The aberration of the defenseless transport

@Der:

Heh heh - Nine games nights since my last post, and our group is still playing using 8 IPC classic transports that have AA40 carry capacity, with no complaints or desire to go back to the defenseless transport. This is the simple solution, and the solution that fits in best with the rest of the rules of the game, without further complicating it.

It’s easy for us in our group to just “imagine” that the transports are more like converted liners (like the Queen Mary) that are accompanied by escort carriers and such which are not represented by pieces in the game.
It is an interesting way of rationalizing it. But I rather prefer to say it have only Destroyer escorts with them. They have some anti-aircraft capacity and anti-sub also. And once the unit is sunk there is no remain. (Contrary to Fgs and TcBs which can land elsewhere.)
I say just plug in the Classic transports again! Enjoy a few less arbitrary rules and have fun.

Clearly simpler, but does it have any impact on the overall balance of the game (G40 or 1942.2?)?
Does the bid are lower?
Does Axis wins at the same rate?
Is it better balance after all?

You should ask Triple A designer to make this classic transport an available option at the start of the game for G40, 1942.2 and 1941.
Probably not so difficult since they have the old program lines.

@Der:

We play a hybrid of AA1942 and AA50th on a custom map, so I can’t speak for any other versions. I’d just say try it out!

That’s too bad…
10 games and more was a good play-testing experience.

@Spendo02:

The hybrid approach of 8 IPC transports, defending @1 but have to be taken last as casualties is probably my preferred approach.

I don’t care much for defenseless units. Particularly when a Bomber from Hawaii can swoop into Japan’s SZ and blow up 3 TT and land in Mongolia with no risk of dying. Granted Scrambles can defend that but the point is still the same.

I think it is one of the biggest issues with Japan taking all those unprotected US islands, because it is not worth the investment to take a non-value island when you have to divert a fleet to defend from the US arbitrarily sending aircraft to swoop out and clear all those TT with zero chance of escape or defense.

@Uncrustable:

I would support transports costing 8 IPC and defending at a one.

However i dont think they should be able to be taken as casualties before surface warships/planes/ or subs.

So best of both worlds ;)

The hybrid way is probably the simplest way of doing thing.

But I still think that a stack of transports should not be that dangerous for the surviving warships of a big naval fight.

As I revised and reread many ideas, I realized this one possible HR wasn’t formulated:

AP A0 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit,* taken last, * each round defend @1 against up to 1 enemy’s attacking unit or 1 per defending transport, whichever the lesser.
Remaining transports or transports only group can still be ignored by attacking Naval group or amphibious assault group (as G40 OOB).

• Transport are still taken last and cannot roll defense until all escorting warships are destroyed.
  When some transports are taken as casualties because of an overkill of escorting warships,
  then this sunken transport(s) can roll their defense @1.

• Treat defensive roll as the way AA gun is done but, instead of up to 3 planes, it is only up to 1 unit and it is not restricted to aircraft but applied to any attacking unit, no restriction.

Example 1:
3 damaged IJN Battleships are attacking 12 USA transports.
Battleships rolls 3@4 and the transports only rolls 3@1.

Example 2:
3 damaged IJN Battleships are attacking 2 USA transports.
Battleships rolls 3@4 and the transports only rolls 2@1.

I think it is applying only actual A&A game mechanics and it makes more fun because their is no predictable results: transport get a minimal defensive roll but survival is now possible for transport units.

And by keeping the taken last, transports cannot be used as fodder for costlier warships.

What do you think of this, now?

I just visualized there wasn’t only transports ships in this unit but a few escorting vessels with them, not much but enough to provide a limited defense against all kinds of attack (air, sea, subs).

It’s easy for us in our group to just “imagine” that the transports are more like converted liners (like the Queen Mary) that are accompanied by escort carriers and such which are not represented by pieces in the game.

---

It is an interesting way of rationalizing it. But I rather prefer to say it have only Destroyer Escorts (DE) with them. They have some anti-aircraft capacity and anti-sub also. And once the unit is sunk there is no remain. (Contrary to Fgs and TcBs which can land elsewhere.)

I remain interested in this subject. I still find defenseless transports problematic.

Most of my gameplay has been restricted to AA50 and 1942.2 (and some bouts of the starter 1941 to see if it can be improved by the edition of the artillery etc.) Global not so much, as I find it arduous and time intensive in the set up, and implements too many nuanced rules for my tastes, and just doesn’t provide me with enough pay off for all the additional time it takes to get a game started. So most of what I have seen from the defenseless transport is coming form the AA50 and current small to mid range boards.

