Probably because its based on a time frame. If you have inf with these landings then they have established a landing. Maybe both sides suck at hitting.
I like where attacking art and tanks get no 1st round attacks and attacking ships bombardment hit art and or a motorized unit first. If non then a inf.
Also when there is a landing most Inf won’t be on the beachhead. They’ll be dug in further back.
The aberration of the defenseless transport
-
@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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. -
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.
-
@Baron:
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 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#msg1289233I 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 -
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.
Thanks for the idea.
1 additionnal German’s Sub in Atlantic SZ can help return to similar success rate on UK or USA starting fleet. -
@Baron:
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.
Thanks for the idea.
1 additionnal German’s Sub in Atlantic SZ can help return to similar success rate on UK or USA starting fleet.Glad it might help.
-
Not sure where I pulled pearl, must have been thinking of AA50 the Japanese air hit against sz56 since I was playing that the other day too :-D But in any case, there are a few more key transport defenses for Allies in 42.2 over Axis, so it feels like it would lean towards Allied balance, which is a good thing. Probably just more satisfying overall, whatever the effects on the opening. Return them their hit value at 1 (per group as suggested) and taken last, just seems more interesting. It combines the old Classic lucky shot, but doesn’t give up the fodder problem, but makes the unit more potent for the price.
Agreed keep it at 7 ipcs
Lucky 7I’m going to play this way in my next face to face game for sure! Will test it out next Thursday see if the gang enjoys.
Also, if you really want to keep it from changing the opening, you could also make it a force multiplier thing, where only two transports together “A Group” get this defensive boost +1. Two or more transports together would no longer become defenseless. But the not cumulative just the 1 hit for the entire group, whatever its total number, as long as there are at least two transports in the group. This could all be interpreted as a “combined arms” type bonus, where the transport gets boosted by other transports such that the whole group gets to fire together at a 1, whereas single transports would behave OOB. Or you could just apply it universally to all transports whether single or in a group together.
What it is interesting here is that there would be a natural incentive to “fan out” your transports to try to get multiple bonuses on defense instead of just keeping one transports stack, it might be better to split them into smaller groups to get more bang out of them on defense. Things like this might encourage more island hopping, or branching out naval game instead of just a ship stack fest in a few zones. I think these changes could be popular if it feels right.
**So 1 lone transport still defends at zero.
2 transports defend at 1,
3 transports still defend at 1
4 transports still defend at 1, but…If you broke them into 2 groups in two separate sea zones then you’d get double the defense value! Two chances to hit at a 1. This as a way to encourage fanning out over stacking together in the naval game on transport defense.**
See where I am going with it? :)
might be cool.If handled that way, as a combined arms type thing, then the only opening battle affected would be the German sub hit on the US Atlantic transports. But that battle is a little busted anyway, and some even bid a destroyer there believing it is critical. Short of a destroyer added in, the group transport bonus, would give a slight disincentive for German Uboats to hit, they might go after the Canadian transports instead just to avoid the risk of that extra 1 haha
Here is what I found, clearly we are likely-minded on that issue, since the very first post I introduced in the Defenseless transport thread is this one: :-o
@Baron:@Uncrustable:
Why not give transports a defense of 1 but still must be taken as casualties last ?
Increase their cost to 8Because a transport having a defense of 1 is too generous.
In Classic, transports represented actual transports and escort ships- now escort ships have been decoupled from transports in the form of destroyers.
Hi everybody,
their is some middleway here.Keep at 7 IPCs. It is already a long road to buy an escort fleet, transport and ground units. And bridging from one island to another requires much more transport to travel the same two ground units. The chain of communication is easily outstreched and vulnerable in PTO.
Give any group (2 or more) of Transports a collective defense of 1.
Even in a naval battle with other vessels, give at the start of naval battle the transport group a defense @1.
Transports are still chosen last.
When their is no more combat ship, the attacker still rolls and destroy as many transports as he got hits.
It lasts until the last transport has sunk (which still have 1@1).The capacity to take hits is already a good defense.
I see no need to add more than the single@1 for all the group.However, keep a single isolated transport as an easy target with no defense.
Historically, we can think that there is some corvettes and frigates (but not much) inside a group of transports, 2 units or more (14 IPCs and +).
Another possibility is to limit this @1 as AA only for 2 or more transports. So no combat ship could be kill by the lighter guns on board any troop transports.
The same idea but going a little further:
@Baron:
The whole point of having a transport with a def of 1 is so that it is not a sitting duck. It’s no battleship but at least it’s not totally easy pickings. I like being able to send out a transport out by itself and taking a risk with it. By the same token it makes your opponent think twice before he sends out some lone fighter or bomber to attack you. It forces them to think about losing precious aircraft to attack a transport rather than simply wiping otu a unit of opportunity with no risk.
That’s why I suggest a 1@1 for 2 or more transports plus playing every hit on them.
If attacker throw only 1 Fg @3 against 3TPs, it will take at least 3 lucky rounds before all TPs get drowned. At each round, their is still odds at 1/6 (like a AA gun) to get this Fg down.
IMHO, this far risky that the attacker will put much more aircrafts to be sure not to have too many combat cycles with those TPs.And as write it down, I was thinking about a house rule “Air Supremacy” which imply that an aircraft makes preemptive shot against naval only target with no air support. To counterweight the huge impact of 3 rounds with odds at 1/6 every time.
I eared only of Guadalcanal and Truk’s air raids against transports ships.
And they didn’t make the weight against fighters and TacB.
They were sitting ducks even with their on board AA guns.In such situation,
the odds are for 1 Fighter @3 against 3 Transports, 3 hits and 1 Def @1 for the entire group:Overall %*: A. survives: 36.7% D. survives: 56.6% No one survives: 6.7%
It is roughly a 1/3 of survival.Giving a preemptive strike to Fighter, when attacking Transport only:
Overall %*: A. survives: 37.3% D. survives: 55.2% No one survives: 7.6%
This doesn’t change anything.
In fact, thinking about it, since there is only 1 attacker, the first and second hits still let the defensive fire roll @1 applied.
So, this idea doesn’t work to fix the issue on the 1 combat unit against more than 1 transports.@Baron:
Based on the game’s simulation of WWII era combat, using a D6 system, a defensive factor of 1 which is lowest defensive score is appropriate.
The argument for no defense is still not valid, and the justification for removing it is as well. It is impossible for one unit comprising of mostly fighters to destroy the equivalent of hundeds if not thousands of ships.
I’ll use the submarine argument against air vs. sub imbalance then. A transport should be able to retreat after one round of attack. The same way a sub can submerge. The TRN can be tipped on it’s side as if retreating. There were blockade runners in all kinds of wars.
Hell let’s just get rid of them and go for sea routes ala Risk! There were thousands of transports travelling alone all over the globe un-contested.
It is possible to get a lower rate that 1 unit @1: 1/6 per unit.
AA guns get 3@1 once.
I suggested: 2 and more TPs get only 1D@1 but endure as many hits as they are.A fleeing tactics can be imagine:
Philip Schwartzer from Gamers Paradise suggested that two or more TPs can be attack by 2@4 for each Sub and BB.For a single round, you can double dice for every attacking units and let the remaining TPs as survivors: 1Fg @3 get 2@3/ 1StrB get 2@4, etc.
Hi Black_Elk,
I may have find something which can be a way to let transport have a little defense roll.
It can be similar to the actual AAA unit. The only difference could be that each transport can only get 1 defense roll @1.
Once this is done, all transports are considered destroyed if there is at least 1 attacking unit remaining.
Transports can only roll their defense when at least 1 casualty is allocated to them.For example: 1 Fg is attacking 3 Transports.
Round 1) Fighter roll a hit but any one of the transport roll a “1”, then the battle is over.
1 Fighter and 1 transport are killed. But 2 transports remained in the SZ.If none of the Transports nor the Fighter get a hit, then all the transports will be destroyed but the Fighter is still alive.
I don’t find it is better than the earlier idea above, but it is still different than KNP7765’s HR on defenseless transport.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1288468#msg1288468
I probably get a better idea here:
Still keep that possibility that transports in a group can roll 1def@1 and each transport have 1 hit value and are still chosen as last casualties.
When attacking the escort units of transports, the transports group is allowed to roll 1 defense @1 each round.
When there is no more escorting units for transports, each attacking unit which scores a hit against transports, in a given combat round, is now immuned from retaliation for the duration of this combat round.
