The aberration of the defenseless transport

@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:

@elevenjerk:

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.

elevenjerk- I was not attacking, just discussing.  I never said it wasn’t viable, I just had my doubts - and asked a lot of questions;  I rather enjoyed the discussion.

@Krieghund:

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.

I actually like Krieg’s solution a lot.  transports are defended on a 1-1 basis.

@Uncrustable:

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

Thanks Uncrustable about “spagghetti thing”.

I will try to clean up a bit…

You have good reason (balance between other units) to be reluctant about AKA TTCowA1.

I know that you prefer, for historical reason (nature of troops transports and limited firepower) AAA or @1 only vs aircrafts, something like these two:

TTn4 Cow/Uncrustable 1AA@1, no hit value, treat as 1AAA preemptive shot per TT. No escape, auto-kill.

TTn5 Admirable Admiral @0, no hit value. @1/TT against aircrafts only for 1 round, if any warships: auto-kill. No escape.

But don’t you think, it is still a less powerfull TT version when giving the possibility to the attacker to pick any unit of his choice instead of only precious aircrafts (10-11-12 IPCs).
For example: Subs (6 IPCs), DDs (8 IPCs), taking a hit on a Carrier (CV) (x) or a BB (x).

That is what I think is:
the simplest (no difference between casuality units from TT fire),
no more defenseless in mimicking the classic TT defensive roll for 1 round (1 single @1/TT)
and nearer the OOB TT (Roll to destroy TT, if no attacker’s unit TT survive, if any attacker survive then auto-kill):

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

Don’t you think?

@BJCard:

@Krieghund:

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.

I actually like Krieg’s solution a lot.  transports are defended on a 1-1 basis. Â

I still cannot see why is this a solution?
Transport become a 1 unit value @0 like AAA after first round.

They will play a similar role, mostly if defender thinks he couldn’t make it against attacker’s units.

Transport becomes cannon fodder or tampering unit for the defensive valuable unit (D2/D3/D4) like what many critics about classic pointed out.

What it does, is only regulate the rate of attrition amongst Transport.

@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.

Properly cooked spaghetti is cooked “al dente” which is easily determined be actually throwing it against a wall, and if it sticks to the wall it is done! Hence the phrase. Throw it against the wall, and if it sticks, you’re good!

Kim

@Krieghund:

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.

Transports still get used as a cheap soak off, when in reality attacking units would go for capital ships. Transports should get the hell out of a combat zone ASAP since the only thing they want is to survive!

Kim

@KimRYoung:

Transports still get used as a cheap soak off, when in reality attacking units would go for capital ships.
Transports should get the hell out of a combat zone ASAP since the only thing they want is to survive!
Kim

That’s why their is no planified attack against naval warships by transport units. Their firepower is for defensive situation.
Maybe AKA was the only exception in WWII.
Hence, if transport unit get @1, it is for defense.

P.S. Thanks about the info on “Spagghetti”.
It seems their is two different but complementary meanings…

Let them defend classic style for 1 round, then after that all dead

@Uncrustable:

Let them defend classic style for 1 round, then after that all dead

Is their any difference with this?
@Baron:

But don’t you think, it is still a less powerfull TT version when giving the possibility to the attacker to pick any unit of his choice instead of only precious aircrafts (10-11-12 IPCs).
For example: Subs (6 IPCs), DDs (8 IPCs), taking a hit on a Carrier (CV) (x) or a BB (x).

That is what I think is:
the simplest (no difference between casuality units from TT fire),
no more defenseless in mimicking the classic TT defensive roll for 1 round (1 single @1/TT)
and nearer the OOB TT (Roll to destroy TT if no attacker’s unit survive, if any attacker survive then auto-kill):

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

I presume the slight difference is that you mean: no matter attacker’s units survive or not TT defensive fire, TT are all toasted.

It is like a consolation price, TTs bring some attacker’s units into the death…
Is it?

That is what I think:
the simplest (no difference between casuality units (Fg vs Sb or BB) from TT fire),
no more defenseless in mimicking the classic TT defensive roll for 1 round (1 single @1/TT)
and nearer the OOB TT (Roll to destroy TT if no attacker’s unit survive, if any attacker survive then auto-kill):

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

Don’t you think?

@KimRYoung:

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).

Kim

Do you think this defensive only, 1/6 chance per transport, for 1 single round to destroy all ennemy’s unit, to get a chance to survive for them is THAT subtle change?

Their is still risk and no more totally predictable endings.
Because of the autokill, the attacker greatly overwhelms the transports defense.
If their is many much more TTs units than attacking units, they still got a chance of survival.

Do we need to increase the killing rate against TT by adding the maximum killing rate for 1 round?:

If all attacking units are destroyed by TT’s fire, for each attacking unit, their is still 1 TT casuality.

Japan used subs as transports… those things attacked!

@Der:

Every “special rule” you come up with only further complicates the game.
ou just do this, guys - you make transports the way they were for 24 years.

In 2004 before all of this tinkering with the rules Larry Harris said on his site "Transports work well and always have."� �

Transports defended @1 because they were assumed to be escorted.
Now there are DDs in the game that defend @2.

However, there were still many types of escorts that took part in WWII protecting transports that were not as good as DDs but still offered some protection. There were Merchant aircraft carriers, Catapult Aircraft Merchantmen, Armed merchant cruisers, Corvettes, Frigates, and Escort Carriers. These can be represented by making the transports defend @1 as they used to. This is 1/2 the strength of a DD escort.

Stop the reminiscing “when we used to play back in the 80’s, blah blah” - it won’t work that way anymore - now BBs take 2 hits, subs cost 6 IPCs, and DDs are a purchase option. You bump the classic transport up to 10 IPCs and call it a troopship, which is what it is anyway. Nobody is going to be fool enough to use them as fodder anymore.

And best of all: no special rules. They fit in nicely with the rules already in place. Plug them in and just play.� � �

Now that I have done my part for finding a no defenseless OOB TTn, I will throw some mud in the fan against this hypnotical soothing call: “Come to the dark side… and revert back to classics trannies.” :wink:

1- A direct reverting from OOB TTn to TTc (no change in cost: 7 IPCs stay the same.)
will have great effect on the game. Maybe someone will try it and will tell us what happen. I hope.

For sure, the screening or cannon fodder effect will take a part. Not as important it was in classical version of A&A but, nonetheless, any player seeing that the odds of survival will be against his/her defensive fleet, will do anything to protect is @3-4 units just expecting making maximum wreckrage before loosing all.

2- If you agree, then rise the question: so what? If you like the changes of balance it creates in OOB Global. Fine. If you prefer to keep OOB balance, that is the problem.

3- Now also rise a question of personnal taste: do you prefer transport which transports (quoting but who?) and warship which makes war, battle and escort?

4- If this is the case, as it seems for many TTn likers criticizing transport screening, you will need some incentive which modify the unit and the rule so their will be no great reward in picking TT instead of warships as casualities. Hence, willingly creating similar combat dynamics as the OOB Global.

5- What can be these adjustments?
For now, 2 ways have been develop:

1- Increase TTc cost because it is a more usefull unit than TTn. So loosing a higher IPCs TT unit vs cheaper (DD and Subs) seems a bad choice.
However, this cost affects directly all amphibious strategies: higher prices mean less transports or lack of Inf to move on board.

2- Minimize the usefullness of TT as cannon fodder in battle. That’s Uncrustable idea, Spendo02 and I followed. Their is also 2 ways: a) the number of casuality a hit make and b) the number of Def@1 each unit can do.

(3- The third way will be a combination of both.)

I think it increases the tactical fun when a player can choose himself is own casuality.

Actually, the dilemma is more:
whether loosing a future useful transport unit but protecting higher defensive unit and making a higher rate of damage on ennemy , because fearing the defeat  vs whether loosing immediate defending unit, because of higher hope of victory, for the sake of future.

This tactical dilemma should be increase: loosing  a future valuable TT and expensive unit vs loosing a cheaper but immediatly valuable defending unit.

Here is the interest of Uncrustable principle “2TTs are required to have 1 whole combat unit Def@1”:
You can buy the same number of TT (7 IPCs) and have no effect on moving troops around the globe but TT becomes less usefull as a combat fodder unit and it will be at a higher price than 9-10 IPCs since 2x7=14 IPCs (more than a cruiser but far less effective combat unit).

In essence, 1 hit killing 2 transports reflect the much higher combat value of other unit vs TT.
Bomber (12 IPCs) unit @4 has not just a ridiculous 4 times killing ratio! than TT@1 (7 to 10 IPCs), it has at least similar destructive effect (14 IPCs).

This will increase the caring for TTs but will generate a higher price to pay for the player in order to let them be fodder to obtain more firing rounds by protecting @3-4 warships and aircrafts.

Where is the balance, I think it has still to be tuned.

@Cow:

Japan used subs as transports… those things attacked!

No need to push forward. AKA was enough for me.
Even though 1 Subs doesn’t embark as many troops than AKA, think now of 50.

We need to stay at a global level, individual prowess and heroism can’t be use in A&A as a reference for building unit rules and specs.

However, I find it a dangerous game braker, if you bring many TTs with a substantial fleet.
1BB 1CV 2Fg 2DD 6TT.
It means many 6@1 (at least 2, even 3 rounds) until all the 8 hits are taken against warships.

And even after, you have the right as an attacker to retreat to another sea-zone (OOB rules), so no need to loose all TT in this assault.

well yeah that is cool. USA can now do something in both theaters.