I still find defenseless transports working against the Allies generally, but also against amphibious capacity builds vs air (to destroy that capacity) in general, and this effect exists for pretty much all player nations. Makes transport capacity more expensive and longer to deploy in the movement of troops. So in addition to the increased cost (per land unit transported) the time delay is also major.

I like the idea of fixing the transport unit somehow, but only if the unit and its rules can still be described in a sentence, maybe two at most. I worry about further complicating this aspect of the game, since it is so essential to the endgame and broader strategy. The ideal for me would be a bit more production and a bit less exclusive dependence on the transport, (through more VCs with starting factories for example, or something similar), but if so much of the game has to hinge on fleets, covering transports, defending against air, then more money should be in play for the nations that have to make near exclusive use of them. Or more total starting units to compensate for the transport purchases that have to be made. Or the transport needs to be cheaper per land unit transported, or put up a defense of some sort.

I tried playing all these games with transports at 8 (revised rules), and then at 10, 12 (With aa fire), and then went back to 7 defenseless just for simplicity and to keep things as OOB as possible while trying to isolate other dynamics relating to overall production, ipcs, and start position on those boards.

Instead of adjustments to the transport rules, I would have favored an adjustment to cost (retaining the old abilities), if the problem in Revised was fodder spamming, but since that went out the door with AA50, I think the problem with the current defenseless transport is an imbalance in starting unit set up and income distribution on these boards. If defenseless, the main players that need them to wage war (USA and UK) should be compensated when designing the starting balance, so that the large cost they have to incur building up defensive fleets is mitigated somewhat. That doesn’t really happen in aa50, or 1942.2, where the income parity of USA and UK doesn’t really match the requirement of their gameplay, whereas Japan (which can purchase production and cover transports more easily) has a much easier go of things. It seems strange how much harder it is for USA and UK to project power and push land units towards the center than it is for Japan. And this is directly a result of the transport rules in those games.

Or at least that has been my feeling

Well it’s not for everyone but I’ve been considering using D12 dice along with D6 dice for “special” rolls. I already know that when you use D12 dice you don’t need D6 dice but I still do.

Anyways, one could allow same stats and rules from G40 for transports but allow 1D12@1 for transports without breaking the game. It’s only .5 PIP at OOB odds.

@Black_Elk:

I remain interested in this subject. I still find defenseless transports problematic.

Most of my gameplay has been restricted to AA50 and 1942.2 (and some bouts of the starter 1941 to see if it can be improved by the edition of the artillery etc.) Global not so much, as I find it arduous and time intensive in the set up, and implements too many nuanced rules for my tastes, and just doesn’t provide me with enough pay off for all the additional time it takes to get a game started. So most of what I have seen from the defenseless transport is coming form the AA50 and current small to mid range boards.

I still find defenseless transports working against the Allies generally, but also against amphibious capacity builds vs air (to destroy that capacity) in general, and this effect exists for pretty much all player nations. Makes transport capacity more expensive and longer to deploy in the movement of troops. So in addition to the increased cost (per land unit transported) the time delay is also major. My thoughts exactly.

I like the idea of fixing the transport unit somehow, but only if the unit and its rules can still be described in a sentence, maybe two at most. I worry about further complicating this aspect of the game, since it is so essential to the endgame and broader strategy. The ideal for me would be a bit more production and a bit less exclusive dependence on the transport, (through more VCs with starting factories for example, or something similar), but if so much of the game has to hinge on fleets, covering transports, defending against air, then more money should be in play for the nations that have to make near exclusive use of them. Or more total starting units to compensate for the transport purchases that have to be made. Or the transport needs to be cheaper per land unit transported, or put up a defense of some sort. I believe a simple ruling where transports must be taken last and leaving the old defense score would have been fine.

I tried playing all these games with transports at 8 (revised rules), and then at 10, 12 (With aa fire), and then went back to 7 defenseless just for simplicity and to keep things as OOB as possible while trying to isolate other dynamics relating to overall production, ipcs, and start position on those boards. Â

Instead of adjustments to the transport rules, I would have favored an adjustment to cost (retaining the old abilities), if the problem in Revised was fodder spamming, but since that went out the door with AA50, I think the problem with the current defenseless transport is an imbalance in starting unit set up and income distribution on these boards. If defenseless, the main players that need them to wage war (USA and UK) should be compensated when designing the starting balance, so that the large cost they have to incur building up defensive fleets is mitigated somewhat. That doesn’t really happen in aa50, or 1942.2, where the income parity of USA and UK doesn’t really match the requirement of their gameplay, whereas Japan (which can purchase production and cover transports more easily) has a much easier go of things. It seems strange how much harder it is for USA and UK to project power and push land units towards the center than it is for Japan. And this is directly a result of the transport rules in those games.

Or at least that has been my feeling

Well it’s just a fact that by and large people like defenseless transports. When I get a group together we vote on whether or not to have a defense roll sometimes we do, and sometimes we don’t, otherwise all OOB rules apply to transports. Any way you slice it, transports cost a lot to defend. May be I suck, but even with a defense I prefer destroyers as fodder, because generally If I buy a transport, it has something on it.

As for spamming in Revised, I wonder how that would have played out differently if the DD would have been at it’s current cost?

It’s rare for me to get a FTF game anyway so HRs and Mulligans happen frequently. To the more serious player and those on tripleA and GTO I suppose their view is much different than mine.

@Black_Elk:

I remain interested in this subject. I still find defenseless transports problematic.

Most of my gameplay has been restricted to AA50 and 1942.2 (and some bouts of the starter 1941 to see if it can be improved by the edition of the artillery etc.) Global not so much, as I find it arduous and time intensive in the set up, and implements too many nuanced rules for my tastes, and just doesn’t provide me with enough pay off for all the additional time it takes to get a game started. So most of what I have seen from the defenseless transport is coming form the AA50 and current small to mid range boards.

I still find defenseless transports working against the Allies generally, but also against amphibious capacity builds vs air (to destroy that capacity) in general, and this effect exists for pretty much all player nations. Makes transport capacity more expensive and longer to deploy in the movement of troops. So in addition to the increased cost (per land unit transported) the time delay is also major.

I like the idea of fixing the transport unit somehow, but only if the unit and its rules can still be described in a sentence, maybe two at most. I worry about further complicating this aspect of the game, since it is so essential to the endgame and broader strategy. The ideal for me would be a bit more production and a bit less exclusive dependence on the transport, (through more VCs with starting factories for example, or something similar), but if so much of the game has to hinge on fleets, covering transports, defending against air, then more money should be in play for the nations that have to make near exclusive use of them. Or more total starting units to compensate for the transport purchases that have to be made. Or the transport needs to be cheaper per land unit transported, or put up a defense of some sort.

I agree with many points of your diagnosis (bolded).

Here is a kind of “official transcript” based on 1942.2 FAQ on AAA you can get for my taken last, 1 hit, defending transport @1 almost like AA gun:

Each defending transport unit in the sea zone may fire up to 1 shot, but each attacking unit may be fired upon only once. In other words, the total number of defense dice rolled is either the number of transport units, or the number of attacking units, whichever is the lesser.

For example, 3 fighters attacking a sea zone containing only 5 transports units would have 3 shots fired against them while those same 3 fighters would have only 2 shots fired against them if there were only 2 defending transport units.

Or based upon 1942.2 rule on AAA unit:

Defending transport: Defending transport units can fire only at an attacking unit when there is no other escorting warships or when a defending transport has been taken as a casualty (as a result of having more casualties than defending warships remaining). In the last case, only the transports being taken as casualties can defend @1. Every round, each defending transport units in the sea zone may fire up to one time, but only once per attacking unit. In other words, the total number of transport defense dice rolled is the number of transport units, or the number of attacking units, whichever is the lesser. Once the number of transport defense dice is determined, the dice are rolled. For each “1” rolled, the attacker chooses one unit as a casualty.

About the 1-2 sentence rule, I’m sure you are just kidding because transport and subs have the whole p. 31 and 30 for them in 1942.2 Rulebook.

Here is an example of 3 aspects of the transport rule formulation (and for further references):

Doesn’t Block Enemy Movement: Any sea zone that contains only enemy transports doesn’t stop the movement of a sea unit. Air or sea units (other than transports) ending their combat movement in a sea zone containing only enemy transports automatically destroy those transports (unless they are ignoring them to support an amphibious assault instead). This counts as a sea combat for those sea units. Sea units can also end their noncombat movement in a sea zone containing only enemy transports.

Chosen Last: Transports can only be chosen as a casualty if there are no other eligible units. Normally this will occur when only transports are left, but it can also occur under other circumstances.
For example, fighters attacking transports and submarines will hit the transports because they cannot hit the submarines without a friendly destroyer present.

And here is the most controversial aspect:

No Combat Value: Even though a transport can attack or defend, either alone or with other units, it has a combat value of 0. This means that a transport cannot fire in the attacking units’ or the defending units’ fire steps. Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines. This lack of combat capability also allows enemy ships to ignore the presence of transports.

@toblerone77:

Well it’s not for everyone but I’ve been considering using D12 dice along with D6 dice for “special” rolls. I already know that when you use D12 dice you don’t need D6 dice but I still do.

Anyways, one could allow same stats and rules from G40 for transports but allow 1D12@1 for transports without breaking the game. It’s only .5 PIP at OOB odds.

If I was playing with D12 dice, that would be my simple choice for giving a hit and a combat value to transport.

I believe a simple ruling where transports must be taken last and leaving the old defense score would have been fine.

If it is the case, that would imply that against attacking destroyers, defending submarines (a warship unit) would be of an equal strength with defending transports.
If you like it, then pure hybrid transport at 8 IPCs is OK.

But, for my part I don’t like this implication.

Example:
3 DDs vs 6 Subs, net results on No Luck, 1 round: 1 DD and 1 Sub destroyed.
Overall %*: A. survives: 16% D. survives: 83.2% No one survives: 0.9%

3 DDs A2 vs 6 Transports D1, results for no Luck, 1 round, 1 DD and 1 Transport destroyed.
Overall %*: A. survives: 15.5% D. survives: 83.4% No one survives: 1.1%

With “whichever is lower” roll @1:
3 DDs A2 vs 6 Transports @1, for one round No Luck: 1/2 DD (or 0.5 DD) destroyed and 1 transport lost.
It is probably around on average:
Overall %*: A. survives: 33.3% D. survives: 65% No one survives: 1.7%

My last suggestion is keeping defending transport hit ratio max 1/6, but often lower than any warships, including Subs on defense.

Well subs at one point did defend at 2, but that’s a different story. Economy of force will always be an issue with this game. As far as scale and realism this game should only have three units land, sea and air, but what fun would that be?

As for transports I have no allusions to them ever returning to old stats. I would suggest however that if transports were allowed a defensive measure of defense @1 and equal in cost to the destroyer, the fodder dilemma would be resolved nicely.  You could also perhaps raise the cost of subs and revise thier defensive to 2. Hence we could have three naval units all at the same cost but with different abilities.

Yes I realize the battle calculator is a useful tool. However it does not take into account strategy and maneuver. It is excellent in calculating odds stack vs.stack and helps calculate economy of force.

Although not directly related to the OP but related generally to the game, Black Elk in several threads has spoken about the evolution and development of the series. I cite this because I am in agreement with him in regards to the development of the game towards the more hard-core player. These players are generally speaking, playing patterned strategies against each other where margin for error is slight and even the slightest missteps could mean defeat.

Now this isn’t a criticism against the more hard-core player. However, this trend to appeal to an almost professional gamer in relation to the evolution and development of the series, has created problems for the more casual player. For the more hard-core gamer economy of force is absolutely essential and has made some pieces like cruiser essentially useless in the more professional strategies. AA50 reflects this a lot and especially Global.

Now, is the series great? Absolutely! Should we change anything? That depends on your opinion. I think DK is doing exactly what should be done and what Larry Harris should encourage like he did in the original versions of Classic. Give us the official rules and encourage house rules at the same time. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. I like playing a straight-laced OOB offical game as well a a house ruled game. I don’t understand why there can’t be room for both. There is no reason why there couldn’t be a page in the official rulebook where it says “House rules are okay…Larry gives his permission”.

@Der:

Let me start this off first with a quote:

“All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward” - Glasgow

For six editions and the first 24 years of AA history, the transport has cost 8 IPCs and defended @1. Starting with AA Guadalcanal, transports became defenseless (the unit pricing scheme was all different). In the 50th Ann edition, transports became defenseless and cheaper, costing 7 IPCs.

I understand new rules create sales, so from a business standpoint, changing things is good. But IMO changing the transport rules hurt the overall game and here’s why:

1. The “auto-destroy” rule violates the spirit of the game.

Everything in this game involves decisions and risk, and has since the beginning. That’s what makes it so much fun. As Alexander Smith said “Everything is sweetened by risk.” Now we have a rule introduced where there is no risk - only auto-destruction. It is an exception to every other rule and every other unit in the game. All excitement in dice rolling to see what happens is removed. What happens is already decided with no variants at all - no anticipation. Lone transports just get swept off the board. yawn.

OBJECTION: Transports defending @1 is unrealistic!
ANSWER: how often in WWII were transports left completely alone? To me this defense value reflects smaller DD escorts, PT boats, AA batteries and such that would normally be in the vicinity of transports. Plus some transport vessels were lightly armed.

Defenseless transports have some issues.
Some of them clearly depicted in #1 above.
In many of my previous posts I was more preoccupied by keeping OOB game balance and finding rules which can give us both worlds of classics and taken last transport effect.

Assuming that balance issue is not such a terrible things because the classic transport pull back the balance toward Allies which in OOB need a bid somehow.
This would imply that along a large spectrum of ideas from OOB (on the left, for egalitarians transport situation) to classic (on the right, for traditionalist and more risk taking guys), the game would roll from pro-axis toward pro-allies and putting some transport house rule in between could be reaching an equilibrium.

Now I’m trying to go forward and give more players options inside the A&A mechanics.

Even if it is a better historical depiction of warships protecting transport (not the other way around as in classic), the taken last rule create a predictable results in naval combat.

What would happen if we give more options for taking transport casualties to both attacker and defender?

Here is the idea:
1- When making combat move, the attacker declare if he is going to A) attack only warships, and leaving transports in the sea zone or B) attack warships and transport.

2- The A situation will be conduct as OOB except that at the end, the remaining stack of transports is not destroy and can flee (or even stay in the SZ) anywhere on the next defending player’s turn.

3- The B situation, now give more options to the defending player with this rule:
Transport A0 D1* M2 C8, 1 hit.
*** Transport can roll @1 only when there is no more warships defending them, otherwise they only have 1 hit value (as AAA gun) and can be pick as a casualty with no defense roll.**
So, for the defending player, when he get to choose casualty, the option is to loose a transport before a defending warships or loosing a warship to protect a transport.

So, for the essential, transport has always a 1 hit value but can only defend @1 when it is on itself against attacker.

This is nearer classic transport but keep one of the effect of taken last and no combat value of transport: segregating warships from transports.
This left to attacker the choice to make combat as OOB focusing on warships at the expense of letting transports survive.
And if he chooses to attack both, it will be part of the deal that transport units can be taken as fodder to protect costlier warship units.

But when alone transport act almost like classic transport defending @1 (except can no more be blocker nor can be mandatory to fight them in a given SZ, most interesting features of OOB transport rule).

Do you think giving this option to attacking player could improve the game experience while being balance?

@Black_Elk:

I remain interested in this subject. I still find defenseless transports problematic.

I still find defenseless transports working against the Allies generally, but also against amphibious capacity builds vs air (to destroy that capacity) in general, and this effect exists for pretty much all player nations. Makes transport capacity more expensive and longer to deploy in the movement of troops. So in addition to the increased cost (per land unit transported) the time delay is also major.

Instead of adjustments to the transport rules, I would have favored an adjustment to cost (retaining the old abilities), if the problem in Revised was fodder spamming, but since that went out the door with AA50, I think the problem with the current defenseless transport is an imbalance in starting unit set up and income distribution on these boards. If defenseless, the main players that need them to wage war (USA and UK) should be compensated when designing the starting balance, so that the large cost they have to incur building up defensive fleets is mitigated somewhat. That doesn’t really happen in aa50, or 1942.2, where the income parity of USA and UK doesn’t really match the requirement of their gameplay, whereas Japan (which can purchase production and cover transports more easily) has a much easier go of things. It seems strange how much harder it is for USA and UK to project power and push land units towards the center than it is for Japan. And this is directly a result of the transport rules in those games.

And here is the most controversial aspect:

No Combat Value: Even though a transport can attack or defend, either alone or with other units, it has a combat value of 0. This means that a transport cannot fire in the attacking units’ or the defending units’ fire steps. Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least one unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines. This lack of combat capability also allows enemy ships to ignore the presence of transports.

I believe that, combine with the taken last, the zero combat value is responsible for the unbalancing effect in naval battle with transports.
If we abstract the combat situation at the IPCs level, we can easily see what happen when a few warships can destroy the remaining defending warships. A sudden drop of many IPCs for the defending looser, and their is no limit (just the number of transports in the stack).
There is no similar situation. In any other combat, the net exchange stay inside some limits based on the numbers of attacking and defending units.

So, every time a transport is bought, it is converting 7 IPCs in a zero combat value (which otherwise have give some hits to combat). And has the most impact on the Allies, which have few warships to protect them at the start. Making for a slow building of naval power and strategies, with stacking fleets.

While putting a same 7 IPCs in aircraft investment is maximizing IPCs for both air, ground and naval. With the most projection of power, air investment are clearly a bane against transport.

From my perspective, this no combat value need to be change.

I think the Classic issue is not just a problem of spamming.
There was also some historical depiction issue.
At some points, when a defender is clearly loosing or will loose precious naval units (12, 14 (or 16) and 20 IPCs) Cruiser, Carrier and Battleships, it will become a smarter choice to loose transport (at 8 to 10 IPCs) in most cases.
This I will called the “fodder effect”.
This is against historical depiction.
This also happen with the subs issue.
Krieghund tells us that adding the rule “planes needs DDs to hit subs” was for making destroyers the real fodder for warships instead of subs spamming making a perfect fodder at 6 IPCs.
Having a lot of subs but no DDs make a defending fleet vulnerable to incoming planes. Hence this additional layer of complexity for planes vs subs.
Destroyers are protecting fleet against everything, not subs.

So, this counter-historical transport “fodder effect” was resolve with the taken last rule.

I made my last rule suggestion to counter somehow the “fodder effect” above, when attacker agree to attack both warships and transports, then transport become eligible target for attacking combat unit and it stay within historical depiction.
For example, IJN decided to go specifically against troop transports in the Leyte’s Gulf Battle, but before they were mainly against warships and planes.
Otherwise, the attacker focusing on warships, defender will not be able to use transport as fodder. (And so even if we give a defending capacity to transport.)

@toblerone77:

As for transports I have no illusions to them ever returning to old stats. I would suggest however that if transports were allowed a defensive measure of defense @1 and equal in cost to the destroyer, the fodder dilemma would be resolved nicely.

Although not directly related to the OP but related generally to the game, Black Elk in several threads has spoken about the evolution and development of the series. I cite this because I am in agreement with him in regards to the development of the game towards the more hard-core player. These players are generally speaking, playing patterned strategies against each other where margin for error is slight and even the slightest missteps could mean defeat.

Now this isn’t a criticism against the more hard-core player. However, this trend to appeal to an almost professional gamer in relation to the evolution and development of the series, has created problems for the more casual player. For the more hard-core gamer economy of force is absolutely essential and has made some pieces like cruiser essentially useless in the more professional strategies. AA50 reflects this a lot and especially Global.

Now, is the series great? Absolutely! Should we change anything? That depends on your opinion. I think DK is doing exactly what should be done and what Larry Harris should encourage like he did in the original versions of Classic. Give us the official rules and encourage house rules at the same time. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. I like playing a straight-laced OOB offical game as well as a house ruled game. I don’t understand why there can’t be room for both. There is no reason why there couldn’t be a page in the official rulebook where it says “House rules are okay…Larry gives his permission”.

Just some thoughts on the evolution of transport rules.
I just realized that the two last rules on transport I suggested were not possible before second edition game mechanics evolution.

Larry Harris make them appear while revising AA gun mechanics.
Before, AA guns were undestructible and @1 against all planes.
If anyone have introduce actual AA gun rules, this would have appear complicated and weird house rules. And rejected by many, if not all.

But, since he is the designer, he created this new game mechanics and everyone goes forward, at least, to learn it whether to decide to implemented it or not in their games.

By trying to resolve some issues on transport, I realized I combined to transport rules two new games mechanics from AA guns to develop a different way of playing transport.

Until second edition, both “whichever the lesser” and “1 hit fodder” with no defending roll was alien to A&A, now it is possible to combined them somehow to defenseless and classic transport rules to going just somewhere else.

It will remains in a “house rule” state at least until a third edition is produced (maybe forever, IDK) but, I’m pretty sure, both elements are part of shared A&A mechanics and can bring some possible cure (not necessarily in the way my HRs work) to the defenseless issues DK clearly outlined to all the community.

Maybe AAgun mechanics (and even other 2nd edition rules evolution) can provide us the next step further for solving transport issue…

@toblerone77:

As for transports I have no illusions to them ever returning to old stats. **I would suggest however that if transports were allowed a defensive measure of defense @1 and equal in cost to the destroyer, the fodder dilemma would be resolved nicely. **

Yes I realize the battle calculator is a useful tool. However it does not take into account strategy and maneuver. It is excellent in calculating odds stack vs.stack and helps calculate economy of force.

Based on your game experiences with 2nd ed rules combined with Classic transport rules, does it have a big impact toward Allies and against Axis?

