The aberration of the defenseless transport

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.

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.

I don’t think it would effect it too much.  I also forgot to mention that they are not part of any battles when warships are in the sea zone.  They would only get to fire at the end if they were the only one left.  I believe I got that from one of the posts that you put up earlier in the thread.

Ex. 1  sz 97.  UK comes in with a carrier, cruiser, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 1 strat.  Italy doesn’t scramble.  UK rolls and gets 4 hits. Italy defends with 1@3 (cruiser) and 1@4 (Battleship).  Since UK got four hits that takes the 2 hits for the BB, 1 hit for the CV, 1 hit for the TT.

Ex. 2    UK comes in with a carrier, cruiser, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 1 strat.  Italy doesn’t scramble.  UK rolls and gets 3 hits.  Italy defends with 1@3 (cruiser) and 1@4 (Battleship).  Since the UK did not get enough hits to take the transports as well there is another round of firing.  The TT gets to defend 1@1 and then gets to retreat if the remaining UK forces was unable to muster up the last hit.

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

The biggest argument in this thread is whether or not player can choose thier own casualties (even transports)

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….

Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

This could still make the odds of battles change a bunch.  When you have 10 TT’s (which I have in one particular strategy with Japan) that is a lot of firepower on the defensive side of things.  My rule (with the help of BJCard’s ideas) is mostly to make transports as irrelevant (when it comes to battles) as possible but still able to protect themselves.

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….

Cause there are a lot of games that someone has 100 transports.

Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.

Seems like the general point of the thread is to eliminate the “auto die” part of the current rules.

@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.

Powerful defensive unit depend on where you start from. If we stay Inside OOB1940, it will make a big difference even if it’s less powerful than classics 1@1.

By giving a lonely transport a defense @1, it will make many situations where 1 escort ship and 1 TP an interesting task force, even a lonely TP become a freaking AA against 1 plane. OOB TP rules make this historical non-sense disappear.

I would rather prefer just to give a lonely one TP the escape solution, and be able to flee in the same sea-zone if it wasn’t hit during 1 round of enemy’s fire against TP only.

However, in terms of balancing units, the “dispersion” or flee option is more powerful than the submerge for a subs on defense. Since it cannot submerge while their is a DD attacking.

It is quite strange than a surface vessel is able to escape even in the presence of faster units like DD or Cruiser, not even talking about planes!

Their is more, giving this possibility in Global will mean: it will be far more difficult to control and destroy those TPs without involving more units for getting a killing blow.
The OOB game was play-tested including the possibility of destroying many Transports with even only one surviving attacking units.

That situation is of course an over-achievement
(Ex.: 1 surviving TcB against 10 TPs, after a long battle against a large warships escort.) and need adjustment (as some earlier posts pointed on).
Sorry, but if we allow “dispersion” it is a far different game because it means the difference between a group of 9TPs surviving vs 0 survivors. A great escape or a total wreck.

I think it still needs adjustment (if we don’t want too much unbalancing turmoils with a new house rule), whether more destroying capabilities for attacking units or a more restricted “fleeing” option.

@Uncrustable:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

The biggest argument in this thread is whether or not player can choose thier own casualties (even transports)

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….
Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.

You have a point.

However, I’m not sure to understand your option:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

Do you mean a classic TP C8 Def@1 but only in paired ?
or a new TP C7 “Taken last” but when paired Def @1?
But I know for sure that you mean that for every 1 attacking hit, it destroys 2TPs, except for the last one.

But do you include in your package “dispersion” or flee tactics?

it will make many situations where 1 escort ship and 1 TT an interesting
task force

The escort ship changes everything.  If there is a destroyer and a transport then the only thing defending is the destroyer for the first round of firing.  If the plane gets a hit, takes out the destroyer, then he has to endure 1 round with the transport.  If he misses, the transport fires back and flee’s.  You could even make the rule that the transport has to do one or the other.  Either way it would make the attacker have to bring more than one plane in order to take them out.  You would want to make sure that the attacking force would get 2 hits instead of just one.

even a lonely TT become a freaking AA against 1 plane

That is the point.  Take that out of the game.  You shouldn’t be able to just use one plane to eliminate a transport with no consequence.

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

The biggest argument in this thread is whether or not player can choose thier own casualties (even transports)

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….
Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.

You have a point.

However, I’m not sure to understand your option:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

Do you mean a classic TT C8 � Def@1 but only in paired ? or a new TT C7 “Taken last” but when paired Def@1?
But I know for sure that you mean that for every 1 attacking hit, it destroys 2TT, except for the last one.

But do you include in your package “dispersion” or flee tactics?

Transports still cost 7 and alone still have no defense and cant be taken as casualties….

But in pairs they act as a ‘single unit’ that defends at a 1.

So if you have 5 transports in a tt defending against an attack (even if multi-national) then you would roll 2 dice for the transports hitting on a 1. If the enemy gets a hit and you decide to lose a transport pair over a warship or plane then you lose 2 transports and now have 3, so one pair is left rolling one dice at a 1
The odd numbered transport does not participate

@Baron:

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.

@Uncrustable
The difference between yours here and mine above, is?

@Uncrustable:

Transports still cost 7 and alone still have no defense and cant be taken as casualties….

But in pairs they act as a ‘single unit’ that defends at a 1.

So if you have 5 transports in a tt defending against an attack (even if multi-national) then you would roll 2 dice for the transports hitting on a 1. If the enemy gets a hit and you decide to lose a transport pair over a warship or plane then you lose 2 transports and now have 3, so one pair is left rolling one dice at a 1
The odd numbered transport does not participate

Is it mainly that
a) your attacking unit still get only 1 attack , 1Sub= 1@2 vs 2 rolls/units, ex: 1Sub= 2@2.

b) The dual Transports unit @1 can take 1 hit and is now treated as any other warship, vs
  a completely different battle and group in which 2TPs can take 2 hits but Def @1.

c) Your TP cannot flee, vs mine TP can “disperse”, but doesn’t must, after first round?

@knp7765:

Making transports defenseless makes more sense. I remember playing classic and having fleets of 1 or 2 battleships, a carrier and a stack of 10+ transports. No one would attack your fleet because they would never get to the high dollar stuff. That is, unless they had a huge stack of transports to throw in as fodder, which is also ridiculous.

You should have to protect your transports with warships, or suffer losing them and not transporting your troops. Someone mentioned Japan taking those little Pacific islands and how it’s not worth it to divert your fleet to protect the transports. Well, you could do that or simply write off those transports. Yeah, it sucks wasting 7 IPCs but if you get the islands you need (I’m thinking that 5 island NO for Japan) then perhaps it is worth losing a few transports in the long run. Plus, since now those guys have no transport, you have garrisons on those islands and the Allies will have to invest more to take them back. It just depends on your needs I think.

One downfall of defenseless transports that I don’t like is when you have a whole stack of transports and a single plane or ship takes them all out. Perhaps a good idea would be to limit the killing of defenseless transports to something like 3 per attacking unit (warship, sub or plane).

For example: The US has goofed and left 5 unescorted transports sitting in SZ 91. Germany sees this but has only 1 U-boat sitting in SZ 105. Germany also has a bomber sitting on the air base in Paris. Germany wanted to SBR London with his bomber.
Now, if Germany wants to sink all 5 US transports, he will have to send the U-boat AND the bomber. If Germany wants to SBR London with his bomber, he can just send the U-boat but will sink ONLY 3 of the US transports.
In summary, every 3 transports require 1 attacking unit to sink them. 1-3 transports=1 attacker, 4-6 TT=2 attackers, 7-9 TT=3 attackers, 10-12 TT=4 attackers, and so on.
Attacking units can be submarines, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, fighters, tac bombers and bombers.
Doesn’t that sound better than just one single attack unit being able to kill a whole stack of transports?

I don’t like the auto-kill but maybe I can adjust my precedent TT house rule, we can allow every attacking unit 3 rolls instead of only two.
Thus three rolls does not necessary mean 3 TT destroy. However, it increase the destructive capacity of combat unit against transport unit.

Example, after battle against warships escort, their is 2 damage BB against 7 TT.
2BB= 6@4 against 7TT= 3@1. In this situation, their is at least one surviving TT, but their is about 3/16 to kill both damaged BB.

In an historical sense: that could mean that around 350 transports fight against 4 or 6 Battleships already damaged during many days. It is acceptable.

I prefer this 3 rolls over 2 rolls because of the fleeing capacity TT get after 1 round.
It shouldn’t be easy to escape, in a sense making 3 rolls instead of 2, is like having another round of free attacks against fleeing targets.

3 rolls of each attacking unit is meant to balance the “dispersion” capacity gave to TT.
I think it is a house rule that can be introduce without great unbalancing damage to the OOB Global setting.

@DizzKneeLand33:

For all of you who say that a stack of transports would never be used as defense, you have clearly not played the original game…. **If Germany only had say 4 planes left, the U.S. could stack 12 trannies all by themselves and be pretty darn safe.**� � Run your odds calcs if you don’t believe me….

Now, to say that in a d6 game system each trannie should defend at a one…. well, then that means that a trannie has 1/4 the firepower as a Battleship, and 1/3 the firepower of a cruiser. � lol.

Seriously.

Now, the ratio fighting unit vs transport is the greatest suggested in this tread (except for auto-kill):
1 StrB against 2 TT. About same cost, 12 vs 14 IPCs.
3@4 (take 1 hit) vs 1@1 (take 2 hits).
4% no lost TT, 22% for 1 lost TT, 74% to sink both TT vs 84% no hit, 16% to shoot down the bomber.

2 StrB vs 2 TT. 6@4 (2 hits) vs 1@1 (2 hits). Same number of units and hits on each side.

Example: 4 Fgt @3 =4x3 12@3 against 12 TT=12/2= 6@1
So in very low luck game, 6 TT will be sink and 1 Fgt will be down.
(Roughly, like 300 transports vs 100 planes)

And after, 6 transports can escape or decide to pursue fighting.
This time the odds will be:
3fgt@3= 3x3 9@3 vs 6 TT= 6/2= 3@1
4.5 TT will down against .5Fgt. � and survivors can still flee.

For me it seems a more interesting fight than auto-kill with no option and the odds seems nearer the reality. (Since 400 planes against 600 transports is a large battle that worth playing it because it is possible to get casualities on both sides, not only on the TT side.)

I hope those who don’t want classic TT in Global would like this other kind of TT house rule and feel it is somewhat balance and representative. Given the change made about autokill and no hit value from OOB 1940 TT rules.

@elevenjerk:

it will make many situations where 1 escort ship and 1 TT an interesting task force

The escort ship changes everything. If there is a destroyer and a transport then the only thing defending is the destroyer for the first round of firing. If the plane gets a hit, takes out the destroyer, then he has to endure 1 round with the transport. If he misses, the transport fires back and flees. You could even make the rule that the transport has to do one or the other.
Either way it would make the attacker have to bring more than one plane in order to take them out. You would want to make sure that the attacking force would get 2 hits instead of just one.

even a lonely TT become a freaking AA against 1 plane

That is the point. Take that out of the game.
You shouldn’t be able to just use one plane to eliminate a transport with no consequence.

That’s the hard consequence about introducing TT@1 with 1 hit.
It is about changing the odds and diverting more Fgs and Bombers from other important targets.

In historical sense, the OOB rules is nearer the truth, a lot of planes can destroy transport ships with no real consequence overall.
(Maybe 1 plane was shoot downed out of 2 or 3 transports sunk. It is far from a whole flight group.)

In game terms, auto-kill is quite predictable and give no thrill.

I try to answer you in my lasts posts when I reply about greater ratio than TT@1 vs BB @4 or Fg@3.
Because the point is about the signification and historical representation of the odds between TT and all the air and sea combat units.
I still prefer not to give any defense to a TT but still being able to escape after 1 rounds.
So, the battle is still unpredictable but you don’t lose a precious Fg or Bomber against a lucky shot.

Don’t forget about the psychological effect of 1 AA TT gunship 1@1, it really affects the strategy, we shouldn’t take it lightly.
You can think of it like the reverse of the No attacks on Sub when DD are absent.
1 Transport can not destroy any warship or aircraft unless another TT is present.

I would like it if transports fired at a 1. Cannot be taken as a casualty. Similar to aa guns… which transports are equipped to fire.

I also believe aa guns should cost 4. Cruisers should be at 11.

Id rather have AA guns at 5 so I can spend all my money before loosing India :)

Better if you let them fire at one more plane.

@Cow:

A- Cannot be taken as a casualty.
B- I would like it if transports fired at a 1.
Similar to aa guns… which transports are equipped to fire.
C- I also believe aa guns should cost 4.
D- Cruisers should be at 11.

A) Do you mean transport are taken last?

B) If I follow you, Transport is a A0D0M2C7 unit with Def@1 only against planes.
That’s nearer the historical truth, because their guns wasn’t so effective against other surface vessel.
With this proposal, Transport should be able to escape or flee against warships.
Would you let them fire three times (ex.: 1 DD = 3@2 against 1 group of TT.) before Transport can escape?

On the other way, I still think that 1/6 to kill is too high vs aircraft units according to historical truth.
(I read somewhere that even for warships it was about 1/10. I imagine that just for TP it is far less.)
Unless you give aircrafts Air supremacy strike to reduce the shooting down rate, something like a preemptive shot against TP. (If Transport is hit, then no returning fire @1.)

C) You should start a tread on this.
IMO 4 IPCs is ok, but at 5 IPCs maybe we can let them having other capacity after AA first round.

D) Their is many old treads on the price of cruiser.

I prefer the Imperious Leader version:
Cruiser A3D3M2(3 in 1940) Cost: 12 IPCs when it rolls a “1” it take down a plane.
I also add 1DefAA@1 against 1 aircraft at the beginning of the battle.

It has more psychological impact but every one buy it for this antiaircraft capacity in a fleet, specially UK.

Baron your solutions are far too complicated lol

I like cows idea, give them each an AA dice hitting on 1, but keep them as is other than that.

Also i agree 1000% on reducing the cost of cruisers to 11, i remember a thread not too long ago where everyone told me how stupid i was because i thought cruisers were overpriced lol