The aberration of the defenseless transport

Clearly we need to break you guys into Online play…

Then you will learn to love the new rules :)

Care to try?

I’ll keep it in mind Garg LOL!

@Gargantua:

Clearly we need to break you guys into Online play…

Then you will learn to love the new rules :)

Care to try?

You know Garg, I’ve actually downloaded tripleA and use it for solitaire (not against AI) games and testing set-ups. I’ve played the AI hundreds of times too. Veqyrn mentioned there would be no work to update AI. The AI does suck LOL and won’t do much to make you a better player. I have a feeling I would get my ass kicked all over hell and back playing online. That actually doesn’t bother me so much. I would do GTO or an online game but I don’t want to have to commit a several hour long sitting at the computer or let some player down if I had to leave the game quickly or without notice.

I looked up sort of on what you need to do to play by forum I was almost tempted to do so. While I appreciate all that tripleA does and the fact that they are strictly volunteers, but it seems like every time I update tripleA I have to go fix a bunch of stuff to get it to run properly again. I’m not computer illiterate but working with tripleA is somewhat befuddling at times. However I might just have to go thread digging and get myself into the PBF world.

Clearly we need to break you guys into Online play…

Then you will learn to love the new rules  :-)

Trust me, I’ve played enough games online to know exactly why I think what I think, and all the various reasons that attach to my views about this. Playing games, and making them, and analyzing the mechanics of A&A to death, time and again and again. It’s not an observation that comes from lack of online play :)

Sometimes I do feel like some of my ideas have penetrated into the Harris design universe (a little bit anyway), but always slowly, and then only half applied hehe.

Among the many things I have argued for fervently in the past (along with others): the inclusion of a starting IC in India, the lowered cost of the battleship, destroyer, sub, and the inclusion of cruisers, Honolulu as a VC, A larger China under US control with normal rules, more spaces in eastern Russia etc.

But the main thing I argued for was shot down, (the most important thing!) which is this: That in order to do all the stuff mentioned above you need to raise the overall economy of the board!

Initially my thought was that you’d have to do this by at least 10% (closer to 20% really, but that is an aside.) Just increasing the Atlantic crossing by a single space, stalls the pace of the Atlantic game by 3 rounds (not the 1 round you might think) and turns into a major economic cost to the US. That’s not including all the other map changes adopted. Just putting a starting IC in India, under my views, was going to require a boost to the starting UK income of like 10% over the Revised number to support it’s inclusion, to prevent totally unbalancing their position in the Atlantic and against Sea Lion. Russia in my view, needed even more, to justify a Karelia IC. Because in my analysis, starting ICs were effective more as anchors and target liabilities for the Allies, than as initial advantages. “Spaces that had to be defended”, was always the argument, because they had factories on them!

My simple overall solution was to raise several territories on the board by at least 1 ipc, or 2 ipcs in many cases. I felt, and still feel, for example, that Honolulu as a VC deserved 2 ipcs and a starting factory. But honestly my solution in effect was to raise the overall money in the game by about 10 ipcs per power, and distribute that income across territories along a wider field of play. The income is so tight under the current set up, that even one tiny set up flaw, or one wild battle, can throw the whole thing. And that in my view was the major issue, which would be solved relatively simply by just increasing the money a modest amount.

Giving players more flexibility in developing their game, especially in the second and third rounds, without making it hinge so dramatically on the starting set up. A modest increase in the overall amount of money I feel, leads to more expensive and exotic purchases and more experimentation. But this point was largely ignored, when I tried to make it. (To their credit, the NA’s in AA50 at least tried to put this theory somewhat into effect, but instead of directly increasing the ipc value of important territories, it was done indirectly through the National Advantage money. An idea which irked me, because it introduced new rules, where I felt a direct, simple, and visually immediate income adjustment would have been so much easier.)

And of course, I never even considered a change to the transport rules! or a decrease in the cost of bombers, or an increase in the cost of Armor.

Now many of the ideas I argued for initially, I do not see working correctly in this game, because the economic/logistics aspect has remained static into the new edition, even while trying to put all those other changes into effect.
So yeah, I have thought about these things quite a bit.

As of now, the only thing I can think of to restore the playbalance somewhat (absent a pretty major allied preplacement bid) is to restore the combat ability of transports.

There are other things you might try, like increasing the economy, or giving more units to the western allies to offset the essential cost of transports, or lower the cost of defensless transports considerably, or give Russia enough power to stand on its own at the outset. Or give Japan an incentive to attack towards the W. US. Or a thousand other things you could try… But those all essentially require a redesign of the game, or unit set up.

This fix just requires that you go back to the old rule that you already know. And while it doesn’t fix everything, it certainly can help. Which is why it seems a good option to me.
But again, just something for all to consider.

ps. while I am on the subject of experiments. Here’s another thing you may wish to try sometime, if you ever want to see what I am driving at… Add +1 ipc to every single territory on the board. This is a super crude house rule I considered initially, (it’s rough, but relatively easy to implement) and it does lead to some rather interesting game play options, that you might enjoy. While not my ideal way to distribute production, this does come fairly close to increasing the overall economy by around 50%

pps. Or another thing you could try, is to give a +1 ipc bonus during the collect income phase, for each territory that a Nation controls. Which does not modify production, but has a similar effect. So there is always an incentive to attack and hold every territory, because of the bonus money. And bonus money means more flexibility with purchases, and less dependence on the starting unit set up. This is also easy to implement, you just count up your territories at the end of the turn, the same as in risk, and add that number in ipcs (+1 per territory) as a bonus to the income already collected that round.

@Black_Elk:

Why I am frustrated and disappointed by the new transport rules…

Before writing me off as a naysayer, I make this point because I believe the new transport rules have had the exact opposite of their intended effect. They do not, as has been stated elsewhere in this thread, encourage conflict between capital ships. What they do do is the following:

1. Half of the world’s navies are destroyed and sink to the bottom of the sea, before ever getting to move in the first round!

Because transports have no defense value, and the set up being what it is, scripted air on navy combat in the first round is even more scripted and more essential than in any previous edition of A&A. Basically you have to destroy as many ships as you can, trading your air for the enemies naval units and transports, before they have a chance to move together. Literally half the naval units on the board at the beginning of play, are destroyed right out the gate. Just nixed before ever becoming effective, and at the same time forcing a number of ‘standard’ openings.

2. Players are even less likely than ever before, to split their navies and attempt island hoping actions, or risking round 1 deployments that might put their transports (and the ships defending them) in harms way. Nixed, all those interesting opening plays that involved coordinated/but separate naval actions from smaller fleets.
3. The cost of transports, while seemingly less than in revised, are in effect raised prohibitively, due to the large number of ships required to defend even a single transport from attack from the air. Compare an 8 ipc cost transport unit that defends at 1 in deterring Air attacks vs a 7 ipcs transport unit with no defense + the Carrier, fighter and destroyer now required to protect it anywhere it moves.

Once again, new rules (and unit specific rules at that, which add even more complexity) have been introduced unnecessarily into the game, to fix a problem which could have easily been solved by just adjusting the unit cost structure.

The problem as stated elsewhere in this thread, is this: cheap transport fodder has traditionally been used to defend warships, (instead of the ideal where more expensive warships are purchased to defend transports.) I agree, that this was a problem. Maybe less of a problem than others think, but granted, it is a problem that should have been fixed. But the way to fix it is not to remove transports from combat altogether. A much simpler, and more consistent solution would be to raise the cost of transports, and have them use the same old combat mechanics/rules that they used in Classic and Revised.

A Transport at 10 ipcs is no longer cheap fodder. Or if 10 is too cheap for you, then raise it 12. I guarantee no one will be needlessly throwing away transports to defend other ships when their relative cost is that much higher. But 10 seems ideal to me (given the cost of every other ship and air unit as it stands in 1942 second edition.) And it could have been done without introducing such a Major Major rules change to naval combat, which itself doesn’t even accomplish the goal.
Under the new transport rules, fleets are even larger and more consolidated now than ever, with more time and more expensive warships required to move anywhere. What’s more, any ship that is purchased can be countered so easily with cheap air (and even cheaper bombers, but that is a separate digression. Why you would take the most overpowered unit in classic/revised, and make it less expensive is beyond me, but still…) Because the western Allies are so dependent on transports to get into the fight, this means that there is a built in Axis advantage to the game. I still can’t believe no one saw this coming?

Comparatively few alterations were made, either to the overall economy of the board, or to the starting unit placements, to accommodate this massive change, that is the new transports, which effects almost every aspect of allied gameplay. And so now we have an Allied bid to open?

