• @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.

  • '17 '16

    @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:

    @Black_Elk:

    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.

    @LHoffman:

    @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.

  • '17 '16

    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.

  • '17 '16

    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.

  • '17 '16

    @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
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oboob26eJU

    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.

  • '17 '16

    @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.

  • '17 '16

    @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.
    I have enjoyed reading through this thread.

  • '17 '16

    Did you read the other one too?


  • Other one?

  • '17 '16

    There was a few quotes inside this actual thread coming from the other one, DK’s:
    The aberration of the defenseless transport
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1108069#msg1108069


  • Ok, I went back looked at DK’s thread. I had looked at that sometime ago. Did I read all 30 pages? No, but I looked over the first and last couple of pages.

    But what did you think of my idea? Especially the “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.”
    I think that is a fair compromise. It’s not making the TP op, but it is limiting how many shots can be taken at the TP.


  • In my game now after 5 turns. 2 transports have escaped. The transports only get a escape roll if only attacking ships against only transports. So after ships attack rolls per round of combat any surviving transport gets a d12 roll @2.

  • '17 '16

    @Wildcat6305:

    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.
    3. 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.
    I have enjoyed reading through this thread.

    I cannot disagree with what you assess. On various ideas for TPs, there is so many configurations. It becomes real buffet for all.
    One comment I can make about 3 and 4, is that in most case it allows to use TP rule R1 because many SZ had only 1 TP in each.
    When 2 TPs are together, it can be considered as a Convoy and so becomes a combat unit because escorting vessels are part of this combined arms.
    When 1 TP is paired to another, 1 TP can be taken as casualty and allows for 1 defense roll @1.

    So, when all alone, it is defenseless, when 2 TPs are together is becomes a working unit as other.

    @Baron:

    Now Crusader iv,
    if your intent is to play as much as possible within G40 initial parameters while solving the defenseless TP paradoxes which DK showed us along this thread, I believe that Black Elk and I found an interesting way.
    It doesn’t alter initial first round strategy but allows some defense and 1 hit values to TPs.

    TRANSPORT with combat value    7 IPCs
    Attack 0
    Defense 0 or 1* *1 regular@1 per TPs group, if at least 2 or more friendly TPs in same SZ.
    Move 2 (3 with NB bonus)
    Hit value: 1
    Taken as last casualty
    Optional: As other warships, can be chosen as casualty anytime.
    *One single defense @1, each combat round if at least two friendly transports share SZ.
    If during naval combat TP number is reduced to one, it keeps its defense value @1 until the end of combat.
    Cannot control SZ. Can be ignored by other warships units.
    Can ignore Submarine during Combat and noncombat phases.
    TP cannot by itself amphibious assault a Submarine infested SZ, must be escorted by a warship with at least an attack value of 1.

    @Baron:

    @Black_Elk:

    Not sure where I pulled pearl, must have been thinking of AA50 the Japanese air hit against sz56 since I was playing that the other day too  :-D But in any case, there are a few more key transport defenses for Allies in 42.2 over Axis, so it feels like it would lean towards Allied balance, which is a good thing. Probably just more satisfying overall, whatever the effects on the opening. Return them their hit value at 1 (per group as suggested) and taken last, just seems more interesting. It combines the old Classic lucky shot, but doesn’t give up the fodder problem, but makes the unit more potent for the price.

    Agreed keep it at 7 ipcs
    Lucky 7

    I’m going to play this way in my next face to face game for sure! Will test it out next Thursday see if the gang enjoys.

    Also, if you really want to keep it from changing the opening, you could also make it a force multiplier thing, where only two transports together “A Group” get this defensive boost +1. Two or more transports together would no longer become defenseless. But the not cumulative just the 1 hit for the entire group, whatever its total number, as long as there are at least two transports in the group. This could all be interpreted as a “combined arms” type bonus, where the transport gets boosted by other transports such that the whole group gets to fire together at a 1, whereas single transports would behave OOB. Or you could just apply it universally to all transports whether single or in a group together.

    What it is interesting here is that there would be a natural incentive to “fan out” your transports to try to get multiple bonuses on defense instead of just keeping one transports stack, it might be better to split them into smaller groups to get more bang out of them on defense. Things like this might encourage more island hopping, or branching out naval game instead of just a ship stack fest in a few zones. I think these changes could be popular if it feels right.

    **So 1 lone transport still defends at zero.

    2 transports defend at 1,
    3 transports still defend at 1
    4 transports still defend at 1, but…

    If you broke them into 2 groups in two separate sea zones then you’d get double the defense value! Two chances to hit at a 1. This as a way to encourage fanning out over stacking together in the naval game on transport defense.**

    See where I am going with it? :)
    might be cool.

    If handled that way, as a combined arms type thing, then the only opening battle affected would be the German sub hit on the US Atlantic transports. But that battle is a little busted anyway, and some even bid a destroyer there believing it is critical. Short of a destroyer added in, the group transport bonus, would give a slight disincentive for German Uboats to hit, they might go after the Canadian transports instead just to avoid the risk of that extra 1 haha

    Here is what I found, clearly we are likely-minded on that issue, since the very first post I introduced in the Defenseless transport thread is this one:  :-o
    @Baron:

    @BJCard:

    @Uncrustable:

    Why not give transports a defense of 1 but still must be taken as casualties last ?
    Increase their cost to 8

    Because a transport having a defense of 1 is too generous.

    In Classic, transports represented actual transports and escort ships- now escort ships have been decoupled from transports in the form of destroyers.

    Hi everybody,
    their is some middleway here.

    Keep at 7 IPCs. It is already a long road to buy an escort fleet, transport and ground units. And bridging from one island to another requires much more transport to travel the same two ground units. The chain of communication is easily outstreched and vulnerable in PTO.

    Give any group (2 or more) of Transports a collective defense of 1.

    Even in a naval battle with other vessels, give at the start of naval battle the transport group a defense @1.

    Transports are still chosen last.

    When their is no more combat ship, the attacker still rolls and destroy as many transports as he got hits.
    It lasts until the last transport has sunk (which still have 1@1).

    The capacity to take hits is already a good defense.
    I see no need to add more than the single@1 for all the group.

    However, keep a single isolated transport as an easy target with no defense.

    Historically, we can think that there is some corvettes and frigates (but not much) inside a group of transports,  2 units or more (14 IPCs and +).

    Another possibility is to limit this @1 as AA only for 2 or more transports. So no combat ship could be kill by the lighter guns on board any troop transports.

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 1
  • 8
  • 158
  • 9
  • 5
  • 23
  • 6
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

31

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts