The aberration of the defenseless transport

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…

@Der:

@toblerone77:

You won my vote sir.

Woohoo! Let the revolution begin!

@BJCard:

…to think that a couple dozen ‘troopships’ could down a couple hundred fighter bombers or a couple dozen destroyers is crazy. � Let’s not even discuss how a transport harms a battleship (as you mentioned).

Yeah it’s kind of crazy, just like a couple dozen empty “a/c carriers” taking down a couple hundred fighter bombers or a couple dozen DDs. Yet that can happen in this game without any objection. Let’s not even discuss how a destroyer or an empty a/c carrier sinks an attacking battleship. These oddities are found throughout the game. The transport gets pointed out, because of the rule change.

�

Well, it is easier to explain how some Aircraft Carriers kill fighters/bombers- many ACs had fairly robust anti-air capability.  Battleship is a different animal- but you could assume that every carrier has a small contingent of CAP fighters that make up the ‘2’ defense- and those are fighting the Battleship.  In the end though, every other unit in the game was made for fighting, the transport was made to transport.

A Transport/Troopship rolling a 1 is an aberration. Having a 1 in 6 chance of hitting a warship/aircraft is crazy,  I could perhaps accept it if it was 1/10 or 1/12, but 1 in 6 is nuts. 
My vote is any transport that survives the initial attack is allowed to retreat to another friendly SZ- if no friendly SZ exists then they are dead.

A Transport costing 10 IPCs may as well invite the Allies to never land in Europe.  The Allies already have a tough enough time building a defensive fleet to move in range of Germany’s Air.

@BJCard:

My vote is any transport that survives the initial attack is allowed to retreat to another friendly SZ- if no friendly SZ exists then they are dead.

A Transport costing 10 IPCs may as well invite the Allies to never land in Europe.  The Allies already have a tough enough time building a defensive fleet to move in range of Germany’s Air.

This is probably as far as I would go as well, or possibly raising the price back up to 8 and giving back the defensive roll @1.  I don’t think any unit should ever just be automatically eliminated- including the AA guns.

@Eggman:

@BJCard:

My vote is any transport that survives the initial attack is allowed to retreat to another friendly SZ- if no friendly SZ exists then they are dead.

A Transport costing 10 IPCs may as well invite the Allies to never land in Europe.  The Allies already have a tough enough time building a defensive fleet to move in range of Germany’s Air.

This is probably as far as I would go as well, or possibly raising the price back up to 8 and giving back the defensive roll @1.  I don’t think any unit should ever just be automatically eliminated- including the AA guns.

Your post contain almost all different points of debate in this topic:

1- Automatic elimination of Transport or not?
2- To flee or not to flee? 1 sea-zone away or same sea-zone (like Sb submerge)?
3- If able to defend, @? For how many TPs units and which odds? And what cost?
4- OOB 1940 transport rules (TPs are taken last) or Classic rules (TPs are part of the warships fleet and are often used as shield)?
5- If TPs taken last but able to defend, at the same time as other warships or only once warships are no more?

Here is what I think is a more balance TP unit for those who prefer to keep the Transport are taken last and don’t want to affect too much the OOB set up and balance but don’t want to let them defenseless and give them some tactical choices.

TP A0D0M2C7 when paired to another transport give a +1 def. so a pair get 1@1
Ex.: 1TP get 0@1/ 2-3 TPs get 1@1 / 4-5 TPs get 2@1 / 6-7 TPs get 3@1, etc.

**Can defend when no more warships are present.

Attacking’s unit against a lonely TP or a TPs group get a double to hit rolls each.**
Ex.: 1 Sb 2@2/ 1 CA 2@3 / 1Fgt 2@3 / 2 StB 4@4, etc.

“Dispersion”: 1 or more TPs can retreat in the same sea-zone (as Sub submerge) after 1 round of enemy’s fire.
So they still share the same sea-zone with enemy’s warships, if their is.

Historical meaning:
They flee everywhere in the sea, so enemy attacking group units pick only 1 single transport boat at a time and this become a long time-consuming process to destroy them.

I think it is a middle term that reach many criterias presented in this tread.
Specially the comparison of a classic TP firepower against 1 BB unit.
1@1 vs 1@4 is very unrealistic but 1@1 for 2 TPs vs 4@4 to 2 BB seems correct to me.
It brings also more fun since their is no automatic killing.
And the presence of 10 or more TPs is still a dangerous task since 5@1 is something that can hurt.
And let the option to the defender to fight to the death or not.

Ive thought about letting transports defend in ‘pairs’

Each ‘pair’ of transports is considered one unit, rolls ONE dice hitting on a one and can be taken as a casualty. (both transports are sunk)

Odd numbered transports do not participate.

@Uncrustable:

Ive thought about letting transports defend in ‘pairs’

Each ‘pair’ of transports is considered one unit, rolls ONE dice hitting on a one and can be taken as a casualty. (both transports are sunk)

Odd numbered transports do not participate.

This house rule reduces the number of hit the defender can take and it increases the impact of a hit from attacker.

The disadvantage with this rule is that it breaks the A&A principles: “1 unit = 1 hit”
It’s add another layer of complexity.
Between giving two dices per attacker’s unit or giving one hit per 2 TPs, I will prefer the first.

But, it doesn’t mean that it can be house ruled.

However, “devil is in the details”.

In this way, I have a question: what do you mean exactly?

Odd numbered transports do not participate.

You should present some examples to see if some problems arise.

Well i thought it was pretty obvious.

If you have 3 transports defending then you have one ‘pair’ and one oddball.

So the pair rolls one dice hitting on a one, and can be taken as a casualty. The oddball cannot and does not.

If the seazone gets wiped by the attacker and the only defender remaining is the oddball transport it dies (unless there are no attacking units left either)

Honestly this is idea bridges the differences in mass stacks of transport fodder and mass stacks of auto-death transports

Another way you could do it is let all transports roll a defense die hitting on a one ONLY CAPABLE OF HITTING ENEMY AIR UNITS, so they all get to roll a neutered die, but would still auto die to enemy warships

I kind of like this idea.

A lone transport can defend on 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.  (Eliminates the 1 fighter taking out a lone transport with no risk)
A group of transports is the same thing, 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.  The attackers can only kill as many transports as they get hits.

Ex.  2 fighters, 2 tacs attack 5 transports.  Attackers roll 2@3 get 1 hit, roll 2@4 and get 2 hits.  The transports roll 1@1 and get 1 hit.
            Attackers lose 1 fighter.  Defenders lose 3 transports and retreat the other 2.

I think with this formula it makes it so they are not a powerful defensive unit.  It also makes it so there is a bit of risk to it (the dice have to get rolled).  Lastly, it makes the attacker have to maybe forfeit an attack somewhere else or have a few more weaker attacks in order to take out the transports.

I think all the points have been really good on this thread.

@elevenjerk:

I kind of like this idea.

A lone transport can defend on 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.  (Eliminates the 1 fighter taking out a lone transport with no risk)
A group of transports is the same thing, 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.  The attackers can only kill as many transports as they get hits.

Ex.  2 fighters, 2 tacs attack 5 transports.  Attackers roll 2@3 get 1 hit, roll 2@4 and get 2 hits.  The transports roll 1@1 and get 1 hit.
            Attackers lose 1 fighter.  Defenders lose 3 transports and retreat the other 2.

I think with this formula it makes it so they are not a powerful defensive unit.  It also makes it so there is a bit of risk to it (the dice have to get rolled).  Lastly, it makes the attacker have to maybe forfeit an attack somewhere else or have a few more weaker attacks in order to take out the transports.

I think all the points have been really good on this thread.

If we implemented some kind of house rule for this, would the initial setup have to be changed?  It may make it harder to take out the British and Italian fleets for instance.