@Cow:
A- Cannot be taken as a casualty.
B- I would like it if transports fired at a 1.
Similar to aa guns… which transports are equipped to fire.
C- I also believe aa guns should cost 4.
D- Cruisers should be at 11.
A) Do you mean transport are taken last?
B) If I follow you, Transport is a A0D0M2C7 unit with Def@1 only against planes.
That’s nearer the historical truth, because their guns wasn’t so effective against other surface vessel.
With this proposal, Transport should be able to escape or flee against warships.
Would you let them fire three times (ex.: 1 DD = 3@2 against 1 group of TT.) before Transport can escape?
On the other way, I still think that 1/6 to kill is too high vs aircraft units according to historical truth.
(I read somewhere that even for warships it was about 1/10. I imagine that just for TP it is far less.)
Unless you give aircrafts Air supremacy strike to reduce the shooting down rate, something like a preemptive shot against TP. (If Transport is hit, then no returning fire @1.)
C) You should start a tread on this.
IMO 4 IPCs is ok, but at 5 IPCs maybe we can let them having other capacity after AA first round.
D) Their is many old treads on the price of cruiser.
I prefer the Imperious Leader version:
Cruiser A3D3M2(3 in 1940) Cost: 12 IPCs when it rolls a “1” it take down a plane.
I also add 1DefAA@1 against 1 aircraft at the beginning of the battle.
It has more psychological impact but every one buy it for this antiaircraft capacity in a fleet, specially UK.
Baron your solutions are far too complicated lol
I like cows idea, give them each an AA dice hitting on 1, but keep them as is other than that.
Also i agree 1000% on reducing the cost of cruisers to 11, i remember a thread not too long ago where everyone told me how stupid i was because i thought cruisers were overpriced lol
Uncrustable, good to see you’re back. I don’t recall anyone calling you stupid for thinking cruisers cost too much. A lot of people agree with that. What we disagree with is the idea that they are always a bad purchase, which is definitely not true in the right circumstances.
Transports defending @1 and being last casualty is a decent idea. Cruiser firing a single AA shot at 1 plane is also a decent idea for a house rule.
@Uncrustable:
Baron your solutions are far too complicated lol
I like cows idea, give them each an AA dice hitting on 1, but keep them as is other than that.
Also i agree 1000% on reducing the cost of cruisers to 11, i remember a thread not too long ago where everyone told me how stupid i was because i thought cruisers were overpriced lol
Do you see this in the cow proposition: automatic destruction of TPs group if no aircraft attacker?
Ex.: a group of 8 TPS are doomed against a single DD (with no risk of retaliation) but their will be a crushing forces of 8@1 against 4Fgt.
I’m not sure it will be balance either.
My option is more complex because it integrates many criterias (and mix classics with OOB 1940).
It’s the weakness here: less simple.
Of course, I will always prefer a simpler rule that can take account of the same numbers of criterias.
It’s up to us to find one, if we can.
Otherwise, we develop others with different weakness: less balance / or accurate.
And if we think of TP Classics: has a great simplicity…
But was counterweight by it’s great weakness:
no historical accuracy because of transports screening.
Much earlier I suggest a simpler one:
Taken last, defend 1@1 for a whole group of 2 and more Transport, every hit kill 1 Transport at a time.
Weakness: 2 TPs defend as well as 10 transports.
It didn’t take long that someone spotted it.
Much simple but less realistic.
Uncrustable, good to see you’re back. I don’t recall anyone calling you stupid for thinking cruisers cost too much. A lot of people agree with that. What we disagree with is the idea that they are always a bad purchase, which is definitely not true in the right circumstances.
Transports defending @1 and being last casualty is a decent idea. Cruiser firing a single AA shot at 1 plane is also a decent idea for a house rule.
We can wonder why if this was so simple Larry didn’t prefer this (which is more respectful of the A&A system rules) over the no combat value (nor defense nor hit value) of TP.
My hypothesis:
1) Large group of TPs become too dangerous in itself.
2) TPs could destroy too much valuable pieces (mainly aircrafts).
3) Historical inaccuracy.
4) It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.
Large group of TTs become too dangerous in itself.
Agree 100%. Thats why whether it is 1 TT or 6 they get 1@1 and then can reatreat ONLY when all warships and Planes are removed from the battle and attackers are left. No attack value at all.
TT could destroy too much valuable pieces (mainly aircrafts).
Historical inaccuracy.
The same argument could be made against inf. Do you think 1 inf unit could wipe out an entire unit of planes? I would think no, yet they defend at 2. So they have twice as good of odds to do so. They also have twice as good of odds to get a hit as an AA gun. Where in history would a defending AA gun only fire once and then abandon the gun for the next wave of planes? Not that I disagree with the current AA rules but as far as historical accuracy its not even close. Not to mention once again that the whole game is historically inaccurate because the axis win most of the time. The countries this rule would benefit the most would be Japan, UK, and US. It may even the game out a bit.
It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.
It wouldn’t help the assault at all. It would only help the defense of the counter attack, and very little help at that. 1 round at 1 defense and then forced to retreat.
TT could destroy too much valuable pieces (mainly aircrafts).
Historical inaccuracy.
The same argument could be made against inf. Do you think 1 inf unit could wipe out an entire unit of planes? I would think no, yet they defend at 2. So they have twice as good of odds to do so. They also have twice as good of odds to get a hit as an AA gun. Where in history would a defending AA gun only fire once and then abandon the gun for the next wave of planes? Not that I disagree with the current AA rules but as far as historical accuracy its not even close. Not to mention once again that the whole game is historically inaccurate because the axis win most of the time. The countries this rule would benefit the most would be Japan, UK, and US. It may even the game out a bit.
Well, an infantry unit would inherently have some AA capability or it wouldn’t be able to kill aircraft. This is a strategic level game- Infantry/Artillery units don’t represent just Infantry or Artillery but a slow moving division. Tanks/Mech represent mobile units- including mobile AA and mobile artillery.
Transports represent transports, DD’s represent small escort ships and ASW ships, Cruisers bigger ships, etc.
The idea that AA stops firing after the battle begins is due the fear of hitting the defending aircraft, if there were any. Otherwise I agree with you- seems silly that they would stop firing if only enemy air is present.
Large group of TPs become too dangerous in itself.
Agree 100%. Thats why whether it is 1 TP or 6 they get 1@1 and then can retreat ONLY when all warships and Planes are removed from the battle and attackers are left. No attack value at all.
It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.
It wouldn’t help the assault at all. It would only help the defense of the counter attack, and very little help at that. 1 round at 1 defense and then forced to retreat.
So you prefer this option (except that @1 starts with the first Transport) and its drawback of poor proportionality?
Much earlier I suggest a simpler one:
Taken last, defend 1@1 for a whole group of 2 and more Transports, every hit kill 1 Transport at a time.
Weakness: 2 Transports defend as well as 10 Transports It didn’t take long that someone spotted it.
Much simple but less realistic.
It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.
I meant lower transport cost from 8 to 7 implies combat value too useful and too affordable, so Larry as to denied it in the new OOB rules.
Transports represent transports, DD’s represent small escort ships and ASW ships, Cruisers bigger ships, etc.
The idea that AA stops firing after the battle begins is due the fear of hitting the defending aircraft, if there were any. Otherwise I agree with you- seems silly that they would stop firing if only enemy air is present.
I think that one main reason is about the 1/10 accuracy of AA fire.
Giving 1/6 at the beginning of the round is enough and that’s why they seem to do nothing for the rest of the battle.
But if one AA hit twice, it has done much more damage than the bloodiest air battle of the WWII.
Well, an infantry unit would inherently have some AA capability or it wouldn’t be able to kill aircraft
Here is a small list of some of the ww2 troopships
dual purpose gun  or dp
A dual purpose gun is a naval artillery mounting designed to engage both surface and air targets.
USS Le Jeune AP-74
1 x 5"/38 caliber dual purpose gun
4 x 3"/50 caliber dp guns
8 x 40mm guns
13 x 20mm guns
USS General William Mitchell AP-114
4 x single 5"/38 caliber dual purpose guns, 4 x quad 1.1" guns, 20 x single 20mm guns
USS Hermitage AP-54
1 x 5"/38 caliber dual purpose gun
6 x 3"/50 caliber dp guns
So the transports as well had the AA capability. Â Obviously not strong but they were not “defenseless”.
Well letting transports defend at a 1 (not just against aircraft) lets them do some pretty absurd things like sink battleships
Most of those guns are best vs aircraft and wouldnt do much against the big long range guns of cruisers/battleships and they would be pretty helpless against subs aswell
Maybe let them defend at a 1 able to hit aircraft and destroyers only
I meant lower transport cost from 8 to 7 implies combat value too usefull and too affordable, so Larry as to denied it in the new OOB rules.
Misunderstood initially but yes I agree.
So you prefer this option and its drawback? :
I do in theory. Â It would have to be tested to see the actual effect. Â I just believe it takes out the “no risk” factor for the attacker on the transport. Â As you can see by my last post, they had the capability to fire back. Â It also makes it impossible for transports to wipe out multiple air units attacking them. Â They also were designed to be faster than surface warships so they could outrun them hence the mandatory retreat after getting one shot at the attacker.
I don’t know who exactly came up with all the different ideas. Â I just read the thread and pulled out the ideas I thought could make it more realistic and most importantly eliminate the name of this thread. Â “The aberration of the defenseless transport”
Well letting transports defend at a 1 (not just against aircraft) lets them do some pretty absurd things like sink battleships
No, cause they only get 1@1 and then have to retreat. It takes 2 to sink a battleship.
Well letting transports defend at a 1 (not just against aircraft) lets them do some pretty absurd things like sink battleships
No, cause they only get 1@1 and then have to retreat. It takes 2 to sink a battleship.
I was talking about when each transport rolls a dice
I was talking about when each transport rolls a dice
I think that is too much as well. That is why I believe that the group of transports get 1@1 and then retreat.
I would bet money that had this rule never been changed NO ONE would even consider a defenseless transport. I still cannot picture these huge stacks of transports being used as fodder when we have a cheap nice little destroyer that not only attacks and defends but it stops subs!
The whole point of changing the transport back to something like classic was so that the transport had some kind of backup.
I still cannot picture these huge stacks of transports being used as fodder when we have a cheap nice little destroyer that not only attacks and defends but it stops subs!
The benefit would be 10 TT’s at 1 with 20 land units as opposed to 5 TT’S at 1 and 5 DD at 2 with only 10 available ground units. I don’t think there would be huge stacks of just transports (cause you would lose the guys and the transport) but I think a navy would consist of way less capital ships with a bunch of TT’s. It only takes 1 destroyer to stop all subs “special powers” :-D Overall I agree with you though. I dislike defenseless transports a lot!
Well, an infantry unit would inherently have some AA capability or it wouldn’t be able to kill aircraft
Here is a small list of some of the ww2 troopships
dual purpose gun � or dp
A dual purpose gun is a naval artillery mounting designed to engage both surface and air targets.
USS Le Jeune AP-74
1 x 5"/38 caliber dual purpose gun
4 x 3"/50 caliber dp guns
8 x 40mm guns
13 x 20mm gunsUSS General William Mitchell AP-114
4 x single 5"/38 caliber dual purpose guns, 4 x quad 1.1" guns, 20 x single 20mm guns
USS Hermitage AP-54
1 x 5"/38 caliber dual purpose gun
6 x 3"/50 caliber dp gunsSo the transports as well had the AA capability. � Obviously not strong but they were not “defenseless”.
Yes, I agree that there were some transports that had defenses, but they are not heavily defended and are extremely vulnerable. An air unit represents more than 100 aircraft- how many transports had air defenses to make them able to kill 100 aircraft 1/6 of the time? These transports seem to be designed to defend against small surveillance squadrons at best.
How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?
I would still rather transports that survive the attack are able to retreat, but killing anything at 1/6th a chance is absurd. The simple fact that the transports have to retreat throws a wrench into that player’s plans.
Yes, I agree that there were some transports that had defenses, but they are not heavily defended and are extremely vulnerable. An air unit represents more than 100 aircraft- how many transports had air defenses to make them able to kill 100 aircraft 1/6 of the time? These transports seem to be designed to defend against small surveillance squadrons at best.
How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?
I would still rather transports that survive the attack are able to retreat, but killing anything at 1/6th a chance is absurd. The simple fact that the transports have to retreat throws a wrench into that player’s plans.
Well i dont think one transport represents one transport either lol
Transports had AA defense but that was pretty much it.
Def would be helpless against the big long range guns of cruisers/battleships and would also be helpless against lurking submarines
Why not let each transport roll a dice that can ONLY target destroyers and aircraft
@Uncrustable:
Yes, I agree that there were some transports that had defenses, but they are not heavily defended and are extremely vulnerable. An air unit represents more than 100 aircraft- how many transports had air defenses to make them able to kill 100 aircraft 1/6 of the time? These transports seem to be designed to defend against small surveillance squadrons at best.
How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?
I would still rather transports that survive the attack are able to retreat, but killing anything at 1/6th a chance is absurd. The simple fact that the transports have to retreat throws a wrench into that player’s plans.
Well i dont think one transport represents one transport either lol
Transports had AA defense but that was pretty much it.Def would be helpless against the big long range guns of cruisers/battleships and would also be helpless against lurking submarines
Why not let each transport roll a dice that can ONLY target destroyers and aircraft
No, I know you realize a transport represents a dozen or so individual ships, my point was that even at that, I doubt they could take on 10+ aircraft per ship.
