The aberration of the defenseless transport

I mean that… attackers can send their boats in for the attack… sure you can’t choose them as casualties but you are attacking with them like before and when you choose your casualties before retreating you are not totally screwed, you have some flexibility as far as choosing what you want to defend with.

@Cow:

I mean that… attackers can send their boats in for the attack… sure you can’t choose them as casualties but you are attacking with them like before and when you choose your casualties before retreating you are not totally screwed, you have some flexibility as far as choosing what you want to defend with.

Still me, I little short example will help me surely understand what your words mean. Please.  :-)

I thought that even in the “good older times” transport have no attack value, and it can participate into an amphibious assault. Of course, it was also used as cannon fodder (taking hits as the carrier can do in OOB rules) in naval battle, but still didn’t get A1.

Yeah it is just to make it fair for both sides of a big naval conflict. Before you could take them as losses in classic… the defender got a roll at 1, which kind of made it better to defend.

Now it is lopsided. The defender losses out and the attacker gets an even bigger payday because the risk is small. If he has to make the same commitment and lose out on a possible counter attack… then the game better promotes action for both sides.

One side has a reason to advance and the other side has a reason to attack.

I thought of this idea the moment someone said AA gun roll… I was like… you know what… how about transports roll at 1 on attack and defense… but none of that casualty stuff. That is a good middle. Plus it is cool rolling more dice.

It is nonsense to play a board game and get no dice out of a unit. Even a bomber rolls a 1 on defense.

Plus all the people that complain about it, they really only want a dice. They do not care if it is a casualty or not, they just miss the roll.

All the people that complained about the classic transport… were mad about 4 lone transports defeating their 3 fighters attacking. The odds are much better for them to kill lone transports, but it is not 100%.

@Cow:

Yeah it is just to make it fair for both sides of a big naval conflict. Before you could take them as losses in classic… the defender got a roll at 1, which kind of made it better to defend.

Now it is lopsided. The defender losses out and the attacker gets an even bigger payday because the risk is small. If he has to make the same commitment and lose out on a possible counter attack… then the game better promotes action for both sides.

One side has a reason to advance and the other side has a reason to attack.

I still didn’t see the attack part but only defense…
By “on a possible counter attack…”, you mean the 1 round Defense@1 from each TT?

Here, I’m lost:

One side has a reason to advance and the other side has a reason to attack.

One  side? Attacker? is “advancing” ? Correct?
Other side? Defender and his TT? is counter-"attack"ing? Correct?

I dont’t see where we can use the A1 from a TT.
If there is 1DD and 1TT, it would mean: 1@2 and 1@1 for first round.
What happen after?
Does the TT still can fire 1@1 if it haven’t been hit on 1st round?
Which unit from the attacker will take the first casuality?
Is it possible that attacker choose one unloaded TT as cannon fodder and keep is DD for another round?

Help!!! :?

@Cow:

I thought of this idea the moment someone said AA gun roll… I was like… you know what… how about transports roll at 1 on attack and defense… but none of that casualty stuff. That is a good middle. Plus it is cool rolling more dice.

It is nonsense to play a board game and get no dice out of a unit. Even a bomber rolls a 1 on defense.  :-D

Plus all the people that complain about it, they really only want a dice. They do not care if it is a casualty or not, they just miss the roll. :-D :-D

All the people that complained about the classic transport… were mad about 4 lone transports defeating their 3 fighters attacking. The odds are much better for them to kill lone transports, but it is not 100%.  :evil:

I agree all the way.

The more I think about, the more I wonder that is not so complex and you get some dice rolls, why does Larry and all play-testers didn’t explore that opportunity?

Yes, attacking transports would be allowed to retreat, if the dd hits, you lose the transport.

The play testers and Larry Harris probably thought everyone would prefer a defenseless transport. In fact for the most part people do. I am split personally. I just do not enjoy playing USA in the board games past aa50 and global. Even aa50 gets kind of lame when Germany buys air every round and the axis go into turtle mode… game can turn into a stalemate.

I hardly see much Europe play in global. Mainly because of the whole defenseless transports for infantry that already have one way tickets.

Still if you got 6 transports, you kind of expect 1 hit, that can make a big difference when your nest egg is under attack. ~it just makes it a little easier for USA to plan out his Atlantic buy. I mean you get too much naval you can’t take any territories… you get too little naval your stuff gets sunk… Germany/Italy see you coming and can prepare 2 rounds before you can use your stuff.

USA gets kind of predictable from an axis point of view. I do not like that so much.

