide a big deterrent against attacker? And if not, why? What happen to make that not the case?
At first glance, a core fleet of warships with the defenseless transports is far weaker than the same core fleet with the same number of transports acting like classics, no?
No other change and yet the game is still balance?
I’m sceptical but very curious.
On battlecalc,
Here, I just considered I provide an example to show that one method gives a weaker defense to transport than the other.I’m not really using battlecalc as I was on nightbombing SBR thread.
-
I have not tried implementing my ideas on the “8-8-8” line up for AP, DD and SS.
When I used to have a group that met twice weekly back in the 1990’s all we had was Classic and begged for destroyers eventually using Fortress America hover tanks as a “Destroyer/Gunboat” it was more like a cruiser mechanic-wise but we started purchasing those more often rather than using APs as a defensive screen. As for now I usually only get a game in around the holidays with family. One of my brothers is familiar with the newer editions but most experience comes from Revised and Classic. We sometimes give AP a D@1 sometimes not. Both of us prefer DDs as a defensive/fodder screen. Niether of us like “auto-destroy” for AP even though he will only play as the Axis and it would usually benefit him more than I in most cases. I taught my wife how to play 1941 we played three games and she asked why APs don’t get to roll defense. She plays Euro games and had never played a game like A&A. Needless to say she thought it odd APs have not defense roll.
APs in all my experiences are not a huge deterrent if the enemy needs destroy loaded APs against invasion. My gripe as well as others is the ability for someone to simply “drive-by shoot” APs. I will also say that sometimes a “one-way AP” is needed at times and now that is almost impossible. Also many times a player will simply bomb an AP because they have nothing better to do. APs@D1 is a deterrent.
On battle calculators. I’ve never said they are useless and many people here use them. I’m just saying they aren’t the ultimate tool when designing house rules. In the end, where the battle calculator will eventually lead conclusion-wise, is that fodder units are almost always superior to anything else that costs more. With all the discussion and argument on topic vs. topic One could conclude that this game to satisfy many pro-players and realism absolutists you should eliminate all units and simply have a total of three units; army, navy and air. Again, what fun would that be.
I had more I wanted to write, but alas, duty calls, and I must go to work.
-
toblerone77,
I don’t have quite as much a problem with the defenseless transport, particularly against submarines and warships. In fact, I really didn’t like it in Classic where a battleship goes in to sink a transport and gets destroyed by that transport.
However, I also don’t like the idea of a stack of 20 transports getting sunk by a single warship or plane. So, we created this house rule:
Any attacking warship or aircraft may destroy unescorted transports at a limit of THREE (3) transports per warship or plane.
Attacking warships must have an attack value so aircraft carriers by themselves can NOT sink transports.
Also, unescorted transports that are attacked by aircraft alone (no enemy warships) can use a limited Anti-Aircraft ability. Each transport can roll ONE (1) die to defend against attacking aircraft. On each roll of “1”, one attacking aircraft is hit. Each hit aircraft must then roll a die at their normal attack value (fighters and tactical bombers @ 3, strategic bombers @ 4. Tactical bombers do NOT get the +1 bonus for being paired with a fighter when attacking transports.) If the hit aircraft successfully roll a hit, they can destroy 1 transport.
If no defending transports roll a 1, then the planes destroy the transports at a rate of 3 transports per attacking aircraft.
For example: 2 fighters attack 3 unescorted transports. The 3 transports roll 1 die each and get one hit. One fighter is destroyed. The attacker does not have to roll for that fighter because the other un-hit fighter will destroy the 3 transports. However, if there were 4 transports and they got 1 hit, then the un-hit fighter would destroy 3 of the transports while the hit fighter would have to roll @ 3 to try and destroy the 4th transport. If that fighter misses, the 4th transport survives that battle.Also, since the Tech “War Bonds” was rather unpopular with our group, we came up with a new tech: Armed Transports. This gives transports a defense factor of 1. With this ability, the “defenseless transport” rule is abolished. Now transports CAN be taken as casualties during a battle. Also, they no longer have the AA defense against planes since they now have the ability to destroy planes during regular combat and transports can no longer be destroyed at a 3:1 ratio with attacking units.
-
I find the three naval units at 8 (but with different abilities) very intriguing.
