How does everyone feel about the new transport rules?



  • maybe this has been covered, but i was just wondering what people think of the new rules regarding transports? the group i play with hated them right away and we’ve actually changed it back.  they have always played with the transports as fleet fodder strategy and i haven’t played nearly as many games as them (i have maybe 25 total games compared to their maybe 300-500, i have no idea lol) so maybe my opinion is a bit jaded…



  • I like them better, when able to use as fleet fodder (and hit on a 1), it made sense to just build a massive stack of transports along with CV and BB.  You could transport near limitless amount of troops and fend off virtually any attack.

    At least this way, it takes more strategy to make sure you have transports and enough protection to accomplish your goals.  In my opinion, any time it makes more sense to build a large stack of one type of unit than a diverse stack, it’s “broken”.



  • yeah, i think it helps to balance the Allies ability to build a bunch of cheap TRN’s to protect their capital ships with the Axis’ ability to do some true damage to their shipping.  Far too easy in previous incarnations for Allies to quickly build naval force with TRN fodder and force Axis to switch to land based war and out of naval war.  Cheaper ships helps too.

    I’d recommend trying the new way some more before scrapping it.  it’s easy to play things the old way and not give the new the chance, but I think it helps the larger scope of the new version.  Easy to play Like in AAG, you could play the naval battles like AAR, but the differences bring fun new variations that go along with a new game.

    still, the beauty of a house rule on it is that things can be changed when the group is together…



  • I like them. Right now you can force Japan/US to keep their transports with their main fleet or these transports will be destroyed. In the original game, I’ve seen countless of expensive fighters being destroyed by transports that shouldn’t have the **** to set sail all on their own anyway.

    About the ‘fleet fodder’-idea: wouldn’t destroyers with their defense of 2 serve better for this purpose than an only slightly cheaper transport?



  • maybe i wasn’t clear on my preference…

    i like the new rules and was excited to play that way… unfortunately i was outvoted 2 to 1… now i’ve been no voted for the "china as it’s own country option… IC, different values for territories, NO’s etc… i get to try that one out for the first time on saturday… we’ll see how it goes


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I agree, I like that the rules made transports a non-entity when it comes to combat.  They cannot block enemy fleet movements, they cannot be taken as cannon fodder to protect your fleet and to represent that, the price dropped.

    Furthermore, they gave us a new unit for fodder, an 8 IPC Destroyer.

    I recommend, if your group is playing with Transports as fodder pieces, you up the price of a transport to 9 IPC to restore the utility of the destroyer, otherwise, you may as well play Revised rules on the Anniversary map.



  • I love the new tranny rule.



  • @Adlertag:

    I love the new tranny rule.

    Yep, add me to the list. The new tp rules are definitely a step in the right direction, from both a realism standpoint and a gameplay standpoint.



  • I very much like the new transport rules (nothing was worse than having your battleship sunk by a transport!) along with the weaker carrier defense.  I’d always figured the old values were due to transports and carriers having some built-in destroyers as escorts.  Now that DDs are available as separate units, they’re no longer built-in, and the values reflect that.


  • Official Answers

    I like them a lot.



  • The new transport rules are perfect (even though its cost me) I hated losing a fighter to a transport!!! Just silly in my opinion, and now I don’t have to worry about it.  So, tell your friends to play a few games with the new rules and if they cry then at least follow Cmdr Jen’s idea of upping the cost which they lowered when they made them defenseless.



  • I like the new transport rules, but I think the cost of the transport and the sub should be switched. 7 for sub and 6 for transport



  • The new transport rules ok, one of the clever changes from AAR to AA50.



  • The new transport rule is more realistic and I like it.  Also it is nice that the ships are cheaper.



  • @Trujew:

    I like the new transport rules, but I think the cost of the transport and the sub should be switched. 7 for sub and 6 for transport

    Absolutely, the new rules improve the game immensely. Transports were way too strong as fodder and combat units.  Even 9IPC is a bargain price.  I think the new pricing structure is pretty much spot on for making naval purchasing/combats balanced and interesting.  Though I do agree with the above comment that subs are pretty cheap, given the fearsome punch they pack.  Don’t know I agree with 6IPC transports, but I’d still buy subs for 7 (though admittedly fewer).

    @Danger:

    The new transport rules are perfect (even though its cost me)

    Poor Danger Mouse took an unlucky blow as Japan in our S01 game.  Japan attacked philipines with the BB and 2 loaded transports.  The american DD miraculously defeated the BB, and then got a free chance to clear the 2 loaded transports (+ another empty one) after they had to retreat. Painful and very unlucky…



  • I really like the new rules with this one exception.

    That an unescorted transport can pass through a sea zone with a sub in it unimpeded.  I think there should be a rule (like the AA guns) that if an unescorted transport moves through a sea zone with a sub in it, the sub gets one crack at sinking the transport.  Unescorted ships in the Atlantic were prime targets for German U-boats.  144 unescorted ships were sunk by U-boats in the Atlantic during the war.



  • I really like the new rules with this one exception.

    That an unescorted transport can pass through a sea zone with a sub in it unimpeded.

    YES! Forgot to mention this one. The sub should definitely be able to prevent this in some way. Makes no sense at all the way this rule is right now.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Trujew:

    I like the new transport rules, but I think the cost of the transport and the sub should be switched. 7 for sub and 6 for transport

    Love the avatar, Tru.


    @Unknown:

    I really like the new rules with this one exception.

    That an unescorted transport can pass through a sea zone with a sub in it unimpeded.

    YES! Forgot to mention this one. The sub should definitely be able to prevent this in some way. Makes no sense at all the way this rule is right now.

    I disagree.  From a logic standpoint it makes sense.  From a gameplay perspective it does not.  Submarines and Transports are non-entities for defense.  That means they cannot affect the movement, combat or abilities of other ships unless they are specifically targeted.

    Now, if the cost of a submarine was 7 or 8 IPC instead of 5 or 6 IPC (if you have the tech) it might be worth it to increase their effectiveness to be commensurate with their cost.  As is, they’re so blasted cheap that it’s appropriate they cannot block transports or anything else.

    Figure it like this, when it is not the submarine’s turn, they are busy refueling, resupplying, recharging batteries and/or cycling fresh air into their submarines and the transports are gliding through unopposed.



  • @Cmdr:

    Figure it like this, when it is not the submarine’s turn, they are busy refueling, resupplying, recharging batteries and/or cycling fresh air into their submarines and the transports are gliding through unopposed.

    This makes sense to me, good analogy Jen.

    I understand your cost effectiveness point as well.  I was just thinking that a similar AA gun rule could be implemented for this one situation.

    My rule would be that if a unescorted transport (transport only) passes through a sub zone the sub would get one shot at sinking the transport by rolling a 1 (just like the AA gun rule) except the dice would be limited to the number of subs on the board (not the number of transports passing through).  For example, if 4 transports would pass through a sub zone containing 2 subs.  The subs would roll 2 dice with a chance at sinking 2 transports if you roll snake eyes.

    But I’m obviously in the minority here so the rule is good as it is.  With all that said I still love the way the game is laid out.   😄



  • I love the new tranny rule.  It allows for balanced naval purchases.  NO more large TR navies.



  • i like it.  it has cost me a few times, but its a keeper.  though subs should be able to stop a transport, imo.  maybe a new tech could be that transports could defend at 1, BB have AA, etc.



  • The sub rule of not stopping a fleet is pretty logical, a single sub would not bother attacking real naval units and would just retreat. So a sub should not block any offensive naval units.

    However in the case of just a lone transport it does not make sence. No sub commander in their right mind would leave a undefended transport alone. Besides it is what you got escort fleets for right to ensure your transports are safe from subs.



  • I like the new transport rules, hated losing a plane to the dreaded AA gun of the sea!



  • I didn’t mind the 1 defense so much, but using transports as fodder seemed really backward.



  • Destroyer costs 8 now, so they replace the Transport easily 🙂 Unfortunately, having a load of transport is not the same thing as having a load of Destroyer. Transports were still useful to move troops around.

    Robert


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

49
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts