The aberration of the defenseless transport

How would that be agreeable to everyone? It makes even less sense than the other rules and changes absolutely nothing. I actually liked the idea that a unit could kill only 3 defenseless transports but don’t think it goes nearly far enough and wouldn’t change anything in that form. If each (remaining) unit could auto-kill one defenseless transports before combat ends it would at least solve the problem of a single (or a few) fighters taking out a whole fleet with no risk.

Well there is certainly no chance of Larry making any change in the current rules until some 3rd edition comes out in the far future.

That said, I really like the defenseless transports. What I don’t like is a single bomber coming out of left field that I did not see wipe out 6 unprotected transports.

I good compromise would be simple:

**Transports in a sea zone DO NOT participate in any naval battle. After the battle is concluded, the winner side will sink ONE transport for each remaining combat unit. If any trasports are left after this they must be moved out on their next turn if there are still enemy units in a sea zone.

If attacking un-escorted transports, the attacker can only kill one transport for each attacking unit.**

This means that a single lone trasport or a small group could still get wipped out, but a large fleet of transports could not get completly wipped out unless a large amout of combat units go after it. After all, transports would never really be in the area of a naval battle (even in the same SZ). They would disperse away from the fight, and certainly some would get away.

So for example, Japan strikes at an American task force with 6 transports in it and destroys all the warships and has 3 ships (combat units) left, the US would have 3 transports sunk. On the US turn, these would have to move out of the SZ.

Add any ideas you think off.

Kim

KimRYoung - Doesn’t sound too bad except for the absence of any random result from dice as happens in the rest of the game, which I think adds a lot to the fun.

Then let every remaining combat unit make ONE attack on the transports.

Even when wolfpacks and convoy raiders attacked transport flotillas, they did not kill everything!

Kim

@Gekkepop:

How would that be agreeable to everyone? It makes even less sense than the other rules and changes absolutely nothing. I actually liked the idea that a unit could kill only 3 defenseless transports but don’t think it goes nearly far enough and wouldn’t change anything in that form. If each (remaining) unit could auto-kill one defenseless transports before combat ends it would at least solve the problem of a single (or a few) fighters taking out a whole fleet with no risk.

Lets detail out the concerns:

Side A: TT in bulk create a problem of balance if they defend @1 because those add up and effectively act as screens because they are sinking ships that will no longer be able to attack.

Side B: It is poor form to decide that anything in a dice rolling game is auto destroyed by the mere presence of a hostile offensive unit.

So we give TT a chance to defend themselves, but limit the dice they roll.  It effectively eliminates them as a screening unit because no matter the quantity, they only roll a single die when in combat, at the lowest possible odds to “hit”.  However when left undefended, they are not free kills because there is a risk, albeit small, that they could shoot down a fighter or ram a ship and cause it to sink.

I’d even be willing to go as far as once a hit is scored against the TT (which are always the last remaining naval units), the entire flotilla is lost but they can, as a whole still roll a single die @1 to defend themselves.

@Gekkepop:

The problem I see is that the current naval game is inherently unbalanced in favor of the attacker.

It’s supposed to work like that.

In the naval game, the force that is advancing has to have a defensive fleet.  That seems counter-intuitive, but it’s how it works.
Perfect example - the Allied fleet, when preparing for D-Day or some similar invasion, needs to be able to withstand any sub/air assault from the Axis.  Even though they’re on the attack in this theatre, the Allies must have much more defensive punch than offensive.
This is how the game is supposed to be.  It’s pretty much perfect as is, as far as unit cost and power goes.
Defense - Destroyers + Carriers - is pricier than an equivalent offense - Subs + Air power.
This way, America and Britain have to spend more than Germany does in order to make any sort of invasion happen.  In other terms, Germany’s position is more cost-efficient…in the same way that Germany must outspend Russia in order to make a successful attack on the ground.  I think we agree that this is how it should be.
I think.  :lol:

What a GREAT thread!!!

I agree with both sides to a certain extent.

I personally have never liked that transports don’t defend.  Maybe cause at least once per game I leave some unescorted transports and fail to see the ONE unit that can get there to wipe them all out with no consequence.

I also think that if they all defended a 1, it could get a little lopsided.  That is one thing that I did not like about revised.  Like it has been mentioned many times the attacking navy had very little capital ships and a bunch of TT’s to take the hits.

Has anyone even tried to play the game with the old transport rules?  For the most part I think it would be pretty easy to tell if it skews the game so badly that it is not fun for one side.  I bet you wouldn’t even have to finish one game in order to tell.

I like the idea by BJCard of them being able to retreat after taking a round of fire, if they are unescorted, and taking one round of fire after all other warships/airforce have been eliminated.  That would effectively take away the one bomber that could get to 5 TT’s and wiping them out without taking any fire.  You could only lose 1 at the most with that attack.

My reason of disagreement: the risk of unbalancing the game in favor of Allies.

I think it is pretty clear with all the bids going on for the allies that it already favors the axis.  Lots of people have talked about trying to keep it as historical as possible.  If thats the case, wouldn’t you want the Allies to be favored since we won the war?

When the axis are able to even out the economic battle then it is impossible for the allies.

EX.  US inf and art to attack in Europe.  7 ipcs, TT to get them there 7 ipcs.  However many ships to protect the transport, lets just say 1 DD for the sake of argument, 8 ipcs.  22ipcs total and 2 turns.

Germany to defend that attack evenly.  2 inf.  6 ipcs.  1 turn.

Might make it so that people actually want to be the allies instead of taking a bid in order to HAVE to play the allies.

@Spendo02:

@Gekkepop:

How would that be agreeable to everyone? It makes even less sense than the other rules and changes absolutely nothing. I actually liked the idea that a unit could kill only 3 defenseless transports but don’t think it goes nearly far enough and wouldn’t change anything in that form. If each (remaining) unit could auto-kill one defenseless transports before combat ends it would at least solve the problem of a single (or a few) fighters taking out a whole fleet with no risk.

Lets detail out the concerns:

Side A: TT in bulk create a problem of balance if they defend @1 because those add up and effectively act as screens because they are sinking ships that will no longer be able to attack.

Side B: It is poor form to decide that anything in a dice rolling game is auto destroyed by the mere presence of a hostile offensive unit.

So we give TT a chance to defend themselves, but limit the dice they roll.  It effectively eliminates them as a screening unit because no matter the quantity, they only roll a single die when in combat, at the lowest possible odds to “hit”.  However when left undefended, they are not free kills because there is a risk, albeit small, that they could shoot down a fighter or ram a ship and cause it to sink.

I’d even be willing to go as far as once a hit is scored against the TT (which are always the last remaining naval units), the entire flotilla is lost but they can, as a whole still roll a single die @1 to defend themselves.

I will try to summarize:
Many agree about the rule: TPs are chosen last.
Few agrees about defender choosing casuality.

TPa (OOB 1940) @0 C7 no hit value.
TPb (classic)      @1 C8   1 hit value.
TPc Spendo02   @1 C7 as a group of 1 or more / 1 hit value as a group.
TPd Spendo02    @1 C7 as a group of 1 or more / 1 hit value.
TPe Baron         @1 C7 as a group of 2 or more / 1 hit value. 1 TP alone is TPa.
TPf Baron  as a rregular AA1@1 C8 1 hit value, @0 against any warships.
TPg Baron    @1 C9 as 1 upgraded unit made of TPa C7+Escort Frigates C2=1 hit.
TPh DerK, TPb   @1 C10 1 hit value.

Some are able to flee:
A) Every attacking unit automatic-kill 3 units. Flee after 1 round.
B) Every attacking unit automatic-kill 1 unit.   Flee after 1 round.
C) Every attacking unit must roll twice.           Flee after 1 round.
D) Each attacking unit rolls once.                   Flee after 1 round.
E) Every naval unit rolls twice but TPs are able to flee after 1 round.
   Every aircraft unit must roll once/round but TP is unable to flee.
   (Until one side or either side is destroyed.)

Some defend on:
I) the very first round of the naval battle against protecting warships.
II) the first round after all protecting warships are destroyed.

I explain TP+E:
It was the version developped by Philip Schwartzer from Gamers Paradise.

Transports without escort can withdraw and flee against any naval unit after 1 round receiving 2 rolls@4/ships (Subs & BB) or 1 roll @1 @2 or @3/ship (CV, DD, CA).
Transports cannot flee against aircrafts but each TP got 1@1 against them.

If that’s the case, wouldn’t you want the Allies to be favored since we won the war?

What you mean “We” round eye?

Kim

DK I think even with all the discussion that has gone on in this thread (excellent topic and discussion) I believe your point has been well made for a 10 IPC transport with a defense of 1 is and was the best approach all along. These game stats fit the bill. Anyone stacking ten buck transports would be a fool and a defenseless-transport gravy-train is averted.

You won my vote sir.

What you mean “We” round eye?

Good point.  My sincere apologies!  Very bad assumption on my part.  Could do without the name calling cause I meant nothing derogatory by that.  Should have said the allies won.

@toblerone77:

DK I think even with all the discussion that has gone on in this thread (excellent topic and discussion) I believe your point has been well made for a 10 IPC transport with a defense of 1 is and was the best approach all along. These game stats fit the bill. Anyone stacking ten buck transports would be a fool and a defenseless-transport gravy-train is averted.

You won my vote sir.

I will reply this, the solution may create another problem for Allies:

@Eggman:

Regardless of any fiddling with the Transport rules, I certainly wouldn’t raise their price back up above the 8 they started with, since amphibious attacks are already too expensive to do as it is when they cost 7.

Ten IPCs is still cheaper than the DD/TT combo that is essentially required to transport anything via the sea and not have it blown out of the water by air or subs by default.

@Der:

Yeah! Glad to see I’m not alone in the pro-classic transport camp.

The classic transport:

• Represents a TROOPSHIP - not a supply ship.
• Blends nicely with one of the maxims of the game “defender chooses his own casualties”
• Makes learning the game easier - less “special” rules
• Keeps the element of chance involved, thus more suspense = more fun
• Keeps battle command decisions in your hands - not the rules

The Global transport:

• is auto-slaughtered in large groups if alone
• removes some of your battle command power - you HAVE to choose transports last
• Does not fit with the general game rules - it is like an orange thrown into a barrel of apples

Only the transport can move land units across water. They will have to be bought no matter what they cost. that’s why I’m in favor of a classic transport costing 10 IPCs. It would fit nicely in the naval price scale (ss-6, dd-8, tp-10, ca-12, cv-14).

The 10 IPCs is very appealing because it fits in.
But why reject the 9 IPCs?
It also fit in: their is no unit at 9 IPCs.
Fighters already cost 10 IPCs. TacB cost 11 IPCs.
Which can be part of a fleet on CV.
It still over the price of a DD 8 IPCs.

When both UK/USA and Germany lose one unit its means usually trading a 10 IPCs fighter for something else :
now, it could be a TP D@1 10 IPCs to preserve DD@2 and ASW at 8 IPCs.
It means a draw between Allies against Germany, at 9 IPCs Axis is minus 1.

I assume that you prefer the “defender choose casualty” rule.

@Der:

Larry Harris said this about transports in 2007 on his site:

“I will say this Transports are considered to be lightly defended with escorts. Additional ships provide additional defense and so on.” (Posted: Fri 23.Feb, 2007)

So originally transports were not to be thought of as just transports.

**Two maxims of the game have generally been:

1. every decision involves some risk (dice rolls)
2. defender chooses his own casualties**

The new transport rules violate both.

That’s really the point here.

**And I can say it is very convincing, but the other aspect is the strategical effect of introducing TP Def@1 C10:

1. on Amphibious assault.
2. on the moves of naval fleet.**

With TP @0 C7 their was always another unit (DD, Carrier) to protect them from StrB or evil subs roaming on sea-zones.

Now, with a bunch of them they get a far better protection:
Ex.: 3TPs @1 & 1DD @2. D5 pts, 4 hits, 38 IPCs, 6 units on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 3DDs @2. D6 pts, 3 hits, 38 IPCs, 4 units on board.

After 1 hit, see what happen:
Ex.: 2TPs @1 & 1DD@2. D4 pts, 3 hits, 28 IPCs, 4 units left on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 2DD@2. D4 pts, 2 hits, 30 IPCs, 4 units left on board.

After 2 hits, let’s see:
Ex.: 1TP @1 & 1DD@2. D3 pts, 2 hits, 18 IPCs, 2 units left on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 1DD@2. D2 pts, 1 hit, 22 IPCs, 4 units left on board.

After 3 hits, let’s see:
Ex.: 1TP @1 & 0DD@2. D1 pt, 1 hit, 10 IPCs, 2 units left on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 0DD@2. D0 pt, 1 hit, 14 IPCs, 4 units left on board.

If their is still attacking units, it is over for 2TPs @0 but they were protected all the way.

If their is still attacking units, it’s not over for 1TP @1 but they were used all the way as a screen for DD. I could have kept the DD instead on the third hit.

Against both StrB or Subs, it will be the return of the screening transports…
Unless you kept the TP chosen last.

The more I think about it, the more I see how it is required to specify which rules you chose to help searching for a balance unit:

Many agree about the rule: TPs are chosen last.
Few agrees about defender choosing casuality.

Some defend on:
I) the very first round of the naval battle against protecting warships.
II) the first round after all protecting warships are destroyed.

If one of these house rules was apply, there was still defending units left to fight:

TPd Spendo02 @1 C7 as a group of 1 or more / 1 hit value.
TPe Baron M   @1 C7 as a group of 2 or more / 1 hit value. 1 TP alone is TPa.

If a House rule introduce that TP can take hit in Global 1940, it is a real defensive advantage for them even if it means only 1 @1 per group of TPs.

The reason is that for 70 IPCs, TP C7 makes 10 units on the board, so it is 3 more units than TP C10.

