Game unbalanced?

@Black_Elk:

Hmm perhaps it is not necessary under this scheme to have casualties assigned individually but 1 hit point for the entire group? This goes back to an infinite kill scheme for practical purposes, but the chance to hit at a 1 and the ability to split the advantage over multiple groups/sz might make the unit overpowered if it’s allowed to also prolong the combat phase (by taking hits individually.) What do you think? It kind of retains aspects of both Classic and the new system. Players would be encouraged to move transports in pairs to max defense, moving 4 ground at a go if possible. Might encourage more expeditionary style gameplay, with more mini groups, as opposed to the mass and stack across the water. Could be good for the cat and mouse.

In this case the transports get to fire back provided they can survive into the next round of combat, but once a successful hit is assigned to them (last) the entire group is destroyed. What do you think? For 7 ipcs that’s still a decent improvement, and removes the confusion of counting transport casualties individually.

For play test, I say try what seems to you more unbalancing amongst the options. I’m pretty sure that after you will see that is not. (As I tried it a few times, you can believe me: there nothing to be afraid of.)
You can even apply the rule at the beginning of second turn to keep the initial combat as OOB, if you think your players are that so competitive and prone to stick to their pre-determinate first round set-up scenario.
(Simply say that, now, corvettes and destroyer escorts has been delivered in sufficient numbers to military troop transport.)

The combat calc, tell that a taken last 1 hit, 1def@1 per group, could cost around 8 IPCs and be similar to the cost of escorting with DD defenseless at 7 IPCs.
Stay at 7 IPCs and gives 1 hit per transport.
In fact, the number of round to finish off a bunch of transports is not so a great factor (it rarely goes beyond 3 rounds of slaughter when a substantial attacking force was involved), it is more about how many attacking units you lose. Except for the start-up round, a single Transport will probably be attacked by more than 1 units.

In addition, it will reveal how better are subs surprise strike against a lonely transport (something completely disappeared with auto-kill), so a lonely TP cannot retaliate while against anything else, you must accept the defense roll @1.

I don’t like this artificial limit created by the rules which can affect strategic moves.
And it is a stretch beyond usual A&A game mechanics, which can receive more cold shoulders.

The last idea is too near OOB and much like a consolation price.
I rather prefer your other idea on pairing transports, if I have a choice.

For my part, I still prefer 1 hit per Transport, +1 def@1 per round for the entire group in a SZ.
The ability to split the advantage of the single def@1 over multiple groups/sz will not make it overpowered.
And sometimes, their is no alternative SZ and you have to be in a unique SZ.
And after all, sometimes their is always a risk, that is a part of the game so Goliath can be beaten in some occasions.

@Black_Elk:

In this case the transports get to fire back provided they can survive into the next round of combat, but once a successful hit is assigned to them (last) the entire group is destroyed. What do you think? For 7 ipcs that’s still a decent improvement, and removes the confusion of counting transport casualties individually.

There is no confusion on that point in OOB game. Transports which are part of an attacking or defending group are counted as 1 hit, it happens when there is an overkill of escorting attacking or defending units. At the end of this combat round, all hits in excess of the number of combat units must be allocated 1 by 1 to transport. After, the next round, attacking transports retreat while the remnants of defending transports are slaughtered.

Black Elk the main problem with your transport revision comes in when you have a lot of transports in a zone with a supporting fleet. What happens when all the sea is dead and there are say 2 bombers left attacking 10 transports? There is a HUGE variable of luck here. The 2 bombers might get all the transports or only a couple depending entirely on luck. That is fine for those of you that like a lot of luck in your games, but for players like me that like the “chess” component of the game this destroys it. How do you Calc large naval battles with a lot of transports then? It becomes impossible.

The reason I made the comment on possibly changing the transport rule to “for every two transports you have in a sector you get 1 dice at 1 on defense” is so that it 1. doesn’t change the OOB attacks, except off east coast, and 2. it makes the transports defense over 50% less effective than a standard at 1 dice for each transport that classic had. Also I would keep the “must be taken as last” in the text of the transport. This would make possible attacks on fleets worth it even if it was a 50/50 chance you win the battle because of the cost of units you are killing with carriers/cruisers/bb’s/fighters being taken before the cheaper transport unit.

My change in transports would greatly change the defense of the large sectors of transports that you have when going KGF. No longer will you have 10 transports that do nothing in the battle and are HUGE liabilities. They would now be liabilities that you’d have to protect, but they would also contribute to the fight in some way.

Hmmm yeah its true. And you know it’s the infinite autokill that seems to somehow grate on me. It was so hard to get used to post AA50. I think I will try it with individual casualties to see how it holds up. Sure it will make the bomber a bit less potent, but I think the gang would probably still go for it.

We had been playing a lot of 1940, but even after several games, people were still feeling the rules overhead with it and wanted something more fast paced next time. I think the 5 man just has a certain charm that’s tough to beat in a multi. Definitely going to try the transport ideas proposed in this thread next time.

Hi folks.

I initially thought the game was unbalanced in favour of the Axis.
No longer.

I experimented a lot with Russia turn 1.
An A/C has proved to be an inspired purchase.
Aggressive defence is a killer to the Axis.

Germany can get too hung up on Africa.
Germany has great potential to attack UK, whilst still bringing tremendous pressure to the fore on Russia
Experimenting with unorthodox purchases changed the game dramatically.

The UK acquires a navy much quicker than I feel it has a right to!

Japan has many vulnerabilities.
BUT  my being at odds with conventional purchasing has proven to be a boon to exciting gaming, much to the chagrin of orthodox players.

The USA starts the game in way too strong a position. (IMHO)

Experimentation has been vital for my gaming friends and myself, so as we could grow the game.
We currently have a 50/50 win/loss ratio.

Our ‘unorthodoxy’ has become the new orthodoxy and enriched the game immensely.

Has anyone else had a similar gaming revelation?

PS; we prefer the board game to the computer.

Well, if the players in your group are doing a lot of unconventional purchasing, then its not surprising you might be seeing different balance results. Whether it holds up against players outside your group is another issue though.

Often times, by doing a wild purchase, you can throw your opponent off, since the people in your group might not be immediately sure of the best counter buys. Trying to do a purchase consistently against many different opponents is the challenge. On the points mentioned above, UK navy acquisition, Japanese vulnerability, and US starting strength, I tend to come away with opposite feeling and experience.  It takes UK a while to acquire a navy (especially if USA isn’t backing them up), or if they are not saving their purchase over multiple rounds, and still be able to defend India, and so they more often expand the RAF instead. Japan is very hard to move against early on, especially absent a bid or some lucky rolls. And USA is usually under-powered rather than over-powered in terms of their starting position.

When you say the AC is “an inspired purchase” to which Nation are you referring? And how are you using it?

Its cool that your group is having a balanced experience on the board, close games are always more satisfying, but it could have more to do with the way everyone is reacting to an “unorthodox play” than the play itself. Basically when the opponent buys something weird, the usual reaction is to aggressively pursue whatever weakness is opened up by it. Might not be immediately apparent how best to do it, but there is usually a way to punish the player for straying from the inf push mechanic. Would have to hear more examples from the game’s opening round to say.

In a casual dice game I would play OOB without a bid, against a new opponent or if I felt confident that my experience would trump their own on this map. But against a more seasoned opponent of equal skill and equally familiar with the map, then given the choice, I would definitely choose Axis. They have the initiative and stronger starting position on this board, with the best chance to exploit the opening set up. Sure anything can happen in a dice roll, but all things being equal, I see the Axis dominate with more regularity.

I have had the experience before of thinking a board was one way, or one dimensional, and then seeing a move or coordinated strategy that really opened it up and changed how I play. I remember the first time I saw a really solid KJF game in Revised, which I didn’t think was possible until I saw how some of the Air could be used. And again in Global, where I thought it definitely favored one side or the other a few times, until I started to see more clearly the play patterns at work with different buys.

For 1942.2 though, I think Axis can stack easily, and usually the only way to break them is to take a risk somewhere in the opening, or with SBR over time (which is inherently risky), and absent those things, I think conservative Axis play (center crush) will usually yield Axis wins on this map. Allied bids are pretty distorting though, I’ll admit. It could easily go the other way in a bid game.

There are a some key scripted battles in round 1, that can produce a lot of variation on balance, based on how many hits the defender can dole out before being annihilated. W. Russia is the big one, but also the early naval and destroyer/transport defense battles. Its entirely possible to win big as either side, if the dice swing in one of these, but if they return average results, then I think Axis still come out ahead.

Hi Black_Elk.

You make valid points.

It’s not so much that the purchases are wild. A lot of time and thinking has gone into the purchases.
How can these seemingly odd purchases provide long term benefits/strategies, without being detrimental to the game?
The strategies are based around a notion that most players open with stock standard set plays.
The A/C  for Russia turn 1 works.
Now a German player must devise a way to counter it, and it is not as simple as it seems.

Another option gamed successfully are two Russian bombers as a turn one purchase.
It was done initially as a joke: then came the necessity of having to make it work.
Russia didn’t fall.
It’s the scripted scenarios that I try to avoid. Some times however, they do need to be done.

I do not know what bidding is.

Your point about the dice is correct.

I’ve played AA Mark 1 through to this A & A 2nd edition for fifteen years. Love it.

Well I wouldn’t pretend to have a crystal ball for every possible opening, but I tell you what I’d do as Germany, if I saw the Russians build a carrier, or a bomber (let alone two of them!)…

I would buy 8 artillery pieces and 3 infantry on G1, push everything East against Moscow. Then I’d buy at least 5 armor in the second round, and another 5 armor in the third round. By this point I am in Ukraine, holding it firmly with Japanese fighter support. And since Russia lacks the requisite fodder to make viable counter attacks there is not a whole lot they can do about it but withdraw in the face of superior German numbers. As Japan I would bypass India entirely and push everything along the Szech route, flying all available fighters to reinforce the German position on the Eastern front, while I aim to stack Kazakh with my Japanese ground. By the 6th round Germany is in a very strong position to stack W. Russia, while Japan stacks Kazakh simultaneously, forcing you out of Caucasus to defend Moscow. Or maybe I nab Caucasus even earlier, since it will be that much harder to defend, especially if Russian fighters are locked on a carrier deck somewhere. If you try to pull out of India to defend Caucasus with British units, then I’d just swing south take India, and do the same thing a round later with 3 more Japanese tanks arriving each round thereafter, from the factory I snapped up. I don’t think it would make a difference how many fighters you fly in from the West, or what sort of fleet actions you set up with Allies, because by the time the Western Allies are in position to do anything meaningful with their bolstered navies, the center will collapse to Axis. Now clearly, if I am gunning this hard for Moscow, the Allies will catch more relief on the other fronts, but the other fronts won’t matter at that point. Since Axis only need to build with a Moscow focus for three consecutive rounds to set up their Moscow hit under these conditions, after that they can build pretty much whatever they want. Solid infantry for Germany, solid naval for Japan, because the units they already have in motion will be enough to take the center.

With a Ruskie carrier you’re talking 3 total ground hitpoints for your first round Russian purchase (the carrier can’t fire in the critical Moscow battle so that hitpoint doesn’t count.) That’s 3 hitpoints for Russia in the first round, to Germany’s 11. With that kind of spread you don’t even really need the Japanese to set up for a one/two punch, since the first punch by Germany will almost certainly get the job done. I suppose one could say that at least the carrier deck or the bombers might survive into the deep endgame, and help give the 2 surviving western Allies a somewhat stronger position (relatively speaking) at the start, but this would almost certainly come at the cost of Moscow. Without the center to distract the Axis after the sixth or seventh round, Axis can then turn their attention to whatever theater is weakest. All you have to do is throw everything forward with Germany, and keep the IJN alive (with a Fabian a strategy, not risking it in combats), then once the center is on lock, you’ve basically flipped the Allied situation on its head.

The only problem I can see with this, would be if the German player tries to adapt in a way that had them buying something other than just a ton of artillery and infantry in the first round, slow steady ground to push forward on Moscow and totally overtake it. Where problems enter into it, is if the German player loses their cool, and buys a bunch of armor in the first round, or buys a bunch of subs, or bombers of their own, or whatever. Then of course the advantage is skewed, because if you follow the opponents obscure purchase plan with one of your own, then you’ve basically allowed Allies a free round of purchasing with no major consequences.

This is an important point worth stressing, because there are really only two ways you can react to a magnified build from your opponent that work…  Either you use it as an opportunity to make a wild magnified purchase of your own, or you try exploit the weakness (opened up by the fact that the opponent didn’t buy something more standard) and instead play conservative on purchases, but very aggressive in your attacks.

If you go with the former plan, you are often playing catch up, at least until you catch a break.

If you go with latter plan, then speed is everything, because if you don’t react immediately, you will not be able to leverage anything out of your opponent’s goof.

As for the bid. I mention it just for completeness. I’m really not a huge fan myself (of preplacement bids anyway) but it is fairly ubiquitous now, so any discussion of game balance is sure to include talk of bids.Basically bidding in A&A is process whereby the underdog side (on whatever board) is awarded a certain number of extra IPCs at the outset, in order to balance the game. So for Classic and Revised, this bid typically went to Axis (which they usually used to help Germany in Africa or the Eastern Front, or to help Japan afford an additional transport.) On the more recent boards, the bid usually goes to Allies now, which was kind of a major change post AA50. Its one of the older House Rules for Axis and Allies, which many have adopted since it gives an expedient way modify the starting balance balance, based on the relative experience of opponents.

Basically how it works, one side opens and says something like. “I will play Allies for 15 ipcs.” Then the other guy says, “well I will play them for 14” and so on.  Then the first guy says “OK I’ll go down to 6 ipcs, because I really want to be USA tonight.” And the other guy says “You’re insane if you think you can beat me with just 6 ipcs on the bid! Go ahead you can have Allies!” At this point the guy who won the bid takes his 6 ipcs, spends them on a extra submarine or an extra tank or a pair of infantry, and totally crushes in an opening battle somewhere.  :-D People have different rules about where the bids can go. Most people say they have to be grouped with units already on the board, and limited to one unit per territory or sz. It’s not a perfect system by any stretch, but its been in place for a while with many people. There is a certain pride in being willing to forego a bid, but that’s usually when the skill level is asymmetrical. When its gets really heated in competition, most people will play with a bid, then switch sides awarding that same amount and go 2 out of 3 to determine the ultimate victor.

Now all that said, I think I would enjoy playing a game of the sort you mention. Not because I think I would crush :-D
But rather, because I agree with you, that its just a lot more fun when players branch out and try different things. As an opponent, and especially if playing with someone in a less cut-throat game, I would probably react to magnified purchases, by making some magnified builds of my own, as opposed to just gunning on the ground (which is what I would do if we were playing for keeps, inf push). This mainly because I think the game is just more enjoyable that way, when you push things out a round and both sides build in a less orthodox here or there. Its one of the cool reasons to play with newer people, because they might not necessarily know that “best move” or “winning play”, and they might do something divergent that leads to a more dynamic and interesting kind of game overall. Running off the script is generally fun for me too, but when I do that, I admit that we’re no longer talking about the Balance of the set up objectively. We’re talking more about player personality, or the balance between individual opponents and their play styles.

@ Hans Kammler

you might be interested to read this thread I just noticed today :-)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35140.0

Happy fighting.

@craykirk:

As long as you are discussing hit points, etc.  One thing that has bothered me with the subs can’t hit air rule is that tanks and infantry really have no chance at a bomber and do bombers really have a 4/6 chance of destroying the one unit, a fighter, which was made to counter them?  Bombers hit ground units, subs hit water units…  Why the difference?  If infantry are a fodder unit, then truly make them that.  Make their offensive/defensive capabilities equal at a 1 and if you want them a 2, you buy artillery on offense and bunkers on defense.

The transport rule is one that really changed the game because without it, the Axis air force gets wiped out at a huge loss and Germany has a hard time replacing the fighters.  If a sub with a deck gun and torpedoes defends at 1, then how does a transport with no real armament have any defensive ability? I understand that a transport represents a group of transports and support units however if you use this same line of thought, then a sub isn’t just a sub as it would also have support units.

The game would then turn into a real confusing one and the only way to win would be to get a Royal Fizzbin!

The defenseless transport is more intended to figure only troops transports and their supply ships.
No real escorts vessels with them, such as corvettes, frigates or Destroyer Escort.
But these troops transports have some defensive guns, mainly against aircrafts.

Re: The aberration of the defenseless transport
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1114422#msg1114422

There is some story in this thread about how transports can be bad ass sometimes. You should read it, interesting.

The other perspective, before defenseless transport happened with AA50:
@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.

@BJCard:

@Uncrustable:

Why not give transports a defense of 1 but still must be taken as casualties last ?
Increase their cost to 8

Because a transport having a defense of 1 is too generous.

In Classic, transports represented actual transports and escort ships- now escort ships have been decoupled from transports in the form of destroyers.

One thing that has bothered me with the subs can’t hit air rule is that tanks and infantry really have no chance at a bomber and do bombers really have a 4/6 chance of destroying the one unit, a fighter, which was made to counter them?

On that point, I always feel that something was wrong about this.
That’s why I relentlessly tried to figure out some kind of Air units which can fight against each other.
My most refined idea on this point (which is a kind of 1914 Fighter put in regular combat phase) is in this post.
It contains every idea embedded in the roster lists with a different cost structure, if curious, take a look on the last post of this thread:

Baron M’s G40HR Roster: 3-planes carrier, 6 IPCs Fighter A2D2 & Sub A3D1C7
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1374545#msg1374545

@Black_Elk:

Not sure where I pulled pearl, must have been thinking of AA50 the Japanese air hit against sz56 since I was playing that the other day too  :-D But in any case, there are a few more key transport defenses for Allies in 42.2 over Axis, so it feels like it would lean towards Allied balance, which is a good thing. Probably just more satisfying overall, whatever the effects on the opening. Return them their hit value at 1 (per group as suggested) and taken last, just seems more interesting. It combines the old Classic lucky shot, but doesn’t give up the fodder problem, but makes the unit more potent for the price.

Agreed keep it at 7 ipcs
Lucky 7

I’m going to play this way in my next face to face game for sure! Will test it out next Thursday see if the gang enjoys.

Also, if you really want to keep it from changing the opening, you could also make it a force multiplier thing, where only two transports together “A Group” get this defensive boost +1. Two or more transports together would no longer become defenseless. But the not cumulative just the 1 hit for the entire group, whatever its total number, as long as there are at least two transports in the group. This could all be interpreted as a “combined arms” type bonus, where the transport gets boosted by other transports such that the whole group gets to fire together at a 1, whereas single transports would behave OOB. Or you could just apply it universally to all transports whether single or in a group together.

What it is interesting here is that there would be a natural incentive to “fan out” your transports to try to get multiple bonuses on defense instead of just keeping one transports stack, it might be better to split them into smaller groups to get more bang out of them on defense. Things like this might encourage more island hopping, or branching out naval game instead of just a ship stack fest in a few zones. I think these changes could be popular if it feels right.

**So 1 lone transport still defends at zero.

2 transports defend at 1,
3 transports still defend at 1
4 transports still defend at 1, but…

If you broke them into 2 groups in two separate sea zones then you’d get double the defense value! Two chances to hit at a 1. This as a way to encourage fanning out over stacking together in the naval game on transport defense.**

See where I am going with it? :)
might be cool.

If handled that way, as a combined arms type thing, then the only opening battle affected would be the German sub hit on the US Atlantic transports. But that battle is a little busted anyway, and some even bid a destroyer there believing it is critical. Short of a destroyer added in, the group transport bonus, would give a slight disincentive for German Uboats to hit, they might go after the Canadian transports instead just to avoid the risk of that extra 1 haha

Here is what I found, clearly we are likely-minded on that issue, since the very first post I introduced in the Defenseless transport thread is this one:   :-o
@Baron:

@BJCard:

@Uncrustable:

Why not give transports a defense of 1 but still must be taken as casualties last ?
Increase their cost to 8

Because a transport having a defense of 1 is too generous.

In Classic, transports represented actual transports and escort ships- now escort ships have been decoupled from transports in the form of destroyers.

Hi everybody,
their is some middleway here.

Keep at 7 IPCs. It is already a long road to buy an escort fleet, transport and ground units. And bridging from one island to another requires much more transport to travel the same two ground units. The chain of communication is easily outstreched and vulnerable in PTO.

Give any group (2 or more) of Transports a collective defense of 1.

Even in a naval battle with other vessels, give at the start of naval battle the transport group a defense @1.

Transports are still chosen last.

When their is no more combat ship, the attacker still rolls and destroy as many transports as he got hits.
It lasts until the last transport has sunk (which still have 1@1).

The capacity to take hits is already a good defense.
I see no need to add more than the single@1 for all the group.

However, keep a single isolated transport as an easy target with no defense.

Historically, we can think that there is some corvettes and frigates (but not much) inside a group of transports,  2 units or more (14 IPCs and +).

Another possibility is to limit this @1 as AA only for 2 or more transports. So no combat ship could be kill by the lighter guns on board any troop transports.

The same idea but going a little further:

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

The whole point of having a transport with a def of 1 is so that it is not a sitting duck. It’s no battleship but at least it’s not totally easy pickings. I like being able to send out a transport out by itself and taking a risk with it. By the same token it makes your opponent think twice before he sends out some lone fighter or bomber to attack you. It forces them to think about losing precious aircraft to attack a transport rather than simply wiping otu a unit of opportunity with no risk.

That’s why I suggest a 1@1 for 2 or more transports plus playing every hit on them.
If attacker throw only 1 Fg @3 against 3TPs, it will take at least 3 lucky rounds before all TPs get drowned. At each round, their is still odds at 1/6 (like a AA gun) to get this Fg down.
IMHO, this far risky that the attacker will put much more aircrafts to be sure not to have too many combat cycles with those TPs.

And as write it down, I was thinking about a house rule “Air Supremacy” which imply that an aircraft makes preemptive shot against naval only target with no air support. To counterweight the huge impact of 3 rounds with odds at 1/6 every time.

I eared only of Guadalcanal and Truk’s air raids against transports ships.
And they didn’t make the weight against fighters and TacB.
They were sitting ducks even with their on board AA guns.

In such situation,
the odds are for 1 Fighter @3 against 3 Transports, 3 hits and 1 Def @1 for the entire group:

Overall %*: A. survives: 36.7% D. survives: 56.6% No one survives: 6.7%
It is roughly a 1/3 of survival.

Giving a preemptive strike to Fighter, when attacking Transport only:
Overall %*: A. survives: 37.3% D. survives: 55.2% No one survives: 7.6%
This doesn’t change anything.
In fact, thinking about it, since there is only 1 attacker, the first and second hits still let the defensive fire roll @1 applied.
So, this idea doesn’t work to fix the issue on the 1 combat unit against more than 1 transports.

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

Based on the game’s simulation of WWII era combat, using a D6 system, a defensive factor of 1 which is lowest defensive score is appropriate.

The argument for no defense is still not valid, and the justification for removing it is as well. It is impossible for one unit comprising of mostly fighters to destroy the equivalent of hundeds if not thousands of ships.

I’ll use the submarine argument against air vs. sub imbalance then. A transport should be able to retreat after one round of attack. The same way a sub can submerge. The TRN can be tipped on it’s side as if retreating. There were blockade runners in all kinds of wars.

Hell let’s just get rid of them and go for sea routes ala Risk! There were thousands of transports travelling alone all over the globe un-contested.

It is possible to get a lower rate that 1 unit @1: 1/6 per unit.
AA guns get 3@1 once.
I suggested: 2 and more TPs get only 1D@1 but endure as many hits as they are.

A fleeing tactics can be imagine:
Philip Schwartzer from Gamers Paradise suggested that two or more TPs can be attack by 2@4 for each Sub and BB.

For a single round, you can double dice for every attacking units and let the remaining TPs as survivors: 1Fg @3 get 2@3/ 1StrB get 2@4, etc.

Hi Black_Elk,
I may have find something which can be a way to let transport have a little defense roll.
It can be similar to the actual AAA unit. The only difference could be that each transport can only get 1 defense roll @1.
Once this is done, all transports are considered destroyed if there is at least 1 attacking unit remaining.
Transports can only roll their defense when at least 1 casualty is allocated to them.

For example: 1 Fg is attacking 3 Transports.
Round 1) Fighter roll a hit but any one the transport roll a @1, then the battle is over.
1 Fighter and 1 transport are killed.
If none of the Transport nor the Fighter get a hit, then all the transports will be destroyed but the Fighter is still alive.

I don’t find it is better than the earlier idea above, but I think it is still different than knp’s HR on defenseless transport.
But 2 transports remained in the SZ.

I probably get a better idea here:

Still keep that possibility that transports in a group can roll 1def@1 and each transport have 1 hit value and are still chosen as last casualties.
When attacking the escort units of transports, the transports group is allowed to roll 1 defense @1 each round.
When there is no more escorting units for transports, each attacking unit which scores a hit against transports, in a given combat round, is now immuned from retaliation for the duration of this combat round.
So, as long as an attacking unit gets a succesful roll, this unit cannot be destroyed.

Example: 2 surviving Bombers can now attack 8 Transports, as it is the remnants of a larger fleet.
Under the 1 def@1 roll per transports group, CalC gives:
Overall %*: A. survives: 60.7% D. survives: 35% No one survives: 4.4%

Adding the immunization rule, it will still gives better odds for the attacker:

Round 1 : both Bombers get 4 or less, 2 transports are lost and no defense roll can be made.
Round 2: 1 hit and 1 miss, 1 transport is lost but 1 defense roll @1 can be made, let’s suppose a miss.
Round 3: 2 hits, 2 transports are lost and no defense roll allowed.
Round 4: no hit, 1 defense roll @1 allowed, let’s suppose a hit. 1 Bombers remains and 3 transports alive.
Round 5: 1 hit, no defense roll allowed (since, the only bomber is immuned). 1 bomber still in the air and 2 transports alive.
Round 6: no hit, 1 defense roll @1 allowed, let’s suppose a miss. 1 bomber still in the air and 2 transports alive.
Etc.

So, Transports can never get more than 1 hit per combat round.
And sometimes, get no defense roll (when all attacking units are successful).

This means, that any lonely transport can get an opportunity to roll for 1 defense @1, as long as it is not destroyed by the attackers.

Lonely attacking unit can have better odds of survival that way against a superior number of transports.
Mainly, if it keeps lucky and have successful rolls in a row.

While a massive attack will probably left more odds of rolling on defense.
Example: 6 Destroyers against 10 Transports.
As long as 1 attacking unit miss a target, the transports group can roll for a defense @1.

It is a somewhat particular mechanics, I agree.
But it gives a better protection to the attacker when there is few units, while it is practically the same effect against a massive attacking groups.

This can somehow solve the issue on opening battle without requiring the other rule about 2 transports together to get a defense roll @1.

We can rationalize this special restriction on the fact that attacking units with their greater offensive power can outguns any transport unit, such as a special preemptive attack.
And, since Transports are not actively defending against all units (as could be the case for warships and aircrafts), an attacking unit is only after 1 enemy unit at a time, so when it misses, the Transports group gets its opportunity to roll for defensive fire.

To the red islands concept, it’s novel, but surely much easier to pull off if you were to just pick up a Ruskie infantry unit on a British or American transport and sail them down, rather than building a navy to try and do it hehe. Even then, it doesn’t do you much good if you have a Soviet stronghold in the south pacific, but Germany takes your Capital  :-D

To Baron, I like the transport ideas proposed. I’m sure that they would balance the game in favor of allies over OOB. Nice work

PBEM is great. 
Basically it’s like this - first - you start a new thread in the forum and track down the last 5 digital number of topic, for example, 35907
Then register a dice server that helps you to roll dice - I use dice.tripleawarclub.org

You install the Atriple software, then choose PBEM.

Fill in you and your opponents’ email, enter the number as Topic ID
Choose the right forum (in our case Axis and Allies), enter your username and password.

have fun~

Ok…  a few shots of good whiskey into it and I am wondering what fun it is when you have every possible counter already figured out.

Its like any game, why d0 old dudes play chess in the park? Even if you’ve played for years and know what you’re doing, a good game will keep you coming back. For me it comes down to player interaction and the dice. There is enough variation among players and enough variation in the individual dice rolls, that even if you have your strategy down pat, and understand the underlying principles, you can still get diced, and see all that careful planning get turned on its head. This is one of the reasons that Low Luck gameplay doesn’t do a whole lot for me. Because many times in an LL game, the margins get a lot slimmer and the dice swings are less dramatic, such that its possible to see much more static games, longer games, with more stalemates and foregone conclusions.

But even then, there is enough built in nostalgia for “playing with plastic army men” such that game  the physical board will always have an appeal for me. The main hangup comes from the fact that demographically, there just aren’t as many players as one might hope. The pool is not as diverse as it might be either. Most of us skew a bit older (check the con videos and check out all that white hair haha!), and there aren’t many women playing either, which is unfortunate. So often, because the game takes such a long time to play, people will have to break off, to spend time with wives and girlfriends and kids and dogs, or sleep or hold down a job. And it just doesn’t leave nearly enough time to satisfy our desire to game continuously, unabated. That’s when something like the tripleA lobby or PBEM gaming comes into it.

Obviously I’d rather be playing with the plastic and the cardboard, and rolling the physical dice in someones living room, but more often than not, its just too hard to organize. And you frequently run into that situation where, only one person you know is willing to play a game like this, and maybe they are less experienced at it than you. Short of teaching new people how to play IRL, or, like Pygmalion, fashioning your perfect A&A partner out of nowhere, the computer is frequently the best way to keep up.

The PBEM option especially, can be great, since it allows you to break the game into a bunch of mini sessions, that don’t place so many time constraints on people. You can make a move or two moves a day, and get in your A&A fix, without having to slate a whole insomniac evening, or an entire weekend to play. 1942.2 has an advantage in PBEM (over say Global) because the 5 nation turn order allows you to play a round in basically 2 “moves” (ie. two times back and forth) once you get started.

G1 then UK1
J1 then US/Russia

Basically 2 email exchanges, and you’re through the round, so its possible to resolve the game in a few weeks usually.

But yeah, I can see where the question is coming from, after you’ve seen the same thing 100 times in a row, there is a definite need to spice things up and add variety. A bid can be helpful for this. Or House Rules that add more variability. Or playing with someone who is maybe less familiar with all the winning moves, so that you end up seeing situations on the board that you might not be used to playing. Even in a game like that though, if you start from a strong foundation, with sound principles, chances are you’re going to play a lot better and be able to exploit more of these weird situations when they arrive. And games are always more fun when you’re winning! haha