The aberration of the defenseless transport

probably the single greatest change to axis and allies over the years is the defenseless transport.

i have played many games of revised. fleets would consist almost entirely of transports with the odd carrier and starting battleship for extra defense.

fleets would never get attacked, as there was too much transport fodder. navy battles and purchases are much more dynamic because of this rule.

Armed transports also only transported one heavy unit or 2 INF.  Personally, I like the 0 defence unit.  At 7 IPC they are far too cheap to be a troop mover and a capitol ship screen.  If they could fill dual role again, I think they would have to cost at least 50% more, not 1.  I speculate that a (now) warship that can move two land units would be worth at least 14 to the US and Japan, and correspondingly less to other nations, probably booking at 12.

I can just see walls of TRs moving from the US to Germany, adding defense constantly while still moving troops over.

Making transports defenseless makes more sense. I remember playing classic and having fleets of 1 or 2 battleships, a carrier and a stack of 10+ transports. No one would attack your fleet because they would never get to the high dollar stuff. That is, unless they had a huge stack of transports to throw in as fodder, which is also ridiculous.

You should have to protect your transports with warships, or suffer losing them and not transporting your troops. Someone mentioned Japan taking those little Pacific islands and how it’s not worth it to divert your fleet to protect the transports. Well, you could do that or simply write off those transports. Yeah, it sucks wasting 7 IPCs but if you get the islands you need (I’m thinking that 5 island NO for Japan) then perhaps it is worth losing a few transports in the long run. Plus, since now those guys have no transport, you have garrisons on those islands and the Allies will have to invest more to take them back. It just depends on your needs I think.

One downfall of defenseless transports that I don’t like is when you have a whole stack of transports and a single plane or ship takes them all out. Perhaps a good idea would be to limit the killing of defenseless transports to something like 3 per attacking unit (warship, sub or plane).
For example: The US has goofed and left 5 unescorted transports sitting in SZ 91. Germany sees this but has only 1 U-boat sitting in SZ 105. Germany also has a bomber sitting on the air base in Paris. Germany wanted to SBR London with his bomber.
Now, if Germany wants to sink all 5 US transports, he will have to send the U-boat AND the bomber. If Germany wants to SBR London with his bomber, he can just send the U-boat but will sink ONLY 3 of the US transports.
In summary, every 3 transports require 1 attacking unit to sink them. 1-3 transports=1 attacker, 4-6 TT=2 attackers, 7-9 TT=3 attackers, 10-12 TT=4 attackers, and so on.
Attacking units can be submarines, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, fighters, tac bombers and bombers.
Doesn’t that sound better than just one single attack unit being able to kill a whole stack of transports?

Battleships may not necessarily be the first hit- it could be the Aircraft Carrier if an island is nearby (or they have no aircraft).

At least they are warships and are fighting.  Transports are not warships.  Perhaps let them retreat after the first round of combat- but they should not be able to bring down enemy warships (dozen or more ships) or aircraft (hundreds of aircraft).

Well, anything that isn’t strictly a transport- as in:
Corvettes, Frigates, Escort Carriers
are modeled with Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers in game.

Armed merchantmen would do well against easy targets- a surfaced submarine or a small fighter squadron.  We are talking about a dozen submarines doing a night raid or 100 fighters descending on the transports.

PGMatt: You are telling me that you would continue to buy more and more transports every round, filling up the Atlantic with them, when you can now buy DDs for the same price and double the protection? Seriously, would you not buy just enough transports to do the job and the rest DDs?

Well, in this case that is exactly what I would do.  I never bring US TRs home, they drop once and then I let the UK use them.  It takes an extra turn to cycle but allowing the UK to not build ships and focus on ground builds for the UK and Africa works for me.  Once the US has 10 TR in the channel the UK can move a full build across every turn, man and money providing of course.

Armed transports in this case just reduces the overall naval investment for the Western allies.

Why not give transports a defense of 1 but still must be taken as casualties last ?
Increase their cost to 8

@Uncrustable:

Why not give transports a defense of 1 but still must be taken as casualties last ?
Increase their cost to 8

Because a transport having a defense of 1 is too generous.

In Classic, transports represented actual transports and escort ships- now escort ships have been decoupled from transports in the form of destroyers.

Simple fix, really:

TT only roll@1 when at ANY point there are no friendly warships present, and cannot be taken as losses until all friendly warships have been sunk or submerged.
TT cannot be forced into defensive combat in conjunction with scrambling aircraft from an AB.  However TT can be defended by scrambling aircraft if no amphibious assault has been declared from that SZ.

Example 1:

BB, CR and 2 TT are attacked.  CR and BB roll until sunk.  Normally, once they are the TT are just picked up off the board.  Instead it flows to this:  When TT are the only remaining surface ship they get to roll @1 to defend against an attack.

This could mean you only needed 1 hit to sink the BB, however you scored 3 hits during your attacker roll phase.  The defender would roll 1 die @4 because the BB was present when the hits were scored on the TT as well.

If 2 hits were scored to sink the BB, the defender would roll @4 and remove a BB and TT from the battle.  The following turn the attacker would roll and the lone TT would roll @1 to defend.

If you only scored the single hit to sink the BB, which missed on its defensive roll.  You’d follow up with a second round of rolls against the 2 TT, which now get to defend @1 until sunk or you withdraw.

Example 2:

2 TT were left undefended against 2 Ftr and 1 Tac.  The 2 Ftr roll @3, the Tac @4 scoring 3 hits.  Both TT would roll @1 to defend scoring a single hit.  Both TT are sunk, and one Ftr is lost.

Example 3:
2 TT are blocking a SZ you wish to move though - even though they defend @1, you can ignore them and sail straight past without having to stop for battle.

Example 4:

You attack 2 DD and 2 TT with 4 BB.  The BB scores 2 hits and the defender none.  The defender has to take the 2 DD as losses first per the rules after they rolled and missed.  The BB would then roll again and scores 1 hit.  Both TT then roll @1 and both score hits.  2 BB are tipped and 1 TT is lost.  The BB roll again and sink the final TT, which misses, and the battle ends.

Example 5:

3 TT and 1 SS are defending against 3 DD.  Due to the presence of the DD, the SS cannot submerge to avoid combat.  The 3 DD roll and score 2 hits.  The SS rolls and misses.  One SS and 1 TT are removed.  The 3 DD then roll against the 2 remaining TT which defend @1 now that the sub has been sunk.

Example 6:

3 TT and 1 SS are defending against 3 CR.  The SS elects to submerge to avoid battle.  The 3 CR roll against the 3 TT, which roll @1 due to the SS submerging and not being present in combat.

Example 7:

There is an AB on Norway and WGr with 6 Ftr capable of scrambling.  Germany has 10 TT in SZ 112.  The allies are attempting to land on Denmark via an amphibious assault with 3 BB, 2 CR, 2 DD and 5 TT and elect to ignore the German TT.  Germany elects to scramble and places ONLY the 6 Ftr as TT cannot be forced into defensive combat due to a scramble caused by an Amphibious assault being declared from that SZ.

Note if you change a German TT to a DD, you could still not get the TT into the battle as TT cannot be forced into a sea battle due to an amphibious assault being declared from that SZ.  The DD, however would be included in the defenders scramble.

However, those TT WOULD be included if no assault was declared and the Allies moved into the SZ to solely attack the ships present.

Well, ignoring just transports is already the case- transports cannot be used to block.

I do like some of your ideas, maybe in need of refinement; could be a fun houserule to give defending transports some hope.  I kind of like the idea that transports that survive the initial attack could elect to retreat to a safe SZ.

Might as well just eliminate TT’s all together then and allow naval warships to transport units, no?

Transports having no defense roll is stupid. It’s a fact that transports did have some defensive armament. The idea that some how the game becomes wildly unbalanced and no sea unit will ever be purchased is just as ridiculous. The reason for this rule change in first place was so WOTC/AH/HASBRO could have new units to get us to buy more games and new additions because of pretty new destroyers and cruisers. Well I like them and would’ve bought them anyway. The problem is that with a D6 game mechanic you have to make room for these pieces which I think could be made in other ways, but whatever.

The move to make them defenseless had far less to do with the old hat reasoning of trying to simulate historical accuracy. The rules try to supposedly do this and not always accurately and usually not hitting the mark anyway. I’d rather have fun. This isn’t a hex and tile West Point exercise, it’s a reasonable"what if?" game with a loose historical setting in WWII.

This is a strategic level game, unfortunately supposed historicity mixed with pseudo-tactical gaming
machanics are complicating the hell out of the rules and killing the fun.

@BJCard:

@Uncrustable:

Why not give transports a defense of 1 but still must be taken as casualties last ?
Increase their cost to 8

Because a transport having a defense of 1 is too generous.

In Classic, transports represented actual transports and escort ships- now escort ships have been decoupled from transports in the form of destroyers.

Hi everybody,
their is some middleway here.

Keep at 7 IPCs. It is already a long road to buy an escort fleet, transport and ground units. And bridging from one island to another requires much more transport to travel the same two ground units. The chain of communication is easily outstreched and vulnerable in PTO.

Give any group (2 or more) of Transports a collective defense of 1.

Even in a naval battle with other vessels, give at the start of naval battle the transport group a defense @1.

Transports are still chosen last.

When their is no more combat ship, the attacker still rolls and destroy as many transports as he got hits.
It lasts until the last transport has sunk (which still have 1@1).

The capacity to take hits is already a good defense.
I see no need to add more than the single@1 for all the group.

However, keep a single isolated transport as an easy target with no defense.

Historically, we can think that there is some corvettes and frigates (but not much) inside a group of transports,  2 units or more (14 IPCs and +).

Another possibility is to limit this @1 as AA only for 2 or more transports. So no combat ship could be kill by the lighter guns on board any troop transports.

The old defense roll was fine and is reasonable.  How the hell is it realistic that ten transport flotillas could be simply destroyed by one squadron of destroyers? It’s frigging ridiculous that someone would buy transports over destroyers for defense when a destroyer has twice the chance to score a hit. Nobody is going to resort to TRN stacking as a defense. The reasons for this change are stupid and just plain spin doctoring a mistake.

@toblerone77:

The old defense roll was fine and is reasonable.  How the hell is it realistic that ten transport flotillas could be simply destroyed by one squadron of destroyers? It’s frigging ridiculous that someone would buy transports over destroyers for defense when a destroyer has twice the chance to score a hit. Nobody is going to resort to TRN stacking as a defense. The reasons for this change are stupid and just plain spin doctoring a mistake.

I’m not quite sure. The capacity of taking a hit without damaging stronger units (@3 and @4) is a real strategy. It has a screening effect like a stack of Inf in front of 3 or 4 @3 Armors.

Even transports without Defense point, a mixed group of vessels will become a way more dangerous:
1 CV with 2 Fgts amongst 5 Trns (with 0@1) can take 2 or 3 rounds before being all destroyed.
Think of Germany StrB, TacB and Fighters lost in this battle and how much units is needed at first to get odds on Germany’s side.

That’s why Larry revised the rule about transport.

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

The old defense roll was fine and is reasonable. � How the hell is it realistic that ten transport flotillas could be simply destroyed by one squadron of destroyers? It’s frigging ridiculous that someone would buy transports over destroyers for defense when a destroyer has twice the chance to score a hit. Nobody is going to resort to TRN stacking as a defense. The reasons for this change are stupid and just plain spin doctoring a mistake.

I’m not quite sure. The capacity of taking a hit without damaging stronger units (@3 and @4) is a real strategy. It has a screening effect like a stack of Inf in front of 3 or 4 @3 Armors.

Even transports without Defense point, a mixed group of vessels will become a way more dangerous:
1 CV with 2 Fgts amongst 5 Trns (with 0@1) can take 2 or 3 rounds before being all destroyed.
Think of Germany StrB, TacB and Fighters lost in this battle and how much units is needed at first to get odds on Germany’s side.

That’s why Larry revised the rule about transport.

Yeah but why would that stop you from buying a destroyer? It’s nearly as cheap and can attack. and by that logic, no offense but are we going to have infantry loose thier attack capabilties? Sorry to Larry but just because he says it doesn’t mean it makes sense. Read some of Larry’s old quotes.

@toblerone77:

Yeah but why would that stop you from buying a destroyer? It’s nearly as cheap and can attack. and by that logic, no offense but are we going to have infantry loose thier attack capabilities? Sorry to Larry but just because he says it doesn’t mean it makes sense. Read some of Larry’s old quotes.

From my point of view, the problem is that a destroyer doesn’t move any ground troops. The best maximize investment in amphibious assault would be only transport+ground troops. But when you need to protect transport, you add more warships.
A transport unit @1 requires far less protection (and less building of defensive warships) than TP @0 with no hits.

Actually, to get a single 1 hit DD @2 paired with 1 TP it costs 7+8= 15 IPCs. 12/36 ODDS only 1 hit.
For 2TPs @1=16 IPCs you would already get a better fleet.
2D@1= odds at 11/36 + 2 hits / after 1 hit, you still have odds at 6/36.

Adding TP @1, 8 IPCs will certainly unbalance the game in favour of Allies because USA, ANZAC and UK must get out of their islands to have impact on the game vs only Japan.

If you want something more historical, you need a far less powerful modification because that will require changes on the initial board.