The aberration of the defenseless transport

  • Customizer

    I’m not sure if someone said this, through the flurry of posts here on this thread, but I say give transports a plus one to defense when accompanied by a destroyer not unlike any of the other combined arms rules.

    For the record I’m in favor of the old rules or DK’s original proposal. However if there’s ever going to be a change from the top I say give transports a 1:1 combined arms defense with destroyers.

    M2 A0 D0/1* C7     *When paired (1:1 ratio) with destroyer. Transport still must be chosen last in the order of battle.

  • TripleA

    The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

    I disagree. There are games I really do not feel like doing boats n oceans and rather invade some capital… except this is global… so that does not happen.

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    I would argue that a bomber would have time to get airborne, however at a severely reduced capacity.

    A bomber is a combat unit, a transport is not a combat unit (it is simply there to TRANSPORT). Please stop comparing apples to oranges to prove points.

    I for one, (don’t care if i’m the only one) hated classic transport rules. The naval system was stale and pungent. Naval buys (other than transports) were very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs. How stupid.

    The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

    I would be happy to add a ‘frigate’ unit to the game that cost 4 IPCs A/D at 1/1, movement of 1 (+1 movement when paired with transports 1:1). Would make a great transport escort. But it still would be a COMBAT unit transporting a NONcombat unit.

    Many discuss the historical plausibility of TT Def@1 or not. And the nature of 1 unit.
    I think their is in either way acceptable rationalization. The main focus should be on game mechanism and rules if we want to find out a better rules with TT with the less drawback.

    Der Kunstler option, is like making wishfull thinking when he hopes than in a tactical calculation (and trying to survive against an overwhelming attackers) someone would prefer to loose a Fg@4 at 10 IPCs before loosing 10 IPCs TTs@1 just to not recreat transport screening battle. Impossible.

    Example: 1CV 2Fgs 1DDs and 6TTs vs 7 Subs
    In this case, even the DD (8 IPCs) will be preserve to let the Fgs destroying Subs.

    In the Taken last, it take only 3 hits from the Subs to destroy all the defender’s fleet.

    With DK’s, it requires 9 hits and 6 will be defending @1!
    First TTs will be sink, then either DD or CV depending on the number of surviving Subs.

    With this example, do you see that the transport screening still effective and the impact on naval battle and (the impact on Germany, not worth the mention).

    That’s why other option for “Defender choose casualities” must be find out and promote.

    Even my last post solution, isn’t that good but has some advantages.

    The defender will probably still use TTs has screen.
    However, the subs won’t be attacked by numerous @1 defense unless the attacker decides to sink first DD and CV, then the 6 TT@1 will be against the surviving Subs.
    But, I think the best tactical option will be to keep DDs because of the 2Fg@4 and soak hits with TTs then CV.

    In the 2 TTs for 1@1 and 1 hit, you see that there is only 3 hits to soak by TTs and it is much less unbalancing against Subs (and nearer the TTn0 version of Taken last.)

    I’m still thinking under the assumption that we are making adjustment to the actual game, not creating a new one like changing placement of starting units for an other historical period (ex.:1939). Because, in this case, DK’s option is viable for the lover of Classics.

    For me, I want the best of both world:
    No Warships always protect TTs neither It is almost always preferable to screen my Warships with TTs.
    I will always prefer a defender choose casualities over the Taken last rule.
    But the game was balance under this last rule and must still be taken in account.

  • Official Q&A

    @Der:

    Pretty good, Krieghund, except you won’t please all those shouting “warships are there to protect transports, not the other way around!” The transports you take early are essentially protecting the warships, aren’t they?  Â

    No, they are failing to be protected by the inadequate number of warships available for that purpose.


  • @Krieghund:

    @Der:

    Pretty good, Krieghund, except you won’t please all those shouting “warships are there to protect transports, not the other way around!” The transports you take early are essentially protecting the warships, aren’t they?�  �

    No, they are failing to be protected by the inadequate number of warships available for that purpose.

    So why not let warships protect transports one a 1:1 bases, any transports not protected do not participate in the battle, however all transports that are protected both roll a defense dice and can be taken as casualties as the defender sees fit.

    EX: Germany attacks  a SZ containing both UK warships and transports (1 BB 1 CV 1 DD 1 Fighter and 5 transports) with 7 submarines and a CA.
    Germany rolls 6 hits, UK can decide to take up to 4 of those hits on transports or any combination. Once casualties are chosen UK rolls for its warships and the 3 protected transports.
    Unprotected transports are temporarily removed from the board untill the battle has concluded. If Germany is victorious (that is all 3 warships AND all 3 transports are sunk with atleast 1 German unit remaining) The unprotected transports are removed permanently.
    If UK wins the battle (All German attackers were sunk OR Germany retreated from the battle, or submerged) the unprotected transports are then placed BACK on the board, and are not lost.

    So this follows along with Kreigs idea but gives SOME transports classic dice rolls and casualty choices.
    So on a 1:1 bases (THIS INCLUDES ALL FREINDLY UNITS THAT WOULD DEFEND THE SEA ZONE, scrambled planes, planes on CVs count) All protected transports act as classic transports while all unprotected transports act as defensless transports under the post classic rule.

