The aberration of the defenseless transport

@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.

Since the beginning a lot of creative suggestions have been made.
I feel it is the time to summarize all of these. The present post regroup all Pro-Classics, the next one shows the numerous possibility (and creativity of everyone) for a better Transport and less defenseless based on the new OOB rules.

I will try to summarize the Pro-classic transport (TTc) options presented in this tread.
(I bold the differences.)

Optional rule for Transport develop upon this first base rule:
Defender choosing casuality.

TTc1 (Classic/Com. Jen./Der Kuenstler) @1 C8-9-10, 1 hit value each. No escape.

TTc2 Baron M/Toblerone77 @1 C9-10 (as 1 upgraded unit near IC, NB made of OOB Global TT@0 C7+Escort Frigates/Corvettes C2/3 Coupled EF/ ECorvette to transport A0D+1 at time of purchase.) 1 hit value each.  No escape. Both TT C7 & TT+EF/EC C9-10 can be built.

TTc3 Uncrustable @0 C7 no hit value for a lone TT, 2 TTs 1@1, 1 hit value for 2 TTs. No escape. Last single TT: autokill.

TTc4 Baron M @0 C7, 1 hit value for single TT and 2-3 TTs 1@1, 4-5 TTs 2@1, 2 hits value (2 groups: 2TTs, 1@1/2-3TTs, 1@1). No escape.

TTc5 Spendo02 @1 C7 as a group of 1 or more TTs, 1 hit value as a group. No escape.

I think I put them in decreasing order of impact, the first will have much more and the fifth will be the nearest from the OOB 1940 Global Transport.

I cannot hide I have a taste for TTc3&4 because of their middle position (which take account of proportionnality vs TTc5 and keeping the initial balance of OOB 1940 vs TTc1-2 but still trying to come back to the classic rules for TT).

Maybe you have another evaluation about those five?

If you have to try one of those, what will be your expectations?

I will try to summarize the options for the New or No casuality transport (TTn) presented in this tread.

TTn0 (OOB 1940) @0 C7, no hit value.
Optional rule for Transport develop upon this first base rule:
Transports are chosen last.

These options are ordered upon the nearest from TTn0 (100% casualities & no defense, no hit value) to the farthest (1 regular attack/unit @1 to @4 & TT Def@1 vs specific unit, 1 hit value/TT).

TTn0.5 Krieghund @0 C7, 1 hit value. Transport unit can be chosen as casualty when TPs number is above number of combat units.

TTn1 Knp7765/BJCard/KimRYoung/Gekkepop @0, no hit value but max: 3, 2 or 1 TT per attacking unit is destroyed. (All auto-kills.) Can escape.

TTn2 Baron [Cow] A0D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill. Variation: Each attacker’s unit destroy 1TT instead of rolling D, if TTs hit all of them.

TTn3 Cow A1D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive on defense, if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill. Historical background: Attack Cargo Ships, or AKA (KimRYoung)

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.

TTn6 KimRYoung/Toblerone77 @0, 1 hit value each, no defense. Can escape.

TTn7 Spendo02 1@1 as a group of 1+, 1 hit value as a group. No escape.

TTn8 Baron Mun 1@1 as a group of 2+, 1 hit value each. 1 TT alone is @0. No escape.

TTn9 Spendo02 1@1 as a group of 1+, 1 hit value each. No escape.

TTn10 Elevenjerk 1@1 as a group of 1+, 1 hit value each. Must flee after 1st rnd.

TTn11 Uncrustable @1 for 2 TTs, 1 hit value for 2 TTs. Last single TT: autokill, no hit value. No escape.

TTn12 Baron Mun @1 for 2 TTs, 1 hit value each. 1 TT alone is @0. Attacker: 2D or 3D/ attacking unit. No auto-kill: can escape.

TTn13 Baron Mun @0, 1 hit value each. Low defense fire: each TT is @1D but 2 hits @“1” to kill 1 attacking unit. No auto-kill: can escape.

TTn14 (Philip Schwartzer & Gamers Paradise) @0, 1 hit value, @1/TT against aircrafts only. No escape against aircrafts until downed, or escape if only warships are present. Attacker: 2D/ attacking units. No auto-kill.

TTn15 Uncrustable/Spendo02/Toblerone77/Gargantua @1, 1 hit value each, cost 8. No escape. Classic TT taken last.

TTn16 Cow @1, 1 hit value each, cost 7. Can escape… (…instead of rolling D, Gargantua 7+1 IPCs).

TTn17 Uncrustable @1, 1 hit value each, against Aircrafts and Destroyers. Auto-kill vs other warships. No escape.

When escape is possible, it is either:
Escape 1: take the form of “Scattering” in the same sea-zone.
Escape 2: take the form of “Fleeing” in the next sea-zone (if not ennemy’s control).

I tried to be genuine but if you see any mistake:
Send a message or simply write a post (it could be erase after correction made.)

I can let you a question for the sake of the discussion:

According to you, which TTn seems able to be a somewhat less defenseless TT and to keep better the balance, no matter how imbalance are the initial settings?

Which one will increase risk, decision making, fun without affecting other important aspect of the game?

@Der:

Global Transport - All battles are resolved by picking up the dead transports and dropping them back in your tray. Results are pre-decided and a bore.

@Baron:

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.

Not really, as I favor keeping the extra transport capacity of the Global unit. Plus the classic unit defending @1 will mean it will have to be replaced less often. So the extra cost should be negligible.

Very funny analogy. :-D
Did you played Global once both Classic and Chosen last? I’m curious.
Does this really have no impact on overall game (dis-)balance [some would say] when TT are at 8 IPCs?
The same strategic moves even if battle outcomes vary and the number of TTs available is different?
Will it be different?
TT won’t be used in large masse as naval cannon fodder, just to get sea domination?

Global Transport - All battles are resolved by picking up the dead transports and dropping them back in your tray. Results are pre-decided and a bore.

Predictable results is what we want disappear: many will agree on this.

However, their is two means to escape from defenseless transport.

After that, even a no more defenseless transport didn’t solve the other issue.

If you dont want your transports being ‘swept off the board and returned to their tray’…
LEARN TO COUNT and BUILD A FLEET TO ESCORT THEM.
If they are ESCORTED and your opponent attacks them, he is taking a “risk” by battling with the escorts to get to the transports.
If you choose not to escort them, YOU are taking a “risk” by leaving them defenseless.
It ADDS to the game it doesnt take anything away from it.

I absolutely hated the old transports, and was so relieved when Larry changed them to a defenseless unit.
Naval battles were rare and dull transport fodder trade offs before the change.

@Uncrustable:

If you dont want your transports being ‘swept off the board and returned to their tray’…
LEARN TO COUNT and BUILD A FLEET TO ESCORT THEM.
If they are ESCORTED and your opponent attacks them, he is taking a “risk” by battling with the escorts to get to the transports.
If you choose not to escort them, YOU are taking a “risk” by leaving them defenseless.
It ADDS to the game it doesnt take anything away from it.

I absolutely hated the old transports, and was so relieved when Larry changed them to a defenseless unit.
Naval battles were rare and dull transport fodder trade offs before the change.

1000x this