So, as long as an attacking unit gets a succesful roll, this unit cannot be destroyed.Example: 2 surviving Bombers can now attack 8 Transports, as it is the remnants of a larger fleet.
Under the 1 def@1 roll per transports group, CalC gives:
Overall %*: A. survives: 60.7% D. survives: 35% No one survives: 4.4%Adding the immunization rule, it will still gives better odds for the attacker:
Round 1 : both Bombers get 4 or less, 2 transports are lost and no defense roll can be made.
Round 2: 1 hit and 1 miss, 1 transport is lost but 1 defense roll @1 can be made, let’s suppose a miss.
Round 3: 2 hits, 2 transports are lost and no defense roll allowed.
Round 4: no hit, 1 defense roll @1 allowed, let’s suppose a hit. 1 Bombers remains and 3 transports alive.
Round 5: 1 hit, no defense roll allowed (since, the only bomber is immuned). 1 bomber still in the air and 2 transports alive.
Round 6: no hit, 1 defense roll @1 allowed, let’s suppose a miss. 1 bomber still in the air and 2 transports alive.
Etc.So, Transports can never get more than 1 hit per combat round.
And sometimes, get no defense roll (when all attacking units are successful).This means, that any lonely transport can get an opportunity to roll for 1 defense @1, as long as it is not destroyed by the attackers.
Lonely attacking unit can have better odds of survival that way against a superior number of transports.
Mainly, if it keeps lucky and have successful rolls in a row.While a massive attack will probably left more odds of rolling on defense.
Example: 6 Destroyers against 10 Transports.
As long as 1 attacking unit miss a target, the transports group can roll for a defense @1.It is a somewhat particular mechanics, I agree.
But it gives a better protection to the attacker when there is few units, while it is practically the same effect against a massive attacking groups.This can somehow solve the issue on opening battle without requiring the other rule about 2 transports together to get a defense roll @1.
We can rationalize this special restriction on the fact that attacking units with their greater offensive power can outguns any transport unit, such as a special preemptive attack.
And, since Transports are not actively defending against all units (as could be the case for warships and aircrafts), an attacking unit is only after 1 enemy unit at a time, so when it misses, the Transports group gets its opportunity to roll for defensive fire. -
Talking about Defenseless transport cost reduction to 7 IPCs:
Here is the number and cost required to give the same level of protection has Classic transport, still taken last, allowed to roll D1 on every round of the battle compared to an OOB defenseless transport.
I used the AACalc of the forum and put DD (A2) and Carrier (A1) for DD and transport.A pretty even combat with the same number of units carried aboard TPs is:
5 DDs A2 D2 & 8 Classic TPs D1, 1 hit, 8 IPCs vs 10 DDs A2 D2 & 8 TPs D0, 0 hit, (3 IPCs)
A. survives: 49.5% D. survives: 50.0% No one survives: 0.5%So, assuming that it is even in combat survival and cargo, then it should be the same price on both sides:
(5DDs8 IPCs) 40 IPCs + (8TPs8 IPCs) 64 IPCs compared to (10DDs8 IPCs) 80 IPCs + (8TPs3 IPCs) 24 IPCs =
104 IPCs vs 104 IPCs.This means that the defenseless transport taken last unit needing Destroyers for protection should have cost 3 IPCs to give the same defense level provided by a classic Transport A0 D1 M2, 1 hit and taken last.
So, it is more than twice the price.
This 1 IPC reduction for the new defenseless OOB Transport was, in fact, a 233% cost increase compared to a Classic TP always played as a taken last casualties.And the Classic transport was also used as fodder in big battle, something I cannot eval with AACalc, but clearly imply that defenseless transport should be even more cheaper compared to a full Revised Edition Transport.
Since, the initial set-ups were not radically change in Atlantic SZs from previous versions (besides adding 1 or 2 units here and there). I believe the real twist of balance shift, from Allied wins to Axis wins, came mostly from this change above everything else.
Now, for those which swear only on taken last transport unit,
here is my HR for a substantial unit at 5 IPCs:
OOB defenseless transport.It is not as monstrous than a 3 IPCs transport, but it can provide a small taste of the old balance with this little change.
If under the 3 IPCs converted from Classic settings was too far Allieds and the 7 IPCs defenseless was too much Axis, then, from a purely mathematical perspective, the average of 3 IPCs + 7 IPCs is 5 IPCs. -
@Baron:
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.
Does it matter to you? Is there some other variables to consider?
As a matter of fact, there is:
You didn’t factor in the transports doing what they’re supposed to be doing: carrying units. If a 8 IPC Classic transport is carrying two Infantry, that puts the total cost of losing it at 14 IPCs, the same as your calculation for allowing the transport to be chosen first.
But transports carrying troops aren’t going to be chosen first, of course: That’d be a waste of resources and would ruin any invasion plans. They’re going to be chosen last, giving them the same combat effectiveness as your first calculation, but at a higher cost. Even if the transports are only carrying 1 Infantry, it’s still nearly balanced cost-wise.
But what about empty transports? They’d be chosen first, right? And at only 8 IPCs, losing them first in combat makes perfect sense. The problem here is this: Why attack an opponent with empty transports as fodder, when for the same price you can attack an opponent with destroyers as fodder, and have a more effective attack? As a screen for your attacking warships, 8 IPC Classic transports are terrible. What about on the defense? You might need those empty transports later, and your opponent attacks them preemptively. Well, in that case your opponent does suffer (but less than if you had destroyers), but that’s the risk they took for attacking empty transports.
-
Does it matter to you? Is there some other variables to consider?
As a matter of fact, there is:
You didn’t factor in the transports doing what they’re supposed to be doing: carrying units. If a 8 IPC Classic transport is carrying two Infantry, that puts the total cost of losing it at 14 IPCs, the same as your calculation for allowing the transport to be chosen first.
But transports carrying troops aren’t going to be chosen first, of course: That’d be a waste of resources and would ruin any invasion plans. They’re going to be chosen last, giving them the same combat effectiveness as your first calculation, but at a higher cost. Even if the transports are only carrying 1 Infantry, it’s still nearly balanced cost-wise.
But what about empty transports? They’d be chosen first, right? And at only 8 IPCs, losing them first in combat makes perfect sense. The problem here is this: Why attack an opponent with empty transports as fodder, when for the same price you can attack an opponent with destroyers as fodder, and have a more effective attack? As a screen for your attacking warships, 8 IPC Classic transports are terrible. What about on the defense? You might need those empty transports later, and your opponent attacks them preemptively. Well, in that case your opponent does suffer (but less than if you had destroyers), but that’s the risk they took for attacking empty transports.
Welcome on the forum amanntai,
happy that you get interested on that point and the method I used to get these numbers.
You pointed out some blank spot in my calculations. It is true that I never considered fully loaded transport, only empty ones. It is also true that all my simulations give only a defensive factor @1 to Transports, I never put them in offensive situation.
I simply considered, for simplification, that on offense Transports are not use as fodder units.
That is true in real Classic times, empty Transports were effectively used as fodder to protect the 24 IPCs behemoth Battleship, but it is no more the case in other versions (which includes Destroyer and much more).
I just considered that the main issue on protecting them is mostly when you have to defend.Also, usually defending transports are empty since, most of the time, it get a chance to unload in a friendly territory while the TP stay in the SZ nearby. That’s why a never considered any cargo aboard transports.
In the calculations above, even if one side is on offense, it is not meant to really represent transport on offense.
It is just a comparative of the combat values of both groups of DDs+TPs at there defensive values.
The side (attacker or defender) is not relevant in itself.
(I put Classic TPs on offense side because it was easier to get a combat value @1 with the 1942 Carrier (A1 D2 C14) attack factor in the A&ACalc.)Once this said, are you more a “defenseless TP” partisan or a “defensive combat value TP, such as in classic” type of guy?
-
@Baron:
Once this said, are you more a “defenseless TP” partisan or a “defensive combat value TP, such as in classic” type of guy?
Thanks for the welcome, Baron.
I am more in favor of Classic transports, but I definitely consider the “Collective defense@1 Transports” as a good alternative. In either case, I believe transports should be able to be chosen as casualties first, even if that won’t always be the case.
Another option to consider: In another thread, the idea of lowered navy costs was discussed, to encourage more investment in traditionally over-priced navies. Could lowering the costs of all naval units except transports balance an 8 IPC Classic transport?
-
@Baron:
Once this said, are you more a “defenseless TP” partisan or a “defensive combat value TP, such as in classic” type of guy?
Thanks for the welcome, Baron.
I am more in favor of Classic transports, but I definitely consider the “Collective defense@1 Transports” as a good alternative. In either case, I believe transports should be able to be chosen as casualties first, even if that won’t always be the case.
Another option to consider: In another thread, the idea of lowered navy costs was discussed, to encourage more investment in traditionally over-priced navies. Could lowering the costs of all naval units except transports balance an 8 IPC Classic transport?
I believe so.
That’s why I think, if someone wants to keep the vulnerability of transports but still giving them some defense value.
The opening post of the thread talk about a 10 IPCs Transport acting like Classic for defense @1.I simply prefer to use Advanced Shipyard cost structure, or something similar which can also includes planes.
That way, you keep transport at 8 IPCs (around the OOB 7 IPCs) but is relative cost is higher.
Just below 9 IPCs Cruiser and above 7 IPCs Destroyer.
So, from OOB initial cost it means lower than 12 IPCs but higher than 8 IPCs.
If you have planes at reduced cost also, Fighter A3 D4 M4 is usually at 8 IPCs.
This means that Transport is put at the relative price of Fighter unit, which was 10 IPCs OOB.I know from my combat calculations that the group defense 1 roll @1/round, 1 hit per transport and letting the owner choose the casualty order is near 10 IPCs OOB or 8 IPCs in an Advanced Shipyard cost structure.
So, there is for all taste.
1- Keeping OOB cost structure, put transport at 8 IPCs, with group defense but taken last.
2- Keeping OOB cost structure, put transport at 10 IPCs, with group defense but owner choose all casualty order.
3- Reducing warships cost (around Advanced Shipyard), put transport at 8 IPCs, with group defense but owner choose all casualty order.You will definitely still feel the weakness of the transports without the loophole of infinite destruction with no risk on the attacker part, once all combat units are destroyed.
-
@Baron:
@Baron:
Once this said, are you more a “defenseless TP” partisan or a “defensive combat value TP, such as in classic” type of guy?
Thanks for the welcome, Baron.
I am more in favor of Classic transports, but I definitely consider the “Collective defense@1 Transports” as a good alternative. In either case, I believe transports should be able to be chosen as casualties first, even if that won’t always be the case.
Another option to consider: In another thread, the idea of lowered navy costs was discussed, to encourage more investment in traditionally over-priced navies. Could lowering the costs of all naval units except transports balance an 8 IPC Classic transport?
I believe so.
That’s why I think, if someone wants to keep the vulnerability of transports but still giving them some defense value.
The opening post of the thread talk about a 10 IPCs Transport acting like Classic for defense @1.I simply prefer to use Advanced Shipyard cost structure, or something similar which can also includes planes.
That way, you keep transport at 8 IPCs (around the OOB 7 IPCs) but is relative cost is higher.
Just below 9 IPCs Cruiser and above 7 IPCs Destroyer.
So, from OOB initial cost it means lower than 12 IPCs but higher than 8 IPCs.
If you have planes at reduced cost also, Fighter A3 D4 M4 is usually at 8 IPCs.
This means that Transport is put at the relative price of Fighter unit, which was 10 IPCs OOB.I know from my combat calculations that the group defense 1 roll @1/round, 1 hit per transport and letting the owner choose the casualty order is near 10 IPCs OOB or 8 IPCs in an Advanced Shipyard cost structure.
So, there is for all taste.
1- Keeping OOB cost structure, put transport at 8 IPCs, with group defense but taken last.
2- Keeping OOB cost structure, put transport at 10 IPCs, with group defense but owner choose all casualty order.
3- Reducing warships cost (around Advanced Shipyard), put transport at 8 IPCs, with group defense but owner choose all casualty order.You will definitely still feel the weakness of the transports without the loophole of infinite destruction with no risk on the attacker part, once all combat units are destroyed.
Why are you lowering the cost of planes? They are already overpowered as it is. I think the only thing that needs to be implemented is either your point 1 or point 2.
-
All units, except ground and Transport, can be lowered to give a relative increase of Transport cost.
You can just lower warships, and keep OOB cost for every other units.
As you wish,
Suggested Topics
