The aberration of the defenseless transport



  • @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.


  • 2017 '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.


  • 2017 '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?


  • 2017 '16

    @Der:

    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.

    Considering your idea, I better see the problem of proportion of casualty inflicted or received.

    Even, in my last option which gives defender choose casualty, auto-kill for the attacker and 1 hit to TT and 1Def@1.
    The defensive capacity the TT get of inflicting hit to any unit is maybe too much compared to the OOB defenseless troop transport.
    They were slaughtered at no risk for the attacker in OOB G40 rule.

    Without coming back to OOB TT rules, what are the simplest rules to get nearer the no risk, or minimal risk for the greater combat unit?

    Even giving all auto-kill isn’t proportionate vs the initial odds of each unit.
    A BB@4 seems as effective as a DD@2.

    I see, if I compare 2 situations 1 BB against 4 TTs or 1 DD against 4 TTs, is neither a greater firepower unit and is just able to take 2 hits like it was against warships.

    Under auto-kill and escape, both DD and BB if they survive, will see 3 units fleeing away.

    I’m wondering, is it possible to find a limited number of simple rules which can show that BB and even StrB hit harder TTs?
    which can show that BBs and CVs (not certain for cruisers) are stronger, and even almost invulnerable?

    It is a way:
    Just as planes and subs can’t hit each other, youcould 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.

    Instead of, or in addition to, the preceding rule,
    I’m thinking more about a First strike (like subs) allowed to some units: like BB@4 and StrB@4 because of their effectiveness at greater distance. So the designated target didn’t get a chance to retaliate just the other surviving transports units.

    A different rule could be  this (or in addition to the last one):
    1 BB or 1StrB when attacking TTs automatically sinks 2TTs/unit.

    Under the addendum to my HR for TT, this would create a dilemma for the attacker:
    Which will be the target?
    Combat units or TTs screen?
    Keeping high odds against warships and aircrafts or more TTs destroyed?

    I don’t like to add layers of complexity, this kind of choice to the attacker is it too much?

    If you have any idea I’m really open to it.


  • TripleA

    i think most people on this thread are under the wrong impression of what makes for a better game.

    the new transport rules are one of the best changes to axis and allies. i have found that there are more naval battles and more variety of naval units purchased. they have made the game more fun!



  • @allweneedislove:

    i think most people on this thread are under the wrong impression of what makes for a better game.

    the new transport rules are one of the best changes to axis and allies. i have found that there are more naval battles and more variety of naval units purchased. they have made the game more fun!

    Couldn’t agree more


  • 2017 '16

    @allweneedislove:

    i think most people on this thread are under the wrong impression of what makes for a better game.

    the new transport rules are one of the best changes to axis and allies. i have found that there are more naval battles and more variety of naval units purchased. they have made the game more fun!

    The new transport rules has created a new naval game. That’s is a real progress.
    Many posts here underlined it.

    Isn’t possible to go a little further and find something in between?

    Along this tread, many interesting suggestions were made for adjustment in the new transport under the rule: Taken last.
    Now anyone can pick the one he prefer and have a less defenseless transport (from the more unbalancing to the more subtle changes).
    In a sense, it was easier since the whole OOB1940 was design with this basic restriction: Taken last.

    Maybe it’s still possible to find something which gives the taste of no restriction for casuality and a TT Classic 1 unit @1 and get rid of this forbidding rule.

    IMHO, a totally predictable outcome is a flaw. (A TTs screen festival, also.)
    The Taken last brings many welcome changes, good.  🙂
    But their is still flaw in it.  :oops:

    In many situations during the WWII, combat units received the orders to go for the troop transports instead of the warships and for many strategical/tactical reasons.
    Sometimes, only bad weather impairs the attacking aircrafts from making a direct attack on transports (D-Day), and have a direct order to not engage their escorts. Because it was sound to destroy the troopers before they get a dry foot.  And, I’m quite sure that some Subs sunk TTs instead of the faster escort ships amidst a military convoy (in the Pacific for the most). (And I’m not talking about merchants convoys in Atlantic which is simulated in another way.)

    Now, you never see a situation in which attacker decides to retreat because he stopped a future invading force by sinking all transports but he was afraid of loosing all is combat units in this aeronaval battle.
    (That was a strategic possibility under Classic TT rules. Attacker see sometimes he couldn’t destroy all the invading fleet but get some rest since all TTs were sunk.)

    Now it is all or nothing.
    You kill the last warship, you get the cherry! The butter and money’s butter.
    You couldn’t make it, so it’s up to the defender to celebrate, even if you would have prefered to target TTs only.

    Letting the choice to defending player to expose or not  “his Precious TT”, reintroduce many more tactical situations.

    That’s the interest of a Classic inspired TT rule.  8-)

    And that the reason I’m still on it, collecting new ideas and mixing old ones.  :?


  • Customizer

    @allweneedislove:

    i think most people on this thread are under the wrong impression of what makes for a better game.

    the new transport rules are one of the best changes to axis and allies. i have found that there are more naval battles and more variety of naval units purchased. they have made the game more fun!

    Totally get what your saying. I disagree, but I get what your saying.


  • TripleA

    I miss D-Day. It never happens anymore, makes moo sad.


  • 2017 '16

    @Cow:

    I miss D-Day. It never happens anymore, makes moo sad.

    You mean Germany is too powerful and USA too involved in Pacific?


  • TripleA

    Yeah I feel a transport buff would even it out. Give USA more options without changing the pacific up much.

    Also in global if you do a full on KJF you typically contain Japan, but lose Russia… usually containing Japan about a round or two late so axis Europe gets a solid jump for the VC win in Europe.


  • 2017 '16

    @Cow:

    Yeah I feel a transport buff would even it out. Give USA more options without changing the pacific up much.

    Also in global if you do a full on KJF you typically contain Japan, but lose Russia… usually containing Japan about a round or two late so axis Europe gets a solid jump for the VC win in Europe.

    Maybe it could be a question to ask at this point of discussion.
    Which type (amongst the numerous develop) of TT rule should even out the Axis advantage over Allies?
    Is it simply Classic TT at 8 IPCs ? Or is it too much?
    And under the Taken last rule? Which one?

    An automatic-kill with plain defense for TT or a dice-roll attack vs little defense?


  • 2020 '16 '15 '14

    Could we also move this thread to house rules, if you all of the sudden after about a month decide other threads (such as the one I started) belong there?  Thanks!!


  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    Just as a follow-up we recently played an 11 hour game with five players using 10 IPC classic transports with Global '40 carrying capacity and it played out great - no one missed the chosen last, auto-kill transports at all.


  • Customizer

    Lol… good show old bean! Way to show them what for!


  • 2017 '16

    @Der:

    Just as a follow-up we recently played an 11 hour game with five players using 10 IPC classic transports with Global '40 carrying capacity and it played out great - no one missed the chosen last, auto-kill transports at all.

    And what was the tactical decision about the naval casuality?

    How often were TTs chosen as first casuality?

    How often were they kept till the end instead of warships, like cruiser or carrier+ planes?



  • We’re very few warships purchased in favor of transport spams?
    Like it is in revised?


  • Customizer

    Already stated too many times in this thread that only an idiot would spam trannies when a destroyer is a far better screening ship. I think Trannies should still have a defense. Played some recent F2F games and didn’t make much of a difference for or against except that nobody was able to dominate the sea by transport or air power.


  • Customizer

    @Uncrustable:

    We’re very few warships purchased in favor of transport spams?
    Like it is in revised?

    Destroyers and BBs cost quite a bit more then too. DDs in revised were more like the role of the cruiser, hence not built often just like now.



  • Quite simply, I hated classic transport. Because everyone did spam them. And warships were rarely purchased.

    Even with destroyers at 8 it would make more sense to spam trannies at same cost with 1 less defense, because you force your opponent to defend all over the place against amphibious assault, and you could always get the odd chance at sniping an enemy capital

    It’s makes for a very stale game


  • Customizer

    @Uncrustable:

    Quite simply, I hated classic transport. Because everyone did spam them. And warships were rarely purchased.

    Even with destroyers at 8 it would make more sense to spam trannies at same cost with 1 less defense, because you force your opponent to defend all over the place against amphibious assault, and you could always get the odd chance at sniping an enemy capital

    It’s makes for a very stale game

    I totally get what you’re saying but I also agree with DK. You’d have to be a total idiot to use Trannies as an effecient screen. My big beef is that many of these rule changes to many units in the history of A&A seem more to accomodate the sales pitch of why you should buy the latest edition. I see alot of rule changes to retroactivley make sense to accomodate new units. It seems LH has been making the A&A games into more of a “play-set” rather than a game.

    Many of these rules are justified with “George-Lucas-esque” retroactive connectivity by LH and WOTC. An arguement is made with tactical examples mixed with strategic justification. This in my opinion is resulting in some of the confusion and dissappointment within the community. I can play with new or classic rules just fine. However just because LH says it doesn’t make it right nor does it make it make sense. Hence DK and others who agree are not some kind of unthinking moron player just because the TripleA generation of gamers and LH say so.

    I can play by either set of rules, but much of the arguement is justifeied on dubious or weak reasons and arguements, based upon excuses that cater to sales and “videogamers” who want to keep thier scoreboard stats high.



  • your argument is the worst IMO, while i provided ingame scenarios, you just go on some type of old man serman about the good ol days 😛

    literally none of your argument applies to the game. The most recent changes, esp to naval, have made the game more fun to play, this is evident by the sheer number of G40 games played on tripleA alone

    how many games of classic and/or revised are played for every game of global?

    my argument: classic trannies made the game stale because they were spammed and warships were rarely purchased. go play some games of revised on GTO, you will see just how stale naval combat is with transports that defend

    your argument: erehggh im old! george lucas ruined star wars, turn off the dammned rock and roll,back in my da……snore…

    LH came up with all the origional rules, and through many years of testing/tweaking and community input, we have the better game that is now

    just because it is change, and its not like it used to be, doesn’t make it terrible

    now go put your pants on gramps!


  • Customizer

    @Uncrustable:

    your argument is the worst IMO, while i provided ingame scenarios, you just go on some type of old man serman about the good ol days 😛

    literally none of your argument applies to the game. The most recent changes, esp to naval, have made the game more fun to play, this is evident by the sheer number of G40 games played on tripleA alone

    how many games of classic and/or revised are played for every game of global?

    my argument: classic trannies made the game stale because they were spammed and warships were rarely purchased. go play some games of revised on GTO, you will see just how stale naval combat is with transports that defend

    your argument: erehggh im old! george lucas ruined star wars, turn off the dammned rock and roll,back in my da……snore…

    LH came up with all the origional rules, and through many years of testing/tweaking and community input, we have the better game that is now

    just because it is change, and its not like it used to be, doesn’t make it terrible

    now go put your pants on gramps!

    Like I said I get what you’re saying, I have no problem with playing with 0/0/2/7 trannies. but acting as if it is some revelation of genius from LH is horseshit. Go ahead and call me gramps too, I’m 35 and played F2F far more than any TripleA which I’d guess where most of the disargreement comes from. I’m also not an idiot and neither is anyone else who sees through the lines that most of the reasons for rules changes are an aquiessence to sales and marketing.

    Don’t really care either way, fact is A&A is a business venture that’s fine. The arguement that this is some form relevatory genius and historical accurate revision is bogus. It has more to do with accomodating a sales driven game push is reality. My old crew wanted more units either way, a lot of the people who complain about OP units are the same people that complain when some new DLC on Battlefield or COD gives players a new gun etc.

    I play those “new-fangled video games” too but let’s call it what it is, new units and new sales. Trying to sell them in a D6 format is hard.


  • Customizer

    @Uncrustable:

    your argument is the worst IMO, while i provided ingame scenarios, you just go on some type of old man serman about the good ol days 😛

    literally none of your argument applies to the game. The most recent changes, esp to naval, have made the game more fun to play, this is evident by the sheer number of G40 games played on tripleA alone

    how many games of classic and/or revised are played for every game of global?

    my argument: classic trannies made the game stale because they were spammed and warships were rarely purchased. go play some games of revised on GTO, you will see just how stale naval combat is with transports that defend

    your argument: erehggh im old! george lucas ruined star wars, turn off the dammned rock and roll,back in my da……snore…

    LH came up with all the origional rules, and through many years of testing/tweaking and community input, we have the better game that is now

    just because it is change, and its not like it used to be, doesn’t make it terrible

    now go put your pants on gramps!

    Also kind of funny how personal you get about your argument. If you read I also stated I got where you were coming from and that I’ve played either set of rules for transports and have no problem playing either set.

    *Edited to be nice for the young folks  :mrgreen:



  • Idk or care about historical accuracy

    i just hated when fleets consisted of mostly transports and what few battles there were was just transport trade offs

    whether making transports defenseless was ‘genius’ (by LH) or not, is pretty irrelevent, when considering the fact that the entire game/series was created from scratch by LH, and his ‘genius’ has kept this game alive for what? 40 years? that is damn impressive

    how many games can say that? yeah id say it was/is genius, because of instead of the game fading off into the sunset, it remains a staple tabletop game in the strategy/war section.

    all this just because of transports? no of course not, but it is the culmination of updates/improvements that make the game what it is

    what really makes this game great is LH listens to the community, and will combine his ideas with those of the community to better shape the game


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 81
  • 40
  • 2
  • 17
  • 4
  • 12
  • 2
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

60
Online

14.5k
Users

35.1k
Topics

1.4m
Posts