Why are the allies so gimped lately? Why transports suck?

@oztea:

US needs more starting infantry to offset the cost of having to buy so many boats.
The US really gets hamstrung by the fact that it can’t afford  7 IPC transports for every two units it has….and still afford anything more than a destroyer or two.

If the US started with maybe like 6-9 more infantry, it would allow them to afford an extra cruiser, or bomber, or something a turn and give them a little more punch.

But don’t think of this as a US bid, because the infantry technically cant do anything to anyone until the US buys the boats and transports and tanks and artillery to use them somewhere.

I would support that.

What, if the US started with more infantry?

Its the most simple solution to the biggest problem the US has. It always feels like its 6-9 IPCs short each turn

Give them like 6-9 more infantry to buffer against that for the first few turns, so they can get some Cruisers and Bombers instead of buying 4 infantry a turn to fill their transports.

I know how you feel, but this game is based on Classic, which is loosely based on history and the US was no ready for war. US always starts with nothing and has to build.
The problem is income. I am sure in Classic(remember it was 20 years and lots of beers ago) the US always seemed so wealthy.
Now they have 1IPC more than Germany. Not enough.

Well we can offset for this by reflecting their vast manpower reserves by giving them more infantry at the start.

Or even just a simple rule that the US gets 2 free infantry every turn in the continental US.
Which basically gives them +6 IPCs (except it has to be spent on infantry)

It think the US starts with 8 total infantry on the board….which is pretty pitiful.

The problem with adding inf. is the US Army was smaller than Romanians (or however you spell it, sorry guys long day)

I’d rather just make use of the St. Lawrence Seaway for the US (like it was in WWII).  This would totally bone Germany though unless they started with another sub I think (one for the Med maybe?), but wouldn’t this give incentive for a more balanced attack for the US and not have to rely on “hope and change” (as in Germany baffles/blows it opening attacks) in the Atlantic and KJF in the Pacific.

I’m not saying that the Allies can’t win, I just would like more flex in ways to play.

i think if anyone gets more inf. it should be russia. Give them a chance to hold out longer till the US and UK are ready to take over the game.

@Cow.
Yep I agree. Transports did have some defense hence the 1 defense.
Submarines also had AA as means of defense against aircraft though it was weak and usually forced a dive. Historically bombers and fighters were essential in anti-sub warfare just ask any German submariner. Ask him about about armed frieghters too.

Here’s what I did to add some realism and fun to my games.
1. I gave transports thier defensive roll again.
2. I enabled subs to “commerce raid” coastal waters adjacent to territories with an IC similar to  SBR.

Off Topic:

I allow for Classic Ed or Revised Tech devolpment.
As far as 3D6 Heavy Bombers I allow them, with the caveat that they must battle with defending fighters at an attack of 1 for bombers and escort fighters attacking at 3. The kicker is that fighters defending a territory defend at 4/5 depending on whether or not they are jet powered.

There are plenty of cool HRs you can come up with, but as an A&A veteran player I have been really disappointed with the new transport, bomber/SBR, and sub rules. I’ve found subs to be pretty useless, having to build way too many transports to be sacrificed or worse yet building massive armadas to protect a relatively small landing force.

I liked the fact that there was always that lone transport’s fighting chance to make it, or that bit of caution caused by a few submarines out patrolling the seas.

As far as SBRs go, the new rules suck too. It was at great peril the UK/USA did them. It also caused major damage to both the German and Japanese war effort. By allowing full aerial battles during an SBR it keeps the risks versus reward to play out better than some lame (IMO) rules of the newer editions to play out.

AS for Commerce Raiding I think most of the “official” solutions/rules in the latest editions have not been refelctive of the struggles reflected historically in the Pacific and Atlantic.

Don’t know if this helps anyone but they’re just ideas I’ve kicked around or used.

@toblerone77:

@Cow.
Yep I agree. Transports did have some defense hence the 1 defense.
Submarines also had AA as means of defense against aircraft though it was weak and usually forced a dive. Historically bombers and fighters were essential in anti-sub warfare just ask any German submariner. Ask him about about armed frieghters too.

Here’s what I did to add some realism and fun to my games.
1. I gave transports thier defensive roll again.
2. I enabled subs to “commerce raid” coastal waters adjacent to territories with an IC similar to  SBR.

Off Topic:

I allow for Classic Ed or Revised Tech devolpment.
As far as 3D6 Heavy Bombers I allow them, with the caveat that they must battle with defending fighters at an attack of 1 for bombers and escort fighters attacking at 3. The kicker is that fighters defending a territory defend at 4/5 depending on whether or not they are jet powered.

There are plenty of cool HRs you can come up with, but as an A&A veteran player I have been really disappointed with the new transport, bomber/SBR, and sub rules. I’ve found subs to be pretty useless, having to build way too many transports to be sacrificed or worse yet building massive armadas to protect a relatively small landing force.

I liked the fact that there was always that lone transport’s fighting chance to make it, or that bit of caution caused by a few submarines out patrolling the seas.

As far as SBRs go, the new rules suck too. It was at great peril the UK/USA did them. It also caused major damage to both the German and Japanese war effort. By allowing full aerial battles during an SBR it keeps the risks versus reward to play out better than some lame (IMO) rules of the newer editions to play out.

AS for Commerce Raiding I think most of the “official” solutions/rules in the latest editions have not been refelctive of the struggles reflected historically in the Pacific and Atlantic.

Don’t know if this helps anyone but they’re just ideas I’ve kicked around or used.

is that when strategic bombing, or in any attack containing fighters?

I allow heavy bombers for SBR and combat. The interception HR is just for pre-SBR combat. T bomber attacks at 1 to reflect it’s defensive armament during that round. Either side may retreat after the first round or until all defending interceptors are destroyed. Then the SBR begins with an AA roll of 1 round then the SBR roll.

Giving USA like 2 more INF in each of the continental territories would solve everything.

@oztea:

Giving USA like 2 more INF in each of the continental territories would solve everything.

Rather than 12 production worth of INF, it makes more sense to give the USA a DD off of EUS so that they don’t start the game with no fleet.

The 2 German subs are a near lock to sink the US fleet.

I honestly don’t know what the designers were thinking by giving the Germans complete control of the Atlantic until turn 3.

“Victory cities can scramble one fighter”
“No more than one fighter can be scrambled to any one sea zone”

so, as it is -with OOB rules- is the game german-biased?  :?

I’m playing a game soon using the old transport rules (0/1/2/8, 2 inf. or 1 art or 1 tank) I hope to find out if it’s the transports that is the problem or the space they have to cover. I’m thinking space but it’s worth checking out

Redsun: I think if you are playing a good Allied player, is about as balanced ad you can hope.