With the many transports able to roll @1 with all other warships does these transports provide a big deterrent against attacker? And if not, why? What happen to make that not the case?

At first glance, a core fleet of warships with the defenseless transports is far weaker than the same core fleet with the same number of transports acting like classics, no?

No other change and yet the game is still balance?

I’m sceptical but very curious.

On battlecalc,
Here, I just considered I provide an example to show that one method gives a weaker defense to transport than the other.

I’m not really using battlecalc as I was on nightbombing SBR thread.

I have not tried implementing my ideas on the “8-8-8” line up for AP, DD and SS.

When I used to have a group that met twice weekly back in the 1990’s all we had was Classic and begged for destroyers eventually using Fortress America hover tanks as a “Destroyer/Gunboat” it was more like a cruiser mechanic-wise but we started purchasing those more often rather than using APs as a defensive screen. As for now I usually only get a game in around the holidays with family. One of my brothers is familiar with the newer editions but most experience comes from Revised and Classic. We sometimes give AP a D@1 sometimes not. Both of us prefer DDs as a defensive/fodder screen. Niether of us like “auto-destroy” for AP even though he will only play as the Axis and it would usually benefit him more than I in most cases. I taught my wife how to play 1941 we played three games and she asked why APs don’t get to roll defense. She plays Euro games and had never played a game like A&A. Needless to say she thought it odd APs have not defense roll.

APs in all my experiences are not a huge deterrent if the enemy needs destroy loaded APs against invasion. My gripe as well as others is the ability for someone to simply “drive-by shoot” APs. I will also say that sometimes a “one-way AP” is needed at times and now that is almost impossible. Also many times a player will simply bomb an AP because they have nothing better to do. APs@D1 is a deterrent.

On battle calculators. I’ve never said they are useless and many people here use them. I’m just saying they aren’t the ultimate tool when designing house rules. In the end, where the battle calculator will eventually lead conclusion-wise, is that fodder units are almost always superior to anything else that costs more. With all the discussion and argument on topic vs. topic One could conclude that this game to satisfy many pro-players and realism absolutists you should eliminate all units and simply have a total of three units; army, navy and air. Again, what fun would that be.

I had more I wanted to write, but alas, duty calls, and I must go to work.

toblerone77,
I don’t have quite as much a problem with the defenseless transport, particularly against submarines and warships. In fact, I really didn’t like it in Classic where a battleship goes in to sink a transport and gets destroyed by that transport.
However, I also don’t like the idea of a stack of 20 transports getting sunk by a single warship or plane. So, we created this house rule:
Any attacking warship or aircraft may destroy unescorted transports at a limit of THREE (3) transports per warship or plane.
Attacking warships must have an attack value so aircraft carriers by themselves can NOT sink transports.
Also, unescorted transports that are attacked by aircraft alone (no enemy warships) can use a limited Anti-Aircraft ability. Each transport can roll ONE (1) die to defend against attacking aircraft. On each roll of “1”, one attacking aircraft is hit. Each hit aircraft must then roll a die at their normal attack value (fighters and tactical bombers @ 3, strategic bombers @ 4. Tactical bombers do NOT get the +1 bonus for being paired with a fighter when attacking transports.) If the hit aircraft successfully roll a hit, they can destroy 1 transport.
If no defending transports roll a 1, then the planes destroy the transports at a rate of 3 transports per attacking aircraft.
For example: 2 fighters attack 3 unescorted transports. The 3 transports roll 1 die each and get one hit. One fighter is destroyed. The attacker does not have to roll for that fighter because the other un-hit fighter will destroy the 3 transports. However, if there were 4 transports and they got 1 hit, then the un-hit fighter would destroy 3 of the transports while the hit fighter would have to roll @ 3 to try and destroy the 4th transport. If that fighter misses, the 4th transport survives that battle.

Also, since the Tech “War Bonds” was rather unpopular with our group, we came up with a new tech: Armed Transports. This gives transports a defense factor of 1. With this ability, the “defenseless transport” rule is abolished. Now transports CAN be taken as casualties during a battle. Also, they no longer have the AA defense against planes since they now have the ability to destroy planes during regular combat and transports can no longer be destroyed at a 3:1 ratio with attacking units.

I find the three naval units at 8 (but with different abilities) very intriguing.

The old 8, 16 and 24 ipc system felt like a good spread to me for ships, if only the abilities matched up more cleanly, since it allowed for a kind of quick calculus when determining the relative value of ships. In the current spread with units at 6, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 20, the relative value is bit harder to parse, and those values are also not terribly consistent across boards (AA50, 1942.2, 1941, and G40 also show minor variations in cost or associated abilities.)

