Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

# New Transport Defense

• @SS:

@Baron:

Using Enigma formula here is what I get about TP defending @1:
@Baron:

The on going discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693864#msg1693864
on Transport with defense roll makes me wonder about actual combat strength of Classic Transport and an escorted TP:

Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C15, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/15^2) = 0.32

Classic Transport A0 D1 C8, 1 hit
Defense factor:
36*(1/8^2) = 0.5625

I only see a few guys like us going for these values. Gets away from kiss.

I think its best for the history and non history in games to be for all A&A games is the Transport rolls 1 d12 die for D1 against any attack.  D6 = 16.7 %  D8 = 12.5 %  D10 = 10 %  D12 = 8.33 %

Taken last for casualties. They have no AA gun.

Happy medium.

To get a glimpse of the strength of this 1 out of 12, or 0.5 on D6:
Defense factor:
36*(0.5/7^2) = 0.367
Which is near the strength of actual DD+TP combo (0.32).
A Sub has strength of 2 or 3 if first strike, a DD is 1.125 power*hit

• I saw that Germany used Q-ships as a disguised armed Transport (as Corsairs) and that a few US Troopship survived after being torpedoed.

I pointed this out from the get go. They had a few of these and they didn’t shoot down planes. What they did was pretend to be transports, sail near enemy transport and sink with very small deck gun. Against subs they could do nothing except us the deck gun in the event the sub was trying to save torpedoes and finish off ship with their own deck gun on sub. The few examples you brought up did somewhat exist, but again these are extremely few compared to the total quantity of transport/merchant ship types.

• @Imperious:

I saw that Germany used Q-ships as a disguised armed Transport (as Corsairs) and that a few US Troopship survived after being torpedoed.

I pointed this out from the get go. They had a few of these and they didn’t shoot down planes. What they did was pretend to be transports, sail near enemy transport and sink with very small deck gun. Against subs they could do nothing except us the deck gun in the event the sub was trying to save torpedoes and finish off ship with their own deck gun on sub. The few examples you brought up did somewhat exist, but again these are extremely few compared to the total quantity of transport/merchant ship types.

From what you say here and in earlier posts and past threads when this topic arise, it gives the impression that Navy and Army asked to merchantmen to help them carrying Troops and Tanks into shore and beaches. That Pacific Island Hopping depends on Merchants Cargos and Operation Torch and D-Days was performed with civilian unarmed transports.

But, what I read is that civilian ships duty was to carry lend-lease supplies from US to UK or US to Australia or US to USSR.

Military operations were given specifically to military designated Landing Ships, Infantry or Tank (UK) or Attack Transport APA or Attack Cargo Ship AKA (US).

So, when looking at what is important in A&A strategy game, it is all about moving combat ground units into enemy’s territories with Transport units.

The part played by merchant navy is very abstract and only displayed with Convoy Disruption rules in the more detailed Global 40.

So, is there any unarmed civilian merchant ships which take part into military operations for moving troops purpose?
This is where I’m actually.
I always thought it was the case because of this defenseless transport rule and the lack of enough acknowledgement displayed toward Canadian merchant marines risking their lives while delivering goods to UK as part of a war effort worthy of any Royal Canadian Navy members.

However, my limited readings and scrolling makes me think that specific armed troopships were built to deliver a fast coordinated blow into enemy’s coastal defense and shorelines by carrying all combat units and equipment near the shore as possible. And Allies use exclusively this military ships to do invasion landing.

Now, they may have use regular civilian transportation to move operational military units from Los Angeles to Hawaii, IDK.
But, into a warzone, it seems Allies used the best available to protect their men.

• The transport unit represents the most common type of vessel carrying troops. It was defenseless and slow and needed protection from Destroyers and Escorts. The few cases pointed out where they had a couple of deck guns could become a new unit:

Escort vessel
Armed Raider

but this would be a different unit with a different sculpt and a different cost and probably capability in transport ( just one unit)

• @Imperious:

The transport unit represents the most common type of vessel carrying troops. It was defenseless and slow and needed protection from Destroyers and Escorts. The few cases pointed out where they had a couple of deck guns could become a new unit:

Escort vessel
Armed Raider

but this would be a different unit with a different sculpt and a different cost and probably capability in transport ( just one unit)

Agreed.  The units provided under the OOB rules should be considered standard units, and their capabilities should reflect the capabilities which the average units of that type typically had for most countries during WWII.  They shouldn’t reflect the capabilities of unusual or exceptional units of that type, and they should especially not reflect the capabilities of a unit which was so different from the average that it shouldn’t even be considered to be the same type of unit.  Units with exceptional capabilities should be treated in the game as special extra units which have their own separate identity and their own separate cost, and they should be treated as optional non-standard purchases.  They shouldn’t have their special capabilities applied to standard units, because doing so would distort what the standard units are supposed to represent in the first place.

• I’m still learning about troopships.
Again, I found a different type which was intended to sail from seaport to seaport. It is a C4-S-A1 troopship, it was carrying nearly 4000 soldiers:

General G. O. Squier was launched 11 November 1942 under Maritime Commission contract (MC Hull #1) by the Kaiser Co., Inc. in Richmond, California; sponsored by Miss Mary Ann Somervell; acquired 30 August 1943 and commissioned 2 October, Captain A. E. Uehlinger in Command.

General G. O. Squier made three round-trip, troop-carrying voyages out of San Francisco from 29 October 1943 to 30 March 1944 to Noumea; Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Wallis Island, Samoa, Noumea, and Honolulu, respectively. Underway again from San Francisco 7 April she brought troops to Noumea and Milne Bay before heading for Norfolk, where she arrived 2 June. On 1 July the ship departed with 3,300 troops for Italy, and debarked them at Naples. Following a voyage thence to Oran and back, General G. O. Squier joined Task Force 87 off Naples 13 August in preparation for Operation Dragoon, the amphibious invasion of Southern France.

Again, these kind of troopship is equipped with a variety of AAguns armament:
4 5"/38 caliber guns
8 1.1"/75 AA guns
16 20 mm Oerlikon AA guns

On Liberty ship, it seems they were meant to be Cargo ships but, still they gave it a few AA guns and a deck gun:

Armament:
1x4in or 1x5in stern gun, optional anti-aircraft weaponry such as 3in bow gun, 37mm bow guns, or 20mm machine guns

While Liberty Ships symbolized wartime American industrial power, they also served the war in a practical sense: a single Liberty Ship could carry 2,840 jeeps, 440 tanks, or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition. Each Liberty Ship was manned by a crew sized between 38 and 62; the crews were complimented by 21 to 40 US Navy personnel who operated the communications systems and weapons.

https://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=391

Another example of a smaller troopship carrying more than 400 soldiers, she was part of Operation Torch, Operation Husky, Operations Neptune and Dragoon, then went into Pacific:

USS Anne Arundel (AP-76) was an American transport ship that was built in 1940 and scrapped in 1970. Originally laid down as the Mormacyork, she was later named after Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Annapolis is the county seat there, the state capital, and also the home of the Naval Academy. Anne Arundel earned five battle stars for her World War II service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Anne_Arundel_(AP-76)

Again, she was equipped with AAguns:
4 3"/50 caliber guns
4 40 mm AA guns
18 20 mm AA guns

The more I look into Allies, the more I found that AA guns was seemingly a standard equipment on troopships, not a customized option. And this seems to me that Philip Schwartzer has done his homework when he designed the naval combat rules for Transports in WWII The Expansion I for Classic A&A.

So, all these ships were vulnerable and mostly defenseless against Submarines and other warships.
But not against aircraft. And in numbers, I’m pretty sure enemy’s pilots were not careless about flying around Troopships while trying to sink them under TPs crossfire.

So Liberty Ship, which were cargo get minimal AA defense.
Allies Troopships were all equipped with AA defense of some kind.

Here is a special case of a single Liberty ship converted into a troopship, it shows both vulnerability to Subs and a certain capacity to defend against planes:

U-boat encounter
During the Convoy HX 228 she was slightly damaged at 21.31 hours on March 10th, 1943 when hit by a dud torpedo from German U-boat U-221 commanded by Hans-Hartwig Trojer. Out of the 22 ships hit by this German submarine _SSLawton B. Evans _was the only one to survive.

Battle of Anzio
Liberty ships were cargo ships, fitted with guns for defensive purposes.[5] In one notable incident they were used for support from 22 to 30 January 1944 when the Lawton B. Evans was involved in the Battle of Anzio in Italy. First class seaman Calvin Stoddard O’Rourke received commendations for his performance on June 24, 1944 when this ship was under repeated bombardment from hostile shore batteries and aircraft throughout an eight-day period. Despite the prolonged danger ofshrapnel, machine-gun fire and bombs, the gun crew fought back, setting up a deadly barrage of shellfire. They shot down five German planes and contributed to the success of the landing operations.

So, it is not an impossibility to shot down planes or to escape from Submarine assault.

• Transports should have a low to zero defense. Period. The units represent the overall flavor of the time period, not individual ships or skirmishes. If a transport wasnt so week on def…there wouldnt have been such tonnage of men and material lost at sea AND these Armed vessels would have been used for defensive patrols instead. Ok…the ship has aa guns and maybe a 5 in…so what? Compare that armament to an escort destroyer. In comparison the transport isnt armed at all. Compare how many escorted transports were sunk against attacking sub, surface ship or plane raids especially compared to the attackers losses.  Those were nothing compared to the shipping losses of unescorted transports. You want to beef up transport value and or realism? Do what the allies did and add destroyers to the convoy for def. Or add a special value for destroyers or transports in a convoy. Try the escort and destroyer rules from the gamers paradise expansion.

• @Baron:

Here is a special case of a single Liberty ship converted into a troopship, it shows both vulnerability to Subs and a certain capacity to defend against planes
[…]
So, it is not an impossibility to shot down planes or to escape from Submarine assault.

That’s the problematic point.  The situation you’re describing is a special case, not a general one.  Normal units in A&A, in my opinion, should be based on the characteristics which units of that type generally had in most cases for most nations in WWII, and on how they were generally used.  They shouldn’t be based on what one particular unit (or a small number of units) did in unusual circumstances, or on the charactertistics of a unit with a non-standard design.  Otherwise, this would result in a completely distorted picture of what these game units are supposed to be.

Here’s an example.  During WWII, the French navy (and later the Free French navy) operated one of weirdest submarines ever designed: the Surcouf.  As far as I know, it was the only submarine of its type in the French navy, and possibly even the only one of its type in the world.  It had torpedo tubes, like a normal submarine, but it also carried two 8-inch guns – the type of armament which normally is carried by a heavy (8-inch) cruiser.  And on top of that, it carried a small floatplane in a hangar – so in essence, it was a ship combining characteristics of a submarine and a heavy cruiser and a seaplane carrier.  Depending on one’s point of view, this concept can be regarded as either brilliant or ridiculous; the fact that the world’s naval powers (and even France, its country of origin) didn’t crank out their own versions of this design suggests to me that the concept was viewed as ridiculous, or at least inefficient.  But anyway, that’s not the issue here.  The point is that this submarine was an extremely non-standard design, both by the standards of the French navy and of other navies.  Creating a special, France-specific, optional-purchase A&A submarine unit based on the Surcouf might be amusing, and would be historically justifiable.  On the other had, it would make no sense to change every standard A&A submarine unit, for every country, into a Surcouf-type “underwater heavy cruiser” because (as far as I know) no other country in the world had such a bizarre submarine in their fleet, and (as far as I know) French only had one, and because the design deviated so radically from what countries at the time of WWII considered to be a normal submarine.

So my point here, getting back to transports, is that it doesn’t matter if there were some transport ships that were more heavily armed than others, or if there were some transport ships that shot down enemy planes or sank submarines.  The point is that most transport ships for most countries in WWII were not significantly armed (or weren’t armed at all), and that those which were armed only had light defensive weapons in most cases.  The standard A&A transport ship, used by every A&A country, should reflect the capabilities of what most standard transport ships for most countries were in WWII: a ship with little or no armament.  Their behaviour shouldn’t be based on what’s “not impossible”, it should be based on what most of them did most of the time.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, the fact that it’s “not impossible” to win the jackpot in a lottery doesn’t change the fact that most of the people who buy lottery tickets rarely or never win the jackpot.

• What I’m saying is that merchant navy is one thing and military navy is another.
As long as a given Power is caught unprepared, they use merchant ships to convey troops.
But, giving time and resources, which Allies have, they design and built specific troopships and landing ships for military purpose. And as military goes, they put the most cost and weight effective weapons on these troopships. They favored AAguns as being the best defense they can put to not undermine other functional aspect and probably see no other way to deal efficiently against Subs than relying upon escorting Destroyers, Frigates and Corvettes.

Now, about game depictions, it feels strange that Transports are supposed to be civilian units carrying furniture and wartime supplies, while all other units are typical military ones.
In game, the typical behaviour of Sub combat against taken last transport does not depict Subs against merchant convoy tactics at all. Instead, it describe the typical situation about naval invasion when many escorting ships keep a secure net to prevent Subs from sinking troopships.

In game, also, Allies are building TPs to make specific landing and invade directly enemy’s TTs. I’m just asking what kind of transports were built by Allies to this specific purpose?
What I’ve found yet is a typical unarmored troopship armed with limited AA capacity.

I’m no more into the abstract idea that a TP is a typical civilian cargo ship.
We don’t see TP going from EUSA coast past by Iceland and delivering into Murmansk or Archangel, or going South past Cape Horn then land into Persia to deliver Trucks to Moscow.
This part of war is totally abstract and included into Convoy Disruption.
I’m just comparing what was the facts around what the game is actually depicting.

And the more I look into it, at least from the Allies side, the more the abstract idea about typical Transport seems to provide a distorted picture.

About AA armament effectiveness, it is another point to discuss.
From an abstract POV, it says that designing such was a loss of resources and time.
But, if there was no relevance at all, why did they systematically built such on troopships, or take time to convert merchant liners with such?

Edit: From Germany POV, it seems they took an armed merchant cruiser as a typical TP sculpt.
But Merchant raiders were not meant for landing troops or tanks…
Since, Kriegsmarine was caught off-guard, after France invasion success, and unprepared to launch an amphibious assault on England. The little I see, is they see no relevance after calling off The Battle of England to built troopships. And most of resources went to U-boats. But, if instead of going East into Soviet Union, Hitler stayed on course toward England, the sketches and designed I saw from landing crafts and landing ships seems all requiring AA guns armaments.

EDIT 2: With CWO Marc identification charts, I now can see what kind of ship was this TP unit sculpt Dithmarschen:

Dithmarschen was being overhauled at the beginning of World War II. From June to November 1940, she supported the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during Operation Weserubung, the invasion of Norway. In November, she refueled the cruiser Admiral Hipper during her operations in the Atlantic Ocean. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were again supported in the Atlantic Ocean during Operation Berlin in early 1941. Between October 1941 and December 1942, Dithmarschen operated in the Baltic Sea, supporting German ships during Operation Barbarossa. For the remainder of the war, she operated off Norway. At the end of the war, she had returned to Bremerhaven, where she was taken over by the British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Conecuh_(AOR-110)
Such German military Tanker used for amphibious assault of Norway was also equipped with AA armaments or dual purpose:
Armament Germany: 3 x 150 mm, 2 x 37 mm, 4 x 20 mm;
armament once taken by US Navy: 8 x 40 mm guns

For Japan, there is less infos…
At least, it seems they have done same things than Allies on their Merchant Cruiser Liners and add a few deck guns and AA armaments.
I saw that Japan give AA armament to merchant ship converted into troop ship on a much lesser extent than Allies.
I’m still looking into it.
So, it seems that this poorer Power get no real opportunity to built armed designed troopships or landing ships.
They gave weapons to warships.
And use merchant passengers ships converted into troopships as they were.
Resources were scarce.
Italy seems to follow this direction too.

Another case which showed how Allies and US get better Troopships to deal with aircraft:
@Der:

Wow - just got back from vacation to see this.

I’ve been reading Richard Frank’s historic account called Guadalcanal. On pp 79-80 he describes a Japanese air raid on US transports:

“Twenty-three Bettys …burst out of the East in several groups to charge the fat transports just before noon…the Japanese suffered grievously at the hands of the ship’s gunners. The Bettys rippled the sea surface from an altitude of only 20 to 40 feet in accordance with tactics that brought success early in the war against weak AA defenses. But now the Japanese faced more heavy guns guided by sophisticated fire control systems and, more important a proliferation of the deadly 20 mm antiaircraft machineguns…12 or so adorned each of the sluggish transports, and from some vessels came a further barrage of automatic rifle and submachinegun fire…only five of the attacking Bettys fluttered back to Rabaul…”

That is history. Under global transport rules, it would have read something like this: “then a single Japanese Betty flew over and all the transports were auto-sunk without firing a shot.”

To answer some of the requests for more details of our game, what happened was people would decide that they would invade somewhere, then buy ENOUGH TRANSPORTS TO DO THE JOB, and quit. That makes sense - at \$10 a pop you are not going to keep spamming transports to use in battles when you can be twice as effective using DDs which cost \$8 and attack and defend @2.

In the new naval setting, BBs need not fear transports - remember they can take the first hit free, and in some versions they are auto-repaired at the end of the battle. If you’ve bought five 10 IPC transports that is \$50 worth of shipping there - do you think sane people will run them into battle situations as a regular strategy? We didn’t - it might have happened in dire situations but spamming transports was never strategy used in our group, with DDs available.

Remember, we’re not talking about going back to the old classic game world with 1 hit BBs and no DDs. We are advocating bringing the classic-type transport into the new global world which is a whole different story.

Can it be a usual results against an Allied Troopship convoy?

The He 177As carried Henschel Hs 293 radio-guided, rocket-boosted glide bombs, an estimated 60 of which they launched at the convoy. The convoy’s combined anti-aircraft fire seems to have impeded most of the attackers’ attempts to guide their glide bombs onto their targets. Rohna’s DEMS gunners contributed with her machine guns, Oerlikon autocannons and about 20 rounds from her 12-pounder gun. The convoy shot down at least two aircraft and damaged several others.

Rohna was the only casualty. About 1715 or 1725 hrs a He 177A piloted by Hans Dochtermann released a glide bomb that hit Rohna on her port side, at the after end of her engine room and Number Six troop deck. Men poured on deck, many of them badly wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMT_Rohna

It seems a lot of Merchants ship were equipped with AA armaments:

Old naval guns had been stored since 1918 in ports for possible use. In the Second World War the objective was to equip each ship with a low-angle gun mounted aft as defence against surfaced submarines and a high-angle gun and rifle-calibre machine guns for defence against air attack. 3,400 ships had been armed by the end of 1940; and all ships were armed by 1943.

The low-angle guns were typically in the 3-inch to 6-inch range (75�150 mm) depending on the size of the ship. Rifle-caliber machine guns were augmented or replaced by Oerlikon 20 mm cannon as they became available. The high-angle QF 12pdr Mk V mount was the most common anti-aircraft gun and later ships sometimes received Bofors 40 mm guns.

Untrained gunners posed significant risk to friendly aircraft in the absence of efficient communications. DEMS guns were manned by 24,000 Royal Navy personnel and 14,000 men of the Royal Artillery Maritime Regiment. 150,000 merchant sailors were trained to assist by passing ammunition, loading and replacing casualties. Initially, Royal Artillery personnel provided anti-aircraft protection by bringing their own machine-guns aboard ships operating close to the British Isles. DEMS gunners were often retired military personnel and young Hostilities Only ratings, commanded by a petty officer or Royal Marine sergeant. Large ships sometimes embarked a junior naval officer to command the DEMS gunners. Canada placed guns on 713 ships, while the Royal Australian Navy provided gun crews for 375 Australian and other Allied ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensively_equipped_merchant_ship
On D-Day, there was so many AA-guns on Converted Merchant ships that many feared friendly fires upon Allied aircraft

In 1944, during preparations for the invasion of France called Operation Overlord there was deep concern over the danger to Allied aircraft from the large number of DEMS involved in the landings. A request for volunteer aircraft recognition experts from the Royal Observer Corps produced 1,094 highly qualified candidates, from which 796 were selected to perform valuable aircraft recognition duties as seaborne volunteers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensively_equipped_merchant_ship

Even Japan with his meagre resources try to add such AA cover to troopships:

The Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) established several shipping artillery units during the Pacific War. These units provided defensive guns and gun crews for the transport ships operated by the Army, as well as merchant vessels chartered by the service.

In December 1941 the IJA had a single shipping artillery unit, the Shipping Artillery Regiment. The regiment comprised two anti-aircraft battalions, a machine cannon battalion and a depot responsible for training replacement personnel.

By early 1944 the Shipping Artillery Regiment had been reorganized into two units, the 1st and 2nd Shipping Artillery Regiments. The 1st Shipping Artillery Regiment was based in Japan. The 2nd Shipping Artillery Regiment was initially based in Singapore, but moved to Manila in the Philippines in July 1944. Each regiment’s table of organization strength was 15 anti-aircraft batteries, three light anti-aircraft batteries, three surface gun batteries, two sea watch companies, a mortar company, a machine gun company, a depth charge company, a hydrophone company and an air watch company. A total of 2,300 soldiers were allocated to each unit. However, the actual strength and organization of the regiments varied.

Small detachments from the regiments were allocated to individual ships to protect them against submarines and aircraft. As a result, the battalion, battery and company headquarters primarily performed administrative functions.

The IJA also established the 1st and 2nd Shipping Machine Gun Cannon Regiments to protect small ships. Each of these regiments comprised two light anti-aircraft battalions and a machine gun company. The Imperial Japanese Navy’s Central Pacific Area Fleet also raised small air defence squads from April 1944 which were assigned to individual ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army_shipping_artillery

• Transports should have a low to zero defense. Period. The units represent the overall flavor of the time period, not individual ships or skirmishes. If a transport wasnt so week on def…there wouldnt have been such tonnage of men and material lost at sea AND these Armed vessels would have been used for defensive patrols instead. Ok…the ship has aa guns and maybe a 5 in…so what? Compare that armament to an escort destroyer. In comparison the transport isnt armed at all. Compare how many escorted transports were sunk against attacking sub, surface ship or plane raids especially compared to the attackers losses.  Those were nothing compared to the shipping losses of unescorted transports. You want to beef up transport value and or realism? Do what the allies did and add destroyers to the convoy for def. Or add a special value for destroyers or transports in a convoy. Try the escort and destroyer rules from the gamers paradise expansion.

That’s how I played before purchasing Spring 1942.
According to Philip Schwartzer rule, lonely transport can defend @1 against aircraft (12 IPCs Fighter at that time!) and can eventually escape from warships.
But, when TP is escorted, Destroyer Escort rise from Defense 2 to Defense 3.
However, I cannot remember if TPs can still roll against aircraft, I believe so but I’m not sure.

Defender have to pick transport first and then remaining Destroyer Escort.
For casualty selection, however it was according to Sub behavior against Convoy.
And this seems accurate, Allied Subs were aiming at Axis troopships if given the opportunity, not the escort vessels. And sometimes, sunk troopships but were sunk by Axis escorts. See the story of SS California (1923) and SS Duchess of York which were sunk by Focke Wulf Fw200 bombers while escorting vessels remained at sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_California_(1923)

However, according to WWII The Expansion rule, aside escorted convoy group, there is also a warship group composed of Destroyers, Cruisers, Carriers and Battleships.

An attacker had to select between these two targets if both were in the same SZ.

About SS houserule, giving a minimal 1 roll for 2 Transports on D12 (8.33%/2 = 4.17%) seems OK as a minimal defense.
And it goes at lower ratio per unit defending, due to combined arms, when you get an odd number:

1 TP  = 0 roll     0 %
2 TPs = 1 roll   4.17 %
3 TPs = 1 roll   2.78 %
4 TPs = 2 rolls  4.17 %
5 TPs = 2 rolls  3.33%
6 TPs = 3 rolls  4.17 %
7 TPs = 3 rolls  3.57%
8 TPs = 4.17%

The units represent the overall flavor of the time period, not individual ships or skirmishes. If a transport wasnt so week on def…there wouldnt have been such tonnage of men and material lost at sea AND these Armed vessels would have been used for defensive patrols instead.

It is true that a lot of lend-lease material was lost at sea.
In G40, this economic war on merchant shipping is translated into Convoy Disruption rule.

This is how is treated TP case to increase subwarfare, I made up some format edit on post for easier reading:
@lnmajor:

Destroyer Escort unit is  A1-D2-M2-C8

Special ability:
The convoy rule: Destroyer Escorts defend @3 when there is at least one friendly transport for the first Destroyer Escort, and thereafter at least two friendy transports for every other DE defending in the same seazone. In other words, if you have 5 friendly transports and two friendly DEs defending in the same seazone, you can apply the convoy rule.

1) Transports alone defending against naval vessels:
-All naval vessels must try to sink all transports in first round of combat, then transports escape, except with aircraft.

1. Transports with escorts can not escape from naval vessels, and escorts defend until all escorts and transports are sunk, or naval vessels retreat.
Transports must be used as casulties first before Destroyer Escorts.

UNESCORTED TRANSPORTS RULE:
Submarines and Battleships attacking unescorted transports attack with 1 die @ 4 for each transport, maximum 2 die per sub or Battleship.

• @CWO:

@Baron:

Here is a special case of a single Liberty ship converted into a troopship, it shows both vulnerability to Subs and a certain capacity to defend against planes
[…]
So, it is not an impossibility to shot down planes or to escape from Submarine assault.

That’s the problematic point.� The situation you’re describing is a special case, not a general one.� Normal units in A&A, in my opinion, should be based on the characteristics which units of that type generally had in most cases for most nations in WWII, and on how they were generally used.� They shouldn’t be based on what one particular unit (or a small number of units) did in unusual circumstances, or on the charactertistics of a unit with a non-standard design.� Otherwise, this would result in a completely distorted picture of what these game units are supposed to be.

Here’s an example.� During WWII, the French navy (and later the Free French navy) operated one of weirdest submarines ever designed: the Surcouf.� As far as I know, it was the only submarine of its type in the French navy, and possibly even the only one of its type in the world.� It had torpedo tubes, like a normal submarine, but it also carried two 8-inch guns – the type of armament which normally is carried by a heavy (8-inch) cruiser.� And on top of that, it carried a small floatplane in a hangar – so in essence, it was a ship combining characteristics of a submarine and a heavy cruiser and a seaplane carrier.� Depending on one’s point of view, this concept can be regarded as either brilliant or ridiculous; the fact that the world’s naval powers (and even France, its country of origin) didn’t crank out their own versions of this design suggests to me that the concept was viewed as ridiculous, or at least inefficient.� But anyway, that’s not the issue here.� The point is that this submarine was an extremely non-standard design, both by the standards of the French navy and of other navies.� Creating a special, France-specific, optional-purchase A&A submarine unit based on the Surcouf might be amusing, and would be historically justifiable.� On the other had, it would make no sense to change every standard A&A submarine unit, for every country, into a Surcouf-type “underwater heavy cruiser” because (as far as I know) no other country in the world had such a bizarre submarine in their fleet, and (as far as I know) French only had one, and because the design deviated so radically from what countries at the time of WWII considered to be a normal submarine.

So my point here, getting back to transports, is that it doesn’t matter if there were some transport ships that were more heavily armed than others, or if there were some transport ships that shot down enemy planes or sank submarines.� The point is that most transport ships for most countries in WWII were not significantly armed (or weren’t armed at all), and that those which were armed only had light defensive weapons in most cases.� The standard A&A transport ship, used by every A&A country, should reflect the capabilities of what most standard transport ships for most countries were in WWII: a ship with little or no armament.� Their behaviour shouldn’t be based on what’s “not impossible”, it should be based on what most of them did most of the time.� As I mentioned in an earlier post, the fact that it’s “not impossible” to win the jackpot in a lottery doesn’t change the fact that most of the people who buy lottery tickets rarely or never win the jackpot.�

I agree with this 100 %. But as far as most people, they are used to the defending transport and will not go for the historic correct way and change the transport to a A0D0.
"OH CRAP now I got to bring more ships to protect my transports " !!  A ya, it is a war game !
Do you think a defense less transport can have a chance to escape ?

Granted my intension was to ask why the transport got a shot at a plane. Plus I have a young new player that complains all the time about there’s not enough historic stuff in game. He also didn’t like the transport not getting a shot at a ship. I said its do to balance and partly to fantasy. You want history then we will make the transport in game now defense less. Didn’t want to go for that.

Basically this is about adding a new transport rule to my 40 game using D12.
In game the transport gets a @1 at a plane ea. 8.33 % hit. I may go to a D20 and make it @1 at a plane. 5.0 % hit. This way it keeps both people that want a defending and not a defending transport.

My game is in between the G40 OOB game and a 39 game. Has a lot more stuff in it with a bigger map and a little less than what a 39 game has in it. Plus everybody’s at war with each other and US starts with 75 icp’s. No more waiting for US to go to war. Gezz I like playing the US now.  It gives me more opportunities to try and change things more towards the historical way.

• @Baron:

What I’m saying is that merchant navy is one thing and military navy is another.
As long as a given Power is caught unprepared, they use merchant ships to convey troops.
But, giving time and resources, which Allies have, they design and built specific troopships and landing ships for military purpose. And as military goes, they put the most cost and weight effective weapons on these troopships. They favored AAguns as being the best defense they can put to not undermine other functional aspect and probably see no other way to deal efficiently against Subs than relying upon escorting Destroyers, Frigates and Corvettes.

Now, about game depictions, it feels strange that Transports are supposed to be civilian units carrying furniture and wartime supplies, while all other units are typical military ones.
In game, the typical behaviour of Sub combat against taken last transport does not depict Subs against merchant convoy tactics at all. Instead, it describe the typical situation about naval invasion when many escorting ships keep a secure net to prevent Subs from sinking troopships.

In game, also, Allies are building TPs to make specific landing and invade directly enemy’s TTs. I’m just asking what kind of transports were built by Allies to this specific purpose?
What I’ve found yet is a typical unarmored troopship armed with limited AA capacity.

I’m no more into the abstract idea that a TP is a typical civilian cargo ship.
We don’t see TP going from EUSA coast past by Iceland and delivering into Murmansk or Archangel, or going South past Cape Horn then land into Persia to deliver Trucks to Moscow.
This part of war is totally abstract and included into Convoy Disruption.
I’m just comparing what was the facts around what the game is actually depicting.

And the more I look into it, at least from the Allies side, the more the abstract idea about typical Transport seems to provide a distorted picture.

About AA armament effectiveness, it is another point to discuss.
From an abstract POV, it says that designing such was a loss of resources and time.
But, if there was no relevance at all, why did they systematically built such on troopships, or take time to convert merchant liners with such?

@Baron:

Also, I rarely see any relevant anti-sub weaponry (depth-charge or hedgehog) added on Landing ships, which were the most armed amongst Transport. I may be wrong on that point, but it was mostly AA guns and one or two deck guns for dual purpose against Aircraft or Small surface vessels. It doesn’t seems very effective against any Sub prowling below surface ready to launch torpedoes at this transport. Maybe this dual purpose gun might work when a Sub was rampaging in a Convoy firing with his single deck gun, IDK.

I agree that Landing ships are no match against Battleship, Carrier and Cruiser or even Destroyer.
They don’t have armor nor enough deck guns to have any chance.

All I saw, is that any Transport which was specifically built for military purpose always received Anti-Aircraft guns and one or two deck gun(s).

What does it imply for game house rule on defense for Transports?

The game mechanic make things into a conundrum:
A side) giving a low @1 (on D12) defense against aircraft to figure what Landing ships can counter somehow, is now improving the game unit defense above an ordinary roll, since hitting specifically planes is a bonus when your opponent would have use 6 IPCs Sub or 8 IPCs Destroyer as fodder instead of loosing a costly 10 IPCs Fighter.

B side) giving a low @1 (on D12) as minimal defense to allow the enemy’s to choose the lowest and weakest naval unit in game as casualty.
But this would imply that most of the time a Submarine or a Destroyer will be sunk. And since Landing ships does not have enough firepower to sink them, an effective Landing ship defense is not depicting accurately this naval warfare: it let believe military Transport were able of such a feat.

C side) not giving any combat value to TPs also create an unhistorical depiction because it let you believe that when all escorting Warships were destroyed, all Troopships were immediately obliterate and sunk. This is not either accurate from a realist POV because TPs against overpowered enemies usually scattered and partially survived. Nor it is a game-wise effect, because in a matter of 1 combat round all your TPs and money-worth in a given SZ are taken as casualty if only a single enemy’s unit survived a monstrous naval battle, you may have an infinite number, or 10 units for 70 IPCs or more or less, it does not matter at all. All IPCs invested in TPs in this once protected SZ are now wipe out of the board.
TPs purchasing is the only unit which does this trick when attacked. Even AAA get a 1 hit value, as long as it share a TT with another ground unit type.

D side) giving an escape capacity to TPs would be more accurate, also the game allows TPs and Subs to be ignored and to share a SZ with enemy’s units. But, in game, Submarines loose this escaping capacity if only 1 single enemy Destroyer is present. If any Transport survived a naval clash, this would make TPs better at hiding than Submarines themselves!

E side) using TPs as first line casualty seems to contradict the very mission of warships, as defending TPs not the other way around.

Solving these issues can be done, if there is other tweaks about Sub vs DDs, or Fighters.

There is certainly other tweaks which people can think about.

Trying something different while being more respectful of Transport as military troopship not designed for combat:

Once TPs are put on the battleboard and on defender’s turn, each TP get to roll @1 to see if some escape from this battle.
A success means that this TP unit is now put into board map SZ and cannot be sunk. Transport successfully escape:
Treat it, as per usual OOB rule, as if  had been ignored by attacker.
This way of escaping is similar to game Sub’s Submerge capacity, but it depends more on luck.
Sub can flee combat if there is no enemy DD. Transport always need a good roll to get same result as Sub.
This is similar to SS escape rule: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693945#msg1693945

If any transport is hit, it goes behind casualty line.
On defender’s turn, transport behind casualty line does an AA roll @1, if there is any attacking aircraft, then it must be taken as casualty (attacker’s choice of aircraft type) if defender get a “1”. If there is only warship attacking, then no defense roll.
That way, Transports are not actively defending against attacking units.
When taken as casualty, it means the attacker get near target to make the hit, then Transport get its only shot at the attacker.

Example, 1 TcB is attacking three TPs. As long as it miss, transports roll to escape.
Let’s suppose first combat round: TcB rolls a “5”, TPs “2, 3, 1”, so 1 TP is safe.
Second round, TcB rolls “3”, a hit. TP taken as casualty rolls “2” and the other TP a “2”. 1 TP is sunk.
Third round, TcB “4”, TP “6”, nothing happen
Fourth round, TcB “2”, a hit. TP behind casualty line: “1”, a hit. Both units are destroyed.
So, 1 TP survived in SZ.

If it was a Submarine instead of a TcB, this warship would have nothing to fear about.
Only TPs would roll to escape, any “1”, save one TP.
Of course, any Surprise strike from Sub prevent a given TP from going behind casualty line.

In that last case, if both Sub and TcB are attacking 3 TPs, if Sub get a hit, TP sunk cannot roll @1 against aircraft. But, if TcB hit a TP, TP can retaliate @1 against TcB only.
Submarine and other warships are immune to TP retaliation roll @1, since it is treated as AA only.

Last example: 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 TcB against 3 TPs and 1 DD
R1, DD “1” Sub “2” TcB “6”: 2 hits,
Defender keeps DD behind casualty line, removes TP (no roll), and rolls “2”. 2 TPs roll “1, 4”
So, 1 TP is safe in SZ, and attacker remove DD.
R2, Sub roll “3”, miss but TcB rolls “3” hit on TP.
TP can roll @1 and get “1”, a hit.
So, only Submarine survive the naval battle.

Variants:
1- More freedom to defender’s choice: no more taken last, anytime a TP can be taken as casualty
2- Defending roll for Transport is treated normally as @1, aircraft are not targeted.
(It assumes that a minimal escort is provided with the TP unit. So, it can sink a warship instead.)

No more auto-destroy.
No more totally predictable results.
Attacker still have a minimal risk.
The longer the escorting units survived, the greater the odds of saving a few TP units.

And not giving living TP any roll to hit enemy’s units better depict this fact that none were actually seeking enemy’s to engage. On the contrary, avoiding enemy’s aircraft or naval units was the main intent.

This totally new HR is also loosely related to what was suggested in Redesign thread:
@Baron:

By returning the transport to the traditional 8 spot, I think this serves as the core “remainder” ipc naval unit to buy at purchase. Which is probably a good thing, since transports are the reason the naval game exists in the first place haha. I like the casualty taken last rule with a combat role of some kind, as we’ve discussed in other threads.

On Transport, I prefer in-built incentive rather than a straight forward rule like Taken Last.
If I keep up with such a scale:
5 IPCs Destroyer A2 D2
6 IPCs Submarine A2fs D1fs
8 IPCs Transport A0 D?* **, 1 hit

What can be the incentive to keep afloat Transport, instead of a better defense value unit?
1, the higher cost 8 vs 5 or 6. Even a 9 IPCs Cruiser is not that far from 8 IPCs.
*A defensive hindrance. Hence, a Last Strike (opposite of a First Strike).
Last Strike is made that you cannot retaliate (have a defense roll) with this unit if it is taken as casualty.
**A defensive benefit ?
Here is an old idea, in a new context (5 IPCs DD and 6 IPCs Sub).
Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.

And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.

This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some attacking planes.

On the other part, this would emphasis the role of Submarines warfare (especially for Germany) against transports.
And the owning player would have to chose between loosing a cheap 5 IPCs DD defending @2, or a costlier TP at 8 with no defense. Either ways, the Sub commander gets something in return.
And, in the case of a combined attack with planes, loosing a TP means lesser odds to use the Transport AA defense.

To summarize:

TRANSPORT A0 D0* M2 C8, 1 hit
*Last Strike AA defense:
If the transport is not taken as casualty, each Transport gets 1 AA shot @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, each combat round.
No defense against warships.

@Baron:

What can be the incentive to keep afloat Transport, instead of a better defense value unit?

I personally don’t like the mandate that Transports must be the last casualties. Nor do I like that your opponent can have 6 Transports in his fleet and essentially absorb that many hits before their combat ships take the heat. Maybe we can craft a middle ground.

Pricing a Transport at 8 is not cheap and I don’t know that they could be considered quite so disposable any more. That can work in our favor. Let players choose if they want to take hits on 8 IPC transports or not.

To further incentivize keeping Transports, I would propose that they somehow be given the option to escape from an attack. Maybe one of these scenarios:

• If all the defender’s combat ships (not including submerged subs) and aircraft have been destroyed, any remaining Transports may roll (1) die each. On a roll of (1) - or (1 or 2)? - that Transport may retreat to one adjacent sea zone. All Transports do not have to escape to the same sea zone.

OR

• If all the defender’s combat ships (not including submerged subs) and aircraft have been destroyed, the attacker may roll (1) die per remaining attacking unit. Any hits are assigned to the defender’s remaining Transports. Any surviving Transports escape to any adjacent sea zone. All surviving Transports do not have to escape to the same sea zone.

This is not a very complicated rule and would give Transports a level of survivability without an offensive punch. It would at least let the defender decide which how to assign hits but give them reason to not just off them as first casualties. Low Luck players should like the fact that a transport can’t take out a superior unit. Under either rule, if the attacker gets enough hits in a single round to knock out the defender’s remaining combat units AND remaining transports, then all defending units are destroyed. Transports can’t escape in that case.

@Baron:

Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.

And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.

This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some attacking planes.

1 AA shot per transport, per combat round is powerful. I am thinking that under Baron’s system aircraft will need to be super-cheap because there are so many units targeting them directly: AA guns, Cruisers, Transports, Fighters, Tacs and Bombers. That virtually ensures mutual aircraft annihilation.

• Another complete issue not brought up is the idea of what the transport unit really is in terms of numbers? Some people for example, question what exactly are you seeing with an aircraft carrier. It had a defense number beyond 1, yet the unit itself implies that it is mixed with other combat units as a carrier does not have weapons to battle another ship. Then some people argue the unit itself is just the unit itself composed of either 1:1 in numbers or a “unit” of ships. So with this said, G40 seems to treat transports with a defense of 0 being nothing but a fleet of transports or at the very least a single transport. Which is another reason why I find it stupid that it can’t defend itself or at least take hits from other naval units like it could in order versions. Case in point of historical context, Wolf Packs used to sneak up on armed fleets escorting transports and attack the transports and duck out of the area without actually engaging the fleet itself. This is what caused several problems about the US being neutral as our navy was escorting UK ships in the open without a declaration of war against the Axis making the defense of said ships an act of war without declaration of war.

So I continue to argue that transport either need a defense of 1 or need the ability to take hits and the OOB rules for transports do not make any sense what so ever.

• Good catch on Carrier, some says it is the Carrier Air Patrol which protect also Carrier from other attacking warships which allows Carrier to hit not only planes but also vessels.

It is a small @2, but just enough to defend against both air and sea units.

You don’t think this should fit the bill?

Variants:
1- More freedom to defender’s choice: no more taken last, anytime a TP can be taken as casualty
2- Defending roll for Transport is treated normally as @1, aircraft are not targeted.
(It assumes that a minimal escort is provided with the TP unit. So, it can sink a warship instead.)

• In my opinion (which you dont have to share) these house rules undermine the spirit of the new destroyer pieces and the historical accuracy of the unescorted ships. We all loved the cheap fodder the transports were, but now we have a destroyer @ the same cost which can attack and has a better defence. I call that upgraded fodder. The Tps new lower price reflects the now reduced role/ versatility of the Tp. Now you can protect you surface fleets and/or convoys with the upgraded fodder like the great admirals did. When on the move, transports were in the middle of a convoy with escort destroyers surrounding the perimeter and interspersed at intervals to protect the Tps. Not the other way around. The same with capital ships. Aircraft carriers and battle ships had a ring of cruisers, destroyers and smaller surface ships around the to hold the enemy at bay and take damage while the longer ranged guns of the battle ships blasted from a relatively safe distance. Aircraft carriers being technically different in that they were in the center to keep the floating runway operational and in the fight and that most aircraft not used for air to air defence tried to bypass the rings of security to score hits on the bigger fish, the aircraft carrier being the biggest prize when available. If transports were part of these fleets, as was the case often enough, the Tps were protected by the outer rings as well. In summation, enjoy the new destroyer piece/ upgraded fodder and the lower cost Tp.

• I like your vivid depiction of defensive rings around Carriers and Troopships which was most extensively use in Pacific Ocean. On that point, the OOB units with 2 hits showed that Carriers and Battleships were prime targets.
I don’t clearly see what you mean by undermining spirit of Destroyer as a fodder unit?
This piece is very popular and required against Submarines in all congigurations, from Classic-type TP to defenseless TP.

Also the best fodder in many naval battle is the cheaper Sub.

• @Imperious:

The only AP’s that were equipped with such weaponry were Q ships, that were used as disguised raiders and had no such AA capability. They fought subs and other Merchant ships. Otherwise your just making up ships that never existed.

I was not day dreaming, there is many examples of US AP (troopships) like this one :
AP-110 General John Pope
With AA armament: 4 x single 5"/38 caliber dual purpose guns, 4 x quad 1.1" guns, 20 x single 20mm cannon

After shakedown General John Pope sailed for Newport News 5 September 1943 with over 6,000 troops and civilians bound for Greenock, Scotland; and, after disembarking her passengers there, returned to Norfolk, Virginia 25 September. From 6 October to 19 November she made a troop-carrying voyage to Brisbane, Australia; and, after touching Townsville and Milne Bay, put in at San Francisco on the latter date. Underway again 10 December with over 5,000 troops for the Pacific fighting and 500 staff. General John Pope debarked them at Noumea 23 December and returned via Pago Pago to San Francisco 10 January 1944 with 2,500 veterans.

In the months that followed, General John Pope sailed in support of the giant amphibious offensive on New Guinea’s northern coast, spearheaded by Rear Admiral Barbey’s famed VII Amphibious Force. On a 3-month round-trip voyage out of San Francisco, beginning 23 January, she took troops to Guadalcanal, Auckland, and Noumea, and brought 1,300 men back to San Francisco 9 March. General John Pope then embarked another full complement of troops, including the 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment, and sailed 6 April for Noumea and Oro Bay, New Guinea.

Returning via Noumea to embark casualties, the ship reached San Francisco 18 May 1944. During the summer of 1944, the far-ranging transport made two round-trip voyages from San Francisco: on the first she got underway 27 May for New Guinean ports, Guadalcanal, and the Russell Islands, debarking 3,800 men of the famous 1st Marine Division at San Diego, California before returning to San Francisco; and on the second she departed 26 July for Honolulu and returned 8 August.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_General_John_Pope_(AP-110)

A different case on Pacific was recorded by veterans, IJN Transport AA guns mostly catch a few Torpedo bombers, TBF Avenger:
18:10 to 19:00 minutes.
Battle 360 Episode 7 Hammer of Hell

It is not showing they were efficient but still AA armaments were put on these freighters or troopships.

• I was not day dreaming, there is many examples of US AP (troopships) like this one :
AP-110 General John Pope
With AA armament: 4 x single 5"/38 caliber dual purpose guns, 4 x quad 1.1" guns, 20 x single 20mm cannon

These are troopships and don’t compare to the weaponry of what a group of destroyers can bring, meaning they don’t even register as a 1 in combat. Thats the point each destroyer is about 20-25, transports are say 50 and in those fifty you get perhaps 5 of those troopships… the aggregate weaponry comparison would demonstrate really nothing of a combat rating. I understand the desire to make a fighting transport unit, go ahead, but don’t think it can be extrapolated from some examples and supported with facts. just make a new unit…Q ships and leave the OOB unit alone. Thats my point.

• @Imperious:

I was not day dreaming, there is many examples of US AP (troopships) like this one :
AP-110 General John Pope
With AA armament: 4 x single 5"/38 caliber dual purpose guns, 4 x quad 1.1" guns, 20 x single 20mm cannon

These are troopships and don’t compare to the weaponry of what a group of destroyers can bring, meaning they don’t even register as a 1 in combat. Thats the point each destroyer is about 20-25, transports are say 50 and in those fifty you get perhaps 5 of those troopships… the aggregate weaponry comparison would demonstrate really nothing of a combat rating. I understand the desire to make a fighting transport unit, go ahead, but don’t think it can be extrapolated from some examples and supported with facts. just make a new unit…Q ships and leave the OOB unit alone. Thats my point.

And that’s a fair point, however, if defense of 1 seems too illogical then at least we should have the ability to pick transports for loss in combat. I understand why they have it, it seems they added health for carriers and battleships because they knew that players would pump out transports to soak hits and because of that, it also has the back up of just using it to move units when needed giving nations with money the ability to build transport fleets for complete harassment.

• @Imperious:

I was not day dreaming, there is many examples of US AP (troopships) like this one :
AP-110 General John Pope
With AA armament: 4 x single 5"/38 caliber dual purpose guns, 4 x quad 1.1" guns, 20 x single 20mm cannon

These are troopships and don’t compare to the weaponry of what a group of destroyers can bring, meaning they don’t even register as a 1 in combat. Thats the point each destroyer is about 20-25, transports are say 50 and in those fifty you get perhaps 5 of those troopships… the aggregate weaponry comparison would demonstrate really nothing of a combat rating. I understand the desire to make a fighting transport unit, go ahead, but don’t think it can be extrapolated from some examples and supported with facts. just make a new unit…Q ships and leave the OOB unit alone. Thats my point.

All my individual cases are translating what DK was talking in general a while back.
Back then, I did not perceived the differences and nuances he was meaning in his post:

@Der:

Yeah! Glad to see I’m not alone in the pro-classic transport camp.

The classic transport:

• Represents a TROOPSHIP - not a supply ship.
• Blends nicely with one of the maxims of the game “defender chooses his own casualties”
• Makes learning the game easier - less “special” rules
• Keeps the element of chance involved, thus more suspense = more fun
• Keeps battle command decisions in your hands - not the rules

The Global transport:

• is auto-slaughtered in large groups if alone
• removes some of your battle command power - you HAVE to choose transports last
• Does not fit with the general game rules - it is like an orange thrown into a barrel of apples

Here’s something not mentioned that the game now has to counter a stack of classic TTs defending @1: how about a stack of 6 IPC subs that attack @2 and whose casualties can’t fire back? The subs are cheaper to lose and have twice the odds of hitting and half the odds of taking return fire.

• Baron, Im trying to say changing Tp def or choosing them as fodder wouldnt be right. For the people that dont like the 0 def…just saying the new Dd is the same price as the old Tp, so it would be the same cost for fodder as it used to be. I hope that clarified it a bit.
Of couse you have a good point on the sub being cheaper fodder, but that only works if enemy has a Dd present, no?

On a separate note, i dont think its right that all def transports should be lost, escape would be a truer option and the game already has a precedent…the AAA rules. The Aaa guns in older some games and on newer facilities only have a one round attack. My example…all defending transports may retreat after the first round of battle (wether alone or with warships).

And i do think subs should pick their own targets, at the very least on the first round of battle. The only stipulation being if subs chose hits on multiple transports, the Tp owner chooses which Tp is hit.

• @Caesar:

@Imperious:

I was not day dreaming, there is many examples of US AP (troopships) like this one :
AP-110 General John Pope
With AA armament: 4 x single 5"/38 caliber dual purpose guns, 4 x quad 1.1" guns, 20 x single 20mm cannon

These are troopships and don’t compare to the weaponry of what a group of destroyers can bring, meaning they don’t even register as a 1 in combat. Thats the point each destroyer is about 20-25, transports are say 50 and in those fifty you get perhaps 5 of those troopships… the aggregate weaponry comparison would demonstrate really nothing of a combat rating. I understand the desire to make a fighting transport unit, go ahead, but don’t think it can be extrapolated from some examples and supported with facts. just make a new unit…Q ships and leave the OOB unit alone. Thats my point.

And that’s a fair point, however, if defense of 1 seems too illogical then at least we should have the ability to pick transports for loss in combat. I understand why they have it, it seems they added health for carriers and battleships because they knew that players would pump out transports to soak hits and because of that, it also has the back up of just using it to move units when needed giving nations with money the ability to build transport fleets for complete harassment.

Now I see why I thought about Krieghound’s at least 1 combat unit for 1 Transport limitation houserules on TP taken as casualty:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1696829#msg1696829

• I’ll bring this up to my units to see what they say about transports in G40.

• First off, I realize I am late to the party on this thread, my apologies.

Secondly, there were a plethora of ideas thrown out on this thread.

I don’t see the crime in modifying the transports rules.
I find it humorous that the main reasons not to let them defend themselves is from a historical/realistic stand point. When in reality, who has ever been able to choose their casualties in a war? So in that regard, a fundamental concept of A&A is not realistic.

In an amphibious assault, the defending forces (including scrambled planes, and naval units) top priority is going to be targeting the landing craft to keep them off the beach, not the naval bombardment.
The infantry units aren’t only representing riflemen in the game. Carriers represent carrier groups, and battleships represent that group. I say all that to say, couldn’t a transport represent the transport and a minimal escort?

A transport loaded with an infantry and a tank is 16 IPC. The same cost as an Aircraft Carrier, who takes two hits. An empty transport may be seen as fodder, but not a loaded transport. To lose one or more loaded transports is major setback.

Defending @1 either on a D6 or D12 sounds reasonable to me. That is an 8% or 16% chance of a hit. Those aren’t great odds.  I don’t care for the AA ability idea, that seems too limited. I also like the idea of allowing them to be taken as casualties during the battle.

A few of ideas I had and maybe a combination of would work:

1. If at the end of the combat round, instead of them being auto killed. Let it be similar to AAA rules. For one final round, every warship can roll 3 dice each no more than the number of transports, the transports not hit can retreat.
2. One unit on the transport and fire once at the end, before the auto kill.
3. For every two transports let one be chosen as a casualty during combat.
4. For every two transports let one defend at 1 during combat.

I understand that a transport shouldn’t be as strong a battleship, but it is an investment when loaded that needs protection.

• Did you read the other one too?

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

17

1

13

9

17

48

4

15