Transport clarification

I agree with Gargantua.  Someone needs to slap the person who decided “bridging” needed to be a rule!  It’s caused naught but confusion amoungst the ranks of would be strategists.  The rule, in future editions of the game, shouldn’t be called bridging, it should just be said that one does not need to move the transport to carry units from one coast to another coast that lie adjacent to the same sea zone the transport happens to be in.  Or some such.  IMHO.

I remember, in ancient times (no, I won’t give you a year, it was LONG before I joined the boards, but as the only known girl here, I reserve the right to keep my age private, deal) my brother and I were playing and we decided “bridging” meant we could move an entire army from England to W. Europe with 1 allied transport.  “Because it is creating a BRIDGE over the English Channel” was the claim.

I am with you Commdr Jennifer.  Though I have never met a female axis and allies player in my life you make alot of sense in the posts that I have read.  I wish I could get my wife to participate.  She would rather play the radio.

@Cmdr:

I remember, in ancient times (no, I won’t give you a year, it was LONG before I joined the boards, but as the only known girl here, I reserve the right to keep my age private, deal) my brother and I were playing and we decided “bridging” meant we could move an entire army from England to W. Europe with 1 allied transport.  “Because it is creating a BRIDGE over the English Channel” was the claim.

I love this idea.  So from now on, when Germany wants to do Sealion, they can stack a huge amount of infantry and tanks on Holland/Belgium, get 1 transport into the English Channel and blitz away.  HA HA HA

IL has some ideas for a landing craft piece that would be necessary for any over-water invasion.  These would be very limited in range and could just go across 1 sea zone (eg. from United Kingdom, across SZ 110 to Holland/Belgium or Normandy/Bordeaux).  The transport ships would only be used to ferry troops across the ocean to friendly bases.  This would certainly eliminate anyone ‘bridging’ with transports.  It would also require more capturing of adjacent territories or islands.  For example, as USA you couldn’t sail a fleet from Hawaii to invade Japan.  You would have to capture Korea and put landing craft there.  It would take longer for invasions, especially for all the islands in the Pacific, but I guess it would be more realistic.

@Gargantua:

Ditch the whole concept of “bridging”  It literally means NOTHING.

It shouldn’t have been in ANY rule book, it’s a concept that has no meaning, as it is assumed one can unload without moving, or worst case, could simply, move 1 sea zone, and move back.

A transport, loads, moves, and unloads.

If it is loaded on another powers turn, althought it doesn’t techincally move,  it can’t move until the transports owners turn, and the move is not to move.  Then on the following powers turn, it can unload.

Power A loads, Power B moves and chooses not to move it’s transport, Power A unloads.

IN SHORT - it is tedious and time consuming to use transports that are not your own.  So DON’T, with rare exception.

I need some help to find references and discussions about this change “on bridging” from previous edition.

When I first learned to play Milton Bradley Axis and Allies using an allies’ transport (USA transport) to move troops (UK troops) was much more “reasonable and sound”.

1- The (USA) transport can pick up any friendly units and move.
2- On the other allies turn (UK’s) he can now drop the troops on any adjacent territory from the sea-zone in which is the transport.
Under this rule, the transport can move only his single payload and wasn’t able to bring twice ground troops in a same complete turn.

It was a one same turn action instead of the now new “bridging” which take a whole 2 turns action
(1-USA bring TT/1-UK put Inf on board/ 2-USA move TT/ 2-UK unload Inf.)

@P@nther:

This is covered in the rulebook:

@Rulebook:

Multinational Forces: Transports belonging to a friendly power can load and offload your land units.  This is a three-step process:
1. You load your land units aboard the friendly transport  on your turn.
2. The transport’s controller moves it (or not) on that  player’s turn.
3. You offload your land units on your next turn.

Unloading in an enemy territory occurs in your scenario in US’ combat move phase, followed by the battle.
Unloading in a friendly territory occurs in US’ NCM phase.