My thoughts on this issue
thanks for listening
J

You have a very fine analysis and albeit this very lengthy discussion threads, your post still brings many new ideas on the subject.
I think it worth it to bold those elements.
In my next post, I will try some other way (than TP A0D1M2C10) to fix the problems you rightly mention.

I’m still agreeing to this objection about Classic Transport:
@knp7765:

So you advocate raising the transport’s cost to 10, letting them defend @ 1 and allowing the player to select them as casualties BEFORE any warships? I don’t think that is a good idea. Even with the increased price, you are still going to end up with some players using transports as fodder even in attacks. I remember that from Classic, when someone would have a “fleet” made up of a couple of battleships and 10 transports and would attack another fleet, sinking it while only losing 5-6 empty transports.

However, I will agree that making transports totally defenseless is an overstretch. One thing I have never liked is seeing a single fighter or sub wipe out a big stack of transports. So I suggested that each warship or plane be limited to 3 transports. So, for 1-3 transports = 1 attacker, 4-6 transports = 2 attackers, etc. So if you want to kill a stack of 10 transports, you would HAVE to commit 4 attacking units.

As for transport defenses, simply giving them a hit @ 1 isn’t right either. As stated in previous posts, transports were not equipped to deal with submarines and it’s really ridiculous to think of a transport being able to hit a warship. I do like Baron Munchhausen’s idea of giving transports an AA shot. It’s not unbelievable to imagine a transport being able to shoot down an enemy plane. It shouldn’t be an automatic destroy of the aircraft like on land though. I would combine this with my 1 attacker per 3 transports idea. For example, 1 fighter flies out to kill 3 transports. Each transport gets to roll @1. If one of them gets a hit, then the fighter rolls to get a 3. If the fighter gets a 3, then it destroys 1 transport and the fighter is destroyed by the transport AA hit. If none of the transports get a hit, then the fighter automatically destroys all three transports without having to roll. This gives any attacker that goes “air heavy” an element of risk when going after unescorted transports.

Now, what I propose is clearly influence by this post of knp7765.
It is a kind of combination between classic TP (vs aircrafts) and defenseless TP (vs warships).
Here is the house rule:

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

B- TP is A0 D0 M2 C7 and has a 1 hit value as TPclassic + 1D@1 vs aircraft each round (as AAA without the preemptive effect).

C- When any Warships (such as subs, destroyers, cruisers, battleships and even 1942 carrier CV A1 D2 M2 C14 but not 1940 CV) attack TPs without escort, it is an autokill on a 1 on 1 basis, except for BB which got 2 TPs/BB ratio.

This attack can last only two rounds, (maybe one? or even three?) then remaining TPs 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.

D- When any aircrafts  launch an attack on isolated TPs, it is a regular attack (StrB A4, TacB A3-4, Fg A3) and TP gets each round a Defense roll @1  for each TP or aircraft present whichever is less, no preemptive strike.
For example: 1 Fgt vs 3 TPs, the Fgt gets only one roll @1/round against it.
It is a regular combat and it is over when attacker retreats or all defending TPs units are sunk.

E- When both warships and aircrafts attacked an isolated group of TPs, the warships have 2 rounds to destroy as much TPs as 2TPs/warship, 4 TPs/BB (or 1 rnd to destroy  1TP/Wship, 2TPs/BB? or 3rnd for 3TPs/Ws?) but aircrafts can continue the battle after, as stated in D.

F- Here is the main rule change: when TPs and warships sharing a sea-zone are under attack, the attacker have 2 choices:
option 1- to ignore the TPs and fight only the warships (and any Fgs from CV or scrambled). If all defending warships and aircrafts are destroyed, then the battle is over and all the TPs have survived and can even share the sea-zone with the attacker’s victorious units.

option 2- to attack both transports and warships, which mean TPs can be taken as cheap fodder (as said 1 TP worth 1 hit) instead of loosing a combat unit. The battle is over when attacker retreat or all defending units are destroyed (including all TPs), or some TPs managed to escape after 2 rounds (or 1 rnd? o 3 rnds?) of autokill from warships, as stated in C.

So this special House Rule give the attacking player the choice to kill only warships at the expense of letting TPs alive for another turn (and let them be able to flee toward a safe haven: up to 2 sea-zone away) or
going for the total kill at the expense of suffering greater casualties because of the TP unit ability to be taken as a casualty even if it have no defensive value against attacking ships.

I think this discrimination against aircrafts is balance by their better projection of power (near 3 to 5 spaces move and even 4-6 with airbase) than any surface vessel (2 spaces move) and better attack factor/IPC [Fgt A3 M4 C10 vs CA A3 M2 C12 vs StB A4 M6 C12 vs BB A4 M2 C20]. It will also be sound from an historical point of view as some posts noted earlier about Transport real antiaircraft capacity.

Do you think this HR can give a better balance between Axis and Allies powers in Global and 1942?

Should we give warships 3 rounds or only 1 round of fire against defenseless transport instead of two?

I hope my English will not too much hindered your understanding of these few additionals rules.

I would advocate 3 reasons for introducing such a HR for Transport:

1- No more out of nowhere, never to be seen, aircraft automatic destroying a bunch of lonely TPs.
At least, this HR give TPs much more payback before being wiped out.

2- The attacker option 1 of a restricted attack against warships only units will doomed anyone which prefers to hide 2 or 3 big BBs behind a bunch of little TPs.

As history showed, warships are protecting transports and not the reverse.

It was only when troops/marines transports were primary target, that they take a great deal of punishment instead of other warships/escorts ships. The attacker option 2 is able to simulate this aspect of naval warfare while letting each player choose their casualties (as per traditional or classical transport rules).

3- The attacker option 1 recreates the effect of the no combat value under Taken Last transport rule. In Global OOB, you could have dozens of TPs, only aircrafts and warships determine the outcome of a battle. TPs are kind of collateral damage if the attacker wins.
According to this present HR, attacker (choosing option 1) cannot destroy any TP but, on the other part, they have no unbalancing effect which is active in option 2 due to the screening effect of taking a cheap TP as casualty instead of a combat unit with a higher defensive value.

In option 1, TP is treated the same as in an amphibious assault on an island surrounded by ennemy transports, in which you keep any cruiser and battleship for the coastal bombardment mission instead of throwing them at the defenseless transport.
At the end of the invasion, both allies and axis TPs share a sea-zone with some warships.
And it is allowed by the current OOB rules.

Is it more convincing now?

How about this idea,

Since they are defenseless, lower their cost to $4. And give the AA shot as described. That keeps it simple. Each transport gets one AA shot before being sunk.

It is another approach.
But the main problem is that you almost double the number of transport for the same price.
Is it intended to be a way to help the Allies getting an edge over Axis?

It is intended to be realistic. Why should a defenseless ship that is almost empty, (filled with troops and material) cost as much as a destroyer with massive armaments. The price of a transport is foolish.

I believe in the past, a transport represented the actual transport ships, landing crafts, and escorts. I have read this exact idea applied to an infantry. An infantry does not represent a squad, platoon, or company of soldiers, but a whole infantry element that with it would come different resources such as anti-aircraft capabilities, anti-tank infantry (bazookas), ect….

So know they made the transport represent only the transport ships and the landing crafts. And defenseless. The should then drastically lower the cost. And provide it with some AA capability as the real ships of the war did have that ability.

If we really wanted realism there would only be three units. An army, navy, and air force unit if we’re talking about the game on a strategic level.

Having more units is fun. One thing about house rules is the fact that they are just that, house rules. What works for one group may not work for others. I think sharing ideas is a great thing. I like DK’s ideas. I don’t think however that we always need to assume that HRs are going to be adopted by Larry Harris, tripleA, or tourney organizers.

I disagree with realism means whittling down everything to only 3 units, the army, navy and air force. It was an almost irrelevant comment.

The point of axis and allies was and has always been about starting off at a point in world war 2 that was accurate to the time and conditions that existed at that point in time. You then had the chance to refight the war without making the same mistakes and trying different strategies in an attempt to win the war. A what might have happened scenario. The game is largely marketed to history enthusiasts who don’t want to be forced to fight the war and merely repeat history, but want some level of accuracy in terms of what was at the time.

The game can only be so accurate without a level of complexity that would hurt the game, making it to tedious and long to play. But when changes that are simple can be made that bring an awesome level of realism, then to not make those changes seems a change to me.

Many of those changes have been made, but it has taken 30 years to do it. From the very first edition of axis and allies, (which I never played) to the second (which I play for over a decade) to todays versions, it was obvious each new edition was more realistic then the previous. Why it has taken this long and not yet completely fixed is a shame to me.

I think the last problem and one of the biggest was the Naval problem. Unfortunately the fix was to create NO’s instead of fixing the cost.

@eddiem4145:

I disagree with realism means whittling down everything to only 3 units, the army, navy and air force. It was an almost irrelevant comment.

The point of axis and allies was and has always been about starting off at a point in world war 2 that was accurate to the time and conditions that existed at that point in time. You then had the chance to refight the war without making the same mistakes and trying different strategies in an attempt to win the war. A what might have happened scenario. The game is largely marketed to history enthusiasts who don’t want to be forced to fight the war and merely repeat history, but want some level of accuracy in terms of what was at the time.

The game can only be so accurate without a level of complexity that would hurt the game, making it to tedious and long to play. But when changes that are simple can be made that bring an awesome level of realism, then to not make those changes seems a change to me.

Many of those changes have been made, but it has taken 30 years to do it. From the very first edition of axis and allies, (which I never played) to the second (which I play for over a decade) to todays versions, it was obvious each new edition was more realistic then the previous. Why it has taken this long and not yet completely fixed is a shame to me.

I think the last problem and one of the biggest was the Naval problem. Unfortunately the fix was to create NO’s instead of fixing the cost.

First of all, that was not an irrelevant comment. toblerone77 makes a valid point. Axis & Allies, particularly Global, Spring 1942 and any others that use the world map, is a grand strategic game. You are taking the entire resources of a nation state and waging war. At this scale, it really would make more sense to say you are using your army, navy or air force as opposed to just infantry, or just bombers or just destroyers.
However, that would really not be so fun for us A&A fans. It would oversimplify the game and we would end up with another version of RISK. We don’t want some simple piece representing all of our infantry, artillery, mechs and tanks in one fell swoop.
So, they gave units to split our armies, navies and air forces up. I have always liked to imagine, in the case of land forces, that each unit represents a whole division although at this scale it’s probably more like Army or Army Corp strength. Whatever the case, it is really cool to be able to diversify your army so that you can exploit the different strengths of each type of unit. Where do you want better defense? Where do you want stronger offensive punch? Where is movement more of a factor? And so on…
Unfortunately, all of this leads to the problems of “realism” in the game and “why it isn’t fixed yet”. In Classic, we simply had infantry, tanks, fighters, bombers, subs, transports, battleships and carriers. Fun game yes, but not very realistic.
So Revised gave us Artillery and Destroyers. Better! Now both the army and navy has an “in-between” unit. That’s two more pieces to make rules for. More realistic = more complex.
Well, that wasn’t good enough for us. So Anniversary came along and gave us Cruisers. Great! Now destroyers can assume their traditional role of somewhat lower powered warships that beat up on subs instead of some sort of little brother to the battleship. That’s what Cruisers were meant for anyway. One more piece, a few more rules.
Still not quite good enough. So along comes the 1940 games and give us Tactical Bombers and Mechanized Infantry. FABULOUS!! Now we have fodder for tanks when they blitz and a new plane that can give us the strength of bombers under certain conditions. Of course, two new pieces require still more rules for them. Somewhat more complex rules as both of these pieces require being paired with other pieces to utilize their main strengths. Also, since this game takes place in 1940, two major Allied nations aren’t even at war yet and only enter war after certain circumstances occur. One Axis power is only partly at war. There are MORE neutral countries now, some are pro one side or the other and all of the now have their own standing armies. This means a LOT more rules, some of which seem to be very complex as witnessed by the FAQ.
Even this is not “realistic” enough for some people. They keep wanting more and Larry Harris is bombarded with questions and comments like “Why doesn’t this unit do such and such?” or “Why can’t this country do so and so?”
On top of this, we have HBG coming out with even more different units. Some are simply different versions of the current units, some are units to represent tech units we don’t have (heavy bombers, jet fighters, etc.) and some are even more “in between” units that would add more to our current forces (light cruisers, escort carriers, etc.).
Now I do NOT begrudge HBG for this. I absolutely LOVE the idea of more pieces and different units. The point I’m getting at is if we want to use them, they will require still MORE rules to incorporate them into our game. Add to this HBG also makes a 1939 map, which I am sure a game starting in 1939 would have even more complex rules than a game starting in 1940 just for the political rules alone. And what about adding early-war, mid-war and late-war versions of all the units?
Do you realize if we had an Axis & Allies style game that started in 1939 and incorporated all of the current units available plus the versions that HBG is putting out that we would end up getting a phone book for the rules.
What’s more, all of this realism and complexity to unit strengths and weaknesses is going to make this game end up like Tide of Iron or A&A Miniatures. The very reason I don’t play those games is they are too complicated. There are just too many things to keep track of and it takes the fun out for me. I prefer the level of simplicity to A&A.
If A&A in it’s current form isn’t enough for you and you want to keep adding different nuances to make it more realistic, then of course that is your prerogative. I just wish you wouldn’t come down on Larry Harris or WOTC for making a “broken” or “incomplete” game. They have put out an excellent product.

So my point of relevancy was this. You kept using language in terms of using more and different types of pieces for more realism. You are pointing out that the more realistic and diverse units that are introduced makes the game more complex.

What I said was irrelevant was the idea that a more realistic game would be to have only 3 units, and army, navy and airforce.

What would anyone do with that comment. Is it more realistic to have more diverse units and fight more realistic wars, or just 3 units, one representing a navy, and army, and airforce. How that is more realistic and would give more realism is beyond me. Could it be? I guess that depends on your argument. So that leaves me with what??? Or anyone reading this post. A point that gave no value to the discussion. That is why I called it irrelevant.

The challenge of course has always been realism versus complexity. It is a challenge that of course is a difficult one and you can’t make everyone happy. But guess what, they dealt with those problems. 1942 is suppose to be the begginers basic less complex game. Global is suppose to be the more intricate game.

All the biggest problems that people have been the most vocal about since the 1980’s have been fixed. Very slowly, one by one. My point is that there fix for a lack of action in the Pacific missed an obvious opportunity. The biggest problem in the Pacific was that the amount of resources necessary to build a Navy by the Japanese and US compared to what could be gained failed in comparison to what could be gained by spending those resources in Asia by Japan and Europe by the US. They attempted to fix that problem. In case you haven’t noticed, the cost of Navy’s have continued to come down, oh so slightly with each version since the 1980’s. They just didn’t go obviously far enough. That is my point. Along with the 6 VC for Japan. It is a horrible rule and completely foolish based on no historical or realistic reason. Only  for the purpose of forcing the US to spend significantly in the Pacific to a point that is inefficient.

And I am not advocating the US can ignore Japan.

That is my point. And in keeping true to this post, if you are going to have defenseless transports, how in the heck, are you going to make them cost $7. Nuts!!!

@eddiem4145:

That is my point. And in keeping true to this post, if you are going to have defenseless transports, how in the heck, are you going to make them cost $7. Nuts!!!

You kind of answered your own question: for realism.
It cost a lot of money to get the ships together to move all the troops and material over to Europe or out to the Pacific. It was expensive but was all necessary. The reason the US did it so well was because they were a big industrial powerhouse, which is represented in the game by their much larger income when compared to the other countries. If you lower the price of transports too much, you will have nations transporting vast armies at little expense outside of the men and material. That is not very realistic.
As for transports being defenseless, they WERE defenseless. Without warships and aircraft to protect them, transport ships were sitting ducks for U-boats, warships and aircraft. While transports may have had some AA defenses (which is why I suggested in an earlier post giving them a limited defense against air-only attacks), do you really think a transport could damage a battleship or sink a cruiser? Of course not. That is why the defense @ 1 from Classic was removed. That’s also why transports are chosen last for casualties. You have to get through the warships protecting them first.
Bottom line is you can’t have cheap transports or give them a defense where they can damage warships and still keep any sort of realism in the game. I think the ideas you are proposing go toward making the game LESS real.

Just to let you know that a bunch of transports were not as defenseless that I also think at the beginning of this thread:

@Der:

Wow - just got back from vacation to see this.

I’ve been reading Richard Frank’s historic account called Guadalcanal. On pp 79-80 he describes a Japanese air raid on US transports:

“Twenty-three Bettys …burst out of the East in several groups to charge the fat transports just before noon…the Japanese suffered grievously at the hands of the ship’s gunners. The Bettys rippled the sea surface from an altitude of only 20 to 40 feet in accordance with tactics that brought success early in the war against weak AA defenses. But now the Japanese faced more heavy guns guided by sophisticated fire control systems and, more important a proliferation of the deadly 20 mm antiaircraft machineguns…12 or so adorned each of the sluggish transports, and from some vessels came a further barrage of automatic rifle and submachinegun fire…only five of the attacking Bettys fluttered back to Rabaul…”

That is history. Under global transport rules, it would have read something like this: "then a single Japanese Betty flew over and all the transports were auto-sunk without firing a shot."Â

To answer some of the requests for more details of our game, what happened was people would decide that they would invade somewhere, then buy ENOUGH TRANSPORTS TO DO THE JOB, and quit. That makes sense - at $10 a pop you are not going to keep spamming transports to use in battles when you can be twice as effective using DDs which cost $8 and attack and defend @2.