3 hits to soak damage can lead to 2 more rounds @1, 2x1/6= 11/36 odds to kill something.

TP @1 C10 is 42% more expensive than TP @0 C7.
It can have a great impact on troops moving when their is less danger around them. Surely it will impairs Allies logistics and communication roads.

Here is another simulation:
Ex.: 3TPs @1 &0DD@2. D3 pts, 3 hits 30 IPCs, 6 units on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 2DD@2. D4 pts, 2 hits 30 IPCs, 4 units on board.

After 1 hit, see what happen:
Ex.: 2TPs @1 & 0DD@2. D2 pts, 2 hits, 20 IPCs, 4 units on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 1DD@2. D2 pts, 1 hit, 22 IPCs, 4 units on board.

After 2 hits, 1 TP @1 survived, its over for TP @0 if any surviving enemy:
Ex.: 1 TP @1/0DD@2. D1 pt, 1 hit, 10 IPCs, 2 units on board vs
      2 TPs @0/0DD@2. D0 pt, 1 hit, 14 IPCs, 4 units on board.
or    0 TP @0/0DD@2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 0 IPC, 0 units on board.

After 3 hits: Everything is destroyed for both, unless giving TP @0 can take hit.
In this situation, it means TP flee after one round of fire.
Ex.: 0 TP @1 & 0DD @2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 0 IPC, 0 units on board vs
      1TP @? & 0DD @2. D? pt, 1 hit, 7 IPCs, 2 units on board.

Here is a last simulation:
Ex.: 2TPs @1/2DD@2. D6 pts, 4 hits, 36 IPCs, 4 units on board vs
      4TPs @0/1DD@2. D2 pts, 1 hit, 36 IPCs, 8 units on board.

After 1 hit, see what happen:
Ex.: 2TPs @1 & 1DD@2. D4 pts, 3 hits, 28 IPCs, 4 units on board vs
      4TPs @0 & 0DD@2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 28 IPCs, 8 units on board.

After 2 hits, 2TPs @1 survived, its over for TP @0 if any surviving enemy:
Ex.: 2TPs @1 & 0DD@2. D2 pts, 2 hits, 20 IPCs, 4 units on board vs
      0TP @0 & 0DD@2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 0 IPCs, 0 units on board.
or   3TPs @? & 0DD@2. D? pt, 3 hits, 21 IPCs, 6 units on board.
Everything is destroyed for TP @0, unless _giving TP @0 can take hit.
In this situation, it means TP flee after one round of fire.

After 3 hits,      
Ex.: 1TP @1 & 0DD@2. D1 pt, 1 hit, 10 IPCs, 2 units on board vs
      2TPs @? & 0DD@2. D? pt, 2 hits, 14 IPCs, 4 units on board.

After 4 hits,
Ex.: 0TP @1 & 0DD @2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 0 IPC, 0 units on board vs
      1TP @? & 0DD @2. D? pts, 1 hit, 7 IPCs, 2 units on board._

Seldom agrees about defender choosing casuality.

I just don’t see what any other options would be that didn’t provide the same type of result in a different manner.  If the person rolling the dice chooses then obviously things like infantry and subs would be the last in the battle.  So the end of the dice rolls are looking for 1’s and 2’s to try to get hits and finish off the battle instead of the 3’s and 4’s.

Could be a whole different thread, but I don’t see any way that it would make the game better to change who picks casualties.

@elevenjerk:

Seldom agrees about defender choosing casuality.

I just don’t see what any other options would be that didn’t provide the same type of result in a different manner.  If the person rolling the dice chooses then obviously things like infantry and subs would be the last in the battle.  So the end of the dice rolls are looking for 1’s and 2’s to try to get hits and finish off the battle instead of the 3’s and 4’s.

Could be a whole different thread, but I don’t see any way that it would make the game better to change who picks casualties.

“Seldom” I mean “few people”, all is about following the “The transports are taken last.” or instead letting the defensive player choose the casualities between warships and transport.

My point is that without this rule, it is very difficult to not use Transports as a shield for the stronger units.

@Der:

Unfortunately I don’t know of an odds calculator that can put units from different editions of the game into battle. For example, what are the odds if a Global BB attacks a Classic transport?

Ummmmmm… I’ve been using odds calcuators since the 20th century for “classic” editions of the game.  For example, here is a link for a couple of those simulators:

http://www.axisandalliesworldclub.net/Downloads.asp

I prefer the odds grapher, but didn’t see that as an option.  I only have an .exe at the moment, but will send it to anyone interested.

Run some battles in those!  You will really realize how skewed the transports really were when they hit at one.  I’ve probably played at least 1500 games online via 3rd edition rules.  And the players who have done that all realize this about transport stacking.  Naval battles are much more beautiful in G40 and AA50 as a result…