The aberration of the defenseless transport

[toblerone77]

@Black_Elk:

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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?

[knp7765]

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).

[baron Münchhausen]

@Spendo02:

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?

@Spendo02:

@Gekkepop:

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.  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”.  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:

  @BJCard:

  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

  @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 casualties

  The 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.

[knp7765]

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@knp7765:

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

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 IPCs

It 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.

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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.

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

Transport cannot be taken last if you want to allow them as fodder unit. I don’t like them as fodder units personally.

If Transport is same price as DD, you lose the same amount of IPCs choosing one or the other. Exactly either unit is then used more in line with their role in the game

But keeping DDs and loosing TPs allows for a better odds of payback by destroying more enemy units on the long runs. Thus the units respectively are more balanced.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

@Baron:

Transport cannot be taken last if you want to allow them as fodder unit. I don’t like them as fodder units personally.

If Transport is same price as DD, you lose the same amount of IPCs choosing one or the other. Exactly either unit is then used more in line with their role in the game

But keeping DDs and loosing TPs allows for a better odds of payback by destroying more enemy units on the long runs. Thus the units respectively are more balanced.

If you are on the loosing side while defending, having the choice of order of losses (assuming not playing with taken last rule), being uncertain of the outcome: whether mere survival or complete annihilation, most players will prefer to loose a transport and keep a destroyer.
Mainly because it is at the same price, hence same cost of replacement. No dilemma. You will sacrifice the weaker unit (TP D1, 1 hit) before the stronger (DD, D2, 1 hit), as usual.

However, if you have to choose between loosing 9 or 10 IPCs (a possible more balance cost for TP) for a weaker Transport or 8 IPCs for stronger Destroyer, a defending player will have to ponder if he still have a chance of saving his transport or not (simply because the replacement cost for transport will be higher than for DDs). If not, then it will be “inflicting most damage to enemy before dying”, hence still keeping Destroyer for another cycle.

From this perspective, a higher cost than DD for transport makes TP less interesting unit as a hit soaker. And it is a more difficult dilemma when choosing casualty: loosing a cheaper but stronger DD or a costlier but weaker Transport?

Do you agree?

---

About taken last TP defending @1, I would agree that from a designer POV, it is simpler.
Being able to draw a different start-up map and unit placement, this HR could be the one.

My problem is more about the impact of this HR change on the overall game balance.
Changing a pre-set, play-tested game with no hit, defenseless, taken last transports into a 1 hit, taken last, Transport defending @1 (when all warships are sunk?) is two very very different conditions.

If we have an advance Battlecalc, it would be easy to know if the defenseless is too much outmatched by Classic TP taken last. Unfortunately we don’t have such.

[toblerone77]

When I get to an actual computer I might be able to give a better response but for the moment I’ll say this.

I don’t see how transports could be used as fodder even at the same cost as DDs if all other OOB rules apply to them. As for my previous comment you quoted I believe the conversation and my opinion have evolved.

The two greatest arguments from the developers of the D0 AP concept was them being used as fodder and the question of why one would buy DDs. The OOB stipulations remove the possibilty of APs to be used as fodder since they must be chosen last as well as it appeals realism in many people’s eyes. The cost is equal to the DD but weaker and  it still has an entirely different role in battle.

The DD still remains as an essential component of any fleet and retains it’s role in the game. Keeping everything about the AP OOB except cost and a light defense only adds to the game by eliminating AP fodder and the unrealistic situation of destroying an infinite number of APs whether ungaurded or lightly escorted.

I think this is an excellent HR the comprises the aspects of both POV in regards to D0 APs.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

When I get to an actual computer I might be able to give a better response but for the moment I’ll say this.

I don’t see how transports could be used as fodder even at the same cost as DDs if all other OOB rules apply to them. As for my previous comment you quoted I believe the conversation and my opinion have evolved.

The two greatest arguments from the developers of the D0 AP concept was them being used as fodder and the question of why one would buy DDs. The OOB stipulations remove the possibilty of APs to be used as fodder since they must be chosen last as well as it appeals realism in many people’s eyes. The cost is equal to the DD but weaker and  it still has an entirely different role in battle.

The DD still remains as an essential component of any fleet and retains it’s role in the game. Keeping everything about the AP OOB except cost and a light defense only adds to the game by eliminating AP fodder and the unrealistic situation of destroying an infinite number of APs whether ungaurded or lightly escorted.

I think this is an excellent HR the comprises the aspects of both POV in regards to D0 APs.

Just wanting to be on the same page for sure:
Example B1 (see below):
6 Fgs A3 are attacking 3 DDs D2 and 6 APs D1* C8 IPCs.
Assuming no luck: on the first, Fgs making 3 casualties, and DDs get 1 hit.
*APs cannot roll since they are taken last and protected by DDs during first round.
(Is it that way you will play your transport defense roll? Or do you prefer A1?)

Rnd 2, 5 Fgs A3 are attacking 6 remaining APs D1*. Fgs makes 2.5 casualties, rounding up to 3 amongst APs and APs get 1 casualty.

Rnd 3, 4 Fgs A3 are attacking 3 APs. Fgs makes 2 casualties and APs get .5 casualty rounding up to 1.

Rnd 4, 3 Fgs A3 are attacking 1 APs. Etc.

---

Trying to get clean options for a taken last transport, from the stronger to the weaker:

A1) each transport get to roll D1 per rnd along the other warships, but warships must be destroyed first.

B1) each transport get to roll D1 per rnd only when they are on their own, all escorting units need to be destroyed to get a defending roll @1.

---

B2)  a lower defense roll under the same condition than B1, all warships must be destroyed then you get: 1 D@1 roll per transport or per attacking unit, whichever the lesser. (I introduced this in lasts previous posts.)

---

A2) each transport group get a single roll @1 per rnd along with defending warships, but each transport unit can only be taken individually as casualty once all warships are destroyed.

B3) As A2 but waiting that all escorting units are destroyed before getting a single defense roll @1/rnd.

[baron Münchhausen]

For my part,
under taken last condition, I would choose this transport:

A2) each transport group get a single roll @1/round along with defending warships, but each transport unit can only be taken individually as casualty once all defending warships are destroyed.

It still keep the 1 hit value.
Provide a simple continuum for the single defensive roll @1 per round: from the start of the battle to the end.
It is amongst the lowest defense we can give per round.
(AA gun receive up to three 1 time roll. A group of TPs can certainly receive 1 each round.)

Even under this very small defense roll, I wonder if a balance transport unit should cost higher than 8 IPCs within actual OOB G40 and 1942.2 settings.

Giving 1 hit value provides a more difficult time for attackers to destroy them.
As said earlier:
1 Cruiser C12 and 1 such TP C8 at 20 IPCs (get 2 hits) will be much more interesting than a 2 hits BBs for 20 IPCs.

Rising TP to 9 IPCs, so CA+TP= 21 IPCs and 2 hits will be just above the cost of a 2 hits BB.

Same thing for 1 DD C8 + 1 TP C9 = 17 IPCs and 2 hits will be just above the cost of a 2 hits CV A0 D2 C16.

I think it is in these two 2 hits units where is lying the balance problem:
the basics cost is 8 IPCs/hit for CV and 10 IPCs/hit for BB.

Just in between avg: 9 IPCs/hit

So buying Transport as a way of adding hit soaker (in addition to the cargo capacity) stay a weaker fodder because of the taken last rule, would not add too much versatility to a fleet with a consistent price.

[toblerone77]

Okay. Well here’s my HR. APs are entirely OOB with all aspects that OOB rules encompass, except cost 8 and defense 1D6@1. I’ve examined all the variables, mechanics and math of it all and find that it works well. If this is still too powerful for some I suggest using the same idea except, 1D12@1.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

Okay. Well here’s my HR. APs are entirely OOB with all aspects that OOB rules encompass, except cost 8 and defense 1D6@1. I’ve examined all the variables, mechanics and math of it all and find that it works well. If this is still too powerful for some I suggest using the same idea except, 1D12@1.

Is there any aspects (variables, mechanics and math) you can provides to help me better understand your POV?

My main position on this is here:
@Baron:

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.

I play-tested a couple of things on a 1942.2 settings and in Atlantic SZs it is clearly 2 different situations:

OOB: 2 Germany’s Subs (SZ 9) can either attack UK’s 1 DD and 1 TP (SZ10) or USA’s 1 DD and 2 TPs (SZ 11).
There is a great 88% odds of sinking the DD, hence sinking the remaining TPs.

When applying Classic conditions (using AACalc with DDs and Carrier in 1942 Ed.):
It is only 54% of sinking UK’s fleet and 8% draw or only 25% of sinking USA’s fleet and 5% draw.

I see this as a clear instance of unbalancing effect of Classic transport.

Does it matter to you? Is there some other variables to consider?

---

For my part, when I used a Classic Transport A0 D1 C? I clearly like this combat option for attacker:

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.

What do you think about it?

In the previous example, it allows the Germany’s player to choose to destroy only the Destroyer and stay within the OOB odds of destroying them. Of course, he can take the risk against UK’s to destroy both DD and TPs.
At least, it is his decision.
So, anytime, the attacker can return to the OOB odds, but at the expanse of letting the transports survive.

[toblerone77]

Baron my HR neutralizes all of the factors of why the TRN was changed to D0 in the first place. The only time where TRNs would be used as sensible fodder is the opening phases of the game. If someone is still buying TRNs as fodder when the DD is vastly superior they would be foolish.

Math: You don’t need a battle calculator to view the base stats, or calculate that TRNs are really lousy fodder when you can buy a DD for the same price with quadruple overall AD power let alone the escort capability of the DD.

Balancing: Okay off the bat, the Axis still have huge advantages in almost every edition of A&A. This is an HR; so you could either modify the set-up, actually give the Axis a naval bid, or leave it alone. Frankly It doesn’t bother me all that much that the Axis might have it a bit tougher wiping out the Allied fleet in the first round of play. Even with that said Japan would benefit with my HR.

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

Okay. Well here’s my HR. APs are entirely OOB with all aspects that OOB rules encompass, except cost 8 and defense 1D6@1. I’ve examined all the variables, mechanics and math of it all and find that it works well. If this is still too powerful for some I suggest using the same idea except, 1D12@1.

Is there any aspects (variables, mechanics and math) you can provides to help me better understand your POV?  I’m simply using the base numbers and equalizing costs, so that using an “economy of force model” the TRN lost in battle is of equal value to the DD.

My main position on this is here:
@Baron:

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.

I play-tested a couple of things on a 1942.2 settings and in Atlantic SZs it is clearly 2 different situations:

OOB: 2 Germany’s Subs (SZ 9) can either attack UK’s 1 DD and 1 TP (SZ10) or USA’s 1 DD and 2 TPs (SZ 11).
There is a great 88% odds of sinking the DD, hence sinking the remaining TPs.

When applying Classic conditions (using AACalc with DDs and Carrier in 1942 Ed.):
It is only 54% of sinking UK’s fleet and 8% draw or only 25% of sinking USA’s fleet and 5% draw.

I see this as a clear instance of unbalancing effect of Classic transport.

Does it matter to you? Is there some other variables to consider?  In some ways is doesn’t matter to me. I see your point but, the example reflects a prescribed but probable strategy The German player doesn’t have to take that risk at all and may simply choose another strategy. This could be resolved by either a naval bid for Germany or possible minor revision in set-up. However I feel that the Axis already have an advantage at the start of the game as it is. Another possibility is to give Germany super-subs at the beginning of the game to off-set my HR. The other thing to take into account is the fact that this is an HR so you as well as others could make minor changes as needed.

---

For my part, when I used a Classic Transport A0 D1 C? I clearly like this combat option for attacker:

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.

What do you think about it? I think it’s fine. I still stand by my HR, but If I were to make my own rulebook I would add yours as a sub-option. As it stands I would also add my own sub-option of a modified roll of 1*D12@1 to further buff the TRN defense to essentially 1/2 D6 PIP (1xD12@1=1xD6@.5).