I was looking but it takes a lot of time to find amongst all treads.

Do someone knows why it becomes so a senseless and untactical move under the new rule?

Is this a question of balance because it is more useful for USA and UK than for Axis powers?

Thanks for your help.
I found another post which explain the actual mecanics when using a transport from another power.

@Advosan:

@Sir:

Sorry if these questions make me look like a dummy but here goes.  My first questions are on movement.

1. Am I right in thinking that a land unit needs a transport to move from, say, England to Norway?  And that it would take two turns to do the move?  i.e.  Board the transport on move 1 and disembark on move 2?

a) Transport (aka tranny aka TT) and land unit of the same power (p.e. both UK): Load and offload at the same turn (during combat or non-combat move phase, depending whether it is an amphibious assault or a mere troops transportation to NOR).
b) TT and land unit of different powers (p.e. a US TT transporting a UK infantry unit-aka inf): Load and offload at a different turn, during combat or noncombat move. Say, load the inf on the first turn of the UK-aka UK1 (either in combat or noncombat phase), and offload it in UK2, after all the other players have played (again either on combat or noncombat).

This rule has not changed from Classic.  If you were playing as you describe, you were playing incorrectly.

@Krieghund:

This rule has not changed from Classic.  If you were playing as you describe, you were playing incorrectly.

Thanks for the fast reply.

So I was playing a house rule without knowing it!  :-o

This would have increase a bit the multinational cooperation, I think.
Because the actual rule give a 3-6 months (1 whole turn) sitting duck units stuck on friendly transports.

I’m wondering if this kind of HR would give a real advantage to allies against Germany and Italy.

@Baron:

@Krieghund:

This rule has not changed from Classic.  If you were playing as you describe, you were playing incorrectly.

Thanks for the fast reply.

So I was playing a house rule without knowing it!  :-o

This would have increase a bit the multinational cooperation, I think.
Because the actual rule give a 3-6 months (1 whole turn) sitting duck units stuck on friendly transports.

I’m wondering if this kind of HR would give a real advantage to allies against Germany and Italy.

It definitely would advantage allies more. I’m thinking US buys 5 transports, parks them in 110, UK builds 10 units a turn, those 10 are instantly going to France. US keeps shipping using other ships. I can’t think of an axis situation where that HR would be useful.

@Krieghund:

@The:

Right. But what about when the transport doesn’t need to move? Is there a reason that British troops can’t load and unload off of a transport on the same turn if the transports don’t need to move (‘Bridging’ from England to Normandy, for instance)

Page 30: “Land units belonging to friendly powers must load on their controller�s turn, be carried on your turn, and offload on a later turn of their controller.  This is true even if the transport remains in the same sea zone.”

@JimmyHat:

I think they got rid of the bridging rule a while ago, it was only viable in the original game.

No, it’s still there.  All “bridging” means is moving land units on a transport that remains in the same sea zone.  In effect, the transport doesn’t move on the board, but it moves within the sea zone.  All the normal rules of movement still apply.

As the G40 moderator here at aa.org, I wanted to clarify that Krieghund is correct.  He’s one of the most knowledgable person I know when it comes to this game and I would take his ruling as law when it comes to the official game rules.

Bridging, in my opinion, is a term that should have been removed forever from the anals of the game history.  It’s too confusing for new players.  (Seriously, when I first played I was like ‘so my men walk onto and off the transport like a bridge?  But the Med Sea is too wide for a transport to span across, or it’s one helluva long transport!’)  When I explain to players what transports can do, I just say it can transport anywhere within the same sea zone or within legal moving distance and it usually clears things up.

The rules are very clear as they are now IMO.

@atease:

@Baron:

@Krieghund:

This rule has not changed from Classic.  If you were playing as you describe, you were playing incorrectly.

Thanks for the fast reply.

