The aberration of the defenseless transport

@Uncrustable:

I would argue that a bomber would have time to get airborne, however at a severely reduced capacity.

A bomber is a combat unit, a transport is not a combat unit (it is simply there to TRANSPORT). Please stop comparing apples to oranges to prove points.

I for one, (don’t care if i’m the only one) hated classic transport rules. The naval system was stale and pungent. Naval buys (other than transports) were very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs. How stupid.

The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

I would be happy to add a ‘frigate’ unit to the game that cost 4 IPCs A/D at 1/1, movement of 1 (+1 movement when paired with transports 1:1). Would make a great transport escort. But it still would be a COMBAT unit transporting a NONcombat unit.

Do you disagree with the principles: defender chooses casualities or, more generally, each player picks is own casualities?
The Transport are taken last rule broke this principle.

I think that is the consequence of the first principle in the Naval battles with TT that most people hate.

For my part, I don’t like either that Warships always protect transport. Historically, I’m sure that on some occasions some TTs were destroyed first. For instance, if the battle of Leyte gulf was made according to Japanese, they would have lured warships away and destroy TTs before retreating. They would have keep their warships for later battles. The plan was to gain time and destroying invasive capacity of the attacker. For them, it was the best way to delay USA.

To keep the core principles of A&A system, we need to find incentive in which defender will find a bit foolish to pick TT before warships. So anybody can hit first TTs then warships but doesn’t see great tactical advantage in it.
You already get into it when you suggested: need 2 TTs to get 1 unit able to @1 and take 1 hit.

Now I have another incentive:
When TT are mixed with warships they don’t get any @1.
It is only when their is no more warship with them that each unit can get 1@1 on defense.
But in any situation a TT worth 1 casualities.
So in a this way any defender will lose some chances to make more hit by picking them first over warships.
Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to six hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2.
Or after 2 hits, can now got 6TTs def@1 and 6 hits.

You see now that it can simulate the warships screening even under the defender choose casualities.

Of course, we can combine with your idea to get it tacticaly less interresting:
1 TT is @0 and Auto-kill. 2TTs is 1@1 and worth 1 hit. But when in any warships group they loose the @1.
However, defender can still decide to loose first TTs then loose warships.
And, according to my addition, if defender has only 3TTs amongst warship and prefer to pick TTs as casuality, he must destroy all the three TTs in 1 shot (a 21 IPCs hit for the attacker!) It hurts just to soak 1 hit!
But it is still defender’s choice.

Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to 3 hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2 but every hit cost him 14 IPCs vs 8 IPCs for 1 DDs.
Or after 2 hits, can still have 6TTs for 3def@1 and 3 hits.

All in all, the real ennemy of Defenseless TT his :

very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs.

I’m not sure if someone said this, through the flurry of posts here on this thread, but I say give transports a plus one to defense when accompanied by a destroyer not unlike any of the other combined arms rules.

For the record I’m in favor of the old rules or DK’s original proposal. However if there’s ever going to be a change from the top I say give transports a 1:1 combined arms defense with destroyers.

M2 A0 D0/1* C7     *When paired (1:1 ratio) with destroyer. Transport still must be chosen last in the order of battle.

The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

I disagree. There are games I really do not feel like doing boats n oceans and rather invade some capital… except this is global… so that does not happen.

@Uncrustable:

I would argue that a bomber would have time to get airborne, however at a severely reduced capacity.

A bomber is a combat unit, a transport is not a combat unit (it is simply there to TRANSPORT). Please stop comparing apples to oranges to prove points.

I for one, (don’t care if i’m the only one) hated classic transport rules. The naval system was stale and pungent. Naval buys (other than transports) were very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs. How stupid.

The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

I would be happy to add a ‘frigate’ unit to the game that cost 4 IPCs A/D at 1/1, movement of 1 (+1 movement when paired with transports 1:1). Would make a great transport escort. But it still would be a COMBAT unit transporting a NONcombat unit.

Many discuss the historical plausibility of TT Def@1 or not. And the nature of 1 unit.
I think their is in either way acceptable rationalization. The main focus should be on game mechanism and rules if we want to find out a better rules with TT with the less drawback.

Der Kunstler option, is like making wishfull thinking when he hopes than in a tactical calculation (and trying to survive against an overwhelming attackers) someone would prefer to loose a Fg@4 at 10 IPCs before loosing 10 IPCs TTs@1 just to not recreat transport screening battle. Impossible.

