The aberration of the defenseless transport

@Baron:

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.

@Uncrustable
The difference between yours here and mine above, is?

@Uncrustable:

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

Is it mainly that
a) your attacking unit still get only 1 attack , 1Sub= 1@2 vs 2 rolls/units, ex: 1Sub= 2@2.

b) The dual Transports unit @1 can take 1 hit and is now treated as any other warship, vs
  a completely different battle and group in which 2TPs can take 2 hits but Def @1.

c) Your TP cannot flee, vs mine TP can “disperse”, but doesn’t must, after first round?

@knp7765:

Making transports defenseless makes more sense. I remember playing classic and having fleets of 1 or 2 battleships, a carrier and a stack of 10+ transports. No one would attack your fleet because they would never get to the high dollar stuff. That is, unless they had a huge stack of transports to throw in as fodder, which is also ridiculous.

You should have to protect your transports with warships, or suffer losing them and not transporting your troops. Someone mentioned Japan taking those little Pacific islands and how it’s not worth it to divert your fleet to protect the transports. Well, you could do that or simply write off those transports. Yeah, it sucks wasting 7 IPCs but if you get the islands you need (I’m thinking that 5 island NO for Japan) then perhaps it is worth losing a few transports in the long run. Plus, since now those guys have no transport, you have garrisons on those islands and the Allies will have to invest more to take them back. It just depends on your needs I think.

One downfall of defenseless transports that I don’t like is when you have a whole stack of transports and a single plane or ship takes them all out. Perhaps a good idea would be to limit the killing of defenseless transports to something like 3 per attacking unit (warship, sub or plane).

For example: The US has goofed and left 5 unescorted transports sitting in SZ 91. Germany sees this but has only 1 U-boat sitting in SZ 105. Germany also has a bomber sitting on the air base in Paris. Germany wanted to SBR London with his bomber.
Now, if Germany wants to sink all 5 US transports, he will have to send the U-boat AND the bomber. If Germany wants to SBR London with his bomber, he can just send the U-boat but will sink ONLY 3 of the US transports.
In summary, every 3 transports require 1 attacking unit to sink them. 1-3 transports=1 attacker, 4-6 TT=2 attackers, 7-9 TT=3 attackers, 10-12 TT=4 attackers, and so on.
Attacking units can be submarines, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, fighters, tac bombers and bombers.
Doesn’t that sound better than just one single attack unit being able to kill a whole stack of transports?

I don’t like the auto-kill but maybe I can adjust my precedent TT house rule, we can allow every attacking unit 3 rolls instead of only two.
Thus three rolls does not necessary mean 3 TT destroy. However, it increase the destructive capacity of combat unit against transport unit.

Example, after battle against warships escort, their is 2 damage BB against 7 TT.
2BB= 6@4 against 7TT= 3@1. In this situation, their is at least one surviving TT, but their is about 3/16 to kill both damaged BB.

In an historical sense: that could mean that around 350 transports fight against 4 or 6 Battleships already damaged during many days. It is acceptable.

I prefer this 3 rolls over 2 rolls because of the fleeing capacity TT get after 1 round.
It shouldn’t be easy to escape, in a sense making 3 rolls instead of 2, is like having another round of free attacks against fleeing targets.

3 rolls of each attacking unit is meant to balance the “dispersion” capacity gave to TT.
I think it is a house rule that can be introduce without great unbalancing damage to the OOB Global setting.

@DizzKneeLand33:

For all of you who say that a stack of transports would never be used as defense, you have clearly not played the original game…. **If Germany only had say 4 planes left, the U.S. could stack 12 trannies all by themselves and be pretty darn safe.**� � Run your odds calcs if you don’t believe me….

Now, to say that in a d6 game system each trannie should defend at a one…. well, then that means that a trannie has 1/4 the firepower as a Battleship, and 1/3 the firepower of a cruiser. � lol.

Seriously.