The old 8, 16 and 24 ipc system felt like a good spread to me for ships, if only the abilities matched up more cleanly, since it allowed for a kind of quick calculus when determining the relative value of ships. In the current spread with units at 6, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 20, the relative value is bit harder to parse, and those values are also not terribly consistent across boards (AA50, 1942.2, 1941, and G40 also show minor variations in cost or associated abilities.)
I also lament the loss of a solid unit at 5 in the overall roster. The old tank filled this gap nicely, but now that tanks cost 6 its harder to spend the remainder at 5 (unless you want to gamble with AA purchases.)
Before I always used to thank of the game in terms of 3s and 5s, or 6s and 8s, when purchasing and trying to spend the remainder ipcs. Now its almost always just a choice between 6s and 8s. Not sure if that sort of crude mental logic applies with other people besides me, but I can’t help but think the game might benefit from more options on the 8 rather than just the Destroyer, or double Art buy.
Also to another of Toblerone’s points, I totally endorse that idea to mention house rules in the manual, with a sort of general blessing on subject, without going into anything specific. :) I always enjoyed the notion that when you buy the box, you are buying a scaffold or skeleton upon which a more nuanced game can be built up. I really do favor the whole concept of “Official” options too though. For a just a couple extra pages in the rulebooks, I think it is possible to throw some serious weight behind a lot of cool ideas. And that way, if there is a balance issue in one of the OOB games, then at least you have a simple recourse to turn to. So for example, if an OOB set up seems unbalanced or busted in some way, you can first ask the question, can one of the officially mentioned alternatives correct for it? Also, I still find it curious that even after several decades there is still no mention of bids in the rules. Pre-placement bids might be annoying in a various ways (especially the effect of re-balancing strategies against a particular bid, that is itself already a re-balancing of the OOB set up) but still, they have been in use for a while. It might be helpful if some guidelines or suggestions or popular alternatives existed in a manual regarding them.
But yeah, for the house rules, ptional transport rules, or transport advances, or tech for transports is just one area where I could see this approach being useful. At least to lay out the attitude of openness, which I think already exists from the designer, but which would be cool to have stated explicitly.
-
toblerone77,
I don’t have quite as much a problem with the defenseless transport, particularly against submarines and warships. In fact, I really didn’t like it in Classic where a battleship goes in to sink a transport and gets destroyed by that transport. I get where people don’t like that. I also get why people hate “auto-destroy”However, I also don’t like the idea of a stack of 20 transports getting sunk by a single warship or plane. So, we created this house rule:
Any attacking warship or aircraft may destroy unescorted transports at a limit of THREE (3) transports per warship or plane.
Attacking warships must have an attack value so aircraft carriers by themselves can NOT sink transports.
Also, unescorted transports that are attacked by aircraft alone (no enemy warships) can use a limited Anti-Aircraft ability. Each transport can roll ONE (1) die to defend against attacking aircraft. On each roll of “1”, one attacking aircraft is hit. Each hit aircraft must then roll a die at their normal attack value (fighters and tactical bombers @ 3, strategic bombers @ 4. Tactical bombers do NOT get the +1 bonus for being paired with a fighter when attacking transports.) If the hit aircraft successfully roll a hit, they can destroy 1 transport. Seems more reasonable.If no defending transports roll a 1, then the planes destroy the transports at a rate of 3 transports per attacking aircraft.
For example: 2 fighters attack 3 unescorted transports. The 3 transports roll 1 die each and get one hit. One fighter is destroyed. The attacker does not have to roll for that fighter because the other un-hit fighter will destroy the 3 transports. However, if there were 4 transports and they got 1 hit, then the un-hit fighter would destroy 3 of the transports while the hit fighter would have to roll @ 3 to try and destroy the 4th transport. If that fighter misses, the 4th transport survives that battle.Also, since the Tech “War Bonds” was rather unpopular with our group, we came up with a new tech: Armed Transports. This gives transports a defense factor of 1. With this ability, the “defenseless transport” rule is abolished. Now transports CAN be taken as casualties during a battle. Also, they no longer have the AA defense against planes since they now have the ability to destroy planes during regular combat and transports can no longer be destroyed at a 3:1 ratio with attacking units. This I like best of all!
Thanks for your response knp. You and I think alike on many topics. The tech rule is one I like especially. War Bonds to me aren’t really a technology at all.
