The aberration of the defenseless transport

My favourite thing to do with the ‘old’ style transports was leave them behind in places to “cock block” an advancing force.

If axis and allies was always won by cheap “delay” tactics - I’m pretty sure I would win every game. :)

Here is an Ideal, transports cost 7, get no defense dice, must be selected as final casualties and only stay in battle for 3 rounds of combat, “submerging” (I.e. disengaging) after the third round of battle. This way they are never auto-killed. A single bomber firing at 7 unescorted transports could only sink 3 of them, but 4 fighters attacking those 7 are likely to kill 6 of them before 1 got away. In a big naval battle, your whole transport fleet would not be lost because of a few lucky dice.

A variation might be, they only disengage after 3 rounds in which transports were targeted.

Any comments, would this be too complex? Would it help? Even a single sub engaging a single transport is likely to defeat the transport with 3 rolls.

If you follow this overly long thread you’ll find that most opposed to the rule change will simply house rule a defense or escape strategy. I’ve recently played a couple F2F games. One waa with someone used to Revised and Classic. I told him when we set up 1942SE about no defense for TRNs he thought it was stupid as well as the weird AA guns so we left it old school on those two units. Made no difference on destroyer purchases or any other naval unit.

Next game: Was teaching a veteran Catan player how to play AA41. After game one they won as the Axis. One comment was made in naval battles “why don’t transports get to roll dice?”. Second game we used old school transports. Alas no murdering horde of transports destroying navies. And the fact that you had the cheap reliable destroyer opposed to the expensive battleship as an all purpose warrior of the sea, still spawned no monster aramada of Luftwaffe murdering transports.

As stated before, I can play with or without an armed transport I’ll take a destroyer any day over relying on transports to screen more expensive warships. However the arguement transports alone should have some measure of defense is neither stupid nor ignorant, nor is it trivial to those who have played the game for years.

I own every A&A released, including classic
It’s a sickness  :roll:

@Craig:

We (playtesters for the AA50) talked him into/worked with him to come up with defenseless transports based on our experiences with other games.

The main example being this game (the first edition):
http://www.ww2wargame.com/

That game along with Xeno’s Europe/Russia at War have more involved combat systems that allow for air to air combat prior to each round of ground or sea combat.  As such, nuances like naval AA and extra warships (cruisers and destroyers) allow for defenseless transports.

Classic (and even Revised) transports could be said to have escorts (corvettes, destroyer escorts, etc.) that are included in the unit but not big enough to warrant an individual piece at this scale.  That way they have a defensive number but not an offensive number.  Also, the inclusion of two hit battleships and now two hit carriers have shifted the damage taking to warships.

Is it perfect?  No.  But the using of transports as hit takers is a joke.  On the scale of the Classic and Revised games, it is a necessary evil.  Only by giving the map more sea zones can you then bring in more units and start differentiating better between the unit capabilities.  We were able to start that transition in AA50 because of the expansion of the map.  And it continued in Global.

I couldn’t agree more, transports as hit takers are a joke

@Gargantua:

My favourite thing to do with the ‘old’ style transports was leave them behind in places to “cock block” an advancing force.

If axis and allies was always won by cheap “delay” tactics - I’m pretty sure I would win every game. :)

I play mostly spring 42 on GTO, and I love the mechanics of it when compared to revised (also on GTO)
To each his own, if you prefer the old rules then play the old games IMO
But no reason to go about bashing LH for improving the game, with the help of the community
G40.2 is the culmination of years of A&A, and I love it
My only wish is I had more opportunities to play F2F

@Uncrustable:

I own every A&A released, including classic
It’s a sickness  :roll:

@Craig:

We (playtesters for the AA50) talked him into/worked with him to come up with defenseless transports based on our experiences with other games. Â

The main example being this game (the first edition):
http://www.ww2wargame.com/

That game along with Xeno’s Europe/Russia at War have more involved combat systems that allow for air to air combat prior to each round of ground or sea combat.  As such, nuances like naval AA and extra warships (cruisers and destroyers) allow for defenseless transports.

Classic (and even Revised) transports could be said to have escorts (corvettes, destroyer escorts, etc.) that are included in the unit but not big enough to warrant an individual piece at this scale.  That way they have a defensive number but not an offensive number.  Also, the inclusion of two hit battleships and now two hit carriers have shifted the damage taking to warships.

Is it perfect?  No.  But the using of transports as hit takers is a joke.  On the scale of the Classic and Revised games, it is a necessary evil.  Only by giving the map more sea zones can you then bring in more units and start differentiating better between the unit capabilities.  We were able to start that transition in AA50 because of the expansion of the map.  And it continued in Global.

I couldn’t agree more, transports as hit takers are a joke

@Gargantua:

My favourite thing to do with the ‘old’ style transports was leave them behind in places to “cock block” an advancing force.

If axis and allies was always won by cheap “delay” tactics - I’m pretty sure I would win every game. :)

I play mostly spring 42 on GTO, and I love the mechanics of it when compared to revised (also on GTO)
To each his own, if you prefer the old rules then play the old games IMO
But no reason to go about bashing LH for improving the game, with the help of the community
G40.2 is the culmination of years of A&A, and I love it
My only wish is I had more opportunities to play F2F

Uncrusable, you’re the guy who took it to the personal level. You’re also the same guy using GTO as if its the best example of how a game should run. The way you’ve expressed much of your end of the debate was to act as if DK and others are chumps and noobs because the dissagree with you. There are countless others on this board who are excellent players in this game other games, and also happen to be well versed in history. That said they also have admiration but complaints about WOTC and LH. So to act as if anyone who happens to dissagree with you, or your playing style, has no business differing with your opinion, doesn’t constitute an invalid arguement just because it differs from yours.

@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.�  � Â

DK reported a play test of his house rule his group played. This is in the House Rules Forum don’t see what the big beef was. He house ruled it and it worked for him. I don’t think anyone’s afraid LH is going to change the stats for transports on any new editions of the game.

Cheers DK.

@Craig:

We (playtesters for the AA50) talked him into/worked with him to come up with defenseless transports based on our experiences with other games. �

The main example being this game (the first edition):
http://www.ww2wargame.com/

That game along with Xeno’s Europe/Russia at War have more involved combat systems that allow for air to air combat prior to each round of ground or sea combat. � As such, nuances like naval AA and extra warships (cruisers and destroyers) allow for defenseless transports.

Classic (and even Revised) transports could be said to have escorts (corvettes, destroyer escorts, etc.) that are included in the unit but not big enough to warrant an individual piece at this scale. � That way they have a defensive number but not an offensive number. � Also, the inclusion of two hit battleships and now two hit carriers have shifted the damage taking to warships.

Is it perfect? � No. � But the using of transports as hit takers is a joke. � On the scale of the Classic and Revised games, it is a necessary evil. � Only by giving the map more sea zones can you then bring in more units and start differentiating better between the unit capabilities.� � We were able to start that transition in AA50 because of the expansion of the map.� � And it continued in Global.

Craig, that’s fine. However showing a game that isn’t Axis & Allies but similar doesn’t outright invalidate others opinion. Secondly, totally away from this particular subject discussed in this thread, play testing hasn’t exactly hit the mark of perfection in quite a few releases since revised. I don’t think I need to list all the problems including the latest game 1914 that have come up.

The transport issue wasn’t about absorbing hits. It was about transports having some protection. DK suggested a 10 IPC TRN, costing more than what a DD costs, at a 1 defense only roll. who in thier right mind is going to use a weaker transport that costs more as fodder?

Lastly, I simply pointed out that I leave it up to my play groups as to give a defensive roll to transports or not. My arguement was that at the right cost DDs and TRNs play thier intended role and keeps easy picking air raids to a minimum in some games. This entire thread started as a way to give LIGHT protection to transports while not negating the role of a destroyer as the workhorse of naval engagement. It was also brought up that in several editions of Axis&Allies the destroyer has performed differing roles constantly. This may seem ridculous when it applies to transports to some, but ask those same people what they think about Cruisers. You’ll hardly get a standing ovation for the addition of that unit. MANY HAVE CALLED THOSE GIMMICK. In fact our Liason Imperious Leader has suggested increasing the movement to 3.

So I simply ask WTF is so outlandish about DK’s HOUSE RULE? It’s not going to change anyone else’s game here unless they choose to use it. Why throw venom at those who choose to use it in thier own house games or even thier own tournies?

@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 ;)

I suggest to anyone reading this thread here, to actually read the whole thing. If you ingnore Baron Munchausen’s endless Post-Edit-Post-Edit streams of higher math lessons, and total de-railing of the thread it will all make sense and only go around 3-5 pages tops.

I want to know whats wrong with playing axis and allies online lol
it is a much better way to feel out a game, as in the time it takes to play 1 F2F game, you could prob play a dozen games online

this takes nothing away from F2F, it is just not always possible. where online even if you are working full time with other obligations, you can still hash out a turn or so every other day and enjoy a couple games a month.

on GTO, you can easily complete a game within 4 hours, or run several PBE games at a time

online play is a huge reason the game is as strong as it is at this point

back on topic:

even at 10 IPC, it would make more sense to build more transports than destroyers, simply because the destroyers are one dimensional, whereas your transports can defend, cock block (as garg put it  :evil:), amphib assault, and just the threat of those transports being able to hit all over the place at any given time really gives your opponent a massive headache,
it almost follows the discussion on bombers currently going on, no they wont hit everywhere at once, but they can hit anywhere, and you must either protect everywhere or give up ground

classic transports also kill any KJF strat because a good german player will add transports to his starting fleet, and thus severely threaton sealion on everyturn, UK must defend it, or risk losing the game

so classic transports = no KJF and horrible stale naval warfare
how many times do you see KJF in revised? extremely rare
yet i see many successful KJF in 42 with the new transports, this is because germany cannot afford both transports and the fleet necessary to protect them

it is also just plain fun to battle back and forth with destroyers subs and fighters rather than a bunch of transports
and i would argue this is magnified in F2F

as far as history is concerned…did not the allies at first not adequately protect their shipping against german u-boats? they were forced to send warships (god forbid) to protect their shipping
id like in the game it be necessary to build and use warships to protect the shipping, this better reflects historical accuracy

@Uncrustable:

I want to know whats wrong with playing axis and allies online lol
it is a much better way to feel out a game, as in the time it takes to play 1 F2F game, you could prob play a dozen games online

this takes nothing away from F2F, it is just not always possible. where online even if you are working full time with other obligations, you can still hash out a turn or so every other day and enjoy a couple games a month.

on GTO, you can easily complete a game within 4 hours, or run several PBE games at a time

online play is a huge reason the game is as strong as it is at this point

back on topic:

even at 10 IPC, it would make more sense to build more transports than destroyers, simply because the destroyers are one dimensional, whereas your transports can defend, cock block (as garg put it  :evil:), amphib assault, and just the threat of those transports being able to hit all over the place at any given time really gives your opponent a massive headache,
it almost follows the discussion on bombers currently going on, no they wont hit everywhere at once, but they can hit anywhere, and you must either protect everywhere or give up ground

classic transports also kill any KJF strat because a good german player will add transports to his starting fleet, and thus severely threaton sealion on everyturn, UK must defend it, or risk losing the game

so classic transports = no KJF and horrible stale naval warfare
how many times do you see KJF in revised? extremely rare
yet i see many successful KJF in 42 with the new transports, this is because germany cannot afford both transports and the fleet necessary to protect them

it is also just plain fun to battle back and forth with destroyers subs and fighters rather than a bunch of transports
and i would argue this is magnified in F2F

as far as history is concerned…did not the allies at first not adequately protect their shipping against german u-boats? they were forced to send warships (god forbid) to protect their shipping
id like in the game it be necessary to build and use warships to protect the shipping, this better reflects historical accuracy

Again not arguing against DDs. DK and others weren’t either. Point has been that SOME defense isn’t un-called for. Ealier in the thread you said so yourself. Transports as a last casualty isn’t a problem either which you were also for.

This thread got revived because DK gave an after action report for a F2F favoring his house rule and some people wanted to attack it.

As far GTO or TripleA that’s fine too. I’m not calling it a bad thing. You’re the one who kept citing it as proof that there is no valid reasoning for DK’s or other’s similar HR in light of your experiences online. You my friend made it personal and ignored much of the conversation and contradicted yourself when it looked like the arguement was going the other way.

As far as I see it thread was simply giving reason for it to be a house rule and then reported it online for others who may want to use it. You acted as if somehow a house rule was going to make it to Larry Harris’ desk and send some edict in favor of it.

I don’t care who plays online that’s why GTO and TripleA are there but they are not definative in how every game is going to play out and don’t determine who’s HRs are valid and who’s are not.

@toblerone77:

@Craig:

We (playtesters for the AA50) talked him into/worked with him to come up with defenseless transports based on our experiences with other games. �

The main example being this game (the first edition):
http://www.ww2wargame.com/

That game along with Xeno’s Europe/Russia at War have more involved combat systems that allow for air to air combat prior to each round of ground or sea combat. � As such, nuances like naval AA and extra warships (cruisers and destroyers) allow for defenseless transports.

Classic (and even Revised) transports could be said to have escorts (corvettes, destroyer escorts, etc.) that are included in the unit but not big enough to warrant an individual piece at this scale. � That way they have a defensive number but not an offensive number. � Also, the inclusion of two hit battleships and now two hit carriers have shifted the damage taking to warships.

Is it perfect? � No. � But the using of transports as hit takers is a joke. � On the scale of the Classic and Revised games, it is a necessary evil. � Only by giving the map more sea zones can you then bring in more units and start differentiating better between the unit capabilities.� � We were able to start that transition in AA50 because of the expansion of the map.� � And it continued in Global.

Craig, that’s fine. However showing a game that isn’t Axis & Allies but similar doesn’t outright invalidate others opinion. Secondly, totally away from this particular subject discussed in this thread, play testing hasn’t exactly hit the mark of perfection in quite a few releases since revised. I don’t think I need to list all the problems including the latest game 1914 that have come up.

The transport issue wasn’t about absorbing hits. It was about transports having some protection. DK suggested a 10 IPC TRN, costing more than what a DD costs, at a 1 defense only roll. who in thier right mind is going to use a weaker transport that costs more as fodder?

Lastly, I simply pointed out that I leave it up to my play groups as to give a defensive roll to transports or not. My arguement was that at the right cost DDs and TRNs play thier intended role and keeps easy picking air raids to a minimum in some games. This entire thread started as a way to give LIGHT protection to transports while not negating the role of a destroyer as the workhorse of naval engagement. It was also brought up that in several editions of Axis&Allies the destroyer has performed differing roles constantly. This may seem ridculous when it applies to transports to some, but ask those same people what they think about Cruisers. You’ll hardly get a standing ovation for the addition of that unit. MANY HAVE CALLED THOSE GIMMICK. In fact our Liason Imperious Leader has suggested increasing the movement to 3.

So I simply ask WTF is so outlandish about DK’s HOUSE RULE? It’s not going to change anyone else’s game here unless they choose to use it. Why throw venom at those who choose to use it in thier own house games or even thier own tournies?

Well, I wasn’t trying to attack anyone, I was just giving some background on where the defenseless transport came from.

As always you have to put the info into its proper context and that is why I gave some other games as examples of where the idea came from and how it is used is said games.

The biggest difference between a game like Struggle and A&A is the ability of the defender to retreat (or not).  But the complexity of the combat system also affects how the various units are used and what combat values they have.

All that has to be weighted when balancing the needs of something like the transport.

As for the playtesting, we did a good deal of work on AA50, but were brought in late on Global.  Only got in three sessions on Europe and then only three sessions on the Global rules.  REALLY unhappy with that situation.  We haven’t done anything since, so I won’t take any responsibility (or acclaim) for 1941, 1942 2nd Edition, or 1914.

Really to get the interaction that most seem to want concerning transports you are going to have to change many of the variables concerning naval combat and pricing.  Maybe even the unit line up.

But I don’t see that ever going anywhere with Larry.  Global is about as far as I ever see him going in complexity.  And that may have even been too much for him in hindsight.

@ Craig. The games you reference look like good games I’m not debating that. I’m also not debating the need for destroyers or making changes to accommodate a changing game. The original thread and debate was to give transports a light defense while negating them becoming an OP screen.

Some of those who particpated either de-railed the thread with streams of not necessarily relevant commentary, or simply did not read the thread and further more discounted the original topic as reminiscent drivel and stupidity.

While Larry Harris should certainly be commended for his creation and innovation, it doesn’t make him infallible.  Larry like all of us makes descisions for good or for bad. With that said using a comment made recently or in the past by LH doesn’t negate the opinion nor commentary simply upon his word in regards to house ruling. Many or the same arguements applying to transport vessels has been expressed in the exact some way regarding other rules and units. Yet usually are debated civilly.

Lastly, some of the commentary, not necessarily yours, seemed to come off as simple contradiction and un-constructive name calling.

I suggest a retread, and stop talking like a politician
Lets use historical reasons and in game scenarios to debate, rather than mindless babble

even at 10 IPC, it would make more sense to build more transports than destroyers, simply because the destroyers are one dimensional, whereas your transports can defend, cock block (as garg put it  :evil:), amphib assault, and just the threat of those transports being able to hit all over the place at any given time really gives your opponent a massive headache,
it almost follows the discussion on bombers currently going on, no they wont hit everywhere at once, but they can hit anywhere, and you must either protect everywhere or give up ground

classic transports also kill any KJF strat because a good german player will add transports to his starting fleet, and thus severely threaton sealion on everyturn, UK must defend it, or risk losing the game

so classic transports = no KJF and horrible stale naval warfare
how many times do you see KJF in revised? extremely rare
yet i see many successful KJF in 42 with the new transports, this is because germany cannot afford both transports and the fleet necessary to protect them

it is also just plain fun to battle back and forth with destroyers subs and fighters rather than a bunch of transports
and i would argue this is magnified in F2F

as far as history is concerned…did not the allies at first not adequately protect their shipping against german u-boats? they were forced to send warships (god forbid) to protect their shipping
id like in the game it be necessary to build and use warships to protect the shipping, this better reflects historical accuracy

And as far as playing online vs F2F, are not the rules the same?
I play both and while it may ‘feel’ different, it is the exact same game
The exact same strategies that work online will work F2F and vice versa

This of course assumes no house rules

Politician? You just said the same thing you did on page 22. You also were originally for a modified transport earlier in the  thread. To me this just seems like trolling at this point. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. This is a topic about a house rule not a design session with Larry Harris. I guess I am dumb and old for feeding the trolls.

You are the troll lol
And you are acting like a child :p
You offer no argument, you only bring up past comments made by me, thus a politician

But it’s ok lol

I’d prefer to have a good debate, but you succeeded in completely derailing the topic

Where I use history, and my own personal experiences from both F2F and online you just ramble on about a bunch of childish nonsense

Seriously, grow up

@Uncrustable:

You are the troll lol
And you are acting like a child :p
You offer no argument, you only bring up past comments made by me, thus a politician

But it’s ok lol

I’d prefer to have a good debate, but you succeeded in completely derailing the topic

Where I use history, and my own personal experiences from both F2F and online you just ramble on about a bunch of childish nonsense.

Seriously, grow up

Dude I’ve seen plenty of your posts. How is it that I’m the child when you frequently start posts by being condescending?  Calling me  old and gramps whose childish? As far as reminiscing maybe you should read your own posts about AA guns. Youve changed “sides” on this thread continually I did debate and argue my point as well as others. You simply didn’t agree at least most of the time. Your just bent because your opinion doesn’t offfer “proof”. Why can’t you be civil and simply agree to disagree?

May I suggest a solution.

Make transports cheap. Like $4 cheap now that they are defenseless. It may require an adjustment to the beginning set up but I don’t think so. It would require Britain to spend more on defending its island on the first turn which may alter N. Africa more than it should, but ultimately those transports would be useless to Germany unless it spends foolishly to defend them, but then again, it would cause Britain to spend more to go after them.

With that idea, KJF I though was always foolishly unrealistic. BUT, I also agree that the lack of Pacific action is a problem. I do not like the unrealistic NO’s in the Pacific needed to entice SOME Pacific action.

I think if Navy’s as a whole were dramatically cheaper, that could solve the problem. What do you guys think. It would be less expensive to defend defenseless transports.

@eddiem4145:

May I suggest a solution.

Make transports cheap. Like $4 cheap now that they are defenseless. It may require an adjustment to the beginning set up but I don’t think so. It would require Britain to spend more on defending its island on the first turn which may alter N. Africa more than it should, but ultimately those transports would be useless to Germany unless it spends foolishly to defend them, but then again, it would cause Britain to spend more to go after them.

With that idea, KJF I though was always foolishly unrealistic. BUT, I also agree that the lack of Pacific action is a problem. I do not like the unrealistic NO’s in the Pacific needed to entice SOME Pacific action.

I think if Navy’s as a whole were dramatically cheaper, that could solve the problem. What do you guys think. It would be less expensive to defend defenseless transports.

eddie,

It seems like you’re really thinking about this. I like to play around with ideas too. It’s a good thing bro. The best way to present it though is to playtest it and then give an after-action report. You’re going to have to house rule it but be detail it in your report. If it works people may try it.

When all there was was the Milton Bradley version A LOT of players made different rules, added pieces , etc.  Just test it out and post your results. People might like it.

Cheeers.

I would be in favor of letting transports have an AA shot
I’ve argued this before