Example: 1CV 2Fgs 1DDs and 6TTs vs 7 Subs
In this case, even the DD (8 IPCs) will be preserve to let the Fgs destroying Subs.

In the Taken last, it take only 3 hits from the Subs to destroy all the defender’s fleet.

With DK’s, it requires 9 hits and 6 will be defending @1!
First TTs will be sink, then either DD or CV depending on the number of surviving Subs.

With this example, do you see that the transport screening still effective and the impact on naval battle and (the impact on Germany, not worth the mention).

That’s why other option for “Defender choose casualities” must be find out and promote.

Even my last post solution, isn’t that good but has some advantages.

The defender will probably still use TTs has screen.
However, the subs won’t be attacked by numerous @1 defense unless the attacker decides to sink first DD and CV, then the 6 TT@1 will be against the surviving Subs.
But, I think the best tactical option will be to keep DDs because of the 2Fg@4 and soak hits with TTs then CV.

In the 2 TTs for 1@1 and 1 hit, you see that there is only 3 hits to soak by TTs and it is much less unbalancing against Subs (and nearer the TTn0 version of Taken last.)

I’m still thinking under the assumption that we are making adjustment to the actual game, not creating a new one like changing placement of starting units for an other historical period (ex.:1939). Because, in this case, DK’s option is viable for the lover of Classics.

For me, I want the best of both world:
No Warships always protect TTs neither It is almost always preferable to screen my Warships with TTs.
I will always prefer a defender choose casualities over the Taken last rule.
But the game was balance under this last rule and must still be taken in account.

@Der:

Pretty good, Krieghund, except you won’t please all those shouting “warships are there to protect transports, not the other way around!” The transports you take early are essentially protecting the warships, aren’t they?  Â

No, they are failing to be protected by the inadequate number of warships available for that purpose.

@Krieghund:

@Der:

Pretty good, Krieghund, except you won’t please all those shouting “warships are there to protect transports, not the other way around!” The transports you take early are essentially protecting the warships, aren’t they?�  �

No, they are failing to be protected by the inadequate number of warships available for that purpose.

So why not let warships protect transports one a 1:1 bases, any transports not protected do not participate in the battle, however all transports that are protected both roll a defense dice and can be taken as casualties as the defender sees fit.

EX: Germany attacks  a SZ containing both UK warships and transports (1 BB 1 CV 1 DD 1 Fighter and 5 transports) with 7 submarines and a CA.
Germany rolls 6 hits, UK can decide to take up to 4 of those hits on transports or any combination. Once casualties are chosen UK rolls for its warships and the 3 protected transports.
Unprotected transports are temporarily removed from the board untill the battle has concluded. If Germany is victorious (that is all 3 warships AND all 3 transports are sunk with atleast 1 German unit remaining) The unprotected transports are removed permanently.
If UK wins the battle (All German attackers were sunk OR Germany retreated from the battle, or submerged) the unprotected transports are then placed BACK on the board, and are not lost.

So this follows along with Kreigs idea but gives SOME transports classic dice rolls and casualty choices.
So on a 1:1 bases (THIS INCLUDES ALL FREINDLY UNITS THAT WOULD DEFEND THE SEA ZONE, scrambled planes, planes on CVs count) All protected transports act as classic transports while all unprotected transports act as defensless transports under the post classic rule.

This would be a ‘combined arms’ ability

ah screw it just give usa more starting inf.

@Baron:

Many discuss the historical plausibility of TT Def@1 or not. And the nature of 1 unit.
I think their is in either way acceptable rationalization. The main focus should be on game mechanism and rules if we want to find out a better rules with TT with the less drawback.

Der Kunstler option, is like making wishful thinking when he hopes than in a tactical calculation (and trying to survive against an overwhelming attackers) someone would prefer to loose a Fg@4 at 10 IPCs before loosing 10 IPCs TTs@1 just to not recreate transport screening battle. Impossible.

The defender will probably still use TTs has screen.

In the 2 TTs for 1@1 and 1 hit, you see that there is only 3 hits to soak by TTs and it is much less unbalancing against Subs (and nearer the TTn0 version of Taken last.)

I’m still thinking under the assumption that we are making adjustment to the actual game, not creating a new one like changing placement of starting units for an other historical period (ex.:1939). Because, in this case, DK’s option is viable for the lover of Classics.

For me, I want the best of both world:
No Warships always protect TTs neither It is almost always preferable to screen my Warships with TTs.
I will always prefer a defender choose casualities over the Taken last rule.
But the game was balance under this last rule and must still be taken in account.

@Baron:

Do you disagree with the principles: defender chooses casualties or, more generally, each player picks is own casualties?
The Transport are taken last rule broke this principle.

I think that is the consequence of the first principle in the Naval battles with TT that most people hate.

For my part, I don’t like either that Warships always protect transport. Historically, I’m sure that on some occasions some TTs were destroyed first. For instance, if the battle of Leyte gulf was made according to Japanese, they would have lured warships away and destroy TTs before retreating. They would have keep their warships for later battles. The plan was to gain time and destroying invasive capacity of the attacker. For them, it was the best way to delay USA.

To keep the core principles of A&A system, we need to find incentive in which defender will find a bit foolish to pick TT before warships. So anybody can hit first TTs then warships but doesn’t see great tactical advantage in it.
You already get into it when you suggested: need 2 TTs to get 1 unit able to @1 and take 1 hit.

Now I have another incentive:
When TT are mixed with warships they don’t get any @1.
It is only when their is no more warship with them that each unit can get 1@1 on defense.
But in any situation a TT worth 1 casualties.
So in a this way any defender will lose some chances to make more hit by picking them first over warships.
Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to six hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2.
Or after 2 hits, can now got 6TTs def@1 and 6 hits.

You see now that it can simulate the warships screening even under the defender choose casualties.

Of course, we can combine with your idea to get it tactically less interesting:
1 TT is @0 and Auto-kill. 2TTs is 1@1 and worth 1 hit. But when in any warships group they loose the @1.
However, defender can still decide to loose first TTs then loose warships.
And, according to my addition, if defender has only 3TTs amongst warship and prefer to pick TTs as casualty, he must destroy all the three TTs in 1 shot (a 21 IPCs hit for the attacker!) It hurts just to soak 1 hit!
But it is still defender’s choice.

Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to 3 hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2 but every hit cost him 14 IPCs vs 8 IPCs for 1 DDs.
Or after 2 hits, can still have 6TTs for 3def@1 and 3 hits.

All in all, the real ennemy of Defenseless TT his :

very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs.

Under the defender choose his casualties, these are rules in which I create the most incentive to keep transport as last casualties without using an automatic obligation rule like “TT are taken last”.
I also try to apply only actual game mechanics develop for different units to create this specific mechanic for TTs.
Subs as special ability, TTs have similar ones.

First, TT are not warship and are less armoured and slower than any units able to combat in a sea-zone,
1 single hit from a combat unit destroy 2 transport units. This imply that to soak 1 hit, you must have 2 TTs.
If 1 TT is choose as casualty and there is also a combat unit present, then you must also destroy this combat unit.

2- All TTs defend @1 against any unit, but they cannot defend (@1) as long as their is 1 warship unit defending them in the sea-zone.

3- When TTs are directly attack by any combat unit, this attack is a treated as a First strike, it is preemptive so if a hit is score, 2 TTs are sunk and unable to use their defense @1.

4- TTs can escape (but it is not mandatory), like a submerge ability, by “Scattering” in the same sea-zone.
It is possible under 3 conditions:
a) there is no combat unit able to defend them (like only subs against TTs and Fgs)
b) they endure at least 1 round of enemy’s direct fire on them.
c) there is no aircraft still attacking TTs, aircraft blocks TTs escape (like DDs blocking submerge for Subs).

Well, that’s it. Defender can still now decides to pick transports as first casualties.
But, if their is only one TT, it is a tactical mistake, because loosing 1 TT and 1 combat unit instead of only 1 combat unit, the choice is obvious.

If their is 2 or more TTs, it can be interesting to pick two TTs (but the cost is higher: 2 TTsx7= 14 IPCs) to prevent one warship with higher defense to sink. But it also means that he loose 2 Def@1.

And last, because of the escape possibility, he must evaluate where are is better chance of survival: for the warships or his group of transports submitting to only one round of fire from the surviving attacker’s unit ?

Do you see now, there is much more tactical decision to make for the defender (TT are cannon fodder or they should be preserve at all cost by combat units),
there is no more rules like automatic destruction of defenseless transport and “Taken last rules”.

Example: 7 subs against 1DD 2Fg 1CV 6 TTs.

Under Taken last, it requires 3 hits from sub to destroy the entire fleet.
Now it can take 3 hit soaked by (3 pairs of) TTs + 3 hits to destroy the entire fleet.

It can also be 3 hits, then giving 6 TTs 6@1(or less depending on the how many subs got a hit) against surviving Subs then possible escape.

In the special case, when more hits are taken than warships can take, then the surviving TTs are allowed to fire back, counting it as in the same round.

It is a balance and half-way solution between the Classic, which give to much units for the defender to serve as cannon fodder and change the balance between units (specialy against subs) and the New TT rule which imply automatic and boring destruction of many TTs even if there is only one attacking survivor to destroy them all.

I hope you will take the time to think about it…

I would hate to imagine a Germany that bought 10 transports and did Sealion and now you’re facing a fleet of transports that are all rolling on defense.  :roll:

@zanetheinsane:

I would hate to imagine a Germany that bought 10 transports and did Sealion and now you’re facing a fleet of transports that are all rolling on defense. :roll:

That’s mean 5 hit to sink them all and you got all preemptive strike.
5 Fgts can probably do the job…

Very low luck:
R1) 5Fg@3= 15, 2 hits + 3/6         10TTs-4= 6TTs@1= 1 hit
R2) 4Fg@3= 12, 2 hits                    6TTs-4= 2TTs@1= 2/6
R3) 4Fg@3= 12, 2 hits                2TTs-4= 0TTs@1=0
Lost: 10 IPCs                             70 IPCs

Actually, as you can see 4Fgts or even 3Fgts can be OK.

@Uncrustable:

@Krieghund:

@Der:

Pretty good, Krieghund, except you won’t please all those shouting “warships are there to protect transports, not the other way around!” The transports you take early are essentially protecting the warships, aren’t they?�  �

No, they are failing to be protected by the inadequate number of warships available for that purpose.

So why not let warships protect transports one a 1:1 bases, any transports not protected do not participate in the battle, however all transports that are protected both roll a defense dice and can be taken as casualties as the defender sees fit.

EX: Germany attacks  a SZ containing both UK warships and transports (1 BB 1 CV 1 DD 1 Fighter and 5 transports) with 7 submarines and a CA.
Germany rolls 6 hits, UK can decide to take up to 4 of those hits on transports or any combination. Once casualties are chosen UK rolls for its warships and the 3 protected transports.
Unprotected transports are temporarily removed from the board untill the battle has concluded. If Germany is victorious (that is all 3 warships AND all 3 transports are sunk with atleast 1 German unit remaining) The unprotected transports are removed permanently.
If UK wins the battle (All German attackers were sunk OR Germany retreated from the battle, or submerged) the unprotected transports are then placed BACK on the board, and are not lost.

So this follows along with Kreigs idea but gives SOME transports classic dice rolls and casualty choices.
So on a 1:1 bases (THIS INCLUDES ALL FREINDLY UNITS THAT WOULD DEFEND THE SEA ZONE, scrambled planes, planes on CVs count) All protected transports act as classic transports while all unprotected transports act as defensless transports under the post classic rule.

This would be a ‘combined arms’ ability

@ Uncrustable
You probably mean why not the other option from Krieghund:
10 TTs alone are worthless and auto-kill.

Is it?

@Baron:

@ Uncrustable
You probably mean why not the other option from Krieghund:
10 TTs alone are worthless and auto-kill.

Is it?

Any transports that are escorted (planes from CVs and scramble count) on a 1:1 ratio act under the classic transport rule.
Any unescorted transports would not participate in the battle.
Transports in a sz with NO escorts present (including scamlbled fighters) would auto die if attacked

@Uncrustable:

This would be a ‘combined arms’ ability

Maybe you mean, look I have middle-way too?

It’s true that you give both world.
Your option is less complex than Krieghund because you fix at the start of the battle which transport can be a hit and defend @1.

There is still auto-kill and defenseless transport but at a much lesser rate, and even no at all if combat units are in much higher number than TT.

However, I think you get much more transport screening and, because of this, it gives much power to warships fleet.

Example: 7 subs vs 1DD 1 CV 2 Fg and 6 TTs
Instead of only 3 hits to destroy everything (TTnew, OOB1940),
it needs: 3 + 4 hits = 7 hits and gain 4 TTs defending @1.

Vs only 3 hits + 3 hits (3TTs@0) or two different battles with 6TTs@1 but can only take 3 hits.
However, they may even escape…
And the preemptive destruction rate (1 hit: 2 TTs) is much better in favor of the attacker.