Another idea I was also thinking of why not give CA’s pairing bonus of +1 at a 1:1 ratio on defense only? (not in conjunction with you tech)
I think my biggest gripe is just the concept that theoretically one unit can destroy 100 APs. I agree a wise strategy is escort your APs, but one plane/vessel knocks out your escort and gets to destroy all the remaining APs drives me nuts.
Anyway your ideas look pretty good.
-
I find the three naval units at 8 (but with different abilities) very intriguing. I haven’t done a lot of work on this, but I think it could solve some issues.
The old 8, 16 and 24 ipc system felt like a good spread to me for ships, if only the abilities matched up more cleanly, since it allowed for a kind of quick calculus when determining the relative value of ships. In the current spread with units at 6, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 20, the relative value is bit harder to parse, and those values are also not terribly consistent across boards (AA50, 1942.2, 1941, and G40 also show minor variations in cost or associated abilities.)
I also lament the loss of a solid unit at 5 in the overall roster. The old tank filled this gap nicely, but now that tanks cost 6 its harder to spend the remainder at 5 (unless you want to gamble with AA purchases.)
Before I always used to thank of the game in terms of 3s and 5s, or 6s and 8s, when purchasing and trying to spend the remainder ipcs. Now its almost always just a choice between 6s and 8s. Not sure if that sort of crude mental logic applies with other people besides me, but I can’t help but think the game might benefit from more options on the 8 rather than just the Destroyer, or double Art buy.
Also to another of Toblerone’s points, I totally endorse that idea to mention house rules in the manual, with a sort of general blessing on subject, without going into anything specific. :) I always enjoyed the notion that when you buy the box, you are buying a scaffold or skeleton upon which a more nuanced game can be built up. I really do favor the whole concept of “Official” options too though. For a just a couple extra pages in the rulebooks, I think it is possible to throw some serious weight behind a lot of cool ideas. And that way, if there is a balance issue in one of the OOB games, then at least you have a simple recourse to turn to. So for example, if an OOB set up seems unbalanced or busted in some way, you can first ask the question, can one of the officially mentioned alternatives correct for it? Also, I still find it curious that even after several decades there is still no mention of bids in the rules. Pre-placement bids might be annoying in a various ways (especially the effect of re-balancing strategies against a particular bid, that is itself already a re-balancing of the OOB set up) but still, they have been in use for a while. It might be helpful if some guidelines or suggestions or popular alternatives existed in a manual regarding them.
This^
But yeah, for the house rules, ptional transport rules, or transport advances, or tech for transports is just one area where I could see this approach being useful. At least to lay out the attitude of openness, which I think already exists from the designer, but which would be cool to have stated explicitly.
+1 Black Elk. I respect the OOB official rules. I however wish there was some statement which encouraged creativity on the part of the purchaser of a game. A couple of pages outlining previous techs, NAs, and relevant optional rules as suggestions for players in the rule book would be great.
I just bought an old copy of Revised (third one) off Ebay, it included a small booklet that I have never seen in my other copies ( even in one I purchased brand new) that showed the old rule, new rule, and reason for changes. It was really cool. I’m hoping to read it in better detail but haven’t had time.
Lastly, as bidding is all but essential to most A&A players I also cannot understand why it has never been mentioned in in any rulebook.
-
Thanks Knp for writing this detailled ready to use House Rule!
I just found the 3 transports destruction a bit arbitrary.
Thinking about it, I wonder how you came to this number?
Did you try different numbers before fixing it at 3 transports?Looking for a less arbitrary number, I came to a number fixed by the attack value of the unit.
So, Sub and Destroyer would be able to destroy 2 units/each.
Fg and TcB, and Cruiser would be able to destroy 3 units/each.
StB and Battleship would be able to destroy 4 units/each.
Finally, 1942.2 Carrier would be able to destroy 1 unit/each, while G40 CV stay at 0.Do you see this as a potential improvement or an unbalancing ones?
-
Thanks Baron. Glad you like it.
As for the reason I chose 3 transports per attacking unit, I know I had a good reason for it when I thought it up, but to tell the truth I’m not sure what it was now. I’ve been using this house rule for some time now so it has become sort of automatic.
If I had to guess, I think I used the AA Guns rules as a guide. Each AA gun gets to fire up to 3 times against attacking aircraft. I think when I was making up this house rule for transport destruction I used that as a guide line.
Honestly, I rather like your idea of using each unit’s attack value to determine how many unescorted transports they could destroy. In a way it is a little simpler than my own idea and it makes a little more sense. A battleship would be able to take out more transports than a destroyer would. If for no other reason than the respective ranges of their guns.
A destroyer comes upon a stack of transports. While it’s busy trashing the first two transports, the rest have time to get out of range of the destroyer’s somewhat small guns.
However, a Battleship comes upon a stack of transports, trashes the first two with it’s 5 inch guns. Then as the rest are trying to run away, the BB continues to lob shells from the massive 16 inch guns and hit a couple of more from 15-20 miles away.
As for comparing the different planes, explaining why a strategic bomber would kill 4 while fighters and tacs only kill 3, I’m not sure. Since this is a big strategic game, I guess you could say the bomber represents an entire bomber wing and they just carpet bomb a certain section of the ocean and 4 transports just get caught up in it (plus a LOT of poor fish). -
OR
Just make it that no matter how many Transports you have, you roll a single die @1 in defense each combat round.I think that would be pretty agreeable for everyone?
How would that be agreeable to everyone?
It makes even less sense than the other rules and changes absolutely nothing.
I actually liked the idea that a unit could kill only 3 defenseless transports but don’t think it goes nearly far enough and wouldn’t change anything in that form. If each (remaining) unit could auto-kill one defenseless transports before combat ends it would at least solve the problem of a single (or a few) fighters taking out a whole fleet with no risk.
Lets detail out the concerns:
Side A: TP in bulk create a problem of balance if they defend @1 because those add up and effectively act as screens because they are sinking ships that will no longer be able to attack.
Side B: It is poor form to decide that anything in a dice rolling game is auto destroyed by the mere presence of a hostile offensive unit.
So we give TP a chance to defend themselves, but limit the dice they roll. Â It effectively eliminates them as a screening unit because no matter the quantity, they only roll a single die when in combat, at the lowest possible odds to “hit”. Â However when left undefended, they are not free kills because there is a risk, albeit small, that they could shoot down a fighter or ram a ship and cause it to sink.
I’d even be willing to go as far as once a hit is scored against the TP (which are always the last remaining naval units), the entire flotilla is lost but they can, as a whole still roll a single die @1 to defend themselves.
I think that Spendo02 ideas didn’t receive the attention it should deserve.
Actually, combining it with some aspects of my lasts post, this can provide a very interesting way of resolving both transport issues:
-
a bit overpowered classic Transports evolving in 2nd Ed. 1942 or G40 settings (side A), or
-
a predictable results in an un-Axis & Allies rules auto-destroy (side B), defenseless and taken last OOB transport.
from DK’s: 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.@Der:
Kind of unrealistic for a navy to be screened by transports, don’t you think?
That is true - and unrealistic. Yet these things happen a lot in this game.
(…)
At this scale everything is a bit abstracted. The point is, if you do choose your transports first, you are losing IPCs and losing your ability to move troops across water. You are losing something, especially when they cost 8 IPCs. At that price, you might as well send in DDs which attack and defend @ 2. You have to make a decision - which is good, fun, and fits with the rest of the game.
The “transports must be chosen last” rule only takes away more of your decision power as a commander. The naval battles become more scripted and less interesting. Â Â Â@Der:
Larry Harris said this about transports in 2007 on his site:
"I will say this: “Transports are considered to be lightly defended with escorts. Additional ships provide additional defense and so on.” (Posted: Fri 23.Feb, 2007)So originally transports were not to be thought of as just transports.
Two maxims of the game have generally been:
1. every decision involves some risk (dice rolls)
2. defender chooses his own casualtiesThe new transport rules violate both.
@Der:
The Classic transport:
- Represents a TROOPSHIP - not a supply ship.
- Blends nicely with one of the maxims of the game “defender chooses his own casualties”
- Makes learning the game easier - less “special” rules
- Keeps the element of chance involved, thus more suspense = more fun
- Keeps battle command decisions in your hands - not the rules
The Global transport:
- is auto-slaughtered in large groups if alone
- removes some of your battle command power - you HAVE to choose transports last
- Does not fit with the general game rules - it is like an orange thrown into a barrel of apples (…)
What would happen if we combine Spendo02 idea with a rules which give more options for taking transport unit as casualties to both attacker and defender?
Here is the idea:
1- When making combat move, the attacker declare if he is going to
A) attack only warships, and leaving transports in the sea zone, or
B) attack warships and transports.2- The A situation will be conduct as OOB except that, at the end, the remaining stack of transports is not destroy and can flee (or even stay in the SZ) anywhere on the next defending player’s turn.
3- The B situation, now give more options to the defending player with this rule:
Transport A0 D1@1 M2 C8, 1 hit.*
*** Any number of transport units get only 1 roll @1 per round**, however each unit have 1 hit value and can be pick individually as a casualty (so can be hit soaker as AAA gun).So, for the essential, transport has always a 1 hit value but, as long as the attacker declares he want also to destroy transport units, the defender adds a single dice @1 (to his dices pool) and the defender can use as many transport units as he wishes as fodder.
In this manner, transport units will always keep the same defense value whether there is still escorting warships with them or only transports remaining: 1 single dice @1 for the whole group of transports. That is a simplification from my previous HR.
This leave all the important choices to both players:
-
The attacker choose or not to attack transports and the defender choose is own casualty as he sees it fits his needs.
Attacker have the choice to make combat as actual OOB, focusing on warships at the expense of letting transports survive. (Recreating somehow the effect of the taken last rule, but without having to write it.)
And if he chooses to attack both warships and transports, it will be a known part of the deal that transport units can be taken as fodder to protect costlier warship units. -
For the defending player, when he has to choose casualty, the main choice for him is to loose a transport unit before taking a casualty amongst defending warships or loosing warships to preserve transport units.
In addition, there is no need to add more complex taken last and no combat value of transport rules.
Also, when alone, a single transport act almost like Classic transport defending @1, except for:
can not be used as a blocker (against amphibious assault, or CM passing through a SZ or NCM)
nor it cannot be mandatory to fight them in a given SZ.
So this HR is keeping the most interesting features of OOB transport rules.However, defending player cannot throw without risks a core fleet of 1BB+1CV+2Fgs amongst a lot (a dozen for instance) of Transports thinking he have enough fodders to protect the warships, because the attacking player can decide to only shoot warships and keeping alive transports (for another turn). In a way, warships are still doing their escorting / protecting role toward transports (an indirect taken last effect).
Now, do you think this new transport rules could improve the game experience while keeping the balance of G40 and 1942.2?
As a side note, there is still room for this kind of Tech:
@knp7765:Also, since the Tech “War Bonds” was rather unpopular with our group, we came up with a new tech: Armed Transports. This gives transports a defense factor of 1.
With this ability, the “defenseless transport” rule is abolished. Now transports CAN be taken as casualties during a battle. (…)According to this Tech, armed Transport will be acting exactly as a Classic transport and a regular warship.
Armed Transports A0 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit. -
-
I like that you are trying to work out something different and sort of in between the overpowered Classic transports and woefully underpowered “defenseless” transports of current games. However, I have to disagree with your idea for the simple reason of the idea of the defender throwing away transports as fodder. Yes, I understand the attacker can say “I’m only attacking warships” but in that case, you go to the trouble of fighting a powerful battleship, carrier and 2 fighters then you can’t touch those transports no matter how much you may have left over.
You see, the problem I have with this is the main bonus for attacking a fleet like that is that you get to sink some or all of the transports at the end. With your idea, the attacker would have to have a MUCH larger attacking force to go after a BB, CV and 2 fighters with 12 hit soakers.
Also, I just like the idea of warships being used to protect the transports and not the other way around. I guess that’s my main reason that I really like the “chosen last” rule. -
I like that you are trying to work out something different and sort of in between the overpowered Classic transports and woefully underpowered “defenseless” transports of current games. However, I have to disagree with your idea for the simple reason of the idea of the defender throwing away transports as fodder. Yes, I understand the attacker can say “I’m only attacking warships” but in that case, you go to the trouble of fighting a powerful battleship, carrier and 2 fighters then you can’t touch those transports no matter how much you may have left over.
You see, the problem I have with this is the main bonus for attacking a fleet like that is that you get to sink some or all of the transports at the end. With your idea, the attacker would have to have a MUCH larger attacking force to go after a BB, CV and 2 fighters with 12 hit soakers.
Also, I just like the idea of warships being used to protect the transports and not the other way around. I guess that’s my main reason that I really like the “chosen last” rule.You clearly see where I’m going.
The bonus of hitting some transports is still there, however.
An attacker can decide to make a strafe run against this fleet (both warships and transports).
He will forsee that he is submitting to 5 rolls and 18 hits to do: 3 D4 (BB+2Fgs), 1 D2 (CV) and 1D1 for the 12 TPs. Of course, defender can have a lot of hit soakers with TPs, but the attackers reach immediately in this stack of transports, and he can decide anytime to retreat.Maybe it is still too cheap having such hit soakers at 7 IPCs.
Maybe it is needed to come back to 8 IPCs, to be in par with Destroyer units and the hit soaking ability of Carrier (16 IPCs for 2 hits, or 8 IPCs/hit).
So the dilemma will be more stressful for the defender, replacement cost will be the same.
Defender will usually prefer Subs at 6 and DDs at 8 IPCs for playing a part as fodder for warships.Or maybe it is necessary to go further upward (9 or 10 IPCs) to get a better exchange ratio between attacking planes (10 to 12 IPCs) and transports being used as hit soaker fodders (at the same ratio than BB 20 IPCs/2= 10 IPCs/hit). IDK.
So, from an economical POV, it will never be a good thing to take a Transport as casualty instead of a Subs or Destroyers. Even though, it will remain a sound choice from a combat POV to keep Subs or Destroyers to keeps more defensive dice rolls.But if we go as far as 10 IPCs, then we come back to square 1 of DK’s and have to evaluate if each Classic Transport get D@1 and used as Fodder in the first part of the battle is still too overpowering in naval combat. Do you have an opinion on this specific point?
(I said this because the game mechanics of Classic transport unit is already known, and closer to A&A 1 roll/unit than mine above.)
Just comparing 1 BB: A4 D4 M2 C20, 2 hits, bombard @4 with
1 Cruiser C12 + 1 TP C8 : A3 D3+1 M2 C20, 2 hits, bombard @3, can transport 2 Infs or 1 Inf+ 1 ground unit.Under this HR, Cruiser and Transport will be much more powerful and dangerous as an amphibious fleet. It will be a weapon of choice for Allies instead of Battleship.
The OOB minimum for almost the same combat value is 2DDs + 1 TP:
A4 D4 M2 C23, 2 hits, ASW, can transport 2 Infs or 1 Inf+ 1 ground unit.So, rising the cost of TP to 11 IPCs will give something similar with cruiser:
1 Cruiser C12 + 1 TP C11 : A3 D3+1 M2 C23, 2 hits, bombard @3, can carry 2 Infs or 1 Inf+ 1 ground unit.But, since the attack value is lower than 2 OOB DDs+1 TPs, it will be within balance limits to have a 10 IPCs transport.
Comparing with Carrier A0 D2 M2 C16, 2 hits, can carry 2 planes.
1 DD + 1 TP C10 is A2 D2 M2 C18, 2 hits, can carry 2 Infs or 1 Inf + 1 ground unit.
The 2 attack points can be balanced because the DD+TP is 2 IPCs above Carrier and when taking 1 hit, it loose his carrying capacity.
(That would be the same for DD+TP taking the TP as casualty.)So giving a hit point to transport unit (no matter which defense roll is used for them) will make 12 IPCs Cruiser unit much more interesting for the price when compare to Battleship unit.
Based on this small cost evaluation-comparison, transport with a hit should be put at 10 IPCs when trying to play a balance game in G40 or 1942.2 settings (developed under the 7 IPCs TP OOB).
In addition, it will be an equal cost exchange against Fg unit.
Making it also less economically painful for Axis when loosing planes against transport fodder. -
@Der:
Interesting. Has anyone tried using classic rule transports except just raising the price to 10 IPCs? It would seem to me people would not want to use them for fodder anymore at the higher price, or at least not as a first choice. �
After many complex calculations and simulations (with DDs+TPs), if someone want to keep almost the same statistical balance of units replacing defenseless with Classic transport (D1, 1 hit), it implies that unit must be around a cost of 12 IPCs to be at the same level of power in combat when opposing Classic transports with warships against defenseless TPs with warships.
Anything below this price is improving the combat value of transport investment and their usefulness as a soaking unit compared to Defenseless transport.
Hence, playing with Classic TP from 8 to 11 IPCs have an impact on the whole game.
From a full Allies advantage to a near statu quo (actual OOB Axis advantage).
However, what it cannot take into account is how Axis can get an early strategical advantage of the Classic transport for Sea Lion and other IJN moves.
About this way of using Spendo02 suggestion but putting TP cost at 10 IPCs:
1- When making combat move, the attacker declare if he is going to
A) attack only warships, and leaving transports in the sea zone, or
B) attack warships and transports.2- The A situation will be conduct as OOB except that, at the end, the remaining stack of transports is not destroy and can flee (or even stay in the SZ) anywhere on the next defending player’s turn.
3- The B situation, now give more options to the defending player with this rule:
Transport A0 D1@1* M2 C10, 1 hit.
*** Any number of transport units get only 1 roll @1 per round**, however each unit have 1 hit value and can be pick individually as a casualty.At least, when I put in the Battlecalc 150 IPCs for
10 DDs + 10 OOB TPs against 10 DDs + 7 TPs C10 (managed with 10 Art+6 AAA+ 1 StB, in this order of losses), I get this results:
30% vs 70 % chance of survival.
With an avg of 1.2 unit left vs 7 units left if one side survive.Which is far better than any 1% vs 99% with all Classics transports.
So according to this cost, and the limit of the HR, it is more statistically balance.In addition, keeping the same order of loss, warships before Transports, even at 8 IPCs TP, the Triple A Battlecalc give 28% vs 72%.
And this HR will still probably improve the Allies odds, if keeping all the OOB G40 or 1942.2 settings.
Under the OOB conditions, I believe this HR with 10 IPCs Transports mixing of Classics with some OOB TP rules HR worth a try.
Mainly because it gives more options to players and have some clear limitations and less complex rules than OOB TP.Is it unbalanced vs OOB?
I’m sure it changes the balance somehow.
But the reduced defense with only 1 dice roll per transport group, combined with the attacker choice to fight or not TPs with warships, clearly makes for much less impact than a pure Classic TPs at 10 IPCs. -
DK I think even with all the discussion that has gone on in this thread (excellent topic and discussion) I believe your point has been well made for a 10 IPC transport with a defense of 1 is and was the best approach all along. These game stats fit the bill. Anyone stacking ten buck transports would be a fool and a defenseless-transport gravy-train is averted.
You won my vote sir.
Here is the maths way to see that DK’s option is a big statistical change:
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 5 DDs & 8 Classic TPs D1, 1 hit, (10 IPCs)
A. survives: 48.7% D. survives: 50.8% No one survives: 0.5%
So if even in combat survival and cargo, then it should be the same price on both sides:
(10DDs8 IPCs) 80 IPCs + (8TPs7 IPCs) 56 IPCs compared to (5DDs8 IPCs) 40 IPCs + (8TPs10 IPCs) 80 IPCs =
136 IPCs vs 120 IPCs.This way of using Classic Transports (at 10 IPCs) is radically more economical, since it is 16 IPCs less for the same combat value and moving capacity.
**To be even, 8 Classics transports should cost 96 IPCs (136 IPCs minus 40 IPCs for 5 DDs), which means: 12 IPCs/TP (96 IPCs/ 8 TPs).
At 10 IPCs in defenseless OOB set-up 1942.2 or G40, Classic transports able to be fodder and Defending @1, is a bargain of 2 IPCs/transports.**
But maybe, this operates under a false assumption.
So, there will be no need to get a statistically even unit for changing defenseless transports into Classic TPs.
Others circumstances should be considered.
But, which ones?How can we see it could “fit the bill” for the most “hard core” players looking for balance and improvement?
Doing the same battle with Spendo02 TPs* gives a very different result:
- Any number of transport units get only 1 roll @1 per round,
however each unit have 1 hit value and can be picked individually as a casualty (so can be hit soaker as AAA gun).
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 5 DDs & 8 TPs D1*, 1 hit, (8 IPCs)
A. survives: 98.5% D. survives: 1.7% No one survives: 0%For a fair fight, it needs (when DDs considered first losses and keeping TPs as the last casualties)
It is done that way on AACalc: (AA50th 7 TPs+9DDs+1CV vs 10 DDs, DD first losse, TPs are second and CV is last)
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 9 DDs & 8 TPs D1*, 1 hit, (8 IPCs)
A. survives: 48.4% D. survives: 52.8% No one survives: 0.4%80 IPCs + (8TPs7) 56 IPCs compared to 72 IPCs + (8TPs8 ) 64 IPCs =
136 IPCs vs 136 IPCsIt is an even cost and a balance fight at the same cargo capacity for TP at 8 IPCs.
However, picking Transports as first casualties then, for a fair fight, the results is:
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 5 DDs & 8 TPs D1*, 1 hit, (12 IPCs)
136 IPCs vs 40 + (8*12) 96 = 136 IPCs.
A. survives: 47.9% D. survives: 50.9% No one survives: 1.2%Giving an even match around a little lower than 12 IPCs/Transport.
So the maths odds of the battle depend clearly on which order losses are taken.
Does the defending player choose to save transports or warships first?The average cost is:
8 IPCs (when keeping transport as last casualties) + 12 IPCs (taking transport as first casualties) = 20 /2 = 10 IPCs.So, playing with Spendo02 HR and TPs with defender choose his own casualties, it should be at 10 IPCs to keep the same combat value/cost ratio than OOB with defenseless transport at 7 IPCs.*
As a side note on Battle calc:
I just discovered that AACalc can use TPs as fodder when you change the order of losses. That way, each worth 1 hit, even with A0 or D0. - Any number of transport units get only 1 roll @1 per round,
-
@Baron:
DK I think even with all the discussion that has gone on in this thread (excellent topic and discussion) I believe your point has been well made for a 10 IPC transport with a defense of 1 is and was the best approach all along. These game stats fit the bill. Anyone stacking ten buck transports would be a fool and a defenseless-transport gravy-train is averted.
You won my vote sir.
Here is the maths way to see that DK’s option is a big statistical change:
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 5 DDs & 8 Classic TPs D1, 1 hit, (10 IPCs)
A. survives: 48.7% D. survives: 50.8% No one survives: 0.5%So if even, then it would be the same price:
80 IPCs + 56 IPCs = 156 IPCs vs 40 IPCs + 80 IPCs = 120 IPCs.This way of using Classic Transports is radically more economical, since it is 36 IPCs less for the same combat value and moving capacity.
To be even, 8 Classics transports should cost 116 IPCs (156-40), which means: 14.5 IPCs/TP.
At 10 IPCs, transports able to be fodder and Defending @1, this is a bargain.
But maybe, this operates under a false assumption.
So, there will be no need to get a statistically even unit for changing defenseless transports into Classic TPs.
Others circumstances should be considered.
But, which ones?How can we see it could “fit the bill” for the most “hard core” players looking for balance and improvement?
Doing the same battle with Spendo02 TPs* gives a very different result:
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 5 DDs & 8 Classic TPs D1, 1 hit, (10 IPCs)
A. survives: 98.5% D. survives: 1.7% No one survives: 0%It needs (in DDs considered first losses and keeping TPs as the last casualties)
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 9 DDs & 8 Classic TPs D1, 1 hit, (10 IPCs)A. survives: 49% D. survives: 52.5% No one survives: 0%
80 IPCs + 56 IPCs = 156 IPCs vs 72 IPCs + 80 IPCs = 152 IPCs.Almost an even cost for a balance fight for the same cargo capacity.
However, picking Transports as first casualties then the results is:
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 5 DDs & 8 TPs D1*, 1 hit, (10 IPCs)
A. survives: 53.4% D. survives: 46.6% No one survives: 0%Giving an even match for lower cost (same as Classic scenario above).
So the maths odds of the battle depend clearly on which order the casualties are taken.
Does the defending player choose to save transports or warships first?Maybe I need to read this more carefully because I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly, but here’s my thought using only base figures and statistics. I’m going to simply offer another idea.
If the cost of an AP @ D1 were the same or greater than a DD why would anyone choose APs a primary defense screen or fodder? Especially if all stats were OOB except having a defense of 1. Meaning they’re still chosen last. They still can’t block. They can still be ignored. They die like every other vessel in a surprise attack.
The base factors are all still the same a DD is twice as powerful on defense and offensively the AP has no combat value. I personally would have no problem with APs chosen last and at equal cost to DD’s.
I honestly think a reverse argument could be made that DDs too powerful for their cost. I’m not the one to make it but LOL somebody could make that same argument.
If everything was OOB regarding APs except cost 8 and defense 1, I don’t see how that is over powered or would make sense as fodder.
-
Transport cannot be taken last if you want to allow them as fodder unit.
If Transport is same price as DD, you lose the same amount of IPCs choosing one or the other.
But keeping DDs and loosing TPs allows for a better odds of payback by destroying more enemy units on the long runs.
Suggested Topics