In the new naval setting, BBs need not fear transports - remember they can take the first hit free, and in some versions they are auto-repaired at the end of the battle. If you’ve bought five 10 IPC transports that is $50 worth of shipping there - do you think sane people will run them into battle situations as a regular strategy? We didn’t - it might have happened in dire situations but spamming transports was never strategy used in our group, with DDs available.

Remember, we’re not talking about going back to the old classic game world with 1 hit BBs and no DDs. We are advocating bringing the classic-type transport into the new global world which is a whole different story.Â

For the record eddiem, I’m not a proponent of having only a land, sea, and air unit. Matter of factly I have at least one set of every custom battle piece HBG sells and have eight sets of Japanese units on pre-order.

@Baron:

Just to let you know that a bunch of transports were not as defenseless that I also think at the beginning of this thread:

I agree with that. That’s why I proposed an AA defense for transports and suggested limiting the amount of transports any attacking unit could sink to 3 per attacking unit, be it aircraft or warship.
Transports were not really designed to take on submarines or surface warships but even so, having 1 sub or 1 destroyer move in and sink a stack of 10 or more transports just seems ridiculous to me, or at the very least simply unfair for game play. Too easy for the attacker. So limit the number to 3 per attacking unit so if the attacker wants to sink that stack of 20 transports, they have to commit resources to do so. Now, this might lead to a problem of some players leaving huge stacks of transports unguarded by warships or planes if they see that their opponent has limited attacking ships in the area, but I can’t fix everything.
As for aircraft, I do believe that transports had some AA capabilities. So I suggest each transport gets to roll 1 die @ 1 for AA defense. This would work along with the limits on attacking the transports. So if a single plane attacks, up to 3 transports can roll for AA since any further transports will not be involved.
Also, if the defending transports get a hit on the aircraft, the attacking aircraft can no longer destroy all 3 transports but has to roll 1 die at it’s normal attack value. Tactical Bombers do NOT get the attack bonus for being paired with a fighter when attacking only transports, so both fighters and tacs would roll @ 3. Strategic Bombers still roll @ 4 and if you have Heavy Bombers, they can roll 2 dice.
If the attacking plane gets a hit, then just 1 transport is destroyed with the plane and the other two survive.
Of course, if none of the transports score an AA hit, then the attacking plane doesn’t have to roll but automatically destroys the 3 transports.
This would make any “air heavy” players think twice and perhaps commit more IPCs to warship purchases and not only air. On large transport stacks, it can get pretty dangerous for your planes. Say you sent out 3 planes to sink 9 transports. That’s nine dice to roll for AA guns. You could lose all 3 fighters and take a chance of sinking 0 transports if your dice roll bad. Even if you roll good and get hits with all 3 fighters, your opponent still has 6 transports left. However, if you would have sent 3 subs, all 9 transports would go down with no danger to the subs.

Transports are better they way they are modeled in Global and other games.

In naval actions, the speed of ships is much greater than the AP and they would never be caught in combat because they would not be in the area. The Historical cases where they were attacked are very few. Each transport is really a collection of vessels amounting to about 1,000,000 tons of shipping. Where is there any prescient where even a remotely comparable case exists?

Their is none. Perhaps a few AP’s got sunk in the medd or Pacific. Most of these units were sunk on the high seas as per convoy raid by submarines, and not fleet combat.

Now comes sarcasm:

Captain: we are getting ready to attack the Japanese fleet… Let’s have the entire fleet halt for a dead stop and wait a week for the 12 knot transport ships to get in front of the fleet so any hits can go against them.

1st mate: Yes that makes perfect sense! That way our battleships can’t be hit right away, even though the enemy will be shooting at a target that has 16 inch guns, the trick is to park these 12 knot ships in front and convince the enemy projectiles to miss and hit only the defenseless transports. An excellent suggestion Captain!

Captain: In the mean time, keep the fleet dead in the water even though we move at 30 knots, we can’t go faster than 12 knots because we will leave these buggers behind and that’s not fair to their crews who will die without honor.