The aberration of the defenseless transport

@Imperious:

And it gives each battleship (the best gunships of all) a real advantage over other units.
Each BB can sink 4 transports before they escape.

This does not solve the main complaint, that groups of AP’s can get wiped out by one unit. I consider 4 AP’s a group.

Scrambling is for defense.
I know. But in this situation, transports are on offence and are making a retreat after 1 round only. And in this case it already follows your rule:  “you need one unit to kill one AP, the excess are displaced in the same SZ and must move out …” 1 SZ away.

Just all naval and air to attack AP, but you need one unit to kill one AP, the excess are displaced in the same SZ and must move out on their turn or face another attack.

I think that when transports are on defense and under fire it must be a little harsher on them than a simple retreat since the basic rules said that, except for subs, no unit on defense can leave the war zone.

I think it is the bottom values: equity between two different situations.

This does not solve the main complaint, that groups of AP’s can get wiped out by one unit. I consider 4 AP’s a group.

Maybe, you say only one round before retreat but allow 2 transports being sunk/certain kinds of units.

Base on history, subs and battleships seems much more able to sink defenseless fleeing transports. Give them 2 kills/unit for only one round.

@Baron:

@Imperious:

And it gives each battleship (the best gunships of all) a real advantage over other units.
Each BB can sink 4 transports before they escape.

This does not solve the main complaint, that groups of AP’s can get wiped out by one unit. I consider 4 AP’s a group.

Scrambling is for defense.
I know. But in this situation, transports are on offence and are making a retreat after 1 round only. And in this case it already follows your rule:  “you need one unit to kill one AP, the excess are displaced in the same SZ and must move out …” 1 SZ away.

Just all naval and air to attack AP, but you need one unit to kill one AP, the excess are displaced in the same SZ and must move out on their turn or face another attack.

I think that when transports are on defense and under fire it must be a little harsher on them than a simple retreat since the basic rules said that, except for subs, no unit on defense can leave the war zone.

I think it is the bottom values: equity between two different situations.

There is maybe a difference when transports retreat.
It needs to be verified, but I think that all scrambled fighters must still roll “4” or less to destroy retreating transports.

It is not an auto-kill situation.

In this manner, we can say that equity is preserved since defenseless transport are in a harsher situation (auto-kill) than retreating transports (all units still had a chance to escape).

I found the link to the thread which discuss on this situation :
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31534.msg1161542#msg1161542

Base on history, subs and battleships seems much more able to sink defenseless fleeing transports. Give them 2 kills/unit for only one round.

Yes but this should be corrected by modifying how they do damage to convoy’s, not killing lone transports.

For example: surface ships could now roll their combat factor=damage to convoy system  ( BB rolling a 4 causes four damage, DD must roll a 2 or less…shows the power differences by other means.  If the BB rolled a 5-6 no damage caused, DD 3+ no damage ( miss)

Your solution doesn’t exclude the other. And I like it, though.

One way vs merchant marine, and one way vs navy transport.

It is two different house rules on two different objects.

knp7765

I am not sure what part of my post you were addressing. It seems like you didn’t address it at all. Again, my point is that Navy’s are to expensive and the transport is the best example of that.

You can go into history and see what percentage of the USA’s production capability on a yearly bases was used to build an Army and a Navy, and understand that for the US to build any kind of reasonable navy, it takes a massive percentage of their resources way beyond what was historical.

The point of the transports is that fact of what they used to represent. They represented escorts, ships (to transport), and landing craft.

Now they only represent the ships and landing craft. So why are they still $7. Almost the cost of a destroyers. That is what is nuts. I don’t personally favor the old rule, because despite the fact they represented escorts as well, visually they looked just like transports and took away from the realism and fun.

So of all the units, the transports are now the most unrealistically expensive, COMPARED to what you get for your money from the other units.

That is my point.

@eddiem4145:

knp7765

I am not sure what part of my post you were addressing. It seems like you didn’t address it at all. Again, my point is that Navy’s are to expensive and the transport is the best example of that.

You can go into history and see what percentage of the USA’s production capability on a yearly bases was used to build an Army and a Navy, and understand that for the US to build any kind of reasonable navy, it takes a massive percentage of their resources way beyond what was historical.

The point of the transports is that fact of what they used to represent. They represented escorts, ships (to transport), and landing craft.

Now they only represent the ships and landing craft. So why are they still $7. Almost the cost of a destroyers. That is what is nuts. I don’t personally favor the old rule, because despite the fact they represented escorts as well, visually they looked just like transports and took away from the realism and fun.

So of all the units, the transports are now the most unrealistically expensive, COMPARED to what you get for your money from the other units.

That is my point.

From the game-play point of view, you seem to forget that you cannot win war with warships!!! :-D
The only useful unit to take land territory is Transport. All other naval units are secondary.
But…
All other units want to kill them too.
So everyone needs to protect them.

I think that you want to lower the TT cost because, in fact, they cost a lot much: it needs escort ships.
At least 1DD/TT= 15 IPCs to travel 2 ground units A2D2=
                      7.5 IPCs  to travel 1 ground unit  A1D1.
Old TT version: A0D1C8 to travel 2 ground units=
                      A0D0.5C4 for 1 ground unit.

So, OOB defenseless TT is around 3 IPCs higher/ ground unit moved than before.

@Uncrustable:

Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs.
-When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

This is another way to play a defenseless transport which should be added in this thread to be complete on the optional rule for this topic.

It makes me think about a similar but still a bit different way to played it also as a defenseless but not hopeless transport:

When there is no more warships/aircrafts to defend transports, then each transport roll and for each “1” rolled in a specific round, one Transport can escape.

Attacker need to hit transport unit according to each attacking factor (ex.: subs @2/ DD @2 / CA @3, etc.) to destroy one transport.

Each round any un-destroyed transport which haven’t been able to escape can still trying to roll “1” to escape.

The combat end when, either all remaining transports have been able to escape, or have been destroyed.

Their will be no more auto-die, no combat unit will be destroy and the naval combat is done according to usual A&A system rule:

a roll is needed to destroy any unit and no unit able to destroy more than 1 unit in the same combat round.

Since I play-tested it,
I say it is much more interesting than auto-die and more balance way to keep some surviving Transports than destroying expensive attacking units (one way or an other).

I should add this detail:
transport can get their evasive roll as soon as their is no more warships or planes on their side at the end of a combat round.

Always attacking units can hit first, and it is only surviving transport which can get an evasive roll.

Which means, for instance, if their is two transports at the beginning of a round and both are hit by attacker’s units then their is no evasive roll.

Here is an other combination of element of Classic transport and the chosen last transport rule:

A- Transport can never control a sea-zone or act like a “blocker”.

B- Transport is A0 D0 M2 C7, 1 hit value, + 1AA@1 non-preemptive per Transport or aircraft each round, whichever the lesser.

C- All attacking units can rolls against them (regular attack value) when there is no more escorting units (sea or air). All extra hits on the last round against escorting units are taken on the transports.

D- This attack against transports only can last up to two rounds for warships. Then remaining Transports are treated as having been able to escape the slaughter fleeing combat in the same sea-zone.
I had called it “scattering”. It is pretty similar to a sub “submerge” ability.

E- After those two rounds, only aircrafts stay in combat, or when any aircrafts launch an attack on isolated APs, it is still a regular attack (StB A4, TcB A3-4, Fg A3) and APs get each round a Defense roll @1 for each AP or aircraft present whichever is less, no preemptive strike.

For example: 1 Fg vs 3 Transports, the Fg gets only one roll @1/round against it.
It is a regular combat and it is over when attacker retreats, is shot down, or all defending TPs units are sunk.

@Der:

Heh heh - Nine games nights since my last post, and our group is still playing using 8 IPC classic transports that have AA40 carry capacity, with no complaints or desire to go back to the defenseless transport. This is the simple solution, and the solution that fits in best with the rest of the rules of the game, without further complicating it.

It’s easy for us in our group to just “imagine” that the transports are more like converted liners (like the Queen Mary) that are accompanied by escort carriers and such which are not represented by pieces in the game.
It is an interesting way of rationalizing it. But I rather prefer to say it have only Destroyer escorts with them. They have some anti-aircraft capacity and anti-sub also. And once the unit is sunk there is no remain. (Contrary to Fgs and TcBs which can land elsewhere.)
I say just plug in the Classic transports again! Enjoy a few less arbitrary rules and have fun.

Clearly simpler, but does it have any impact on the overall balance of the game (G40 or 1942.2?)?
Does the bid are lower?
Does Axis wins at the same rate?
Is it better balance after all?

You should ask Triple A designer to make this classic transport an available option at the start of the game for G40, 1942.2 and 1941.
Probably not so difficult since they have the old program lines.

@Der:

We play a hybrid of AA1942 and AA50th on a custom map, so I can’t speak for any other versions. I’d just say try it out!

That’s too bad…
10 games and more was a good play-testing experience.

@Spendo02:

The hybrid approach of 8 IPC transports, defending @1 but have to be taken last as casualties is probably my preferred approach.

I don’t care much for defenseless units. Particularly when a Bomber from Hawaii can swoop into Japan’s SZ and blow up 3 TT and land in Mongolia with no risk of dying. Granted Scrambles can defend that but the point is still the same.

I think it is one of the biggest issues with Japan taking all those unprotected US islands, because it is not worth the investment to take a non-value island when you have to divert a fleet to defend from the US arbitrarily sending aircraft to swoop out and clear all those TT with zero chance of escape or defense.

@Uncrustable:

I would support transports costing 8 IPC and defending at a one.

However i dont think they should be able to be taken as casualties before surface warships/planes/ or subs.

So best of both worlds ;)

The hybrid way is probably the simplest way of doing thing.

But I still think that a stack of transports should not be that dangerous for the surviving warships of a big naval fight.

As I revised and reread many ideas, I realized this one possible HR wasn’t formulated:

AP A0 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit,* taken last, * each round defend @1 against up to 1 enemy’s attacking unit or 1 per defending transport, whichever the lesser.
Remaining transports or transports only group can still be ignored by attacking Naval group or amphibious assault group (as G40 OOB).

• Transport are still taken last and cannot roll defense until all escorting warships are destroyed.
  When some transports are taken as casualties because of an overkill of escorting warships,
  then this sunken transport(s) can roll their defense @1.

• Treat defensive roll as the way AA gun is done but, instead of up to 3 planes, it is only up to 1 unit and it is not restricted to aircraft but applied to any attacking unit, no restriction.

Example 1:
3 damaged IJN Battleships are attacking 12 USA transports.
Battleships rolls 3@4 and the transports only rolls 3@1.

Example 2:
3 damaged IJN Battleships are attacking 2 USA transports.
Battleships rolls 3@4 and the transports only rolls 2@1.

I think it is applying only actual A&A game mechanics and it makes more fun because their is no predictable results: transport get a minimal defensive roll but survival is now possible for transport units.

And by keeping the taken last, transports cannot be used as fodder for costlier warships.

What do you think of this, now?

I just visualized there wasn’t only transports ships in this unit but a few escorting vessels with them, not much but enough to provide a limited defense against all kinds of attack (air, sea, subs).

It’s easy for us in our group to just “imagine” that the transports are more like converted liners (like the Queen Mary) that are accompanied by escort carriers and such which are not represented by pieces in the game.

---

It is an interesting way of rationalizing it. But I rather prefer to say it have only Destroyer Escorts (DE) with them. They have some anti-aircraft capacity and anti-sub also. And once the unit is sunk there is no remain. (Contrary to Fgs and TcBs which can land elsewhere.)

I remain interested in this subject. I still find defenseless transports problematic.

Most of my gameplay has been restricted to AA50 and 1942.2 (and some bouts of the starter 1941 to see if it can be improved by the edition of the artillery etc.) Global not so much, as I find it arduous and time intensive in the set up, and implements too many nuanced rules for my tastes, and just doesn’t provide me with enough pay off for all the additional time it takes to get a game started. So most of what I have seen from the defenseless transport is coming form the AA50 and current small to mid range boards.

I still find defenseless transports working against the Allies generally, but also against amphibious capacity builds vs air (to destroy that capacity) in general, and this effect exists for pretty much all player nations. Makes transport capacity more expensive and longer to deploy in the movement of troops. So in addition to the increased cost (per land unit transported) the time delay is also major.

I like the idea of fixing the transport unit somehow, but only if the unit and its rules can still be described in a sentence, maybe two at most. I worry about further complicating this aspect of the game, since it is so essential to the endgame and broader strategy. The ideal for me would be a bit more production and a bit less exclusive dependence on the transport, (through more VCs with starting factories for example, or something similar), but if so much of the game has to hinge on fleets, covering transports, defending against air, then more money should be in play for the nations that have to make near exclusive use of them. Or more total starting units to compensate for the transport purchases that have to be made. Or the transport needs to be cheaper per land unit transported, or put up a defense of some sort.

I tried playing all these games with transports at 8 (revised rules), and then at 10, 12 (With aa fire), and then went back to 7 defenseless just for simplicity and to keep things as OOB as possible while trying to isolate other dynamics relating to overall production, ipcs, and start position on those boards.

Instead of adjustments to the transport rules, I would have favored an adjustment to cost (retaining the old abilities), if the problem in Revised was fodder spamming, but since that went out the door with AA50, I think the problem with the current defenseless transport is an imbalance in starting unit set up and income distribution on these boards. If defenseless, the main players that need them to wage war (USA and UK) should be compensated when designing the starting balance, so that the large cost they have to incur building up defensive fleets is mitigated somewhat. That doesn’t really happen in aa50, or 1942.2, where the income parity of USA and UK doesn’t really match the requirement of their gameplay, whereas Japan (which can purchase production and cover transports more easily) has a much easier go of things. It seems strange how much harder it is for USA and UK to project power and push land units towards the center than it is for Japan. And this is directly a result of the transport rules in those games.

Or at least that has been my feeling

Well it’s not for everyone but I’ve been considering using D12 dice along with D6 dice for “special” rolls. I already know that when you use D12 dice you don’t need D6 dice but I still do.

Anyways, one could allow same stats and rules from G40 for transports but allow 1D12@1 for transports without breaking the game. It’s only .5 PIP at OOB odds.

@Black_Elk:

I remain interested in this subject. I still find defenseless transports problematic.

Most of my gameplay has been restricted to AA50 and 1942.2 (and some bouts of the starter 1941 to see if it can be improved by the edition of the artillery etc.) Global not so much, as I find it arduous and time intensive in the set up, and implements too many nuanced rules for my tastes, and just doesn’t provide me with enough pay off for all the additional time it takes to get a game started. So most of what I have seen from the defenseless transport is coming form the AA50 and current small to mid range boards.

I still find defenseless transports working against the Allies generally, but also against amphibious capacity builds vs air (to destroy that capacity) in general, and this effect exists for pretty much all player nations. Makes transport capacity more expensive and longer to deploy in the movement of troops. So in addition to the increased cost (per land unit transported) the time delay is also major. My thoughts exactly.

I like the idea of fixing the transport unit somehow, but only if the unit and its rules can still be described in a sentence, maybe two at most. I worry about further complicating this aspect of the game, since it is so essential to the endgame and broader strategy. The ideal for me would be a bit more production and a bit less exclusive dependence on the transport, (through more VCs with starting factories for example, or something similar), but if so much of the game has to hinge on fleets, covering transports, defending against air, then more money should be in play for the nations that have to make near exclusive use of them. Or more total starting units to compensate for the transport purchases that have to be made. Or the transport needs to be cheaper per land unit transported, or put up a defense of some sort. I believe a simple ruling where transports must be taken last and leaving the old defense score would have been fine.

I tried playing all these games with transports at 8 (revised rules), and then at 10, 12 (With aa fire), and then went back to 7 defenseless just for simplicity and to keep things as OOB as possible while trying to isolate other dynamics relating to overall production, ipcs, and start position on those boards. Â

Instead of adjustments to the transport rules, I would have favored an adjustment to cost (retaining the old abilities), if the problem in Revised was fodder spamming, but since that went out the door with AA50, I think the problem with the current defenseless transport is an imbalance in starting unit set up and income distribution on these boards. If defenseless, the main players that need them to wage war (USA and UK) should be compensated when designing the starting balance, so that the large cost they have to incur building up defensive fleets is mitigated somewhat. That doesn’t really happen in aa50, or 1942.2, where the income parity of USA and UK doesn’t really match the requirement of their gameplay, whereas Japan (which can purchase production and cover transports more easily) has a much easier go of things. It seems strange how much harder it is for USA and UK to project power and push land units towards the center than it is for Japan. And this is directly a result of the transport rules in those games.

Or at least that has been my feeling

Well it’s just a fact that by and large people like defenseless transports. When I get a group together we vote on whether or not to have a defense roll sometimes we do, and sometimes we don’t, otherwise all OOB rules apply to transports. Any way you slice it, transports cost a lot to defend. May be I suck, but even with a defense I prefer destroyers as fodder, because generally If I buy a transport, it has something on it.

As for spamming in Revised, I wonder how that would have played out differently if the DD would have been at it’s current cost?

It’s rare for me to get a FTF game anyway so HRs and Mulligans happen frequently. To the more serious player and those on tripleA and GTO I suppose their view is much different than mine.

@Black_Elk:

I remain interested in this subject. I still find defenseless transports problematic.

Most of my gameplay has been restricted to AA50 and 1942.2 (and some bouts of the starter 1941 to see if it can be improved by the edition of the artillery etc.) Global not so much, as I find it arduous and time intensive in the set up, and implements too many nuanced rules for my tastes, and just doesn’t provide me with enough pay off for all the additional time it takes to get a game started. So most of what I have seen from the defenseless transport is coming form the AA50 and current small to mid range boards.

I still find defenseless transports working against the Allies generally, but also against amphibious capacity builds vs air (to destroy that capacity) in general, and this effect exists for pretty much all player nations. Makes transport capacity more expensive and longer to deploy in the movement of troops. So in addition to the increased cost (per land unit transported) the time delay is also major.

I like the idea of fixing the transport unit somehow, but only if the unit and its rules can still be described in a sentence, maybe two at most. I worry about further complicating this aspect of the game, since it is so essential to the endgame and broader strategy. The ideal for me would be a bit more production and a bit less exclusive dependence on the transport, (through more VCs with starting factories for example, or something similar), but if so much of the game has to hinge on fleets, covering transports, defending against air, then more money should be in play for the nations that have to make near exclusive use of them. Or more total starting units to compensate for the transport purchases that have to be made. Or the transport needs to be cheaper per land unit transported, or put up a defense of some sort.

I agree with many points of your diagnosis (bolded).

Here is a kind of “official transcript” based on 1942.2 FAQ on AAA you can get for my taken last, 1 hit, defending transport @1 almost like AA gun:

Each defending transport unit in the sea zone may fire up to 1 shot, but each attacking unit may be fired upon only once. In other words, the total number of defense dice rolled is either the number of transport units, or the number of attacking units, whichever is the lesser.

For example, 3 fighters attacking a sea zone containing only 5 transports units would have 3 shots fired against them while those same 3 fighters would have only 2 shots fired against them if there were only 2 defending transport units.

Or based upon 1942.2 rule on AAA unit:

Defending transport: Defending transport units can fire only at an attacking unit when there is no other escorting warships or when a defending transport has been taken as a casualty (as a result of having more casualties than defending warships remaining). In the last case, only the transports being taken as casualties can defend @1. Every round, each defending transport units in the sea zone may fire up to one time, but only once per attacking unit. In other words, the total number of transport defense dice rolled is the number of transport units, or the number of attacking units, whichever is the lesser. Once the number of transport defense dice is determined, the dice are rolled. For each “1” rolled, the attacker chooses one unit as a casualty.

About the 1-2 sentence rule, I’m sure you are just kidding because transport and subs have the whole p. 31 and 30 for them in 1942.2 Rulebook.

Here is an example of 3 aspects of the transport rule formulation (and for further references):

Doesn’t Block Enemy Movement: Any sea zone that contains only enemy transports doesn’t stop the movement of a sea unit. Air or sea units (other than transports) ending their combat movement in a sea zone containing only enemy transports automatically destroy those transports (unless they are ignoring them to support an amphibious assault instead). This counts as a sea combat for those sea units. Sea units can also end their noncombat movement in a sea zone containing only enemy transports.

Chosen Last: Transports can only be chosen as a casualty if there are no other eligible units. Normally this will occur when only transports are left, but it can also occur under other circumstances.
For example, fighters attacking transports and submarines will hit the transports because they cannot hit the submarines without a friendly destroyer present.

And here is the most controversial aspect:

No Combat Value: Even though a transport can attack or defend, either alone or with other units, it has a combat value of 0. This means that a transport cannot fire in the attacking units’ or the defending units’ fire steps. Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines. This lack of combat capability also allows enemy ships to ignore the presence of transports.

@toblerone77:

Well it’s not for everyone but I’ve been considering using D12 dice along with D6 dice for “special” rolls. I already know that when you use D12 dice you don’t need D6 dice but I still do.

Anyways, one could allow same stats and rules from G40 for transports but allow 1D12@1 for transports without breaking the game. It’s only .5 PIP at OOB odds.

If I was playing with D12 dice, that would be my simple choice for giving a hit and a combat value to transport.