This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.
The Escort unit is a sea unit, that has multiple tasks. The primary task is to protect Transports as part of a Convoy.
Transports are too expensive
-
SubmersedElk: You are right in saying that it would only help in NAfrica and early game. In the later stages, the U.K. Can make enough Mech in the ME and the US is usually capturing and recapturing Normandy.
Simon: I believe so. I am thinking of 1944 and the Cobra breakout and race to the Rhine. Germany’s was a horse drawn Army, as was Italy’s.
-
@wittmann:
Germany’s was a horse drawn Army, as was Italy’s.
Surely this refers to artillery and/or supplies though. I don’t think there were actual light horse troops as there were in WWI.
-
@wittmann:
when their Inf Divisions in WW2 were all Mechanised.
I have never heard that before. I’m sure it doesn’t apply to their airborne ones.
Is it indeed a fact?
I think the issue is the conceptual synergy between mechanized and motorized infantry. They are mutually exclusive terms.
The US could, for example, motorize an entire regiment, but trucks and jeeps are just as vulnerable to small arms and artillery fire as if the infantry was on foot. Mechanized units however received some level of protection from those threats by either projecting force through light cannons or higher caliber automatic weapons (think .50 cal mounted on a truck with some armor vs a Jeep Wrangler with 6 guys riding in it).
Granted, we don’t see a combat difference between MEC and INF in this game, so I’d suggest that MEC is actually a misnomer and should be probably named MOT.
A true MEC would attack at 1 and defend at 3 if you wanted to apply the terms correctly; and potentially attack at 2 if combined with ARM (based on how MEC and ARM units are historically in real life more effective than either individually).
-
@wittmann:
The US is the only nation with the economic and logistic ability to produce and supply mechanised units. It annoys me that their Transports have to choose to carry a Mech or a Tank, along with the “free” Inf unit, when their Inf Divisions in WW2 were all Mechanised. The US’s Inf should all be mechanised, I believe (and transportable, as the Inf unit, therefore).
This is absolutely, unequivocally untrue. There were more standard infantry divisions in the US army than any other type of division, and this is true for every other nation that fought in the war as well. It would actually strike me as more odd if the US player got to use such a special rule while other nations did not.
-
Thank you for correcting me. I also Apologise for derailing others ideas and taking this thread the wrong way.
I thought I had a small solution to America’s income discrepancy, despite its actual historical economic advantage. I shall now have to come up with another way to represent how America actually won this war, within the confines of this game. -
My thought would be:
Two different TT’s. A small and a large oneSmall: A0/D0/M2/C6 carry two Inf. or 1Inf+Arm or Mech or Arty
Large: A0/D1/M2/C8 carry 4 Inf or two Inf+1 Arm or Mech or ArtySimilar to the game mechanic of World at War game.
It would represent the variety of TT’s most nations had.
Just a thought
-
Actually, going back to the old Transports costing 8 would probably favour the allies massivly.
The old transports had a 1 in combat and was a hitpoint to take as casuality.
Lets take US as an example. If they where to make a fleet with 8 transports to threathen to land in europe. With transports costing 7, they have to use about 56 IPC for the transports. They will probably need about 4 other transports as well, so in total, they pay about 82 IPC for the pleasure. If transports cost 8, they pay 96 IPC. So where is the gain? Well, the gain is that they can now reduce the number of DDs needed to stand against luftwaffe. If we assume that 8 TTs is with the main fleet, then they would need about 5-6 fewer DDs in the main fleet. If we say they need 4 DDs less (then, they have the same number of combat dice in the main fleet, but with 4 extra HP), then they save 32 IPC in DDs. So buying TTs at 8 with 1 hp and 1 Combatdie will make the us invastionfleet at least 16 IPCs cheaper, probably more in the range of 24 to 30 IPCs cheaper.
-
I don’t see how a warship’s capacity to engage in combat would be hindered by carrying extra personnel. Â
In the real world, surface-combat vessels don’t normally carry cargo and don’t normally serve as troop transports. It’s not primarily because the presence of cargo or the presence of troops would impair their fighting ability (even though it would), it’s because surface-combat vessel don’t have room for these kinds of things. Most warships are very tight for space, as any sailor whose served on one will confirm. Their “cargo”, or payload, is their own weaponry, plus the ammunition for it, plus fuel for the ship itself, plus some supporting machinery and tools and spare parts, plus space for the crew needed to operate the ship and the weapons, plus food and water and other essentials to keep the crew functioning. Beyond these essentials, naval architects typically don’t allocate much (if any) extra space, because added volume equals added tonnage – and added tonnage means less speed and higher building costs. Moreover, warships don’t necessarily have – at least not to the same extent as cargo ships do – cargo-handling equipment and space like cranes and cargo holds. There’s also the problem of loading and offloading. Some WWII transport vessels designed to support amphibious assaults had shallow drafts and flat bottoms, so they could nose up right to the beach. Big ships like carriers and battleships and cruisers are deep-draught vessels that need proper port facilities: dredged channels, docks, wharves and so forth. They can’t come right up to a shoreline, and they don’t carry small craft like lighters or barges to transfer men and equipment from ship to shore or vice-versa.