In the previous example, it allows the Germany’s player to choose to destroy only the Destroyer and stay within the OOB odds of destroying them. Of course, he can take the risk against UK’s to destroy both DD and TPs.
At least, it is his decision.
So, anytime, the attacker can return to the OOB odds, but at the expanse of letting the transports survive.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

Baron my HR neutralizes all of the factors of why the TRN was changed to D0 in the first place. The only time where TRNs would be used as sensible fodder is the opening phases of the game. If someone is still buying TRNs as fodder when the DD is vastly superior they would be foolish.

Math: You don’t need a battle calculator to view the base stats, or calculate that TRNs are really lousy fodder when you can buy a DD for the same price with quadruple overall AD power let alone the escort capability of the DD.

Balancing: Okay off the bat, the Axis still have huge advantages in almost every edition of A&A. This is an HR; so you could either modify the set-up, actually give the Axis a naval bid, or leave it alone. Frankly It doesn’t bother me all that much that the Axis might have it a bit tougher wiping out the Allied fleet in the first round of play. Even with that said Japan would benefit with my HR.

I revised an old post in which there was simple miscalculation 80 + 56 = 156!!!, I corrected for 136 IPCs.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1289233#msg1289233

I can now determined what is the average cost to change from defenseless to another type of transport defense factor.
Of course, it is based on the assumption that keeping a fleet with similar cargo and defensive value should have a similar cost.

Here is the number required to give a similar protection to an OOB defenseless transport compared to Classic transport, still taken last, but each is allowed to roll D1 on every round of the battle (as in Classic).
I used the AACalc of the forum and put DD (A2) and Carrier (A1) for DD and transport.

A pretty even combat is:
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 5 DDs & 8 Classic TPs D1, 1 hit, 12 IPCs
A. survives: 50.0% D. survives: 49.5% 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 + (8TPs12 IPCs) 96 IPCs =
136 IPCs vs 136 IPCs.

This means that a classic transport A0D1M2, 1 hit and taken last must cost 12 IPCs to not outmatched OOB TP at 7 IPCs.

Now, keeping the same Classic transport but allowing it to be choose as first casualty, here is the most even fight on Battlecalc I can get for the 136 IPCs fleet:
10 DDs & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (7 IPCs) vs 4 DDs & 8 Classic TPs D1, 1 hit, 13 IPCs
A. survives: 42.6% D. survives: 56.3 No one survives: 1.2%
(10DDs8 IPCs) 80 IPCs + (8TPs7 IPCs) 56 IPCs compared to (4DDs8 IPCs) 32 IPCs + (8TPs13 IPCs) 104 IPCs =
136 IPCs vs 136 IPCs.

And since there is a 6% above 50%, the balance price of a pure Classic transport should be above 13 IPCs.
136 IPCs * 106% = 144.2 IPCs- 32 IPCs from 4 DDs= 112.2/8= 14 IPCs / transports.

So, assuming that we let player choose their own casualties as they wish, so sometimes transports are taken last and sometimes taken first (to keep the better defensive combat value of the whole fleet), then a balanced cost should be an average between 12 IPCs and 14 IPCs, which imply a 13 IPCs per Classic transport A0D1M2, 1 hit.

So anything with a lower transport cost than 12-13 IPCs is giving some advantage toward Allies lines of shipping ground units from USA and UK.
The reason is that you will need less escorting warships to protect correctly a given transport (because of is own defense capabilities) than with OOB defenseless transport.

This escorting warships cost, as an hindrance for waiting to throw transports in harm’s way, must be taken into account, not just the unhistorical fodder capacity of transport.

About fodder: at the same cost of 8 IPCs compared to DDs, when it is needed to keep the most costlier combat valuable units, Transports and Destroyers will be used as fodder to protect Cruiser, Battleships and some carriers for Fighters.

But at a high cost of 12-13 IPCs for transports, it would be a hard choice of whether keepings better combat unit (even at lower cost) or loosing big money on transports when come the time to replace lost units.

---

However, having a different HR based on Spendo02 idea, with each Transport, 1 hit value, but only rolling 1 dice @1 per round for any number of TPs.
It gives a lesser balance cost of 10 IPCs when defender choose his own casualties.

It can even be lowered to 8 IPCs, if such Transport must be chosen last.

See the last part of this post, if you want to see the calculations.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1289233#msg1289233