I also lament the loss of a solid unit at 5 in the overall roster. The old tank filled this gap nicely, but now that tanks cost 6 its harder to spend the remainder at 5 (unless you want to gamble with AA purchases.)

Before I always used to thank of the game in terms of 3s and 5s, or 6s and 8s, when purchasing and trying to spend the remainder ipcs. Now its almost always just a choice between 6s and 8s. Not sure if that sort of crude mental logic applies with other people besides me, but I can’t help but think the game might benefit from more options on the 8 rather than just the Destroyer, or double Art buy.

Also to another of Toblerone’s points, I totally endorse that idea to mention house rules in the manual, with a sort of general blessing on subject, without going into anything specific. :) I always enjoyed the notion that when you buy the box, you are buying a scaffold or skeleton upon which a more nuanced game can be built up. I really do favor the whole concept of “Official” options too though. For a just a couple extra pages in the rulebooks, I think it is possible to throw some serious weight behind a lot of cool ideas. And that way, if there is a balance issue in one of the OOB games, then at least you have a simple recourse to turn to. So for example, if an OOB set up seems unbalanced or busted in some way, you can first ask the question, can one of the officially mentioned alternatives correct for it? Also, I still find it curious that even after several decades there is still no mention of bids in the rules. Pre-placement bids might be annoying in a various ways (especially the effect of re-balancing strategies against a particular bid, that is itself already a re-balancing of the OOB set up) but still, they have been in use for a while. It might be helpful if some guidelines or suggestions or popular alternatives existed in a manual regarding them.

But yeah, for the house rules, ptional transport rules, or transport advances, or tech for transports is just one area where I could see this approach being useful. At least to lay out the attitude of openness, which I think already exists from the designer, but which would be cool to have stated explicitly.

@knp7765:

toblerone77,
I don’t have quite as much a problem with the defenseless transport, particularly against submarines and warships. In fact, I really didn’t like it in Classic where a battleship goes in to sink a transport and gets destroyed by that transport. I get where people don’t like that. I also get why people hate “auto-destroy”

However, I also don’t like the idea of a stack of 20 transports getting sunk by a single warship or plane. So, we created this house rule:
Any attacking warship or aircraft may destroy unescorted transports at a limit of THREE (3) transports per warship or plane.
Attacking warships must have an attack value so aircraft carriers by themselves can NOT sink transports.
Also, unescorted transports that are attacked by aircraft alone (no enemy warships) can use a limited Anti-Aircraft ability. Each transport can roll ONE (1) die to defend against attacking aircraft. On each roll of “1”, one attacking aircraft is hit. Each hit aircraft must then roll a die at their normal attack value (fighters and tactical bombers @ 3, strategic bombers @ 4. Tactical bombers do NOT get the +1 bonus for being paired with a fighter when attacking transports.) If the hit aircraft successfully roll a hit, they can destroy 1 transport. Seems more reasonable.

If no defending transports roll a 1, then the planes destroy the transports at a rate of 3 transports per attacking aircraft.
For example: 2 fighters attack 3 unescorted transports. The 3 transports roll 1 die each and get one hit. One fighter is destroyed. The attacker does not have to roll for that fighter because the other un-hit fighter will destroy the 3 transports. However, if there were 4 transports and they got 1 hit, then the un-hit fighter would destroy 3 of the transports while the hit fighter would have to roll @ 3 to try and destroy the 4th transport. If that fighter misses, the 4th transport survives that battle.

Also, since the Tech “War Bonds” was rather unpopular with our group, we came up with a new tech: Armed Transports. This gives transports a defense factor of 1. With this ability, the “defenseless transport” rule is abolished. Now transports CAN be taken as casualties during a battle. Also, they no longer have the AA defense against planes since they now have the ability to destroy planes during regular combat and transports can no longer be destroyed at a 3:1 ratio with attacking units. This I like best of all!

Thanks for your response knp. You and I think alike on many topics. The tech rule is one I like especially. War Bonds to me aren’t really a technology at all.

Another idea I was also thinking of why not give CA’s pairing bonus of +1 at a 1:1 ratio on defense only? (not in conjunction with you tech)

I think my biggest gripe is just the concept that theoretically one unit can destroy 100 APs. I agree a wise strategy is escort your APs, but one plane/vessel knocks out your escort and gets to destroy all the remaining APs drives me nuts.

Anyway your ideas look pretty good.