The aberration of the defenseless transport

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.

@Der:

It’s interesting to see this debate still going on.

As players we want to see this game become the most fun possible. The game makers, however, have a different goal. That is to sell the most units possible. This can only be done by adding new units, rules, etc. as no one would buy a new game unless there was something new in it. Axis and Allies has been out around 30 years now and I believe the game has become overlegislated. Even the creators have seen this and have introduced simplified versions like AA 1941.

One example is the transport. It did not work well for realism purposes in the early games. People were using them for battle fodder. I get that. But the rule changes have not fixed this - they have only added a new version of unrealism. Now a single fighter or DD can take out an unlimited amount of unescorted transports with no risk at all. No dice are rolled. They are just lost. This is not consistent with any other AA combat in the history of the game. Dice have ALWAYS been rolled for combat. If you don’t roll dice, you don’t have pure AA, IMO.

With the addition of new units and new unit abilities (like 2 hit BBs, 8 IPC DDs, ETC) the Classic transport fits in acceptably well. In fact, in our next game we are going to drop our classic TPs back to 8 IPCs instead of ten, and see what happens. I suspect people will still buy ENOUGH TRANSPORTS TO DO THE JOB, and then by the more powerful DDs when they need cannon fodder.

There will still be occasional unrealism in sea battles, but the simplicity and consistency with the rest of the game’s combat system is worth it.

Remember, we are playing a GAME first of all with a WWII flavor. AA will never be an accurate WWII sim. There is no FOW and there is no supply system, for a couple of examples. If the supposedly “improved” rules are encumbering, inconsistent, and reducing the fun of your experience then I say out with them.

“I should point out that I encourage the creation and implementation of house rules” - Larry Harris

DK I couldn’t agree more. What fascinates me is how this subject of transports being able to defend creates so much ire. I love house rules and use them frequently. What I don’t understand is why many feel the need to to tell other players how to run thier house games. Discussion and exchange of ideas is a great exercise and I’m all for it. I think however that sometimes the internet community feels that they must be Larry Harris’s rules police. Just because someone creates something outside of the established authority of LH or tripleA does not make it wrong. Conversely the net community doesn’t have Larry’s exclusive ear quite as exclusively as some may think.

As much as I like your idea DK and use direct or modified versions of it , I think quite a few really don’t like it. I find though your idea seems to create an unwarranted fear that somehow Larry Harris or tripleA is reading this thread and is just itching to change it back as if he bases major design descisions upon posts on this site.

Again DK good post friend!

I must admit that I’m starting to be annoyed by the defenseless transport and the alertness on wandering units (fg, bomber, and sea units waiting to fall on them) it requires every time you left any transport alone without defensive units.

I hate to watch powerlessly at 4 or 5 transports (35 IPCs worth !) being wipe out by a single fighter or even a sub! :x

It is funny the first few times, but after it appears to be a glitch in the system rules when a lot of japanese Transports are wipe out because 1 single damaged US battleship survived against IJN fleet.

I will probably try the Transport A0 D1 M2 C9-10, my next game or a totally different HR naval warfare based on separated groups of subs, transports, escorts and warships.

I’m more the kind of guy who likes to see where lead a certain strategy instead of winning because of some kind of attention disorder in a more than 6 hours game.

The defenseless Transport creates much of this kind of game situation.

Ok this is house rules soo…

In the example of 5 AP’s getting sacked by one destroyer, perhaps allow one dead transport per round. The balance roll to escape at 1-2.

Each round they all roll and the remaining group that fails loses one ship per round. You keep rolling for each remaining transport until nothing remains.

Another idea is to make a technology to replace the stupid war bonds ( pieces of paper that are surety bonds for latter payment were invented in the Civil War and are not TECHNOLOGY…GEEZ.

Tech would be Q-ships which allow AP to defend at 1.

Third idea is to allow only one AP to be sunk, the others are displaced ( moved to adjacent SZ or remain in the current zone and must retreat next turn)

Forth idea is for each ship attacking one AP lost, so ONE SHIP DOES NOT KILL 10, FOR EACH HIT YOU WANT ON A DEFENSELESS AP, YOU MUST BRING IN ONE UNIT.

This last idea seems the best and simplest and fair. Think about it

@Imperious:

Ok this is house rules soo…

In the example of 5 AP’s getting sacked by one destroyer, perhaps allow one dead transport per round. The balance roll to escape at 1-2.

Each round they all roll and the remaining group that fails loses one ship per round. You keep rolling for each remaining transport until nothing remains.

Another idea is to make a technology to replace the stupid war bonds ( pieces of paper that are surety bonds for latter payment were invented in the Civil War and are not TECHNOLOGY…GEEZ.

Tech would be Q-ships which allow AP to defend at 1.

Third idea is to allow only one AP to be sunk, the others are displaced ( moved to adjacent SZ or remain in the current zone and must retreat next turn)

Forth idea is for each ship attacking one AP lost, so ONE SHIP DOES NOT KILL 10, FOR EACH HIT YOU WANT ON A DEFENSELESS AP, YOU MUST BRING IN ONE UNIT.

This last idea seems the best and simplest and fair. Think about it

Your last idea is good but I think too restrictive. We limit the sinking of transports to 3 per attacking unit. So each submarine, surface warship or plane can only sink up to 3 unescorted transports. We also put in an additional rule for transports having limited AA capabilities against attacking aircraft, but that’s another thing.
So if a defender has a stack of 10 transports, the attacker has to commit 4 units to kill them all.
This also works for escorted transports. Once the naval battle is over, there is still the 3 transport per attacking unit limit. If during the last round of battle the attacker gets more hits than needed to destroy the defending warships and/or planes, any excess hits are applied to transports. Any remaining transports are then subject to the 3 per attacking unit rule.

By the way, I like your tech idea of Q-ships, or defendable transports. I also agree that War Bonds is a stupid tech. I also think Paratroopers is stupid AS A TECH. Paratroopers should be an elite infantry units that costs 4 IPCs and must follow the rules for the Paratrooper tech.
I have been trying to come up with some sort of new tech to replace both of those but is still in keeping with what could have been available in the 1940s. I think I am going to implement your Q-ship idea as one of them.
Thanks IL.

As a New Tech, you should introduce the AKA instead:

AKA A1 D1 M2 C7-10

@KimRYoung:

And while you’re thinking of ideas, consider the following about American amphibious cargo ships (originally called Attack Cargo Ships, or AKA):

"Attack cargo ships played a vital role in the Pacific War, where many were attacked by kamikazes and other aircraft, and several were torpedoed, but none were sunk or otherwise destroyed. "

So why are so many sunk so mercilessly in A&A??

Kim

@Imperious:

Ok this is house rules soo…

In the example of 5 AP’s getting sacked by one destroyer, perhaps allow one dead transport per round. The balance roll to escape at 1-2.

Each round they all roll and the remaining group that fails loses one ship per round. You keep rolling for each remaining transport until nothing remains.

Another idea is to make a technology to replace the stupid war bonds ( pieces of paper that are surety bonds for latter payment were invented in the Civil War and are not TECHNOLOGY…GEEZ.

Tech would be Q-ships which allow AP to defend at 1.

Third idea is to allow only one AP to be sunk, the others are displaced ( moved to adjacent SZ or remain in the current zone and must retreat next turn)

Forth idea is for each ship attacking one AP lost, so ONE SHIP DOES NOT KILL 10, FOR EACH HIT YOU WANT ON A DEFENSELESS AP, YOU MUST BRING IN ONE UNIT.
This last idea seems the best and simplest and fair. Think about it

Instead of only one round, give warships and aircrafts a second round of firing before letting Transports flee in the same sea-zone.

Let BB destroy 2 TPs/round (she has speed, more guns and with longer range).

Why would the magic number be two rounds rather than one?

@Imperious:

Why would the magic number be two rounds rather than one?

The basic OOB system rules gives to the attacker, in fact, an unlimited number to destroy as many transports as there is in a sea zone.

There is some cases, when transports are on an amphibious assault and the defender choose to scramble up to 3 fighters, which give 1 round of defending fire before allowing retreat and, in this case, specify that 1 transport is sunk for each fighter scrambled.

In the previous case, the basic principle that 1 combat unit destroys 1 unit/ round is granted.
Only exception: AAA.

So we got 2 extremes situations: one based on the OOB rule about defenseless transport and, on this last case, 1 round of attack on defenceless transport on offence.

Giving one additional round of attack, make this escape effect on transport (which cannot usually escape), less effective than a sub submerge ability (once the destroyer blocker is gone).

Keeping the principle: 1 combat unit destroys 1 unit/round, allowing a second round, makes  the attack, at the end, a 1 combat unit destroys 2 defenceless transports.

It is a middle term between (1 kill/unit and 3kill/units).
Only one additional round is easier to remember and keeps track (than 3, 4 or more).

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

Allowing more rounds of destruction, will mean, on average, the same thing as the OOB rules: no transport will survive.

EDIT: A single round of fire before escape is almost giving transports a better escaping capacity than the subs “submerge capacity” which needs to kill all enemy’s DDs before withdrawing of battle. Hence, giving 2 rounds of enemy’s fire is a clear difference between submerging after first round and escaping on the ocean surface.

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

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

Scrambling is for defense.

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

@Imperious:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Baron:

@Imperious:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not an auto-kill situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is two different house rules on two different objects.

knp7765

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

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

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

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

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

That is my point.