So I was playing a house rule without knowing it!  :-o

This would have increase a bit the multinational cooperation, I think.
Because the actual rule give a 3-6 months (1 whole turn) sitting duck units stuck on friendly transports.

I’m wondering if this kind of HR would give a real advantage to allies against Germany and Italy.

It definitely would advantage allies more. I’m thinking US buys 5 transports, parks them in 110, UK builds 10 units a turn, those 10 are instantly going to France. US keeps shipping using other ships. I can’t think of an axis situation where that HR would be useful.

That’s why I think bridging on a friendly transport is largely prohibited by the rules.
If you use an allies TT, you could only drop 2 units every 2 rounds instead of 2 units each round.

My “House rule” in Global 1940 is almost like giving US transport to UK because it allows to drop 2 units every round without risk because Uk play just after USA. As a regular transport can do. The single difference is that UK cannot move the TT.

However, if you reverse the role and use a UK TT for dropping 2 US units, that will mean Italy and Germany still get a chance to sink both TT and units onboard.

On 1942.1 or 1942.2, it will be different since, USA play after UK. So Germany still get a chance to sink down a crowded US transport.

Was it so necessary to keep that slow pace (2units/2turns/TT) for bridging on a friendly transport?

Many people find that Allies need a substantial bid, maybe it is the way to balance everything in Europe Theatre of Operation.

Just let any TT from another friendly power take on board any 2 ground units and move.
On the ground units owner’s turn then you drop on land the units.

Now instead of 2 units every 2 turns, it will be every turn and depending on the order of play it will sometimes be possible to sink a loaded TT, except like UK and US in Global 1940.
I think it is still fair because there will be no better chance as if this was regulary owned TT.

It is possible to find historical background in this: 2 anglo-saxons powers can cooperate more easily.

@atease:

The rules are very clear as they are now IMO.

Understood.  However, we have had many questions pretaining to transport bridging over the years, so it is my opinion that the rule is not clear in this regard.  It’s not meant as derogatory for anyone.

@Cmdr:

@atease:

The rules are very clear as they are now IMO.

Understood.  However, we have had many questions pretaining to transport bridging over the years, so it is my opinion that the rule is not clear in this regard.  It’s not meant as derogatory for anyone.

I agree all the way with you.
“Bridging” is a non-necessary confusing concept, unless providing special house rule or something about a non-moving TT in a specific sea-zone.

As said by Gargantua:
@Gargantua:

Ditch the whole concept of “bridging”  It literally means NOTHING.

It shouldn’t have been in ANY rule book, it’s a concept that has no meaning, as it is assumed one can unload without moving, or worst case, could simply, move 1 sea zone, and move back.

A transport, loads, moves, and unloads.

If it is loaded on another powers turn, althought it doesn’t techincally move,  it can’t move until the transports owners turn, and the move is not to move.  Then on the following powers turn, it can unload.

Power A loads, Power B moves and chooses not to move it’s transport, Power A unloads.
IN SHORT - it is tedious and time consuming to use transports that are not your own.  So DON’T, with rare exception.

Like a house rule allowing 1 extra " INF unit" and no other type drop when in a bridging situation for a TT from the same power.

It can be rationalize: a TT which doesn’t move far away and stay in a sea-zone is able to transfer much more troops.
Ex.: Their is great difference between travelling troops in a narrow English channel sea-zone 110 and between two sea-zone (or 1 sea-zone away in 1942) away cities like moving from sz10 Los Angeles to sz26 Honolulu, Hawaii via sz12.
It could be a way to take account of this physical difference.

I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat.  Is this correct?

Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.

@knp7765:

I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat.  Is this correct?

Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.

You played it right.  In any round of combat, all hits must be assigned if there is legal target.  So sometimes, even if you attack with transports, they’ll die before you have a chance to retreat if you lose everything in a single round of combat.

@knp7765:

I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat.  Is this correct?

Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.

That’s my understanding as well.