So, your option is nearer TTclassic vs mine is nearer TTnew,
because attacker as much firepower vs TT and the defender are a bit weaker.
That’s why I think it is less unbalancing.
But I see that yours, is a simple system.

Possible adjustment to your option: only warships can protect TT and give them 1@1.

@Uncrustable:

Any transports that are escorted (planes from CVs and scramble count) on a 1:1 ratio act under the classic transport rule.
Any unescorted transports would not participate in the battle.
Transports in a sz with NO escorts present (including scamlbled fighters) would auto die if attacked

This is very simple and i think that planes should be able to defend transports as well as ships. Plus it makes it easier to understand and implement.

EX: A german force attacks a UK force in a SZ. The SZ contains 9 transports; 1 sub; 1 cruiser; 1 carrier; 1 fighter on the carrier and 2 fighters from an adjacent airbase that UK decides to scramble into the SZ.
In this scenario 6 transports along with the warships and planes would participate in the defense of the seazone. There are no special transports rules within the battle (transports defend at 1 and no restrictions on order of loss). However there would be 3 transports that would not participate.
Scenario A: German wins with 1 attacking unit left. The 3 remaining UK transports are lost.
________B: UK wins (with or without units left, Germany either lost everything or retreated) the 3 UK transports would remain

If Germany were to attack a SZ with 9 transports and 1 destroyer then only one transport would participate and the remaining 8 would not.
If Germany were to attack a SZ with ONLY transports (this would include there being no scramble fighters) then none of the transports would fight and all would be lost (auto-death)

Really liking this rule the more i think about it. It is a great middle ground. And most importantly is not overcomplicated (we already have combined arms in other areas of the game)
If anything it would give the allies a slight edge in balance. Which in my opinion would greatly improve the game overall (reduce ~20 IPC allies bids)

I think my 3 comments still good:
Your system is simpler, true. But:
It gives much more power to a fleet.
And you’ll get transport screening again.

4- Any good buyer will buy 1 more warship than transport to be sure he will always gain the TT bonus.

@Baron:

4- Any good buyer will buy 1 more warship than transport to be sure he will always gain the TT bonus.

Well most current G40 fleets are warships (and plane) heavy relative to transport so i dont think this would change buys that much. If anything people may buy a few more transports and a few less warships.
This is much much better than just giving all transports +1 defense regardless of fleet composition.
Transports will not need quite as much escort (with current oob rules). But fleets wont be massive trannie fests either. -heheh  :roll:
It could also possibly help balance out G40 a bit

@Uncrustable:

@Baron:

4- Any good buyer will buy 1 more warship than transport to be sure he will always gain the TT bonus.

Well most current G40 fleets are warships (and plane) heavy relative to transport so I dont think this would change buys that much. If anything people may buy a few more transports and a few less warships.
This is much much better than just giving all transports +1 defense regardless of fleet composition.
Transports will not need quite as much escort (with current oob rules). But fleets wont be massive trannie fests either. -heheh� � :roll:
It could also possibly help balance out G40 a bit

What I can infer from what you just said: is almost all Transport (except aftermath battle situation) will become 1 hit@1.
And you go back to square 1, DK saw the problem that’s why he pledge for a Classic TT at 10 IPCs.

In theory, having a mix of TTc and TTnew defenseless is correct and the way to limit it is simple.
In practice, trannies and subs will be the cannon fodder for the defender when their is a big battle to insure max damage on the attacker and a better chance of survival.

What I see, is a direct grow of the number of unit able to take casualities, able to defend @1 against any � unit (unlike subs@1), able to transport unit and costing only 7 IPCs over 8, 10, 11, 16 IPCs.

After that, the question is: is this rule truly necessary vs Dk option to raise TT up to 10 IPCs.
Is there so many TTs which doesn’t receive almost everywhere a 1 on 1 warship protection?
How many TTs will be rejected and turn back to defenseless?

I’m asking the question, I have not enough experience on Global to see what are the real fact.
But no matter how far TT is revert back to classic, it seems for many that it will move the balance a little less in favor of Axis.
The question is how far are you ready to go and move this balance in the TT rules adjusment.

I’m still looking for the less change possible but knowing that a no change mean keep Taken last and defenseless TT.
And I don’t want this.

You could (under my Suggested change) raise the cost to 8, but no higher. And that may be too much.
This change would HELP balance G40, as the axis are currently favored without a significant allied bid.