    This would be a ‘combined arms’ ability

  • TripleA

    ah screw it just give usa more starting inf.

  • '17 '16

    @Baron:

    Many discuss the historical plausibility of TT Def@1 or not. And the nature of 1 unit.
    I think their is in either way acceptable rationalization. The main focus should be on game mechanism and rules if we want to find out a better rules with TT with the less drawback.

    Der Kunstler option, is like making wishful thinking when he hopes than in a tactical calculation (and trying to survive against an overwhelming attackers) someone would prefer to loose a Fg@4 at 10 IPCs before loosing 10 IPCs TTs@1 just to not recreate transport screening battle. Impossible.

    The defender will probably still use TTs has screen.

    In the 2 TTs for 1@1 and 1 hit, you see that there is only 3 hits to soak by TTs and it is much less unbalancing against Subs (and nearer the TTn0 version of Taken last.)

    I’m still thinking under the assumption that we are making adjustment to the actual game, not creating a new one like changing placement of starting units for an other historical period (ex.:1939). Because, in this case, DK’s option is viable for the lover of Classics.

    For me, I want the best of both world:
    No Warships always protect TTs neither It is almost always preferable to screen my Warships with TTs.
    I will always prefer a defender choose casualities over the Taken last rule.
    But the game was balance under this last rule and must still be taken in account.

    @Baron:

    Do you disagree with the principles: defender chooses casualties or, more generally, each player picks is own casualties?
    The Transport are taken last rule broke this principle.

    I think that is the consequence of the first principle in the Naval battles with TT that most people hate.

    For my part, I don’t like either that Warships always protect transport. Historically, I’m sure that on some occasions some TTs were destroyed first. For instance, if the battle of Leyte gulf was made according to Japanese, they would have lured warships away and destroy TTs before retreating. They would have keep their warships for later battles. The plan was to gain time and destroying invasive capacity of the attacker. For them, it was the best way to delay USA.

    To keep the core principles of A&A system, we need to find incentive in which defender will find a bit foolish to pick TT before warships. So anybody can hit first TTs then warships but doesn’t see great tactical advantage in it.
    You already get into it when you suggested: need 2 TTs to get 1 unit able to @1 and take 1 hit.

    Now I have another incentive:
    When TT are mixed with warships they don’t get any @1.
    It is only when their is no more warship with them that each unit can get 1@1 on defense.
    But in any situation a TT worth 1 casualties.
    So in a this way any defender will lose some chances to make more hit by picking them first over warships.
    Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
    The defender has the choice to soak up to six hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2.
    Or after 2 hits, can now got 6TTs def@1 and 6 hits.

    You see now that it can simulate the warships screening even under the defender choose casualties.

    Of course, we can combine with your idea to get it tactically less interesting:
    1 TT is @0 and Auto-kill. 2TTs is 1@1 and worth 1 hit. But when in any warships group they loose the @1.
    However, defender can still decide to loose first TTs then loose warships.
    And, according to my addition, if defender has only 3TTs amongst warship and prefer to pick TTs as casualty, he must destroy all the three TTs in 1 shot (a 21 IPCs hit for the attacker!) It hurts just to soak 1 hit!
    But it is still defender’s choice.

    Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
    The defender has the choice to soak up to 3 hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2 but every hit cost him 14 IPCs vs 8 IPCs for 1 DDs.
    Or after 2 hits, can still have 6TTs for 3def@1 and 3 hits.

    All in all, the real ennemy of Defenseless TT his :

    very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs.

    Under the defender choose his casualties, these are rules in which I create the most incentive to keep transport as last casualties without using an automatic obligation rule like “TT are taken last”.
    I also try to apply only actual game mechanics develop for different units to create this specific mechanic for TTs.
    Subs as special ability, TTs have similar ones.

    First, TT are not warship and are less armoured and slower than any units able to combat in a sea-zone,
    1 single hit from a combat unit destroy 2 transport units. This imply that to soak 1 hit, you must have 2 TTs.
    If 1 TT is choose as casualty and there is also a combat unit present, then you must also destroy this combat unit.

    2- All TTs defend @1 against any unit, but they cannot defend (@1) as long as their is 1 warship unit defending them in the sea-zone.

    3- When TTs are directly attack by any combat unit, this attack is a treated as a First strike, it is preemptive so if a hit is score, 2 TTs are sunk and unable to use their defense @1.

    4- TTs can escape (but it is not mandatory), like a submerge ability, by “Scattering” in the same sea-zone.
    It is possible under 3 conditions:
    a) there is no combat unit able to defend them (like only subs against TTs and Fgs)
    b) they endure at least 1 round of enemy’s direct fire on them.
    c) there is no aircraft still attacking TTs, aircraft blocks TTs escape (like DDs blocking submerge for Subs).

    Well, that’s it. Defender can still now decides to pick transports as first casualties.
    But, if their is only one TT, it is a tactical mistake, because loosing 1 TT and 1 combat unit instead of only 1 combat unit, the choice is obvious.

    If their is 2 or more TTs, it can be interesting to pick two TTs (but the cost is higher: 2 TTsx7= 14 IPCs) to prevent one warship with higher defense to sink. But it also means that he loose 2 Def@1.

    And last, because of the escape possibility, he must evaluate where are is better chance of survival: for the warships or his group of transports submitting to only one round of fire from the surviving attacker’s unit ?

    Do you see now, there is much more tactical decision to make for the defender (TT are cannon fodder or they should be preserve at all cost by combat units),
    there is no more rules like automatic destruction of defenseless transport and “Taken last rules”.

    Example: 7 subs against 1DD 2Fg 1CV 6 TTs.

    Under Taken last, it requires 3 hits from sub to destroy the entire fleet.
    Now it can take 3 hit soaked by (3 pairs of) TTs + 3 hits to destroy the entire fleet.

    It can also be 3 hits, then giving 6 TTs 6@1(or less depending on the how many subs got a hit) against surviving Subs then possible escape.

    In the special case, when more hits are taken than warships can take, then the surviving TTs are allowed to fire back, counting it as in the same round.

    It is a balance and half-way solution between the Classic, which give to much units for the defender to serve as cannon fodder and change the balance between units (specialy against subs) and the New TT rule which imply automatic and boring destruction of many TTs even if there is only one attacking survivor to destroy them all.

    I hope you will take the time to think about it…


  • I would hate to imagine a Germany that bought 10 transports and did Sealion and now you’re facing a fleet of transports that are all rolling on defense.  :roll:

  • '17 '16

    @zanetheinsane:

    I would hate to imagine a Germany that bought 10 transports and did Sealion and now you’re facing a fleet of transports that are all rolling on defense. :roll:

    That’s mean 5 hit to sink them all and you got all preemptive strike.
    5 Fgts can probably do the job…

    Very low luck:
    R1) 5Fg@3= 15, 2 hits + 3/6         10TTs-4= 6TTs@1= 1 hit
    R2) 4Fg@3= 12, 2 hits                    6TTs-4= 2TTs@1= 2/6
    R3) 4Fg@3= 12, 2 hits                2TTs-4= 0TTs@1=0
    Lost: 10 IPCs                             70 IPCs

    Actually, as you can see 4Fgts or even 3Fgts can be OK.


  • @Uncrustable:

    @Krieghund:

    @Der:

    Pretty good, Krieghund, except you won’t please all those shouting “warships are there to protect transports, not the other way around!” The transports you take early are essentially protecting the warships, aren’t they?�  �

    No, they are failing to be protected by the inadequate number of warships available for that purpose.

    So why not let warships protect transports one a 1:1 bases, any transports not protected do not participate in the battle, however all transports that are protected both roll a defense dice and can be taken as casualties as the defender sees fit.

    EX: Germany attacks  a SZ containing both UK warships and transports (1 BB 1 CV 1 DD 1 Fighter and 5 transports) with 7 submarines and a CA.
    Germany rolls 6 hits, UK can decide to take up to 4 of those hits on transports or any combination. Once casualties are chosen UK rolls for its warships and the 3 protected transports.
    Unprotected transports are temporarily removed from the board untill the battle has concluded. If Germany is victorious (that is all 3 warships AND all 3 transports are sunk with atleast 1 German unit remaining) The unprotected transports are removed permanently.
    If UK wins the battle (All German attackers were sunk OR Germany retreated from the battle, or submerged) the unprotected transports are then placed BACK on the board, and are not lost.

    So this follows along with Kreigs idea but gives SOME transports classic dice rolls and casualty choices.
    So on a 1:1 bases (THIS INCLUDES ALL FREINDLY UNITS THAT WOULD DEFEND THE SEA ZONE, scrambled planes, planes on CVs count) All protected transports act as classic transports while all unprotected transports act as defensless transports under the post classic rule.

    This would be a ‘combined arms’ ability

  • '17 '16

    @ Uncrustable
    You probably mean why not the other option from Krieghund:
    10 TTs alone are worthless and auto-kill.

    Is it?


  • @Baron:

    @ Uncrustable
    You probably mean why not the other option from Krieghund:
    10 TTs alone are worthless and auto-kill.

    Is it?

    Any transports that are escorted (planes from CVs and scramble count) on a 1:1 ratio act under the classic transport rule.
    Any unescorted transports would not participate in the battle.
    Transports in a sz with NO escorts present (including scamlbled fighters) would auto die if attacked

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    This would be a ‘combined arms’ ability

    Maybe you mean, look I have middle-way too?

    It’s true that you give both world.
    Your option is less complex than Krieghund because you fix at the start of the battle which transport can be a hit and defend @1.

    There is still auto-kill and defenseless transport but at a much lesser rate, and even no at all if combat units are in much higher number than TT.

    However, I think you get much more transport screening and, because of this, it gives much power to warships fleet.

    Example: 7 subs vs 1DD 1 CV 2 Fg and 6 TTs
    Instead of only 3 hits to destroy everything (TTnew, OOB1940),
    it needs: 3 + 4 hits = 7 hits and gain 4 TTs defending @1.

    Vs only 3 hits + 3 hits (3TTs@0) or two different battles with 6TTs@1 but can only take 3 hits.
    However, they may even escape…
    And the preemptive destruction rate (1 hit: 2 TTs) is much better in favor of the attacker.

    So, your option is nearer TTclassic vs mine is nearer TTnew,
    because attacker as much firepower vs TT and the defender are a bit weaker.
    That’s why I think it is less unbalancing.
    But I see that yours, is a simple system.

    Possible adjustment to your option: only warships can protect TT and give them 1@1.


  • @Uncrustable:

    Any transports that are escorted (planes from CVs and scramble count) on a 1:1 ratio act under the classic transport rule.
    Any unescorted transports would not participate in the battle.
    Transports in a sz with NO escorts present (including scamlbled fighters) would auto die if attacked

    This is very simple and i think that planes should be able to defend transports as well as ships. Plus it makes it easier to understand and implement.

    EX: A german force attacks a UK force in a SZ. The SZ contains 9 transports; 1 sub; 1 cruiser; 1 carrier; 1 fighter on the carrier and 2 fighters from an adjacent airbase that UK decides to scramble into the SZ.
    In this scenario 6 transports along with the warships and planes would participate in the defense of the seazone. There are no special transports rules within the battle (transports defend at 1 and no restrictions on order of loss). However there would be 3 transports that would not participate.
    Scenario A: German wins with 1 attacking unit left. The 3 remaining UK transports are lost.
    ________B: UK wins (with or without units left, Germany either lost everything or retreated) the 3 UK transports would remain

    If Germany were to attack a SZ with 9 transports and 1 destroyer then only one transport would participate and the remaining 8 would not.
    If Germany were to attack a SZ with ONLY transports (this would include there being no scramble fighters) then none of the transports would fight and all would be lost (auto-death)

    Really liking this rule the more i think about it. It is a great middle ground. And most importantly is not overcomplicated (we already have combined arms in other areas of the game)
    If anything it would give the allies a slight edge in balance. Which in my opinion would greatly improve the game overall (reduce ~20 IPC allies bids)

  • '17 '16

    I think my 3 comments still good:
    Your system is simpler, true. But:
    It gives much more power to a fleet.
    And you’ll get transport screening again.

    4- Any good buyer will buy 1 more warship than transport to be sure he will always gain the TT bonus.


  • @Baron:

    4- Any good buyer will buy 1 more warship than transport to be sure he will always gain the TT bonus.

    Well most current G40 fleets are warships (and plane) heavy relative to transport so i dont think this would change buys that much. If anything people may buy a few more transports and a few less warships.
    This is much much better than just giving all transports +1 defense regardless of fleet composition.
    Transports will not need quite as much escort (with current oob rules). But fleets wont be massive trannie fests either. -heheh  :roll:
    It could also possibly help balance out G40 a bit

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    @Baron:

    4- Any good buyer will buy 1 more warship than transport to be sure he will always gain the TT bonus.

    Well most current G40 fleets are warships (and plane) heavy relative to transport so I dont think this would change buys that much. If anything people may buy a few more transports and a few less warships.
    This is much much better than just giving all transports +1 defense regardless of fleet composition.
    Transports will not need quite as much escort (with current oob rules). But fleets wont be massive trannie fests either. -heheh� � :roll:
    It could also possibly help balance out G40 a bit

    What I can infer from what you just said: is almost all Transport (except aftermath battle situation) will become 1 hit@1.
    And you go back to square 1, DK saw the problem that’s why he pledge for a Classic TT at 10 IPCs.

    In theory, having a mix of TTc and TTnew defenseless is correct and the way to limit it is simple.
    In practice, trannies and subs will be the cannon fodder for the defender when their is a big battle to insure max damage on the attacker and a better chance of survival.

    What I see, is a direct grow of the number of unit able to take casualities, able to defend @1 against any � unit (unlike subs@1), able to transport unit and costing only 7 IPCs over 8, 10, 11, 16 IPCs.

    After that, the question is: is this rule truly necessary vs Dk option to raise TT up to 10 IPCs.
    Is there so many TTs which doesn’t receive almost everywhere a 1 on 1 warship protection?
    How many TTs will be rejected and turn back to defenseless?

    I’m asking the question, I have not enough experience on Global to see what are the real fact.
    But no matter how far TT is revert back to classic, it seems for many that it will move the balance a little less in favor of Axis.
    The question is how far are you ready to go and move this balance in the TT rules adjusment.

    I’m still looking for the less change possible but knowing that a no change mean keep Taken last and defenseless TT.
    And I don’t want this.


  • You could (under my Suggested change) raise the cost to 8, but no higher. And that may be too much.
    This change would HELP balance G40, as the axis are currently favored without a significant allied bid.

  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    What about this:

    Use the Revised edition Transport which has the popular larger carrying capacity of the global one. � Att-0, Def-1, M-2, cost-8.

    Just as planes and subs can’t hit each other, you could say that transports cannot sink capital ships (BBs, cruisers, carriers) All hits a transport gets while defending that would sink a capital ship must be assigned to other units.

    When there are no other attacking units but capital ships, if a defending transport gets a hit this will allow it to escape to a friendly sea zone. If there are no friendly sea zones to escape to, only then would transports would auto-die.

    Example: A BB attacks 4 transports. The BB gets a hit. One transport is lost. The four transports roll in defense and get 2 hits. The BB takes 1 hit damage and one transport gets away. 
    Now there are 2 transports left. The BB rolls a 3 - another hit. Another transport is sunk. The two transports roll one hit in defense. So the last transport gets away.

    This takes away the ridiculous idea of a transport sinking a BB or a carrier. Only plausible units can be hit by the transport, and then only when defending. As for using the transports as screens, I don’t see this being a logical strategy anymore with DDs being available and BBs taking 2 hits. It may still happen incidentally but not as a “go to” strategy.  Â


  • @Uncrustable:

    Any transports that are escorted (planes from CVs and scramble count) on a 1:1 ratio act under the classic transport rule.
    Any unescorted transports would not participate in the battle.

    This I think is the best resolution, and I’m willing to test it

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    @Uncrustable:

    Any transports that are escorted (planes from CVs and scramble count) on a 1:1 ratio act under the classic transport rule.
    Any unescorted transports would not participate in the battle.

    This I think is the best resolution, and I’m willing to test it

    Good News!
    I hope you will give us feed back.
    I’m very curious.

    My predictions:
    **Almost all TPs will defend@1,
    In most naval combats, TPs will be lost amongst the first casualties.
    You will lost the “feel” about warships protecting the “small ones” of OOB Global.

    Allies will finally win the day with better invasion fleet. 😉**

    Tell me more, please…

  • '17 '16

    I include these 3 posts for completness but you should read first the comment below.

    @Baron:

    @Baron:

    Many discuss the historical plausibility of TT Def@1 or not. And the nature of 1 unit.
    I think their is in either way acceptable rationalization. The main focus should be on game mechanism and rules if we want to find out a better rules with TT with the less drawback.

    Der Kunstler option, is like making wishfull thinking when he hopes than in a tactical calculation (and trying to survive against an overwhelming attackers) someone would prefer to loose a Fg@4 at 10 IPCs before loosing 10 IPCs TTs@1 just to not recreat transport screening battle. Impossible.

    Example: 1CV 2Fgs 1DDs and 6TTs vs 7 Subs
    In this case, even the DD (8 IPCs) will be preserve to let the Fgs destroying Subs.

    In the Taken last, it take only 3 hits from the Subs to destroy all the defender’s fleet.

    With DK’s, it requires 9 hits and 6 will be defending @1!
    First TTs will be sink, then either DD or CV depending on the number of surviving Subs.

    With this example, do you see that the transport screening still effective and the impact on naval battle and (the impact on Germany, not worth the mention).

    That’s why other option for “Defender choose casualities” must be find out and promote.

    Even my last post solution, isn’t that good but has some advantages.

    The defender will probably still use TTs has screen.
    However, the subs won’t be attacked by numerous @1 defense unless the attacker decide to sink first DD and CV, then the 6 TT@1 will be against the surviving Subs.
    But, I think the best tactical option will be to keep DDs because of the 2Fg@4 and soak hits with TTs then CV.

    In the 2 TTs for 1@1 and 1 hit, you see that there is only 3 hits to soak by TTs and it is much less unbalancing against Subs (and nearer the TTn0 version of Taken last.)

    I’m still thinking under the assumption that we are making adjustment to the actual game, not creating a new one like changing placement of starting units for an other historical period (ex.:1939). Because, in this case, DK’s option is viable for the lover of Classics.

    For me, I want the best of both world:
    No Warships always protect TTs neither It is almost always preferable to screen my Warships with TTs.
    I will always prefer a defender choose casualities over the Taken last rule.
    But the game was balance under this last rule and must still be taken in account.

    @Baron:

    Do you disagree with the principles: defender chooses casualities or, more generally, each player picks is own casualities?
    The Transport are taken last rule broke this principle.

    I think that is the consequence of the first principle in the Naval battles with TT that most people hate.

    For my part, I don’t like either that Warships always protect transport. Historically, I’m sure that on some occasions some TTs were destroyed first. For instance, if the battle of Leyte gulf was made according to Japanese, they would have lured warships away and destroy TTs before retreating. They would have keep their warships for later battles. The plan was to gain time and destroying invasive capacity of the attacker. For them, it was the best way to delay USA.

    To keep the core principles of A&A system, we need to find incentive in which defender will find a bit foolish to pick TT before warships. So anybody can hit first TTs then warships but doesn’t see great tactical advantage in it.
    You already get into it when you suggested: need 2 TTs to get 1 unit able to @1 and take 1 hit.

    Now I have another incentive:
    When TT are mixed with warships they don’t get any @1.
    It is only when their is no more warship with them that each unit can get 1@1 on defense.
    But in any situation a TT worth 1 casualities.
    So in a this way any defender will lose some chances to make more hit by picking them first over warships.
    Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
    The defender has the choice to soak up to six hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2.
    Or after 2 hits, can now got 6TTs def@1 and 6 hits.

    You see now that it can simulate the warships screening even under the defender choose casualities.

    Of course, we can combine with your idea to get it tacticaly less interresting:
    1 TT is @0 and Auto-kill. 2TTs is 1@1 and worth 1 hit. But when in any warships group they loose the @1.
    However, defender can still decide to loose first TTs then loose warships.
    And, according to my addition, if defender has only 3TTs amongst warship and prefer to pick TTs as casuality, he must destroy all the three TTs in 1 shot (a 21 IPCs hit for the attacker!) It hurts just to soak 1 hit!
    But it is still defender’s choice.

    Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
    The defender has the choice to soak up to 3 hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2 but every hit cost him 14 IPCs vs 8 IPCs for 1 DDs.
    Or after 2 hits, can still have 6TTs for 3def@1 and 3 hits.

    All in all, the real ennemy of Defenseless TT his :

    very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs.

    Under the defender choose his casualities, these are rules in which I create the most incentive to keep transport as last casualities without using an automatic obligation rule like “TT are taken last”.
    I also try to apply only actual game mechanics develop for different units to create this specific mechanic for TTs.
    Subs as special ability, TTs have similar ones.

    First, TT are not warship and are less armored and slower than any units able to combat in a sea-zone,
    1 single hit from a combat unit destroy 2 transport units. This imply that to soak 1 hit, you must have 2 TTs.
    If 1 TT is choose as casuality and there is also a combat unit present, then you must also destroy this combat unit.

    2- All TTs defend @1 against any unit, but they cannot defend (@1) as long as their is 1 warship unit defending them in the sea-zone.

    3- When TTs are directly attack by any combat unit, this attack is a treated as a First strike, it is preemptive so if a hit is score, 2 TTs are sunk and unable to use their defense @1.

    4- TTs can escape (but it is not mandatory), like a submerge ability, by “Scattering” in the same sea-zone.
    It is possible under 3 conditions:
    a) there is no combat unit able to defend them (like only subs against TTs and Fgs)
    b) they endure at least 1 round of ennemy’s direct fire on them.
    c) there is no aircraft still attacking TTs, aircraft blocks TTs escape (like DDs blocking submerge for Subs).

    Well, that’s it. Defender can still now decides to pick transports as first casualities.
    But, if their is only one TT, it is a tactical mistake, because loosing 1 TT and 1 combat unit instead of only 1 combat unit, the choice is obvious.

    If their is 2 or more TTs, it can be interesting to pick two TTs (but the cost is higher: 2 TTsx7= 14 IPCs) to prevent one warship with higher defense to sink. But it also means that he loose 2 Def@1.

    And last, because of the escape possibility, he must evaluate where are is better chance of survival: for the warships or his group of transports submiting to only one round of fire from the surviving attacker’s unit ?

    Do you see now, there is much more tactical decision to make for the defender (TT are cannon fodder or they should be preserve at all cost by combat units),
    there is no more rules like automatic destruction of defenseless transport and “Taken last rules”.

    Example: 7 subs against 1DD 2Fg 1CV 6 TTs.

    Under Taken last, it requires 3 hits from sub to destroy the entire fleet.
    Now it can take 3 hit soaked by (3 pairs of) TTs + 3 hits to destroy the entire fleet.

    It can also be 3 hits, then giving 6 TTs 6@1(or less depending on the how many subs got a hit) against surviving Subs then possible escape.

    In the special case, when more hits are taken than warships can take, then the surviving TTs are allowed to fire back, counting it as in the same round.

    It is a balance and half-way solution between the Classic, which give to much units for the defender to serve as cannon fodder and change the balance between units (specialy against subs) and the New TT rule which imply automatic and boring destruction of many TTs even if there is only one attacking survivor to destroy them all.

    I hope you will take the time to think about it…

    Here is another option for Classic inspired TT with the defender choose casualities.
    However, the TT rule I propose is a nearer OOB G40, and is far less a combat unit than the classic 1TT= 1 unit, Def 1@1.
    It follows the same way of thinking in this earlier posts, and all is about incentive to keep transports behind the line of fire instead of using them as cannon fodder but never mandatory.

    This new proposition also try to represent :
    the limited firepower of any single transport, and group of transports,
    the overwhelming firepower of combat unit against TT,
    but that any combat unit are not invulnerable.

    General rule for TT defense :
    Each single TT= Def1@1 vs any unit.
    But whenever 1 TT is under attack by any single combat unit, this attack is an automatic hit.
    1 TT is sunk for every unit attacking.
    Exception: When there is only TTs left, 2 TTs are sunk for every StrB or BB attacking transport.

    But all groups of TTs only can still defend and have each single TT=1@1.

    Rule for a mix group of TTs and warships: Warships usually protect transport.
    When defender decides it is the case and still have some warships/combat units, **no TT can be taken as casuality, but you cannot fire 1TT1@1 with any of them. (Consider them far behind the fire line.)

    When defender decides to put them at risk, TT are considered in the front-line so they can fire 1TT1@1, but they are automatically killed.
    It is on a 1 on 1 basis, i.e. 1 combat unit sink 1 TT.
    If any TT survive because their number was greater than attacker’s unit number,
    then they must stay on the line of fire next round,
    (and will be destroyed unless the attacker was already anhilated at the end of the last round).

    There is a maximum hit taken by defender:
    1 hit per each attacking unit firing against warships and TTs.
    This means that, regardless of the number of successful hits by the attacker and the number of automatically killed TTs, attacker cannot have more hits than the number of attacking units he has during this precise round.

    If all the warships are destroyed, then you use the general rules.
    If their is not enough warships and combat units to allocate the hits taken, you allocate the remaining one to TTs.
    However, each TT casuality will roll his defense 1@1 even if the defender didn’t select them first to be on the front line.
    They were attacked and killed, they got a defense.

    Escaping is possible for transport:
    TTs can escape (but it is not mandatory), like a submerge ability, by “Scattering” in the same sea-zone.
    It is possible under 2 conditions:
    a) there is no more combat unit able to defend them (like only subs against TTs and Fgs)
    b) they endure at least 1 round of enemy’s direct fire on them.

    Example 1: 3 Subs attack 5 TTs.
    Result: 3 TTs are destroyed. Since subs got first strike, only 2TTs got@1, near 2/6 to destroy 1 sub.
    But, with lucky shots: (1/36) 2 subs can also be destroyed.
    After the first round, defender can retreat.

    Example 2: 3 Fgs attack 5 TTs
    Result: 3 TTs are destroyed. But with 5 TTs, defender got 5@1.
    Some chances to destroy 1 or more fighters.

    With these two examples, we can see the advantage of Subs (First strike) vs Fgs against TTs.
    I find this quite historically accurate, a troop transport had some AA batteries and not much against subs. This will be another incentive to use Subs against TTs.

    Example 3: 2 Subs 1Fg  vs 1DD 3TTs
    Seeing the overwhelming odds against DD, defender choose to push 1 TT forward.
    Attackers has bad luck: roll “3” “3” and “4”, no hit against DD.
    But, since 1TT was on the line of fire, then 1 TT is sunk.
    Defender with DD and TT can rolls against Subs, so no “first strike”.
    DD rolls a “2” and TT roll  “2” : 1 Hit!
    First round result: 1Sub 1Fg remain vs 1DD 2TTs

    Defender see his luck (and bad instinct decision), so keeps 2TTs behind.
    Attacker rolls: “2” and “4”: 1 hit!   Defender “2”: 1 Hit.
    Second round result:
    Attacker have a 2 options:
    if it keeps the Subs, it will be auto-kill on first strike 1 of the 2 remaining TTs, so 1TT defends @1.
    if it keeps the Fg, it will be auto-kill for 1 TT of the 2 remaining TTs, but both TTs defend 2@1.
    Now the defender can retreat safely with the last TT.

    Example 3b: Suppose on the second round Defender push another TT on the front line instead.
    Keep the same roll and the TT rolls “2” another miss.
    Then Defender will loose by auto-kill 1 TT and 1 DD sunk, and it is OK since there is 2 attacking units.
    Finally, the last TT will be auto-kill by either the Subs or Fg, depending which casuality had chosen the attacker.

    Example 3c: Suppose instead, Defender goes all-in with 2 TTs.
    Even if Sub or Fg got both hit or nothing, it is the same result: 2TTs are sunk by auto-kill but the DD remain.
    But 2 TTs and 1DD roll on defense. Let’s suppose DD got “2” and TTs “2” and “3”; 1 hit!
    Now, probably the attacker will oppose a Fg against the DD.

    This situation of 1 Sb 1 Fg vs 1DD and 2TTs is very unpredictable. If the attacker had bad luck and miss with both, while the DD rolls a hit, it means the defender offer them 2 TTs to instant kill.
    If the defender was cold blood and push his luck instead, he would have kept 1DD and 2TTs.
    And the attacker would remained with 1 Fg.

    Do you see how a naval battle becomes no boring predictable result depending both on luck and choices made by defending player? And how the tactical decision 1 round at a time can have an impact on what will remain of the defending fleet?

    Example 4: 7 subs vs 1DD, 2 Fgs, 1CV, 6TTs.
    Defender decide how much TT will fight: he goes all in.
    Attacker auto-kills 6 TTs, and rolls one dice for a Sub@2, if he got  “1” or “2”, then 7 out of 7 hits are taken.
    Defender loose all TTs and take 1 hit on the CV.
    Defender rolls  for 6TTs@1 since subs First strike is cancelled by DD.
    Here, you see that is possible to use TTs as screener.

    You can also decide to spare them all 6 TTs behind, let’s suppose 4 subs survive against warships,
    then 4 TTs will be auto-kill and unable to defend (Subs First Strike)
    and 2TTs will escape and will fireback 2x1@1.

    Example 4b: Let’s suppose  the 1DD and 2Fgs received 3 hits from 5 subs.
    Since Fg can’t be hit, then 2 other hits go to the 6 TTs.
    However, both sunk TTs defend @1 since DD was still there.
    If 4 attacking subs or more survive then there is no more TTs since they all get auto-killed.
    And since Subs has First Strike, TTs got no defense at all. A complete slaughter.

    This other proposition of TT rule gives more tactical decisions to defender,
    but it will not be always transports screening since it is auto-kill for them.
    Guess when it will be better to do it instead of protecting the “little ones”!

    Sorry if it is not like the full strength TTclassic.
    Remember, it is meant to be nearer OOB40 in which transport can’t survive and have no combat value.

    ADDENDUMS:
    1- An additionnal rule for precision should be made, to keep the attacker’s odds within reasonable limits when many TTs are put in auto-kill vs large attacking group.

    Instead of rolling all dices for all attacking units, let’s first the attacker choose which attacking units are sinking TTs and which ones are left to roll dices against defending warships and aircrafts.
    Example 5: 5 Fgs attack 2 DDs and 4TTs.
    While 4TTs are on the battle board for screening DDs and rolling 4@1 and DDs2@2,
    instead of rolling 5@3 for Fgs which it is easy to roll a “3” or less on 5 dices thus meaning an almost automatic maximum hit of 5 kills (5 Fgs attacking).
    The attacker will only rolls 1@3, since only 1 Fgs can attack DDs while 4 Fgs are sinking TTs.

    In a sense, this rule also imply the maximum hits limit according to the number of attacker’s unit.

    2- 1 BB or 1StrB when attacking TTs only, it automatically sinks 2TTs/unit.
    This addition will better represent the massive attack factor@4 from these unit.**


  • @Baron:

    @zanetheinsane:

    I would hate to imagine a Germany that bought 10 transports and did Sealion and now you’re facing a fleet of transports that are all rolling on defense. :roll:

    That’s mean 5 hit to sink them all and you got all preemptive strike.
    5 Fgts can probably do the job…

    I was thinking more along the lines of a traditional Sealion buy. You know, the one where German has other boats as well.

  • '17 '16

    @zanetheinsane:

    @Baron:

    @zanetheinsane:

    I would hate to imagine a Germany that bought 10 transports and did Sealion and now you’re facing a fleet of transports that are all rolling on defense. :roll:

    That’s mean 5 hit to sink them all and you got all preemptive strike.
    5 Fgts can probably do the job…

    I was thinking more along the lines of a traditional Sealion buy. You know, the one where German has other boats as well.

    I’ve just bought Global 1940 two months ago. I didn’t get the chance to play with any friend.

    I suppose you think about something like:
    1BB 1Cruiser (CA) 3 Fgs (scrambled) 1 DD 3 Subs + 10 TPs?
    According to that rule I propose, in which 1 hit= sink 2 TPs.

    First, UK must fights warships, and Germany can bring 5 hits from TPs to save his 7 hits-warships.
    Those 10 TPs cannot defend @1 unless all warships and aircrafts are destroyed.

    I need a better idea of your scenario to see the weakness in my suggestion.

    However, I can try it with the other rules which are nearer OOB G40 TPs rules. Next post.

  • '17 '16

    @zanetheinsane:

    @Baron:

    @zanetheinsane:

    I would hate to imagine a Germany that bought 10 transports and did Sealion and now you’re facing a fleet of transports that are all rolling on defense. :roll:

    That’s mean 5 hit to sink them all and you got all preemptive strike.
    5 Fgts can probably do the job…

    I was thinking more along the lines of a traditional Sealion buy. You know, the one where German has other boats as well.

    Let’s suppose: under auto-kill and 1@1TT.
    Germany: 1BB 1Cruiser (CA) 2 Fgs (scbld) 1 DD 3 Subs + 10 TTs?

    Say UK: 3StrB 2CA 3DD   vs  Germany: 1BB 2CA 2 Fgs (scbld) 1 DD 4 Subs + 10 TTs

    All TTs stay behind: 3@4+2@3+3@2  vs 1@4+2@3+2@4+1@2+4@1+ TTs0@1
                                 12 +  6 +   6     vs   4   +  6 +   8+    2+     4  + TTs 0
    First round:                24/6= 4 hits    vs             24/6=4 hits
    (It would be like a normal OOB combat.)

    If the TTs goes all-in: 10TTs@1, 1 hit+ 4/6= 2.
    It means 8 TTs killed but no warship touched and 2 TTs remaining.

    8 auto-k hits (8x7=56 IPCs) on TTs vs 4 hits + 2 = 6 hits  (60 IPCs)
    2StrB would have survive and will be able to destroy the 2 lasts TTs.
    After this round, of course their is probably no more STRB but neither TTs.

    German’s defender can put in the line of fire all his TTs but it compromises Sea-Lion.

    Suppose 3 StrBs survives vs all German’s warships.
    That means 3 auto-kills vs 10TTs@1. (German escaping?)
    2 auto-kills vs 7TTs@1
    1 auto-kill vs 5TTs@1.
    0 vs 4 TTs@1… German victory.

    Does it means that, even auto-kill isn’t enough to keep the balance while reviewing Transport rule, is it already too much to give 1@1 to fighting TT?

Suggested Topics

  • 158
  • 14
  • 34
  • 2
  • 4
  • 81
  • 4
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

38
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts