The aberration of the defenseless transport

I said I like that transports cannot be taken as a casualty.

I just hate not rolling an attack value for them. They should roll a 1. They can ram naval and pew pew with their 50 cal mounted.

@Baron:

@ Uncrustable,
Since you don’t accept a scattering capacity of TT (I explained it under “dispersion”), the TT unit you propose imply auto-kill if any CA or BB and even CV are present.
Are you OK with this?
Are you also aware of this drawback?
If their is only 1 plane, 1 sub and 1 BB against TT for instance: it means plane will be destroy (on a 1 of course) instead of letting the attacker choosing either BB if undamaged or the sub. So the attacker loose a more expensive unit and have no choice.

I said nothing about a carrier…also spell out the units lol i do not know which is CV or CA or DE…lol

But this is an absurd scenario which you have proposed because the attacker would just choose to retreat the units that can be hit by the transport and instead only attack them with subs/battleships/cruisers…therefore no casualties to the attacker if the transports were without escort

do you really beleive that lone transports (WITH NO ESCORT) were capable of sinking battleships? submarines? cruisers? i think not
and ramming them means the transport dies on its first die roll…roll a 1 then the trasnport is dead

i do not buy into the argument “transport unit includes built-escort” as we have the units for escort now (destroyer at 8 IPC and submarine at 6 IPC, cruiser at 12 IPC carrier…etc)

to me a transport on the game board represents a group of lone transports, with some guns (AA mostly) but not enough to deter large long range guns or underwater attacks

@Uncrustable:

And about the retreat deal that really goes against A&A (never has the defender been able to retreat save carrierless fighters/tacbombers)
and remember we are talking about vast areas of ocean(hundreds of miles) for each seazone. That is plenty enough room for attackers to chase down and slaughter every last defenseless transport  :evil:

Not true- in A&A Classic Submarines could retreat from battle to an adjacent friendly SZ- of course there was no submerging then, but it isn’t unheard of.

I agree that Transports could fight off a few planes here and there, but not heavier ships and/or 100’s of aircraft.  Escort ships have been ‘decoupled’ from transports in the form of destroyers.

Earlier I mentioned possibly some smaller escort ships in the transport unit, but the more I think about it the less I like that.

@Uncrustable:

But this is an absurd scenario which you have proposed because the attacker would just choose to retreat the units that can be hit by the transport and instead only attack them with subs/battleships/cruisers…therefore no casualties to the attacker if the transports were without escort

It is not that absurd scenario, according to OOB rules, if attacker decides to retreat, their is no partial retreat: it is all or nothing.
(Exception, maybe, is amphibious assault.)

Do you see now, here is the devil in the details.
You would have to add another special rule for the attacker:
“Aircrafts can retreat from a naval battle when their is only transports in defense.”

@Cow:

I said I like that transports cannot be taken as a casualty.

I just hate not rolling an attack value for them. They should roll a 1. They can ram naval and pew pew with their 50 cal mounted.

It is plausible that some of US Marines TPs for examples decide, for the sake of the many, to ram into a battleship or a cruiser.
The remaining units will survive while the battleship had to mend his wounds.
I agree with you on this.
There is much more boats in a TP unit than a cruiser or BB unit.

I like the idea of keeping the transport as is, but maybe have another transport unit that is 9-10 IPC’s that functions like the transport from revised. This way you would have a mix of both transports being purchased possibly.

@theROCmonster:

I like the idea of keeping the transport as is, but maybe have another transport unit that is 9-10 IPC’s that functions like the transport from revised. This way you would have a mix of both transports being purchased possibly.

@theROCmonster
So you agree with this kind of unit ?
The difference is that 9-10 unit will be part of the warships group and can be choose as a first casualities by the defender.
Isn’t it?

@Baron:

I already thinking about a similar unit: TT+corvettes/frigates Def@1 9 IPCs.
And also keeping TT @0 7IPCs.
And transport are taken as last casualities.

Just a way to upgrade starting TT for 2 IPCs near IC or NB.
In this way, it follows the rule for navy unit: average is 2 IPCs for 1 point Att or Def.
Anyone can buy either TT at 7 IPCs or TT lightly escorted at 9 IPCs.

It can simulate the progressive introduction of this small naval units during WWII specially to protect against Subs.

Probably no one will buy TT with no hit value after introducing TT@1 C9…

@ShadowHAwk:

@Baron:

@Cow:

I said I like that transports cannot be taken as a casualty.

I just hate not rolling an attack value for them. They should roll a 1. They can ram naval and pew pew with their 50 cal mounted.

It is plausible that some of US Marines TPs for examples decide, for the sake of the many, to ram into a battleship or a cruiser.
The remaining units will survive while the battleship had to mend his wounds.
I agree with you on this.
There is much more boats in a TP unit than a cruiser or BB unit.

It isnt plausible at all, they would have been destroyed before they would get in reach. Besides only the japanese where fanatic enough to do suicide attacks.
That is also 1 of the main causes the marines actualy did so wel japanese would do WW1 style wave attacks against fixed positions.
The chance of getting in reach with a destroyer would be nearly 0 a transport that is slower then a combat ship cannot ram the other 1 because it cannot catch up.

That is the point: is all TPs slower than destroyer? And about a damage DD (because some posts shows transports have some cannons)?

It is plausible that some of US Marines TT for examples decide, for the sake of the many, to ram into a battleship or a cruiser.

Say WHAT?!

This is neither plausible nor even possible, as tactical doctrine would force the ships commander to get as far away from a capital ship as fast as possible. Exactly how many hits from an 8" to 15" shell do you even think a transport could take trying such a manuever? (let alone secondary armament).

Sorry this whole thread has devolved into a complete bunch of “House Rules” ideas and should be moved there. There is zero chance Larry will be changing back the rules for how transports work at this juncture in any of the game series.  Nice try though.

Kim

About your first comment, it seems that between giving TT@1 and the OOB rule, you prefer the second.
However, your historical oriented comment let us think that instead of auto-kill TT, it would have been better to let a space for escaping maneuver for TT.

About Larry and WoTC, I think we all agree with you.

But initial question stay, how far can we go to revert back to Classics TT in Global 1940?

Der Kuenstler is asking a good question and help to think outside the box.

@Uncrustable:

I said nothing about a carrier…also spell out the units lol i do not know which is CV or CA or DE…lol

@Uncrustable
I’m not sure if it is ironic or if you are asking for the sake of everybody?
Should I use the name or not?

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

I said nothing about a carrier…also spell out the units lol i do not know which is CV or CA or DE…lol

@Uncrustable
I’m not sure if it is ironic or if you are asking for the sake of everybody?
Should I use the name or not?

We go through this every few months.  Some people have little background in wargames or in military nomenclature.  There is a thread somewhere in the forums that gives definitions for the common acronyms.

About your first comment, it seems that between giving TT@1 and the OOB rule, you prefer the second. However, your historical oriented comment let us think that instead of auto-kill TT, it would have been better to let a space for escaping maneuver for TT.

About Larry and WoTC, I think we all agree with you.

But initial question stay, how far can we go to revert back to Classics TT in Global 1940?
Der Kuenstler is asking a good question and help to think outside the box.

Given the choice between transports defending @ 1, or no defense at all, I prefer the later. Played way to many games of original A&A where large squadrons of transports killed lots of capital ships. That was absurd. Having no defense is in fact correct, but still hate when a lone bomber or sub catches a half dozen transports and sinks them all. In reality some would escape but I do understand that I as a player can prevent this by not allowing my transport fleet to be unprotected.

A SIMPLE rule I might by into, one short sentence, anything more than that just keep it as it is.

Kim

@KimRYoung:

Given the choice between transports defending @ 1, or no defense at all, I prefer the later. Played way to many games of original A&A where large squadrons of transports killed lots of capital ships. That was absurd.

Having no defense is in fact correct, but still hate when a lone bomber or sub catches a half dozen transports and sinks them all.

In reality some would escape but I do understand that I as a player can prevent this by not allowing my transport fleet to be unprotected.

A SIMPLE rule I might by into, one short sentence, anything more than that just keep it as it is.

Kim

Unlike Der Kuenstler, many like you and me prefer the new TT but find it excessive to blow in pieces many TT (sometimes much more than 50 IPCs), just because 1 single StrB survived the slaughter against a combined UK and USA warships-escort fleet.

@Gekkepop:

I never liked the defenseless transport rule either, it makes the game hinge too much on a few dice rolls. If your major fleet gets killed with one enemy unit left you could instantly lose 70 IPCs of transports as well. This makes it so the allies have to invest much more in fleet and had to be made a lot stronger in other areas to compensate.

For me it seems a flaw and Der Kuenstler pointed it quite well:

@Der:

1. The “auto-destroy” rule violates the spirit of the game.

Everything in this game involves decisions and risk, and has since the beginning. That’s what makes it so much fun. As Alexander Smith said “Everything is sweetened by risk.” Now we have a rule introduced where there is no risk - only auto-destruction. It is an exception to every other rule and every other unit in the game. All excitement in dice rolling to see what happens is removed. What happens is already decided with no variants at all - no anticipation. Lone transports just get swept off the board. yawn.

Here is another genuine comparative analysis from Der Kuenstler:

@Der:

Yeah! Glad to see I’m not alone in the pro-classic transport camp.

The classic transport:

**- Represents a TROOPSHIP - not a supply ship.

• Blends nicely with one of the maxims of the game “defender chooses his own casualties”
• Makes learning the game easier - less “special” rules
• Keeps the element of chance involved, thus more suspense = more fun
• Keeps battle command decisions in your hands - not the rules**
  The Global transport:

**- is auto-slaughtered in large groups if alone

• removes some of your battle command power - you HAVE to choose transports last
• Does not fit with the general game rules - it is like an orange thrown into a barrel of apples**

I couldn’t resist to add this rightful critics and positive suggestions from Spendo02:
@Spendo02:

Let’s detail out the concerns:

Side A: TT in bulk create a problem of balance if they defend @1 because those add up and effectively act as screens because they are sinking ships that will no longer be able to attack.

Side B: It is poor form to decide that anything in a dice rolling game is auto destroyed by the mere presence of a hostile offensive unit.

So we give TT a chance to defend themselves, but limit the dice they roll.  It effectively eliminates them as a screening unit because no matter the quantity, they only roll a single die when in combat, at the lowest possible odds to “hit”.  However when left undefended, they are not free kills because there is a risk, albeit small, that they could shoot down a fighter or ram a ship and cause it to sink.

I’d even be willing to go as far as once a hit is scored against the TT (which are always the last remaining naval units), the entire flotilla is lost but they can, as a whole still roll a single die @1 to defend themselves.

I still hope we can find some way to make little adjustment for either lover of Classic TT or new Global TT. Just to get more excitment in Global or even others A&A.

P.S. At the end, it will be probably better to transfer the tread into House rules so those not interessed by Global could have a chance to think about it.

“They could have left the roll @1 and just made it so the TTs must always be the last to be assigned hits… which is a newly implemented rule anyway.”

This is basically what we do except only when being attacked by all planes. The transport cant take hits but they still get their one. If 4 undefended trans are attacked by a sole plane the plane must survive the barage of 4 1s if it wants to wipe out the 4 trans. If it gets hit but still gets a 3 or less then one plane and one trans are lost. We found this was a fair balance cause its kinda bs when you leave your transports undefended cause you think theyre out of range only to be popped by a single far off bomber.

@The:

“They could have left the roll @1 and just made it so the TTs must always be the last to be assigned hits… which is a newly implemented rule anyway.”

This is basically what we do except only when being attacked by all planes. The transport cant take hits but they still get their one. If 4 undefended trans are attacked by a sole plane the plane must survive the barage of 4 1s if it wants to wipe out the 4 trans. If it gets hit but still gets a 3 or less then one plane and one trans are lost. We found this was a fair balance cause its kinda bs when you leave your transports undefended cause you think theyre out of range only to be popped by a single far off bomber.

Very interesting, since you have play experience here.  :-)

IMHO, I think it is a TT rule which modifies the initial balance, but for now I have questions:
What happen in your game with this situation ?

Rnd 1: 2 subs@2 & 2 Fgts@3 against 2DDs@2 and 4 TTs@?.
Does the TT can fire @1 against Fgts? Or @1 against the subs?

I continue with the example: casualities 1 sub vs 2 DDs.

Rnd 2: 1 sub@2 & 2 Fgts@3 against 4 TTs@1.
Does the 2 planes can retreat and let the sub do the slaughter?

If not, even if the Fgts hit nothing, is it still auto-kill for the subs since their is no hit value for the 4 transports?

Therefore, there is no third round. Correct?
However, 1 or 2 Fgts can be lost during the second round.

Is it the way you played it?

I think your rule is different than this one, am I right?:
@Kingpin2010:

My group has kicked this around to come up with a solution. What we came up with is against warships it’s same rules, but if the transport is attacked by just planes that it can defend at a 1.

So im not alone in wanting to let transports defend against planes but not warships  :lol:
I also threw in destroyers…

@Uncrustable:

So im not alone in wanting to let transports defend against planes but not warships  :lol:
I also threw in destroyers…

Alas… :cry:

For the sake of the truth, you got reason…
For the sake of the game simplicity, I think there is better… :?

On the other way (far away from “Taken last paradigm”), have you read about this post?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1115033#msg1115033

Last post on this for me….maybe:)  I agree with KimRYoung.  This thread is getting way to detail oriented on what could actually happen in real life.

IMHO this would be my rule (with the help of a bunch of people on this thread)…

1 or more transports get to defend 1@1 when they are all alone.  Whether that is because they get attacked by themselves or they are the last survivors of a naval battle.  Each transport represent an attackers hit (Can’t bring a bomber on 5 transports and wipe them all out with one hit.  To kill five transports you would need at least 5 attackers).    After 1 round of firing, they retreat 1 seazone.  If all surrounding seazone are occupied by enemy warships then they are dead.  All other rules still apply.

This rule is simple so that problem is solved.  I couldn’t quite keep it down to one sentence for you KimRYoung.  Transports are no longer defenseless so that problem is solved (which really is the point of this thread).  Transports can not be used as a screen for an otherwise weak navy.

I realise that there will be anomalies.  That will be no different than the ones that exist in the game already.  It is impossible not to have them. This would just solve the only rule in this game that I am really against.  All the other things in the game that “couldn’t really happen” don’t matter to me.  This one does because of reasons mentioned many times on this thread.

The teams that would benefit (very small benefit IMO) the most from this would be US, UK, Anzac, and Japan.  That alone tells me that the game would have a chance at being more even.  The axis almost always win (the most unhistorical thing of all) WITH bids.

Fun topic though.  I like all the ideas on here whether I agree with them or not :-D

@elevenjerk:

Last post on this for me….maybe:)  I agree with KimRYoung.  This thread is getting way to detail oriented on what could actually happen in real life.

IMHO this would be my rule (with the help of a bunch of people on this thread)…

1 or more transports get to defend 1@1 when they are all alone.

Whether that is because they get attacked by themselves or they are the last survivors of a naval battle.
Each transport represent an attackers hit (Can’t bring a bomber on 5 transports and wipe them all out with one hit.  To kill five transports you would need at least 5 attackers).

**After 1 round of firing, they retreat 1 seazone. ** If all surrounding seazone are occupied by enemy warships then they are dead.  All other rules still apply.

This rule is simple so that problem is solved.  I couldn’t quite keep it down to one sentence for you KimRYoung.  Transports are no longer defenseless so that problem is solved (which really is the point of this thread).  Transports can not be used as a screen for an otherwise weak navy.

I realise that there will be anomalies.  That will be no different than the ones that exist in the game already.  It is impossible not to have them. This would just solve the only rule in this game that I am really against.  All the other things in the game that “couldn’t really happen” don’t matter to me.  This one does because of reasons mentioned many times on this thread.

The teams that would benefit (very small benefit IMO) the most from this would be US, UK, Anzac, and Japan.  That alone tells me that the game would have a chance at being more even.  The axis almost always win (the most unhistorical thing of all) WITH bids.

Fun topic though.  I like all the ideas on here whether I agree with them or not :-D

Hi, Elevenjerk,
The evocation of history in this tread was a way to decide between a helpless Transport (somewhat able to escape, yet to decide) or a “combative” transport group able to do damage against even heavier ships (or solely aircrafts and Destroyers).

You seem to have pick in both ways to make a more playable TT unit.
And a way much more in favor of a defensive fleet, not too dangerous but more able to survive.
If I follow you:
A) No matter the number of transports, (1-2-3-4- etc.) TT get only 1 Def@1.
B) Attacker autokill 1 TT for each attacking unit.
C) All survivors must escape 1 sea-zone away. If all are enemy controled, they are all dead ones.

If I correctly understand you, I wonder why you decide B and C?
(For C, I rather prefer that unit stay in the sea-zone since its already an existing possibility that TT and Subs can share a sea-zone with ennemy units.)

If that true: "Last post on this for me….maybe:) "
I will miss you. :cry: