The aberration of the defenseless transport

@elevenjerk:

Seldom agrees about defender choosing casuality.

I just don’t see what any other options would be that didn’t provide the same type of result in a different manner.  If the person rolling the dice chooses then obviously things like infantry and subs would be the last in the battle.  So the end of the dice rolls are looking for 1’s and 2’s to try to get hits and finish off the battle instead of the 3’s and 4’s.

Could be a whole different thread, but I don’t see any way that it would make the game better to change who picks casualties.

“Seldom” I mean “few people”, all is about following the “The transports are taken last.” or instead letting the defensive player choose the casualities between warships and transport.

My point is that without this rule, it is very difficult to not use Transports as a shield for the stronger units.

@Der:

Unfortunately I don’t know of an odds calculator that can put units from different editions of the game into battle. For example, what are the odds if a Global BB attacks a Classic transport?

Ummmmmm… I’ve been using odds calcuators since the 20th century for “classic” editions of the game.  For example, here is a link for a couple of those simulators:

http://www.axisandalliesworldclub.net/Downloads.asp

I prefer the odds grapher, but didn’t see that as an option.  I only have an .exe at the moment, but will send it to anyone interested.

Run some battles in those!  You will really realize how skewed the transports really were when they hit at one.  I’ve probably played at least 1500 games online via 3rd edition rules.  And the players who have done that all realize this about transport stacking.  Naval battles are much more beautiful in G40 and AA50 as a result…

@Der:

@toblerone77:

You won my vote sir.

Woohoo! Let the revolution begin!

@BJCard:

…to think that a couple dozen ‘troopships’ could down a couple hundred fighter bombers or a couple dozen destroyers is crazy. � Let’s not even discuss how a transport harms a battleship (as you mentioned).

Yeah it’s kind of crazy, just like a couple dozen empty “a/c carriers” taking down a couple hundred fighter bombers or a couple dozen DDs. Yet that can happen in this game without any objection. Let’s not even discuss how a destroyer or an empty a/c carrier sinks an attacking battleship. These oddities are found throughout the game. The transport gets pointed out, because of the rule change.

�

Well, it is easier to explain how some Aircraft Carriers kill fighters/bombers- many ACs had fairly robust anti-air capability.  Battleship is a different animal- but you could assume that every carrier has a small contingent of CAP fighters that make up the ‘2’ defense- and those are fighting the Battleship.  In the end though, every other unit in the game was made for fighting, the transport was made to transport.

A Transport/Troopship rolling a 1 is an aberration. Having a 1 in 6 chance of hitting a warship/aircraft is crazy,  I could perhaps accept it if it was 1/10 or 1/12, but 1 in 6 is nuts. 
My vote is any transport that survives the initial attack is allowed to retreat to another friendly SZ- if no friendly SZ exists then they are dead.

A Transport costing 10 IPCs may as well invite the Allies to never land in Europe.  The Allies already have a tough enough time building a defensive fleet to move in range of Germany’s Air.

@BJCard:

My vote is any transport that survives the initial attack is allowed to retreat to another friendly SZ- if no friendly SZ exists then they are dead.

A Transport costing 10 IPCs may as well invite the Allies to never land in Europe.  The Allies already have a tough enough time building a defensive fleet to move in range of Germany’s Air.

This is probably as far as I would go as well, or possibly raising the price back up to 8 and giving back the defensive roll @1.  I don’t think any unit should ever just be automatically eliminated- including the AA guns.

@Eggman:

@BJCard:

My vote is any transport that survives the initial attack is allowed to retreat to another friendly SZ- if no friendly SZ exists then they are dead.

A Transport costing 10 IPCs may as well invite the Allies to never land in Europe.  The Allies already have a tough enough time building a defensive fleet to move in range of Germany’s Air.

This is probably as far as I would go as well, or possibly raising the price back up to 8 and giving back the defensive roll @1.  I don’t think any unit should ever just be automatically eliminated- including the AA guns.

Your post contain almost all different points of debate in this topic:

1- Automatic elimination of Transport or not?
2- To flee or not to flee? 1 sea-zone away or same sea-zone (like Sb submerge)?
3- If able to defend, @? For how many TPs units and which odds? And what cost?
4- OOB 1940 transport rules (TPs are taken last) or Classic rules (TPs are part of the warships fleet and are often used as shield)?
5- If TPs taken last but able to defend, at the same time as other warships or only once warships are no more?

Here is what I think is a more balance TP unit for those who prefer to keep the Transport are taken last and don’t want to affect too much the OOB set up and balance but don’t want to let them defenseless and give them some tactical choices.

TP A0D0M2C7 when paired to another transport give a +1 def. so a pair get 1@1
Ex.: 1TP get 0@1/ 2-3 TPs get 1@1 / 4-5 TPs get 2@1 / 6-7 TPs get 3@1, etc.

**Can defend when no more warships are present.

Attacking’s unit against a lonely TP or a TPs group get a double to hit rolls each.**
Ex.: 1 Sb 2@2/ 1 CA 2@3 / 1Fgt 2@3 / 2 StB 4@4, etc.

“Dispersion”: 1 or more TPs can retreat in the same sea-zone (as Sub submerge) after 1 round of enemy’s fire.
So they still share the same sea-zone with enemy’s warships, if their is.

Historical meaning:
They flee everywhere in the sea, so enemy attacking group units pick only 1 single transport boat at a time and this become a long time-consuming process to destroy them.

I think it is a middle term that reach many criterias presented in this tread.
Specially the comparison of a classic TP firepower against 1 BB unit.
1@1 vs 1@4 is very unrealistic but 1@1 for 2 TPs vs 4@4 to 2 BB seems correct to me.
It brings also more fun since their is no automatic killing.
And the presence of 10 or more TPs is still a dangerous task since 5@1 is something that can hurt.
And let the option to the defender to fight to the death or not.

Ive thought about letting transports defend in ‘pairs’

Each ‘pair’ of transports is considered one unit, rolls ONE dice hitting on a one and can be taken as a casualty. (both transports are sunk)

Odd numbered transports do not participate.

@Uncrustable:

Ive thought about letting transports defend in ‘pairs’

Each ‘pair’ of transports is considered one unit, rolls ONE dice hitting on a one and can be taken as a casualty. (both transports are sunk)

Odd numbered transports do not participate.

This house rule reduces the number of hit the defender can take and it increases the impact of a hit from attacker.

The disadvantage with this rule is that it breaks the A&A principles: “1 unit = 1 hit”
It’s add another layer of complexity.
Between giving two dices per attacker’s unit or giving one hit per 2 TPs, I will prefer the first.

But, it doesn’t mean that it can be house ruled.

However, “devil is in the details”.

In this way, I have a question: what do you mean exactly?

Odd numbered transports do not participate.

You should present some examples to see if some problems arise.

Well i thought it was pretty obvious.

If you have 3 transports defending then you have one ‘pair’ and one oddball.

So the pair rolls one dice hitting on a one, and can be taken as a casualty. The oddball cannot and does not.

If the seazone gets wiped by the attacker and the only defender remaining is the oddball transport it dies (unless there are no attacking units left either)

Honestly this is idea bridges the differences in mass stacks of transport fodder and mass stacks of auto-death transports

Another way you could do it is let all transports roll a defense die hitting on a one ONLY CAPABLE OF HITTING ENEMY AIR UNITS, so they all get to roll a neutered die, but would still auto die to enemy warships

I kind of like this idea.

A lone transport can defend on 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.  (Eliminates the 1 fighter taking out a lone transport with no risk)
A group of transports is the same thing, 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.  The attackers can only kill as many transports as they get hits.

Ex.  2 fighters, 2 tacs attack 5 transports.  Attackers roll 2@3 get 1 hit, roll 2@4 and get 2 hits.  The transports roll 1@1 and get 1 hit.
            Attackers lose 1 fighter.  Defenders lose 3 transports and retreat the other 2.

I think with this formula it makes it so they are not a powerful defensive unit.  It also makes it so there is a bit of risk to it (the dice have to get rolled).  Lastly, it makes the attacker have to maybe forfeit an attack somewhere else or have a few more weaker attacks in order to take out the transports.

I think all the points have been really good on this thread.

@elevenjerk:

I kind of like this idea.

A lone transport can defend on 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.  (Eliminates the 1 fighter taking out a lone transport with no risk)
A group of transports is the same thing, 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.  The attackers can only kill as many transports as they get hits.

Ex.  2 fighters, 2 tacs attack 5 transports.  Attackers roll 2@3 get 1 hit, roll 2@4 and get 2 hits.  The transports roll 1@1 and get 1 hit.
            Attackers lose 1 fighter.  Defenders lose 3 transports and retreat the other 2.

I think with this formula it makes it so they are not a powerful defensive unit.  It also makes it so there is a bit of risk to it (the dice have to get rolled).  Lastly, it makes the attacker have to maybe forfeit an attack somewhere else or have a few more weaker attacks in order to take out the transports.

I think all the points have been really good on this thread.

If we implemented some kind of house rule for this, would the initial setup have to be changed?  It may make it harder to take out the British and Italian fleets for instance.

If we implemented some kind of house rule for this, would the initial setup have to be changed?  It may make it harder to take out the British and Italian fleets for instance.

I don’t think it would effect it too much.  I also forgot to mention that they are not part of any battles when warships are in the sea zone.  They would only get to fire at the end if they were the only one left.  I believe I got that from one of the posts that you put up earlier in the thread.

Ex. 1  sz 97.  UK comes in with a carrier, cruiser, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 1 strat.  Italy doesn’t scramble.  UK rolls and gets 4 hits. Italy defends with 1@3 (cruiser) and 1@4 (Battleship).  Since UK got four hits that takes the 2 hits for the BB, 1 hit for the CV, 1 hit for the TT.

Ex. 2    UK comes in with a carrier, cruiser, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 1 strat.  Italy doesn’t scramble.  UK rolls and gets 3 hits.  Italy defends with 1@3 (cruiser) and 1@4 (Battleship).  Since the UK did not get enough hits to take the transports as well there is another round of firing.  The TT gets to defend 1@1 and then gets to retreat if the remaining UK forces was unable to muster up the last hit.

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

The biggest argument in this thread is whether or not player can choose thier own casualties (even transports)

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….

Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

This could still make the odds of battles change a bunch.  When you have 10 TT’s (which I have in one particular strategy with Japan) that is a lot of firepower on the defensive side of things.  My rule (with the help of BJCard’s ideas) is mostly to make transports as irrelevant (when it comes to battles) as possible but still able to protect themselves.

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….

Cause there are a lot of games that someone has 100 transports.

Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.

Seems like the general point of the thread is to eliminate the “auto die” part of the current rules.

@elevenjerk:

I kind of like this idea.

A lone transport can defend on 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.
(Eliminates the 1 fighter taking out a lone transport with no risk)
A group of transports is the same thing, 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.
The attackers can only kill as many transports as they get hits.

Ex. 2 fighters, 2 tacs attack 5 transports. Attackers roll 2@3 get 1 hit, roll 2@4 and get 2 hits.
The transports roll 1@1 and get 1 hit.
Attackers lose 1 fighter. Defenders lose 3 transports and retreat the other 2.

I think with this formula it makes it so they are not a powerful defensive unit.
It also makes it so there is a bit of risk to it (the dice have to get rolled).
Lastly, it makes the attacker have to maybe forfeit an attack somewhere else or have a few more weaker attacks in order to take out the transports.

I think all the points have been really good on this thread.

Powerful defensive unit depend on where you start from. If we stay Inside OOB1940, it will make a big difference even if it’s less powerful than classics 1@1.

By giving a lonely transport a defense @1, it will make many situations where 1 escort ship and 1 TP an interesting task force, even a lonely TP become a freaking AA against 1 plane. OOB TP rules make this historical non-sense disappear.

I would rather prefer just to give a lonely one TP the escape solution, and be able to flee in the same sea-zone if it wasn’t hit during 1 round of enemy’s fire against TP only.

However, in terms of balancing units, the “dispersion” or flee option is more powerful than the submerge for a subs on defense. Since it cannot submerge while their is a DD attacking.

It is quite strange than a surface vessel is able to escape even in the presence of faster units like DD or Cruiser, not even talking about planes!

Their is more, giving this possibility in Global will mean: it will be far more difficult to control and destroy those TPs without involving more units for getting a killing blow.
The OOB game was play-tested including the possibility of destroying many Transports with even only one surviving attacking units.

That situation is of course an over-achievement
(Ex.: 1 surviving TcB against 10 TPs, after a long battle against a large warships escort.) and need adjustment (as some earlier posts pointed on).
Sorry, but if we allow “dispersion” it is a far different game because it means the difference between a group of 9TPs surviving vs 0 survivors. A great escape or a total wreck.

I think it still needs adjustment (if we don’t want too much unbalancing turmoils with a new house rule), whether more destroying capabilities for attacking units or a more restricted “fleeing” option.

@Uncrustable:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

The biggest argument in this thread is whether or not player can choose thier own casualties (even transports)

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….
Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.

You have a point.

However, I’m not sure to understand your option:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

Do you mean a classic TP C8 Def@1 but only in paired ?
or a new TP C7 “Taken last” but when paired Def @1?
But I know for sure that you mean that for every 1 attacking hit, it destroys 2TPs, except for the last one.

But do you include in your package “dispersion” or flee tactics?

it will make many situations where 1 escort ship and 1 TT an interesting
task force

The escort ship changes everything.  If there is a destroyer and a transport then the only thing defending is the destroyer for the first round of firing.  If the plane gets a hit, takes out the destroyer, then he has to endure 1 round with the transport.  If he misses, the transport fires back and flee’s.  You could even make the rule that the transport has to do one or the other.  Either way it would make the attacker have to bring more than one plane in order to take them out.  You would want to make sure that the attacking force would get 2 hits instead of just one.

even a lonely TT become a freaking AA against 1 plane

That is the point.  Take that out of the game.  You shouldn’t be able to just use one plane to eliminate a transport with no consequence.

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

The biggest argument in this thread is whether or not player can choose thier own casualties (even transports)

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….
Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.

You have a point.

However, I’m not sure to understand your option:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

Do you mean a classic TT C8 � Def@1 but only in paired ? or a new TT C7 “Taken last” but when paired Def@1?
But I know for sure that you mean that for every 1 attacking hit, it destroys 2TT, except for the last one.

But do you include in your package “dispersion” or flee tactics?

Transports still cost 7 and alone still have no defense and cant be taken as casualties….

But in pairs they act as a ‘single unit’ that defends at a 1.

So if you have 5 transports in a tt defending against an attack (even if multi-national) then you would roll 2 dice for the transports hitting on a 1. If the enemy gets a hit and you decide to lose a transport pair over a warship or plane then you lose 2 transports and now have 3, so one pair is left rolling one dice at a 1
The odd numbered transport does not participate