November 19, 2017, 11:26:25 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Want a t-shirt? Check out our awesome Axis & Allies .org T-Shirt Store! Search me
  Articles  
   Home   Help Login Register AACalc  
Loading
Pages: 1 2 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [House Rules] Overflying Transport  (Read 481 times)
Bjn
A&A.org Mechanized Infantry
**
Posts: 37


View Profile
« on: September 13, 2017, 11:23:07 am »
0

Is it correct that a lone transport will die, if overflown by any kind of aircraft, irrespective this aircraft is on a combat move with an assignment elsewhere?


Moderator's edit: Added tag [House Rules] to title for a thread turning into a House Rules discussion starting from reply #9.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 11:01:51 pm by P@nther » Logged
Elsass-Lorraine
A&A.org Mechanized Infantry
**
Posts: 35


Is it German or French...


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2017, 11:39:42 am »
0

No, that plane must stop there to conduct combat, where it will automatically kill the undefended transport (or a transport defended only by subs without an attacking destroyer)
Logged
Bjn
A&A.org Mechanized Infantry
**
Posts: 37


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2017, 11:45:57 am »
0

Too bad, kinda hoped it was the other outcome.... but thanks anyway!😊
Logged
Caesar Seriona
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 596


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2017, 11:50:06 am »
0

As for the player is concerned, why would you even want to fly over a lone some transport? You should just kill it and then continue on unless you really need that aircraft to do battle somewhere else.
Logged
Gargantua
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 15005


AA.org's Villain


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2017, 09:43:58 pm »
0

As for the player is concerned, why would you even want to fly over a lone some transport? You should just kill it and then continue on unless you really need that aircraft to do battle somewhere else.

He misinterpreted- and wrongly believe he could do combat and pop the transport for free.

It's one or the other.
Logged
Bjn
A&A.org Mechanized Infantry
**
Posts: 37


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2017, 10:16:07 pm »
0

And the number of transports is irrelevant I guess.....they will all die in one turn because they are defenceless?
Logged
Caesar Seriona
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 596


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2017, 10:31:08 pm »
0

Correct. I continue to protest how dumb the transport rule is. You can have 1000 transports and 1 fighter can destroy them all because transport defend at 0.
Logged
P@nther
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 5257


Rules Deputy and Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2017, 11:35:09 pm »
0

And the number of transports is irrelevant I guess.....they will all die in one turn because they are defenceless?

Indeed. So never leave them unescorted.
Logged
simon33
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*******
Posts: 14205


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2017, 12:59:15 am »
0

Correct. I continue to protest how dumb the transport rule is. You can have 1000 transports and 1 fighter can destroy them all because transport defend at 0.
I don't think it is dumb. If they have no defensive weapons why would you expect a different outcome?
Logged
taamvan
A&A.org Submarine
*
****
Posts: 932


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2017, 06:32:31 am »
0

Another good thing to point out here is that even killing a defensive transport is a combat, so no bombardments are allowed from the same SZ, even though the bombarding ships may not have been needed to do the killing.

You are free to change the transports back to 0/1/2 but I'd change the cost as well, and probably let destroyers carry an infantry.   Maybe that defensive power could be chalked up to having DEs seaplanes etc guarding every fleet, major and minor, because they aren't otherwise featured in the game.
Logged
Baron Munchhausen
A&A.org Battleship
*
*
******
Posts: 4168


Dreaming of all possibilities...


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2017, 08:57:38 am »
0

Correct. I continue to protest how dumb the transport rule is. You can have 1000 transports and 1 fighter can destroy them all because transport defend at 0.
I don't think it is dumb. If they have no defensive weapons why would you expect a different outcome?

Without changing balance too much, the simplest way to introduce TP with 1 hit value is to keep them as taken last casualty.
But each TP must be destroyed with a successful hit.
And any number of defending TPs can only roll 1 dice @1 per combat round.
So, it will take 1000 successful hit to sink them all, but 1000 TPs would have get 1 roll @1 per combat round.
It is minimal, and showed that Convoy are harder to sink them all and take more time.


I believe it might help to give a few facts:
Quote
Use in battle
Seamen during shell loading practice aboard SS Lawton B. Evans in 1943

On 27 September 1942 the SS Stephen Hopkins was the first (and only) US merchant ship to sink a German surface combatant during the war. Ordered to stop, Stephen Hopkins refused to surrender, the heavily armed German commerce raider Stier and her tender Tannenfels with one machine gun opened fire. Although greatly outgunned, the crew of Stephen Hopkins fought back, replacing the Armed Guard crew of the ship's lone 4-inch (100 mm) gun with volunteers as they fell. The fight was short, and both ships were wrecks.[26]

On 10 March 1943 the SS Lawton B. Evans became the only ship ever to survive an attack by the German submarine U-221. The following year from 22 to 30 January 1944, the Lawton B. Evans was involved in the Battle of Anzio in Italy. It was under repeated bombardment from shore batteries and aircraft throughout an eight-day period. It endured a prolonged barrage of shrapnel, machine-gun fire and bombs. The gun crew fought back with shellfire and shot down five German planes, contributing to the success of the landing operations.

But Liberty was not the main troop Transport ships.
Quote
In September 1943 strategic plans and shortage of more suitable hulls required that Liberty ships be pressed into emergency use as troop transports with about 225 eventually converted for this purpose.

Probably troop transports were much more heavily equipped by Anti-Aircraft guns than standard Liberty ship.

For instance attack Cargo ships, or AKA:
Quote
A total of 388 APA (troop) and AKA (cargo) attack transports were built for service in World War II in at least fifteen classes. Depending on class they were armed with one or two 5-inch guns and a variety of 40 mm and 20 mm anti-aircraft weapons.

As amphibious operations became more important in World War II, planners saw the need for a special kind of cargo ship, one that could carry both cargo and the LCM and LCVP boats with which to attack the beach, and that carried guns to assist in anti-air defense and shore bombardment. Specifications were drawn up, and beginning in early 1943, the first 16 U.S. attack cargo ships were converted from Navy cargo ships that had previously been designated AK. During the course of the war, 108 such ships were built; many of them were converted from non-military ships, or started out as non-military hulls.

Attack cargo ships played a vital role in the Pacific War, where many were attacked by kamikazes and other aircraft, and several were torpedoed, but none were sunk or otherwise destroyed. Nine AKAs were present at the surrender ceremony in Tokyo Bay on 2 September 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_transport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_cargo_ship

OOB G40 includes Convoy Disruption zone to affect Power economy.
So, the TP ship sculpts is no merchant ships, it is a military troop transport.
It still make more sense to provide TP unit a kind of combat value.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 09:27:21 am by Baron Munchhausen » Logged
Caesar Seriona
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 596


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2017, 06:06:06 pm »
0

It's dumb because we have historical context of transports not only being armed but also even taking their cargo and putting it on there decks just to have extra firepower.
Logged
simon33
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*******
Posts: 14205


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2017, 07:27:50 pm »
0

It's dumb because we have historical context of transports not only being armed but also even taking their cargo and putting it on there decks just to have extra firepower.
That may be but I don't think you've played classic. That had defending transports and the result was that they were used as fodder.

As someone said, so long as you keep the taken last part you could do whatever else you wanted. I personally would rather they just increased the power of other ships like a combined arms at sea.
Logged
Caesar Seriona
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 596


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2017, 08:29:08 pm »
0

It's dumb because we have historical context of transports not only being armed but also even taking their cargo and putting it on there decks just to have extra firepower.
That may be but I don't think you've played classic. That had defending transports and the result was that they were used as fodder.

As someone said, so long as you keep the taken last part you could do whatever else you wanted. I personally would rather they just increased the power of other ships like a combined arms at sea.

Yeah, I remember classic where you only had three ships to choose from back when transport actually defended at 1. Which I believe they should.
Logged
ShadowHAwk
A&A.org Battleship
******
Posts: 3309


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2017, 03:39:11 am »
0

The defenceless transport rule is just an optimization rule, take it out and it changes nothing for the game.

Giving transports defence @1 makes them way to powerfull again, although not as bad as in clasic and revised where they had defence @1 and effectively where the escorts of battleships and carriers.

Transports had some form of protection in the real war but that was hardly worth mentioning in the scale of this game.
If a Battleship only has a defence and offence of 4 how bad would the defence of a transport be?  1 would mean 1/4 the strength of a battleship.
If i have to chose between a battleship and a complete convoy of transports i would go for the battleship even all ships ramming it would not sink the battleship.

You might as well give subs AA defence as a sub had a deck gun that could shoot at aircraft.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

2017 Support Drive

Read about this support drive.
Support Level
Forum Username
Note: payee will appear as Livid Labs, LLC.
Buy Axis & Allies
  • Axis & Allies 1942 [Amazon]
  • A&A Pacific 1940 [Amazon]
  • A&A Europe 1940 [FMG]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • A&A D-Day [Amazon]
  • A&A Battle of the Bulge [Amazon]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • WWII Themed Combat Dice [FMG]



Axis and Allies.org Official Gold Sponsor: Historical Board Gaming

Axis & Allies.org Official Silver Sponsor: Field Marchal Games
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © 2015 Livid Labs, LLC. All rights reserved.
Axis & Allies is registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, a division of Hasbro, Inc.
Note: the copyright below is for the forum software only.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!