The aberration of the defenseless transport

Well aircraft carriers should attack at 1 then

I miss that too, but they are really powerful in global as it is. >,<

The 2-hit aircraft carriers along with the capability of having a tac bomber with a fighter made the carrier very powerful… don’t mind the loss of attack value.

Im just saying it would be absurd to give transports an attack value while aircraft carriers do not

It would be absurd to give transports an attack value period lol

Maybe we should just get rid of all boats except transports, they attack/ defend at 3/3 can carry 2 of any unit, can also carry 2 of tacbomber/or fighter (and conduct flight operations) also can shore bombard and amphib assault while simultaneously fight of other transports and raid convoys, they cost 36 IPCs and there you have it, military transports in action

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.

Which is why you would never be given command of a ship  :lol:

Garg had it right that transports used to be used as ablative armor for the fleet. This is why Larry changed the rules. Any concept that the TT has intrinsic support vessels went out with the addition of cruisers and destroyers. Protecting transports is part of their responsibility.

This debate really needs to go one of two directions: 1. a House Rule that would at least have popular use, or 2. a viable change that might actually have a chance to find its way into future additions of the game (this would have to be a subtle change to have any chance with Larry).

Right now looks like everyone is in the phase of throwing spaghetti at the wall.

Kim

Okay heres an idea.  Why not house rule this:

Corvettes- Any player may build corvette class escorts that defend @ 1 for an extra 2 or 3 IPCS per transport. It is marked on the board by placing a national marker underneath each transport. The corvette is ‘built-into’ the transport and is non-transferable. It (the corvette escort coupled with a TRNS) can be taken as a casualty the same as any other unit.

I may use some old Attack! pieces for this if I decide to do it. They’re small and would make a good marker.

M-2* Coupled to transport. A-0 D-1 C- +2/3 (You/Play Group decide) to transport at time of purchase. 1 corvette/escort to one transport.

Okay HBG we need some corvettes molded in OOB colors LOL. Us house rulers would love them.

And while you’re thinking of ideas, consider the following about American amphibious cargo ships (originally called Attack Cargo Ships, or AKA):

"Attack cargo ships played a vital role in the Pacific War, where many were attacked by kamikazes and other aircraft, and several were torpedoed, but none were sunk or otherwise destroyed. "

So why are so many sunk so mercilessly in A&A??

Kim

How about this for a house rule idea: leave the transport rules exactly as they are, except transports in excess of combat units can be taken as casualties.  This allows combat units to “screen” transports, but unscreened transports can be lost.

Example:
A fleet containing a carrier, 2 fighters, a destroyer, and 5 transports is attacked.  The first hit could be taken on the carrier, damaging it.  The next hit may be taken on a transport, as there are 5 transports but only 4 combat units.  However, the following hit must be taken on a combat unit, as the number of transports and combat units is now equal.  The remaining order of loss could be destroyer, transport, carrier, transport, fighter, transport, fighter, transport.

Under my plan transports pew pew @ 1 but do not provide fodder.

What is wrong with that? They have weaponry and are capable of assisting a battle. Yes other naval ships protect them which is why they die first. Does not mean a transport had no tactical value in a naval engagement when in fact they did. Transports have rammed into other naval vessels and fired upon aircraft.

A ship was always better than no ship in ww2.

Yeah I think carriers should attack and defend at 1 instead of 0-2.

If I had command of a transport and my marines were offloaded… yes I would do what I can to help a major naval engagement. I might try to ram a sub while trying to engage aircraft above. 3 subs were rammed by a transport in WWII. It just happens.

Back to the topic. 1-1 and no casualty seems like a better transport both game mechanic wise and realistically.

kreighung stop making complicated rules. :(

@Baron:

So what if a lone fighter can’t simply wipe out a bunch of transports? Is it fair or unbalanced that ONE unit can wipe out and theoretically destroy an INFINITE amount of transports because they are unescorted?

That’s the aberration portion.
You may play 1940 Global with TT Def@1 8 IPCs.
But giving starting TT Def@1 will have an impact.

I already thinking about a similar unit: TT+corvette/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…

Hey! Someone steal my ideas!   :-o

@toblerone77:

Okay heres an idea.  Why not house rule this:

Corvettes- Any player may build corvette class escorts that defend @ 1 for an extra 2 or 3 IPCS per transport. It is marked on the board by placing a national marker underneath each transport. The corvette is ‘built-into’ the transport and is non-transferable. It (the corvette escort coupled with a TRNS) can be taken as a casualty the same as any other unit.

I may use some old Attack! pieces for this if I decide to do it. They’re small and would make a good marker.

M-2* Coupled to transport. A-0 D-1 C- +2/3 (You/Play Group decide) to transport at time of purchase. 1 corvette/escort to one transport.

Actually, you got exactly what I was thinking about how I could introduce both units: the nation markers!
I will make the adjusment +3 (and add your name as a partisan) in my summary post.

I’m glad to see how this tread evolve and develop upon others ideas.   :-D

This option with 2 TT units is a kind of historical oriented Global mid-term for Pro-escort in a TT unit and the No-escort in a TT unit.

So you can play with both OOB rules (classic and new) in the same Global game because of the 2 units. Isn’t nice and beautiful ?!  8-)
Everybody should be happy, no need to decide.  :lol:

@KimRYoung:

And while you’re thinking of ideas, consider the following about American amphibious cargo ships (originally called Attack Cargo Ships, or AKA):

"Attack cargo ships played a vital role in the Pacific War, where many were attacked by kamikazes and other aircraft, and several were torpedoed, but none were sunk or otherwise destroyed. "

So why are so many sunk so mercilessly in A&A??

Kim

Cool, that it as the historical core ship of a real TTc A0D1C8 or even Cow version TTn A1?D1C? unit that can take better care of himself!

They weren’t that many, they should cost 10 IPCs like Der Kuenstler suggested.

Now we have:
the defenseless one:     TTn A0D0C7          :oops:
The escorted one:         TTc2 A0D1C7+2EF   8-)
The attacking one AKA: TTcow A1D1C10   :evil:

EF: Escort Frigate (slower and lighter than DD)
I’m kidding.
But it is quite funny for those who wants Global Navy look like historical navy.

@Cow:

Under my plan transports pew pew @ 1 but do not provide fodder.

What is wrong with that? They have weaponry and are capable of assisting a battle. Yes other naval ships protect them which is why they die first. Does not mean a transport had no tactical value in a naval engagement when in fact they did. Transports have rammed into other naval vessels and fired upon aircraft.

A ship was always better than no ship in ww2.

Yeah I think carriers should attack and defend at 1 instead of 0-2.

If I had command of a transport and my marines were offloaded… yes I would do what I can to help a major naval engagement. I might try to ram a sub while trying to engage aircraft above. 3 subs were rammed by a transport in WWII. It just happens.

Back to the topic. 1-1 and no casualty seems like a better transport both game mechanic wise and realistically.

Many seems reluctant to give A1 to a TT even our new AKA. Even if the debate is still raging on, from Cow idea it is easy to extrapolate another type of TT: a simply less dangerous one on attack. That is both mine and Cow:

TTn2 Baron [Cow] A0D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill.

TTn3 Cow A1D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill.

USA cannot bring boatloads of men like it used to, which kind of sucks. You never see Germany getting conquered anymore… once in awhile Italy gets hit. It is sad stuff now.

I would like to roll 1-1. It does not change the current transport rules as it just gives transports an attack. That is it. They still instantly go poof against a lone attacker when by itself… I am only giving them an attack value. That is it.

It is weird that USA sucks. Even when I am the Germany/Italy, it is like, “USA can’t do jack so I am not going to worry about it.” If USA had more of a chance to defend a reasonable boat drop of 10-20 guys in the atlantic without totally losing the game in the pacific… that would be cool.

If you’re into modding parts you can pick up some old AA classic transports and file the nose down to an angle that looks indicative of a ramp-nosed transport you might need to paint and coat but these would do nicely as “assault transports”.

OK…. I lied.  I just couldn’t get past this statement BJCard :-D

I was surprised you haven’t interjected into the topic about holding off the US by attacking the Aleutian islands that turned into a debate on why waiting to attack as the Axis is better.

Let’s not give the wrong impression here.  I merely stated that a J4 CAN work while you and GHR2 attacked everything I said (not you quite as much) to the point where GHR2 said I needed to play against “more experienced players” before I claim it as a “viable” strategy.  I never said it was better than ANY other type of strategy.  I think many strategies can and have worked.

I kind of like the idea by cow.  I am on the fence with the attacking part as well but there has to be something done.  The axis are just too powerful.

@KimRYoung:

Right now looks like everyone is in the phase of throwing spaghetti at the wall.
Kim

What does this mean? I never eard of this expression.

@Baron:

@KimRYoung:

Right now looks like everyone is in the phase of throwing spaghetti at the wall.
Kim

What does this mean? I never eard of this expression.

Everyone is just spouting off random ideas without much thought to them  :lol: