The aberration of the defenseless transport

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

Ok this is house rules soo…

In the example of 5 AP’s getting sacked by one destroyer, perhaps allow one dead transport per round. The balance roll to escape at 1-2.

Each round they all roll and the remaining group that fails loses one ship per round. You keep rolling for each remaining transport until nothing remains.

Another idea is to make a technology to replace the stupid war bonds ( pieces of paper that are surety bonds for latter payment were invented in the Civil War and are not TECHNOLOGY…GEEZ.

Tech would be Q-ships which allow AP to defend at 1.

Third idea is to allow only one AP to be sunk, the others are displaced ( moved to adjacent SZ or remain in the current zone and must retreat next turn)

Forth idea is for each ship attacking one AP lost, so ONE SHIP DOES NOT KILL 10, FOR EACH HIT YOU WANT ON A DEFENSELESS AP, YOU MUST BRING IN ONE UNIT.
This last idea seems the best and simplest and fair. Think about it

Instead of only one round, give warships and aircrafts a second round of firing before letting Transports flee in the same sea-zone.

Let BB destroy 2 TPs/round (she has speed, more guns and with longer range).

[Imperious Leader]

Why would the magic number be two rounds rather than one?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

Why would the magic number be two rounds rather than one?

The basic OOB system rules gives to the attacker, in fact, an unlimited number to destroy as many transports as there is in a sea zone.

There is some cases, when transports are on an amphibious assault and the defender choose to scramble up to 3 fighters, which give 1 round of defending fire before allowing retreat and, in this case, specify that 1 transport is sunk for each fighter scrambled.

In the previous case, the basic principle that 1 combat unit destroys 1 unit/ round is granted.
Only exception: AAA.

So we got 2 extremes situations: one based on the OOB rule about defenseless transport and, on this last case, 1 round of attack on defenceless transport on offence.

Giving one additional round of attack, make this escape effect on transport (which cannot usually escape), less effective than a sub submerge ability (once the destroyer blocker is gone).

Keeping the principle: 1 combat unit destroys 1 unit/round, allowing a second round, makes  the attack, at the end, a 1 combat unit destroys 2 defenceless transports.

It is a middle term between (1 kill/unit and 3kill/units).
Only one additional round is easier to remember and keeps track (than 3, 4 or more).

And it gives each battleship (the best gunships of all) a real advantage over other units.
Each BB can sink 4 transports before they escape.

Allowing more rounds of destruction, will mean, on average, the same thing as the OOB rules: no transport will survive.

---

EDIT: A single round of fire before escape is almost giving transports a better escaping capacity than the subs “submerge capacity” which needs to kill all enemy’s DDs before withdrawing of battle. Hence, giving 2 rounds of enemy’s fire is a clear difference between submerging after first round and escaping on the ocean surface.

[Imperious Leader]

And it gives each battleship (the best gunships of all) a real advantage over other units.
Each BB can sink 4 transports before they escape.

This does not solve the main complaint, that groups of AP’s can get wiped out by one unit. I consider 4 AP’s a group.

Scrambling is for defense.

Just all naval and air to attack AP, but you need one unit to kill one AP, the excess are displaced in the same SZ and must move out on their turn or face another attack.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

And it gives each battleship (the best gunships of all) a real advantage over other units.
Each BB can sink 4 transports before they escape.

This does not solve the main complaint, that groups of AP’s can get wiped out by one unit. I consider 4 AP’s a group.

Scrambling is for defense.
I know. But in this situation, transports are on offence and are making a retreat after 1 round only. And in this case it already follows your rule:  “you need one unit to kill one AP, the excess are displaced in the same SZ and must move out …” 1 SZ away.

Just all naval and air to attack AP, but you need one unit to kill one AP, the excess are displaced in the same SZ and must move out on their turn or face another attack.

I think that when transports are on defense and under fire it must be a little harsher on them than a simple retreat since the basic rules said that, except for subs, no unit on defense can leave the war zone.

I think it is the bottom values: equity between two different situations.

[baron Münchhausen]

This does not solve the main complaint, that groups of AP’s can get wiped out by one unit. I consider 4 AP’s a group.

Maybe, you say only one round before retreat but allow 2 transports being sunk/certain kinds of units.

Base on history, subs and battleships seems much more able to sink defenseless fleeing transports. Give them 2 kills/unit for only one round.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Imperious:

And it gives each battleship (the best gunships of all) a real advantage over other units.
Each BB can sink 4 transports before they escape.

This does not solve the main complaint, that groups of AP’s can get wiped out by one unit. I consider 4 AP’s a group.

Scrambling is for defense.
I know. But in this situation, transports are on offence and are making a retreat after 1 round only. And in this case it already follows your rule:  “you need one unit to kill one AP, the excess are displaced in the same SZ and must move out …” 1 SZ away.

Just all naval and air to attack AP, but you need one unit to kill one AP, the excess are displaced in the same SZ and must move out on their turn or face another attack.

I think that when transports are on defense and under fire it must be a little harsher on them than a simple retreat since the basic rules said that, except for subs, no unit on defense can leave the war zone.

I think it is the bottom values: equity between two different situations.

There is maybe a difference when transports retreat.
It needs to be verified, but I think that all scrambled fighters must still roll “4” or less to destroy retreating transports.

It is not an auto-kill situation.

In this manner, we can say that equity is preserved since defenseless transport are in a harsher situation (auto-kill) than retreating transports (all units still had a chance to escape).

I found the link to the thread which discuss on this situation :
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31534.msg1161542#msg1161542

[Imperious Leader]

Base on history, subs and battleships seems much more able to sink defenseless fleeing transports. Give them 2 kills/unit for only one round.

Yes but this should be corrected by modifying how they do damage to convoy’s, not killing lone transports.

For example: surface ships could now roll their combat factor=damage to convoy system  ( BB rolling a 4 causes four damage, DD must roll a 2 or less…shows the power differences by other means.  If the BB rolled a 5-6 no damage caused, DD 3+ no damage ( miss)

[baron Münchhausen]

Your solution doesn’t exclude the other. And I like it, though.

One way vs merchant marine, and one way vs navy transport.

It is two different house rules on two different objects.

[eddiem4145]

knp7765

I am not sure what part of my post you were addressing. It seems like you didn’t address it at all. Again, my point is that Navy’s are to expensive and the transport is the best example of that.

You can go into history and see what percentage of the USA’s production capability on a yearly bases was used to build an Army and a Navy, and understand that for the US to build any kind of reasonable navy, it takes a massive percentage of their resources way beyond what was historical.

The point of the transports is that fact of what they used to represent. They represented escorts, ships (to transport), and landing craft.

Now they only represent the ships and landing craft. So why are they still $7. Almost the cost of a destroyers. That is what is nuts. I don’t personally favor the old rule, because despite the fact they represented escorts as well, visually they looked just like transports and took away from the realism and fun.

So of all the units, the transports are now the most unrealistically expensive, COMPARED to what you get for your money from the other units.

That is my point.

[baron Münchhausen]

@eddiem4145:

knp7765

I am not sure what part of my post you were addressing. It seems like you didn’t address it at all. Again, my point is that Navy’s are to expensive and the transport is the best example of that.

You can go into history and see what percentage of the USA’s production capability on a yearly bases was used to build an Army and a Navy, and understand that for the US to build any kind of reasonable navy, it takes a massive percentage of their resources way beyond what was historical.

The point of the transports is that fact of what they used to represent. They represented escorts, ships (to transport), and landing craft.

Now they only represent the ships and landing craft. So why are they still $7. Almost the cost of a destroyers. That is what is nuts. I don’t personally favor the old rule, because despite the fact they represented escorts as well, visually they looked just like transports and took away from the realism and fun.

So of all the units, the transports are now the most unrealistically expensive, COMPARED to what you get for your money from the other units.

That is my point.

From the game-play point of view, you seem to forget that you cannot win war with warships!!! :-D
The only useful unit to take land territory is Transport. All other naval units are secondary.
But…
All other units want to kill them too.
So everyone needs to protect them.

I think that you want to lower the TT cost because, in fact, they cost a lot much: it needs escort ships.
At least 1DD/TT= 15 IPCs to travel 2 ground units A2D2=
                      7.5 IPCs  to travel 1 ground unit  A1D1.
Old TT version: A0D1C8 to travel 2 ground units=
                      A0D0.5C4 for 1 ground unit.

So, OOB defenseless TT is around 3 IPCs higher/ ground unit moved than before.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs.
-When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

This is another way to play a defenseless transport which should be added in this thread to be complete on the optional rule for this topic.

It makes me think about a similar but still a bit different way to played it also as a defenseless but not hopeless transport:

When there is no more warships/aircrafts to defend transports, then each transport roll and for each “1” rolled in a specific round, one Transport can escape.

Attacker need to hit transport unit according to each attacking factor (ex.: subs @2/ DD @2 / CA @3, etc.) to destroy one transport.

Each round any un-destroyed transport which haven’t been able to escape can still trying to roll “1” to escape.

The combat end when, either all remaining transports have been able to escape, or have been destroyed.

Their will be no more auto-die, no combat unit will be destroy and the naval combat is done according to usual A&A system rule:

a roll is needed to destroy any unit and no unit able to destroy more than 1 unit in the same combat round.

[baron Münchhausen]

Since I play-tested it,
I say it is much more interesting than auto-die and more balance way to keep some surviving Transports than destroying expensive attacking units (one way or an other).

I should add this detail:
transport can get their evasive roll as soon as their is no more warships or planes on their side at the end of a combat round.

Always attacking units can hit first, and it is only surviving transport which can get an evasive roll.

Which means, for instance, if their is two transports at the beginning of a round and both are hit by attacker’s units then their is no evasive roll.

[baron Münchhausen]

Here is an other combination of element of Classic transport and the chosen last transport rule:

A- Transport can never control a sea-zone or act like a “blocker”.

B- Transport is A0 D0 M2 C7, 1 hit value, + 1AA@1 non-preemptive per Transport or aircraft each round, whichever the lesser.

C- All attacking units can rolls against them (regular attack value) when there is no more escorting units (sea or air). All extra hits on the last round against escorting units are taken on the transports.

D- This attack against transports only can last up to two rounds for warships. Then remaining Transports are treated as having been able to escape the slaughter fleeing combat in the same sea-zone.
I had called it “scattering”. It is pretty similar to a sub “submerge” ability.

E- After those two rounds, only aircrafts stay in combat, or when any aircrafts launch an attack on isolated APs, it is still a regular attack (StB A4, TcB A3-4, Fg A3) and APs get each round a Defense roll @1 for each AP or aircraft present whichever is less, no preemptive strike.

For example: 1 Fg vs 3 Transports, the Fg gets only one roll @1/round against it.
It is a regular combat and it is over when attacker retreats, is shot down, or all defending TPs units are sunk.

[Der Kuenstler]

Heh heh - Nine games nights since my last post, and our group is still playing using 8 IPC classic transports that have AA40 carry capacity, with no complaints or desire to go back to the defenseless transport. This is the simple solution, and the solution that fits in best with the rest of the rules of the game, without further complicating it.

It’s easy for us in our group to just “imagine” that the transports are more like converted liners (like the Queen Mary) that are accompanied by escort carriers and such which are not represented by pieces in the game.

For those of you who just can’t get past the BB being sunk by a transport, I’d like to ask:

1. How come 1/6 planes are shot down by AA when historically the numbers were less than 1/10?
2. How come the production level in territories remains the same throughout the war when historically production increased exponentially in many territories in USA and USSR?
3. How come there is no realistic weather model in the game?
4. How are the Japanese on those little islands supplied?
5. How come the Germans never run out of fuel?
6. Blah, blah, blah. (Add your own observation about the unrealism of this game)

It is possible to overthink this enjoyable game that has a WWII flavor to it. It will never be a serious and detailed game like “World in Flames” or such - it wasn’t designed to be.

I say just plug in the Classic transports again! Enjoy a few less arbitrary rules and have fun.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

Heh heh - Nine games nights since my last post, and our group is still playing using 8 IPC classic transports that have AA40 carry capacity, with no complaints or desire to go back to the defenseless transport. This is the simple solution, and the solution that fits in best with the rest of the rules of the game, without further complicating it.

It’s easy for us in our group to just “imagine” that the transports are more like converted liners (like the Queen Mary) that are accompanied by escort carriers and such which are not represented by pieces in the game.
It is an interesting way of rationalizing it. But I rather prefer to say it have only Destroyer escorts with them. They have some anti-aircraft capacity and anti-sub also. And once the unit is sunk there is no remain. (Contrary to Fgs and TcBs which can land elsewhere.)
I say just plug in the Classic transports again! Enjoy a few less arbitrary rules and have fun.

Clearly simpler, but does it have any impact on the overall balance of the game (G40 or 1942.2?)?
Does the bid are lower?
Does Axis wins at the same rate?
Is it better balance after all?

---

You should ask Triple A designer to make this classic transport an available option at the start of the game for G40, 1942.2 and 1941.
Probably not so difficult since they have the old program lines.

[Der Kuenstler]

We play a hybrid of AA1942 and AA50th on a custom map, so I can’t speak for any other versions. I’d just say try it out!

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

We play a hybrid of AA1942 and AA50th on a custom map, so I can’t speak for any other versions. I’d just say try it out!

That’s too bad…
10 games and more was a good play-testing experience.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Spendo02:

The hybrid approach of 8 IPC transports, defending @1 but have to be taken last as casualties is probably my preferred approach.

I don’t care much for defenseless units. Particularly when a Bomber from Hawaii can swoop into Japan’s SZ and blow up 3 TT and land in Mongolia with no risk of dying. Granted Scrambles can defend that but the point is still the same.

I think it is one of the biggest issues with Japan taking all those unprotected US islands, because it is not worth the investment to take a non-value island when you have to divert a fleet to defend from the US arbitrarily sending aircraft to swoop out and clear all those TT with zero chance of escape or defense.

@Uncrustable:

I would support transports costing 8 IPC and defending at a one.

However i dont think they should be able to be taken as casualties before surface warships/planes/ or subs.

So best of both worlds ;)

The hybrid way is probably the simplest way of doing thing.

But I still think that a stack of transports should not be that dangerous for the surviving warships of a big naval fight.

As I revised and reread many ideas, I realized this one possible HR wasn’t formulated:

AP A0 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit,* taken last, * each round defend @1 against up to 1 enemy’s attacking unit or 1 per defending transport, whichever the lesser.
Remaining transports or transports only group can still be ignored by attacking Naval group or amphibious assault group (as G40 OOB).

• Transport are still taken last and cannot roll defense until all escorting warships are destroyed.
  When some transports are taken as casualties because of an overkill of escorting warships,
  then this sunken transport(s) can roll their defense @1.

• Treat defensive roll as the way AA gun is done but, instead of up to 3 planes, it is only up to 1 unit and it is not restricted to aircraft but applied to any attacking unit, no restriction.

Example 1:
3 damaged IJN Battleships are attacking 12 USA transports.
Battleships rolls 3@4 and the transports only rolls 3@1.

Example 2:
3 damaged IJN Battleships are attacking 2 USA transports.
Battleships rolls 3@4 and the transports only rolls 2@1.

---

I think it is applying only actual A&A game mechanics and it makes more fun because their is no predictable results: transport get a minimal defensive roll but survival is now possible for transport units.

And by keeping the taken last, transports cannot be used as fodder for costlier warships.

What do you think of this, now?

---

I just visualized there wasn’t only transports ships in this unit but a few escorting vessels with them, not much but enough to provide a limited defense against all kinds of attack (air, sea, subs).

It’s easy for us in our group to just “imagine” that the transports are more like converted liners (like the Queen Mary) that are accompanied by escort carriers and such which are not represented by pieces in the game.

---

It is an interesting way of rationalizing it. But I rather prefer to say it have only Destroyer Escorts (DE) with them. They have some anti-aircraft capacity and anti-sub also. And once the unit is sunk there is no remain. (Contrary to Fgs and TcBs which can land elsewhere.)

[Black_Elk]

I remain interested in this subject. I still find defenseless transports problematic.

Most of my gameplay has been restricted to AA50 and 1942.2 (and some bouts of the starter 1941 to see if it can be improved by the edition of the artillery etc.) Global not so much, as I find it arduous and time intensive in the set up, and implements too many nuanced rules for my tastes, and just doesn’t provide me with enough pay off for all the additional time it takes to get a game started. So most of what I have seen from the defenseless transport is coming form the AA50 and current small to mid range boards.

I still find defenseless transports working against the Allies generally, but also against amphibious capacity builds vs air (to destroy that capacity) in general, and this effect exists for pretty much all player nations. Makes transport capacity more expensive and longer to deploy in the movement of troops. So in addition to the increased cost (per land unit transported) the time delay is also major.

I like the idea of fixing the transport unit somehow, but only if the unit and its rules can still be described in a sentence, maybe two at most. I worry about further complicating this aspect of the game, since it is so essential to the endgame and broader strategy. The ideal for me would be a bit more production and a bit less exclusive dependence on the transport, (through more VCs with starting factories for example, or something similar), but if so much of the game has to hinge on fleets, covering transports, defending against air, then more money should be in play for the nations that have to make near exclusive use of them. Or more total starting units to compensate for the transport purchases that have to be made. Or the transport needs to be cheaper per land unit transported, or put up a defense of some sort.

I tried playing all these games with transports at 8 (revised rules), and then at 10, 12 (With aa fire), and then went back to 7 defenseless just for simplicity and to keep things as OOB as possible while trying to isolate other dynamics relating to overall production, ipcs, and start position on those boards.

Instead of adjustments to the transport rules, I would have favored an adjustment to cost (retaining the old abilities), if the problem in Revised was fodder spamming, but since that went out the door with AA50, I think the problem with the current defenseless transport is an imbalance in starting unit set up and income distribution on these boards. If defenseless, the main players that need them to wage war (USA and UK) should be compensated when designing the starting balance, so that the large cost they have to incur building up defensive fleets is mitigated somewhat. That doesn’t really happen in aa50, or 1942.2, where the income parity of USA and UK doesn’t really match the requirement of their gameplay, whereas Japan (which can purchase production and cover transports more easily) has a much easier go of things. It seems strange how much harder it is for USA and UK to project power and push land units towards the center than it is for Japan. And this is directly a result of the transport rules in those games.

Or at least that has been my feeling