-
Mechanized in that era meant “equipped with trucks and light vehicles, as opposed to horses or nothing”
the question was one of fighting readiness (being even able to reach the battlefield, much less exhausted) than whether they fought “from truck” or with “en portee” guns. The trucks were to get them TO the battle in general.
Today, mechanized means “equipped with an armed and armored AFV all the way up to deployment on the battlefield”.
This “truck” goes all the way to the firing line.
The use of warships to transport the infantry is both unrealistic and not a functional fix. The initial question here is actually totally off; yet again; people are examining the cost of the wrong unit–-one of the most balanced and functionally priced units in the game.
The Sub6/Tran7/Destroyer8 cost is actually one of the most mathematically balanced relationships in this game. The old set up was tougher destroyers that did more but cost 12. Then transports fought, but for 8. That broke them,
because they have just one job…
it is their only job…
no one else has it…If you are frustrated that you can’t bring enough pieces to the front, its a question of balancing your strategy and purchases, not re-tweaking the game.
-
Well said taamvan.
I find the need to balance fleet purchases to protect defenceless transports adds to the challenge and would not want to see this changed.
Have played World at War, so can see that AetV’s suggestion has some merit. But for me there is not a problem here that needs fixing.
-
Actually, going back to the old Transports costing 8 would probably favour the allies massivly.
The old transports had a 1 in combat and was a hitpoint to take as casuality.
Lets take US as an example. If they where to make a fleet with 8 transports to threathen to land in europe. With transports costing 7, they have to use about 56 IPC for the transports. They will probably need about 4 other transports as well, so in total, they pay about 82 IPC for the pleasure. If transports cost 8, they pay 96 IPC. So where is the gain? Well, the gain is that they can now reduce the number of DDs needed to stand against luftwaffe. If we assume that 8 TTs is with the main fleet, then they would need about 5-6 fewer DDs in the main fleet. If we say they need 4 DDs less (then, they have the same number of combat dice in the main fleet, but with 4 extra HP), then they save 32 IPC in DDs. So buying TTs at 8 with 1 hp and 1 Combatdie will make the us invastionfleet at least 16 IPCs cheaper, probably more in the range of 24 to 30 IPCs cheaper.
Offsetting this a bit is that the old transports could only carry 2 inf or 1 tank (no artillery or mech inf back then). Not sure about the AA Guns. That meant you needed more of them or more supporting aircraft to mount an effective assault.
-
Righto, but I didn’t specify revised. Not sure that anyone else did either.
-
Actually, going back to the old Transports costing 8 would probably favour the allies massivly.
The old transports had a 1 in combat and was a hitpoint to take as casuality.
Lets take US as an example. If they where to make a fleet with 8 transports to threathen to land in europe. With transports costing 7, they have to use about 56 IPC for the transports. They will probably need about 4 other transports as well, so in total, they pay about 82 IPC for the pleasure. If transports cost 8, they pay 96 IPC. So where is the gain? Well, the gain is that they can now reduce the number of DDs needed to stand against luftwaffe. If we assume that 8 TTs is with the main fleet, then they would need about 5-6 fewer DDs in the main fleet. If we say they need 4 DDs less (then, they have the same number of combat dice in the main fleet, but with 4 extra HP), then they save 32 IPC in DDs. So buying TTs at 8 with 1 hp and 1 Combatdie will make the us invastionfleet at least 16 IPCs cheaper, probably more in the range of 24 to 30 IPCs cheaper.
The point to making transport cheaper would also be to help out Germany with Sea Lion, as it nearly always proves to be too costly of an operation.
-
Keep it simple
Transports can carry 1 infantry and 1 non-infantry
or
Transports can carry 3 infantry
House rule it and see if that works
Kim
-
Add a new transport unit.
Large transport:
Cost: 10 IPC’s
Stats: 0/1/2
Special ability: can transport 3 infantry or 1 infantry and 1 other land unitNo one starts off with one. This would help the allies out a lot more than the axis, but won’t be broken like an 8 IPC transport would be.
Also can we somehow change the bomber attack to 2 instead of 4? Would be a lot more realistic, and would change the amount of support ships needed to defend the transports, such as the sea zone outside Gibraltar. Also Germany’s attack on Russia would be slightly weaker.
-
Add a new transport unit.
Large transport:
Cost: 10 IPC’s
Stats: 0/1/2
Special ability: can transport 3 infantry or 1 infantry and 1 other land unitNo one starts off with one. This would help the allies out a lot more than the axis, but won’t be broken like an 8 IPC transport would be.
Also can we somehow change the bomber attack to 2 instead of 4? Would be a lot more realistic, and would change the amount of support ships needed to defend the transports, such as the sea zone outside Gibraltar. Also Germany’s attack on Russia would be slightly weaker.
I am an advocate of having strategic bombers using two attack factors: one for land targets and one for naval targets. The naval value would of course be smaller.
It could also be argued that their attack value against air should be different. If you have 20 infantry and 2 bombers attacking 5 fighters, it seems silly to allow the bombers to hit fighters at a 4. Still, with the way this game works, I know this isn’t really bomber/infantry vs fighter but rather a mix of supporting weapons that would make it seem more plausible.Either way, a fleet of bombers attacking warships @ 4 just isn’t right.
-
Add a new transport unit.
Large transport:
Cost: 10 IPC’s
Stats: 0/1/2
Special ability: can transport 3 infantry or 1 infantry and 1 other land unitNo one starts off with one. This would help the allies out a lot more than the axis, but won’t be broken like an 8 IPC transport would be.
Also can we somehow change the bomber attack to 2 instead of 4? Would be a lot more realistic, and would change the amount of support ships needed to defend the transports, such as the sea zone outside Gibraltar. Also Germany’s attack on Russia would be slightly weaker.
I am an advocate of having strategic bombers using two attack factors: one for land targets and one for naval targets. The naval value would of course be smaller.
It could also be argued that their attack value against air should be different. If you have 20 infantry and 2 bombers attacking 5 fighters, it seems silly to allow the bombers to hit fighters at a 4. Still, with the way this game works, I know this isn’t really bomber/infantry vs fighter but rather a mix of supporting weapons that would make it seem more plausible.Either way, a fleet of bombers attacking warships @ 4 just isn’t right.
Fleet of bombers attacking naval units on 4 is underpowered I agree :D
If you wanted to make the game more realistic when it comes to fleetcombat, it should be something along these lines:
Whenever two forces enter the same seazone, there should be a searchroll to detemine if they even find each other. The winner of the searchroll determines weather or not there is a combat. There should be some bonuses for having planes.
Then you have combat. if there are any planes involved at all, then the ships don’t get to fire anything else than AA fire. First, you have two rounds of aircombat. In this combat, attacking bombers hit on a 1, Tacs hit on a 2 and ftrs hit on a 3. Defending tacs hit on a 2 and defending ftrs hit on a 5. Then there is AA fire, BBs, CVs and CRs hits attacking planes on a 1. everything else does not hit. After that the planes attack. Bombers hit on a 5, Tacs on a 5 and fighters on a 3. The owner of the planes gets to chose what dies.
That is much more accurate. Planes dominated fleet warfare so much that if planes where involved, there would usually not even be a gunnery combat.
-
This is too much RNG. What if you don’t spot the other fleet? You then get screwed on your next turn. That isn’t fair, or realistic, at all. Because you able able to move 2-3 sea zones a turn with fleets. Missing a search check would be game ending a lot of times. Also air power is way too much in this version, at least on the European side.
-
Curious about this “search roll”. You mentioned the winner of the search roll determines whether or not there is combat. I understand that.
If player A has a large fleet and is attacking player B who has a couple of ships, but player B wins the search roll, of course he’s going to decline combat.
How about this however:
Player A is on the attack and goes after Player B’s fleet. Both fleets are roughly equal in size. So if Player B wins the search roll, does that make Player B the attacker? -
I have not fleshed out the idea completely yet. There are many ways to play around with this sort of idea.
To the realism, not finding your opponent is the most important and realistic part of naval warfare missing in axis , and it is why subs are not used as much as they where historically.
I would set it up so that both Player A and Player B search, and they both have the ability to find, and how “well” they find makes a difference. Lets say Player A need a 5 to find, and player B need a 4 to find. Player A would get 4 points for rolling a 1, 3 points for rolling a 2, etc, while player B would get 3 points for rolling a 1 (4 to find - 1 on the roll). The player with the most points can be the attacker, if you have at least 2 points more than the opponent, you can chose to have a all guns combat even if planes are involved (bascically regular fleetcombat). if you have 2 points more than your opponent, and your opponent finds, you can chose to evacuate the zeasone (to an adjecent seazone). if you find while your opponent does not, you can chose either to evacuate the seazone, or to stop one of your opponents planes from attacking for each point of difference.
Some sort of system like this would work.
if noone finds, there is no combat and the attacking fleet can still do an amphibious assault.
If I am to flesh out this idea much more than this, it should go in the houserulessection :/
if
Suggested Topics