Now, the ratio fighting unit vs transport is the greatest suggested in this tread (except for auto-kill):
1 StrB against 2 TT. About same cost, 12 vs 14 IPCs.
3@4 (take 1 hit) vs 1@1 (take 2 hits).
4% no lost TT, 22% for 1 lost TT, 74% to sink both TT vs 84% no hit, 16% to shoot down the bomber.

2 StrB vs 2 TT. 6@4 (2 hits) vs 1@1 (2 hits). Same number of units and hits on each side.

Example: 4 Fgt @3 =4x3 12@3 against 12 TT=12/2= 6@1
So in very low luck game, 6 TT will be sink and 1 Fgt will be down.
(Roughly, like 300 transports vs 100 planes)

And after, 6 transports can escape or decide to pursue fighting.
This time the odds will be:
3fgt@3= 3x3 9@3 vs 6 TT= 6/2= 3@1
4.5 TT will down against .5Fgt. � and survivors can still flee.

For me it seems a more interesting fight than auto-kill with no option and the odds seems nearer the reality. (Since 400 planes against 600 transports is a large battle that worth playing it because it is possible to get casualities on both sides, not only on the TT side.)

I hope those who don’t want classic TT in Global would like this other kind of TT house rule and feel it is somewhat balance and representative. Given the change made about autokill and no hit value from OOB 1940 TT rules.

@elevenjerk:

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 flees. 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.

That’s the hard consequence about introducing TT@1 with 1 hit.
It is about changing the odds and diverting more Fgs and Bombers from other important targets.

In historical sense, the OOB rules is nearer the truth, a lot of planes can destroy transport ships with no real consequence overall.
(Maybe 1 plane was shoot downed out of 2 or 3 transports sunk. It is far from a whole flight group.)

In game terms, auto-kill is quite predictable and give no thrill.

I try to answer you in my lasts posts when I reply about greater ratio than TT@1 vs BB @4 or Fg@3.
Because the point is about the signification and historical representation of the odds between TT and all the air and sea combat units.
I still prefer not to give any defense to a TT but still being able to escape after 1 rounds.
So, the battle is still unpredictable but you don’t lose a precious Fg or Bomber against a lucky shot.

Don’t forget about the psychological effect of 1 AA TT gunship 1@1, it really affects the strategy, we shouldn’t take it lightly.
You can think of it like the reverse of the No attacks on Sub when DD are absent.
1 Transport can not destroy any warship or aircraft unless another TT is present.

I would like it if transports fired at a 1. Cannot be taken as a casualty. Similar to aa guns… which transports are equipped to fire.

I also believe aa guns should cost 4. Cruisers should be at 11.

Id rather have AA guns at 5 so I can spend all my money before loosing India :)

Better if you let them fire at one more plane.

@Cow:

A- Cannot be taken as a casualty.
B- I would like it if transports fired at a 1.
Similar to aa guns… which transports are equipped to fire.
C- I also believe aa guns should cost 4.
D- Cruisers should be at 11.

A) Do you mean transport are taken last?

B) If I follow you, Transport is a A0D0M2C7 unit with Def@1 only against planes.
That’s nearer the historical truth, because their guns wasn’t so effective against other surface vessel.
With this proposal, Transport should be able to escape or flee against warships.
Would you let them fire three times (ex.: 1 DD = 3@2 against 1 group of TT.) before Transport can escape?

On the other way, I still think that 1/6 to kill is too high vs aircraft units according to historical truth.
(I read somewhere that even for warships it was about 1/10. I imagine that just for TP it is far less.)
Unless you give aircrafts Air supremacy strike to reduce the shooting down rate, something like a preemptive shot against TP. (If Transport is hit, then no returning fire @1.)

C) You should start a tread on this.
IMO 4 IPCs is ok, but at 5 IPCs maybe we can let them having other capacity after AA first round.

D) Their is many old treads on the price of cruiser.

I prefer the Imperious Leader version:
Cruiser A3D3M2(3 in 1940) Cost: 12 IPCs when it rolls a “1” it take down a plane.
I also add 1DefAA@1 against 1 aircraft at the beginning of the battle.

It has more psychological impact but every one buy it for this antiaircraft capacity in a fleet, specially UK.

Baron your solutions are far too complicated lol

I like cows idea, give them each an AA dice hitting on 1, but keep them as is other than that.

Also i agree 1000% on reducing the cost of cruisers to 11, i remember a thread not too long ago where everyone told me how stupid i was because i thought cruisers were overpriced lol

Uncrustable, good to see you’re back.  I don’t recall anyone calling you stupid for thinking cruisers cost too much.  A lot of people agree with that.  What we disagree with is the idea that they are always a bad purchase, which is definitely not true in the right circumstances.

Transports defending @1 and being last casualty is a decent idea. Cruiser firing a single AA shot at 1 plane is also a decent idea for a house rule.

@Uncrustable:

Baron your solutions are far too complicated lol

I like cows idea, give them each an AA dice hitting on 1, but keep them as is other than that.

Also i agree 1000% on reducing the cost of cruisers to 11, i remember a thread not too long ago where everyone told me how stupid i was because i thought cruisers were overpriced lol

Do you see this in the cow proposition: automatic destruction of TPs group if no aircraft attacker?

Ex.: a group of 8 TPS are doomed against a single DD (with no risk of retaliation) but their will be a crushing forces of 8@1 against 4Fgt.

I’m not sure it will be balance either.
My option is more complex because it integrates many criterias (and mix classics with OOB 1940).
It’s the weakness here: less simple.

Of course, I will always prefer a simpler rule that can take account of the same numbers of criterias.
It’s up to us to find one, if we can.

Otherwise, we develop others with different weakness: less balance / or accurate.
And if we think of TP Classics: has a great simplicity…

But was counterweight by it’s great weakness:
no historical accuracy because of transports screening.

Much earlier I suggest a simpler one:
Taken last, defend 1@1 for a whole group of 2 and more Transport, every hit kill 1 Transport at a time.

Weakness: 2 TPs defend as well as 10 transports.
It didn’t take long that someone spotted it.
Much simple but less realistic.

@variance:

Uncrustable, good to see you’re back.  I don’t recall anyone calling you stupid for thinking cruisers cost too much.  A lot of people agree with that.  What we disagree with is the idea that they are always a bad purchase, which is definitely not true in the right circumstances.

Transports defending @1 and being last casualty is a decent idea. Cruiser firing a single AA shot at 1 plane is also a decent idea for a house rule.

We can wonder why if this was so simple Larry didn’t prefer this (which is more respectful of the A&A system rules) over the no combat value (nor defense nor hit value) of TP.

My hypothesis:
1) Large group of TPs become too dangerous in itself.

2) TPs could destroy too much valuable pieces (mainly aircrafts).

3) Historical inaccuracy.

4) It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.

Large group of TTs become too dangerous in itself.

Agree 100%.  Thats why whether it is 1 TT or 6 they get 1@1 and then can reatreat ONLY when all warships and Planes are removed from the battle and attackers are left.  No attack value at all.

TT could destroy too much valuable pieces (mainly aircrafts).
Historical inaccuracy.

The same argument could be made against inf.  Do you think 1 inf unit could wipe out an entire unit of planes?  I would think no, yet they defend at 2.  So they have twice as good of odds to do so.  They also have twice as good of odds to get a hit as an AA gun.  Where in history would a defending AA gun only fire once and then abandon the gun for the next wave of planes?  Not that I disagree with the current AA rules but as far as historical accuracy its not even close.  Not to mention once again that the whole game is historically inaccurate because the axis win most of the time.  The countries this rule would benefit the most would be Japan, UK, and US.  It may even the game out a bit.

It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.

It wouldn’t help the assault at all.  It would only help the defense of the counter attack, and very little help at that.  1 round at 1 defense and then forced to retreat.

TT could destroy too much valuable pieces (mainly aircrafts).
Historical inaccuracy.

The same argument could be made against inf.  Do you think 1 inf unit could wipe out an entire unit of planes?  I would think no, yet they defend at 2.  So they have twice as good of odds to do so.  They also have twice as good of odds to get a hit as an AA gun.  Where in history would a defending AA gun only fire once and then abandon the gun for the next wave of planes?  Not that I disagree with the current AA rules but as far as historical accuracy its not even close.  Not to mention once again that the whole game is historically inaccurate because the axis win most of the time.  The countries this rule would benefit the most would be Japan, UK, and US.  It may even the game out a bit.

Well, an infantry unit would inherently have some AA capability or it wouldn’t be able to kill aircraft.  This is a strategic level game- Infantry/Artillery units don’t represent just Infantry or Artillery but a slow moving division.  Tanks/Mech represent mobile units- including mobile AA and mobile artillery.

Transports represent transports, DD’s represent small escort ships and ASW ships, Cruisers bigger ships, etc.
The idea that AA stops firing after the battle begins is due the fear of hitting the defending aircraft, if there were any.  Otherwise I agree with you- seems silly that they would stop firing if only enemy air is present.

@elevenjerk:

Large group of TPs become too dangerous in itself.

Agree 100%. Thats why whether it is 1 TP or 6 they get 1@1 and then can retreat ONLY when all warships and Planes are removed from the battle and attackers are left. No attack value at all.

It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.

It wouldn’t help the assault at all. It would only help the defense of the counter attack, and very little help at that. 1 round at 1 defense and then forced to retreat.

So you prefer this option (except that @1 starts with the first Transport) and its drawback of poor proportionality?

Much earlier I suggest a simpler one:
Taken last, defend 1@1 for a whole group of 2 and more Transports, every hit kill 1 Transport at a time.
Weakness: 2 Transports defend as well as 10 Transports It didn’t take long that someone spotted it.
Much simple but less realistic.

It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.

I meant lower transport cost from 8 to 7 implies combat value too useful and too affordable, so Larry as to denied it in the new OOB rules.

@BJCard:

Transports represent transports, DD’s represent small escort ships and ASW ships, Cruisers bigger ships, etc.
The idea that AA stops firing after the battle begins is due the fear of hitting the defending aircraft, if there were any. Otherwise I agree with you- seems silly that they would stop firing if only enemy air is present.

I think that one main reason is about the 1/10 accuracy of AA fire.

Giving 1/6 at the beginning of the round is enough and that’s why they seem to do nothing for the rest of the battle.

But if one AA hit twice, it has done much more damage than the bloodiest air battle of the WWII.

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”.

Well letting transports defend at a 1 (not just against aircraft) lets them do some pretty absurd things like sink battleships

Most of those guns are best vs aircraft and wouldnt do much against the big long range guns of cruisers/battleships and they would be pretty helpless against subs aswell

Maybe let them defend at a 1 able to hit aircraft and destroyers only

I meant lower transport cost from 8 to 7 implies combat value too usefull and too affordable, so Larry as to denied it in the new OOB rules.

Misunderstood initially but yes I agree.

So you prefer this option and its drawback? :

I do in theory.  It would have to be tested to see the actual effect.  I just believe it takes out the “no risk” factor for the attacker on the transport.  As you can see by my last post, they had the capability to fire back.  It also makes it impossible for transports to wipe out multiple air units attacking them.  They also were designed to be faster than surface warships so they could outrun them hence the mandatory retreat after getting one shot at the attacker.

I don’t know who exactly came up with all the different ideas.  I just read the thread and pulled out the ideas I thought could make it more realistic and most importantly eliminate the name of this thread.  “The aberration of the defenseless transport”

Well letting transports defend at a 1 (not just against aircraft) lets them do some pretty absurd things like sink battleships

No, cause they only get 1@1 and then have to retreat.  It takes 2 to sink a battleship.

@elevenjerk:

Well letting transports defend at a 1 (not just against aircraft) lets them do some pretty absurd things like sink battleships

No, cause they only get 1@1 and then have to retreat.  It takes 2 to sink a battleship.

I was talking about when each transport rolls a dice