I understand everyone wanting transports to be able to defend; but I just don’t see it since escorts have been decoupled from transports in the form of Destroyers.

I could get behind retreating transports after they survive a round of attack, but otherwise it changes game balance too much and would need an entirely different setup.  Suddenly sealion is easier, Italy’s fleet is more survivable, and Japan’s fleet is even more invincible than it already is.

In the case of ramming transports- you think you can get a dozen transports ramming a dozen subs for the kill (1/6th of the time?).  (1 sub vs. 1 transport)

Or to the guy saying subs should be able to hit aircraft- sure maybe one or two, but a dozen subs against 100 aircraft?  (1 sub vs. 1 fighter) yeah right- those subs should submerge.

BJCard what do you think of my proposal? Transports roll @ 1, cannot be taken as a casualty, die at end of round of alone against remaining attacking force, can retreat when on attacking only (just like amphi assault stuff).

@Cow:

BJCard what do you think of my proposal? Transports roll @ 1, cannot be taken as a casualty, die at end of round of alone against remaining attacking force, can retreat when on attacking only (just like amphi assault stuff).

Cow, it isn’t a bad proposal, I like it as a hybrid- it gives fleets a bit more ‘oomph,’ but we would have to look at balance.  If it turned out to be as balanced as 2nd edition, then sure, no problem.

Would make the allies more fun to play.

It has been an axis favored game since AA50.
~
Sadly my Germany guide is not as big of a hit as my Japan one, but my Germany guide came out much later. I should have put it out when the game was still new, but I had been heavily requested to wait on it. Allies players did not like the sudden shift to Japan declaring war sooner.

Now it is very rare to see G3 and J3.

I would be more ok with rolling a 12 sided die for transports and let them hit on a 1.
I would be ok with giving each transport an AA dice.

NOT ok with them attacking lol, that is absurd. Carriers dont get an attack value and they carry more weapons than transports.

Comparing transports to bombers is ludicrous. Bombers once taken to the skies are war machines (flying fortresses if you will)

Honestly the more i think about it the more i love the current system, i do not want a game where rarely any warships are built and its just mass transports.
Revised edition has some pretty horrible naval combat as rarely anyone attacks or buys navy other than transports. I do not want that.

If you want an escort buy a destroyer.
If your transports keep getting killed because you cant count, then learn to count lol

@Cow:

Would make the allies more fun to play.

It has been an axis favored game since AA50.
~
Sadly my Germany guide is not as big of a hit as my Japan one, but my Germany guide came out much later. I should have put it out when the game was still new, but I had been heavily requested to wait on it. Allies players did not like the sudden shift to Japan declaring war sooner.

Now it is very rare to see G3 and J3.

There are still some strong advocates of G3/J3, and even some G4:J4; which I think is kind of absurd.  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.

I think the Axis have been favored since A&A Revised to tell you the truth- just more pronounced since AA50.  the original Europe and original Pacific were both heavily favored to the Axis as well.

@Der:

Let me start this off first with a quote:

“All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward” - Glasgow

For six editions and the first 24 years of AA history, the transport has cost 8 IPCs and defended @1. Starting with AA Guadalcanal, transports became defenseless (the unit pricing scheme was all different). In the 50th Ann edition, transports became defenseless and cheaper, costing 7 IPCs.

I understand new rules create sales, so from a business standpoint, changing things is good. But IMO changing the transport rules hurt the overall game and here’s why:

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.

2. The 7 IPC rule makes amphibious assaults easier and cheaper.

Honestly, this rule seems to have been added only because transorts were made weaker by the first rule. To me this is going in the opposite direction of the way it should. It’s already too easy to take islands like Okinawa and such with bombardment. Amphibious assults ought to be hard and EXPENSIVE - that’s why it took the allies so long to achieve one in Europe.

OBJECTION: Transports defending @1 is unrealistic!
ANSWER: how often in WWII were transports left completely alone? To me this defense value reflects smaller DD escorts, PT boats, AA batteries and such that would normally be in the vicinity of transports. Plus some transport vessels were lightly armed.

VERDICT: I say they should have left transports the way they were!Â

The problem with the old system is that transports were always taken as casualties first.

Naval battles became a transport trading fest.

You could make defend at 1, for the cost of $1 more, but only so long as the “chosen last” system remains in place.

It’s that, or for $1, transports reserve the right to retreat on a die roll instead of defence.

what about my hybrid plan garg? Transports roll 1 attack and defend. Cannot be taken as casualties, instant die if unprotected at the end of an attack and defend roll against 1 or more attacking units.

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