The aberration of the defenseless transport

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:

@The:

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.

I’m sorry, but is it just the chessplayer in me that finds the above quote to be…. well… “whiny”?  Hey, guess what, if that keeps happening to you, learn how to count better…

I mean, seriously, is this what this thread is about?  Maybe we should also change how the Knight moves in chess, since, if I move my Knight to fork your King and Queen, the most powerful piece, the Queen, cannot retaliate.  Yep, she gets no dice whatsover and is lost.  What a stupid rule, isn’t it??  I bet Larry Harris came up with that one, too… :P

Seriously, if you actually make it a practice of protecting you transports, this entire thread is stupid.  And if you don’t, well, then play a different game, but don’t whine when that bomber that you somehow didn’t see wreaks havoc on your little trannie fleet…

Yeah.  I said it.  :roll:

Transports and merchant vessels have historically have rammed into subs.

I do not see what prevents them from ramming into other naval units. They should roll a 1, cannot be taken as a casualty, they all die after shooting when no other ships remain to defend them.

I do not know how you guys would die, but if all the ships around me got sunk and there was no escape… I would ram what I can and hope for the best.

Give transports each one AA dice. thats it all else stays the same

@Uncrustable:

Give transports each one AA dice. thats it all else stays the same

You mean for OOB Global TT Taken last?
TT A0D0M2C7, each TT AA@1 against 1 aircraft only. Auto-kill vs other units. No escape.

Does Aircrafts can retreat when their is any surface vessels with them (DDs, Subs, BB, etc.) that can do the slaughter of the poor little TT lambs?

Well AA dice is generally rolled BEFORE the battle begins and casualties are removed BEFORE the battle begins.

So give current OOB transport each an AA dice (defense only).
Treat that dice as an AA dice.

NOTE: AAA get up to 3 dice per AAA OR the total number of aircraft. Whichever is LESS……
----Transports would get ONE AA dice apiece or the total number of aircraft. whichever is LESS…

So if 5 planes attack 2 transports…roll 2 AA dice.
If 3 planes attack 4 transports roll 3 AA dice.
If 7 planes attack 7 transports roll 7 AA dice.

@DizzKneeLand33:

@The:

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.

I’m sorry, but is it just the chessplayer in me that finds the above quote to be…. well… “whiny”?  Hey, guess what, if that keeps happening to you, learn how to count better…

I mean, seriously, is this what this thread is about?  Maybe we should also change how the Knight moves in chess, since, if I move my Knight to fork your King and Queen, the most powerful piece, the Queen, cannot retaliate.  Yep, she gets no dice whatsover and is lost.  What a stupid rule, isn’t it??  I bet Larry Harris came up with that one, too… :P

Seriously, if you actually make it a practice of protecting you transports, this entire thread is stupid.  And if you don’t, well, then play a different game, but don’t whine when that bomber that you somehow didn’t see wreaks havoc on your little trannie fleet…

Yeah.  I said it.   :roll:

Dizz, do you play F2F board games? you could make that mistake. Probably not the best statement to prove a point however. As far as chess references LH changed the rule from the original stats long after we had destroyers available.

I was thinking transports just roll 1s during defense and offense, cannot be taken as casualties, they just die (except for the special case where a sub rolls a hit and no other naval units are left in which case you roll one less)

As far as the whole “strategy this and that come up with a better one.” That is a stupid argument. It is not what this thread is about.

In actual game terms this increases the viability of sea lion as well as the viability of USA involvement in both theaters.

then again I am not sure how big of an impact rolling 1s will have. It just increases the variability of naval battles is all. As far as big naval showdowns go.

It does give a chance for say 5 transports alone defending against one unit. Which kind of makes sense, just score one hit and you live, but it is small risk big reward thing for say a lone destroyer… I would still attack it.

Still you do not see undefended transports too often when it is autokill. One roll won’t change much.

Generally speaking in my group we play with a defense roll of one because that’s what we used to play when playing classic. We rarely get together for in person games so I don’t really care so much what Larry Harris or anyone else says. I suppose if I ever play a tourney or online I’ll have to deal with it. I just think auto kill is BS. I think those for some kind of defense have thought this out and are not some noob who is just making up rules.

I guess I’ve said my peace. The transport should not just get auto-killed.