The aberration of the defenseless transport

I was talking about when each transport rolls a dice

I think that is too much as well.  That is why I believe that the group of transports get 1@1 and then retreat.

I would bet money that had this rule never been changed NO ONE would even consider a defenseless transport. I still cannot picture these huge stacks of transports being used as fodder when we have a cheap nice little destroyer that not only attacks and defends but it stops subs!

The whole point of changing the transport back to something like classic was so that the transport had some kind of backup.

I still cannot picture these huge stacks of transports being used as fodder when we have a cheap nice little destroyer that not only attacks and defends but it stops subs!

The benefit would be 10 TT’s at 1 with 20 land units as opposed to 5 TT’S at 1 and 5 DD at 2 with only 10 available ground units.  I don’t think there would be huge stacks of just transports (cause you would lose the guys and the transport) but I think a navy would consist of way less capital ships with a bunch of TT’s.  It only takes 1 destroyer to stop all subs “special powers” :-D  Overall I agree with you though.  I dislike defenseless transports a lot!

@elevenjerk:

Well, an infantry unit would inherently have some AA capability or it wouldn’t be able to kill aircraft

Here is a small list of some of the ww2 troopships

dual purpose gun � or dp

A dual purpose gun is a naval artillery mounting designed to engage both surface and air targets.

USS Le Jeune AP-74

1 x 5"/38 caliber dual purpose gun
4 x 3"/50 caliber dp guns
8 x 40mm guns
13 x 20mm guns

USS General William Mitchell AP-114

4 x single 5"/38 caliber dual purpose guns, 4 x quad 1.1" guns, 20 x single 20mm guns

USS Hermitage AP-54

1 x 5"/38 caliber dual purpose gun
6 x 3"/50 caliber dp guns

So the transports as well had the AA capability. � Obviously not strong but they were not “defenseless”.

Yes, I agree that there were some transports that had defenses, but they are not heavily defended and are extremely vulnerable.  An air unit represents more than 100 aircraft- how many transports had air defenses to make them able to kill 100 aircraft 1/6 of the time?  These transports seem to be designed to defend against small surveillance squadrons at best.

How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?

I would still rather transports that survive the attack are able to retreat, but killing anything at 1/6th a chance is absurd.  The simple fact that the transports have to retreat throws a wrench into that player’s plans.

@BJCard:

Yes, I agree that there were some transports that had defenses, but they are not heavily defended and are extremely vulnerable.  An air unit represents more than 100 aircraft- how many transports had air defenses to make them able to kill 100 aircraft 1/6 of the time?  These transports seem to be designed to defend against small surveillance squadrons at best.

How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?

I would still rather transports that survive the attack are able to retreat, but killing anything at 1/6th a chance is absurd.  The simple fact that the transports have to retreat throws a wrench into that player’s plans.

Well i dont think one transport represents one transport either lol
Transports had AA defense but that was pretty much it.

Def would be helpless against the big long range guns of cruisers/battleships and would also be helpless against lurking submarines

Why not let each transport roll a dice that can ONLY target destroyers and aircraft

@Uncrustable:

@BJCard:

Yes, I agree that there were some transports that had defenses, but they are not heavily defended and are extremely vulnerable.  An air unit represents more than 100 aircraft- how many transports had air defenses to make them able to kill 100 aircraft 1/6 of the time?  These transports seem to be designed to defend against small surveillance squadrons at best.

How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?

I would still rather transports that survive the attack are able to retreat, but killing anything at 1/6th a chance is absurd.  The simple fact that the transports have to retreat throws a wrench into that player’s plans.

Well i dont think one transport represents one transport either lol
Transports had AA defense but that was pretty much it.

Def would be helpless against the big long range guns of cruisers/battleships and would also be helpless against lurking submarines

Why not let each transport roll a dice that can ONLY target destroyers and aircraft

No, I know you realize a transport represents a dozen or so individual ships, my point was that even at that, I doubt they could take on 10+ aircraft per ship.

Yes, I agree that there were some transports that had defenses, but they are not heavily defended and are extremely vulnerable.  An air unit represents more than 100 aircraft- how many transports had air defenses to make them able to kill 100 aircraft 1/6 of the time?  These transports seem to be designed to defend against small surveillance squadrons at best.

I think that we can agree that with only six #'s on a dice, it can never be perfect.  But the transports did have weapons to fire at aircraft and warships, they were faster than warships so that they could escape.  1@1 is not heavily defended and makes them extremely vulnerable.  Especially if there are more than one transport.  AA Guns were designed to shoot down aircraft and its ok that they only fire 1@1 once.

How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?

This would counter what you said about infantry having AA with the unit.  Yet they defend at 2.  You think a ground infantry unit could take out 100 + planes with the AA they carry in their unit at 2/6 odd.

All this to say is that it cannot be perfect.  No matter what, there will be some sort of situation where it won’t make sense historically or even logically.  The thing in my opinion that makes the least sense is that there is a unit in a game about war that has 0 capability of protecting itself.  Especially like someone said earlier “in the spirit of the game” where rolling dice is the key.

I doubt transports were faster than warships

@elevenjerk:

I still cannot picture these huge stacks of transports being used as fodder when we have a cheap nice little destroyer that not only attacks and defends but it stops subs!

The benefit would be 10 TT’s at 1 with 20 land units as opposed to 5 TT’S at 1 and 5 DD at 2 with only 10 available ground units.  I don’t think there would be huge stacks of just transports (cause you would lose the guys and the transport) but I think a navy would consist of way less capital ships with a bunch of TT’s.   It only takes 1 destroyer to stop all subs “special powers” :-D  Overall I agree with you though.  I dislike defenseless transports a lot!

I totally agree with you elevenjerk.  :-)

Fair enough about the Infantry defending at 2- At least it is a military unit designed to fight whereas a transport many times was a converted ocean liner or purpose-built bare bones ‘liberty ships.’

In a perfect world we would be rolling d10s or d12s like the dice in Battle of the Bulge.  I would feel better about a transport that had a 10% chance or less scoring a hit on defense.

I suppose you could equate the units in game to be a proper mix of units of varying quality.  i.e. an Infantry unit having not just infantry but anti-tank and air support, but only enough to move one space and have a 1 att/2 def.

In that case you could say that a transport has some light escort vessels, but nothing large enough to make it have a 2 att/2 def like a destroyer.

I doubt transports were faster than warships

The stuff I found on them stated that they were designed to be faster so they could get away.  Which carries over to BJCards point….

a transport many times was a converted ocean liner or purpose-built bare bones ‘liberty ships.’

This is also true.  In fact the titanic would have been a transport ship in the war.  White Star Line actually provided ships in WW1 and WW2 as transports.

@Uncrustable:

Well i dont think one transport represents one transport either lol
Transports had AA defense but that was pretty much it.

Def would be helpless against the big long range guns of cruisers/battleships and would also be helpless against lurking submarines

Why not let each transport roll a dice that can ONLY target destroyers and aircraft

This adjustment is better than just aircraft because, in game terms, a unit that take out only aircraft is much a pain in the ass than one that let the attacker choose casualities. So by restricting the TT’s capacity it could mean making a bit more dangerous or “annoying” unit that it should be.

As some people said like BJCard, TP unit could be a very large number of TPs with a few close escort ships.
So it could be OK to give 1 TP unit Def@1 against every attacking units.
You can think mutatis mutandis about the courageous defense of the Taffy 3 Task Force against IJN (Leyte’s Gulf Battle).
They weren’t many DDs and destroyer escorts in it, but they make a hell of it against IJN cruisers.

@Baron:

You can think mutatis mutandis about the courageous defense of the Taffy 3 Task Force against IJN (Leyte’s Gulf Battle).
They weren’t many DD and destroyer escorts in it, but they make a hell of it against cruisers.

huh?

@Uncrustable:

@Baron:

You can think mutatis mutandis about the courageous defense of the Taffy 3 Task Force against IJN (Leyte’s Gulf Battle).
They weren’t many DD and destroyer escorts in it, but they make a hell of it against cruisers.

huh?

Sorry, english isn’t my first tongue.
I meant that few DD and DE force to retreat an entire fleet (BB and CA) of the Imperial Japanese Navy:

Kurita’s force caught Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague’s Task Unit 77.4.3 (‘Taffy 3’) entirely by surprise. Sprague directed his carriers to launch their planes, then run for the cover of a rain squall to the east. He ordered the destroyers and DEs to make a smoke screen to conceal the retreating carriers.

Kurita, unaware that Ozawa’s decoy plan had succeeded, assumed he had found a carrier group from Halsey’s 3rd Fleet. Having just redeployed his ships into anti-aircraft formation, he further complicated matters by ordering a “General Attack”, which called for his fleet to split into different divisions and attack independently.[5]

The destroyer USS Johnston was the closest to the enemy. On his own initiative, Lieutenant Commander Ernest E. Evans steered his hopelessly outclassed ship into the foe at flank speed. The Johnston fired its torpedoes at the heavy cruiser Kumano, damaging her and forcing her out of line. Seeing this, Sprague gave the order “small boys attack”, sending the rest of Taffy 3’s screening ships into the fray. Taffy 3’s two other destroyers, Hoel and Heermann, and the destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts, attacked with suicidal determination, drawing fire and disrupting the Japanese formation as ships turned to avoid their torpedoes. However, the Hoel and the Roberts were destroyed by the slowly advancing fleet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

I said “mutatis mutandis” because we have to make some “adjustments”, i.e. not taking account of the escort carrier’s fighters in the Task Force and that they were a group of warships, but the last defense to protect the marines transport.

Sometimes, David wins against Goliath.

Well you got me lost Baron lol

Not sure how what your talking about ties into the transport discussion

Every time when it’s David and Goliath :-D.

Great example though.  My exact reason for supporting the expulsion of defenseless transports.

Uncrustables are really good!!!  :-D

@elevenjerk:

Uncrustables are really good!!!  :-D

Yes they are!  :-D

@BJCard:

In a perfect world we would be rolling d10s or d12s like the dice in Battle of the Bulge.  I would feel better about a transport that had a 10% chance or less scoring a hit on defense.

In that case you could say that a transport has some light escort vessels, but nothing large enough to make it have a 2 att/2 def like a destroyer.

I agree on all this points.
That’s why I prefer @1 against all units for TP.
The main difference along the tread is about this chance of scoring a hit.
Their is many ways to reduce the 1/6 against attacking units.

A) Give 1@1 for 1 paired of TPs, whether it worth 2 units (Baron M) or 1 unit (Uncrustable).

B) It could even be 1@1 for three transports.
(Ex.: 1-2-3 TP Def@1 or 1-2 TP Def@0, 3 TPs Def@1)

C) It could be 1@1 only for any number of TPs (Elevenjerk).
Or a little variation: for 2 or more TPs (Baron M)

But it is still 1/6 to hit 1 attacking unit. A, B, C just change the 1/6 per 1 TT, 2-3 TTs or a group of TT units.
For example, it will be different if it requires only 1/12 on a twelve sides dice.
The chances to hit attacking unit are strictly reduces in half.

@Uncrustable:

Well you got me lost Baron lol

Not sure how what your talking about ties into the transport discussion

In this battle,
DEs and DDs were defending vulnerable escort carriers against a very superior ennemy.
And this whole Task Force has the mission to protect marines’ TT on the Island of Leyte.
Indirectly few DDs and DEs were protecting TT against 1 BB and some CA.

So their is an historical background for TT@1 hitting cruisers and even BB.