@knp7765:
@Cromwell_Dude:
Hobbes-I agree with you on the transports and Revised. Fleets exist to defend transports, not the other way around.
Don’t get me wrong, I also agree that warships should be protecting transports. I always thought it was ludicrous when someone used transports as fodder. I even agree with the defensless transports idea. It really makes you watch out for enemy positions and decide whether or not moving troops into a certain position is worth losing that transport.
Also, in Classic and Revised, nothing would piss me off more than to have a lone transport roll a lucky “1” on defense and take out a bomber, fighter or even a battleship.
I may have been the one jumping to conclusions, sorry about that. There’s just still plenty of players who will swear for the old transports and hate the new ones.
The only thing I don’t like is when you have a large stack of transports, like 5 or more, and one single enemy sub, destroyer or fighter simply moves to that position and takes them all out. Granted, if you have such a large stack, obviously you SHOULD have been protecting them with warships. It just seems to me that a large group of transports, say more than 4 or 5, ought to have some sort of defensive capability.
OR, if not that, perhaps there should be a rule that for every 3 or 4 transports, you need 1 enemy unit to kill them. 1-4 transports = 1 enemy unit, 5-8 transports = 2 enemy units, and so on.
Makes sense. BUT I love combined air attacks where Japan goes kamikaze on the UK fleet and manages to leave the transports undefended for Germany to kill. They had defensive capability… it just got stripped from them :D