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.
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.
I think that we can agree that with only six #'s on a dice, it can never be perfect. But the transports did have weapons to fire at aircraft and warships, they were faster than warships so that they could escape. 1@1 is not heavily defended and makes them extremely vulnerable. Especially if there are more than one transport. AA Guns were designed to shoot down aircraft and its ok that they only fire 1@1 once.
How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?
This would counter what you said about infantry having AA with the unit. Yet they defend at 2. You think a ground infantry unit could take out 100 + planes with the AA they carry in their unit at 2/6 odd.
All this to say is that it cannot be perfect. No matter what, there will be some sort of situation where it won’t make sense historically or even logically. The thing in my opinion that makes the least sense is that there is a unit in a game about war that has 0 capability of protecting itself. Especially like someone said earlier “in the spirit of the game” where rolling dice is the key.
I doubt transports were faster than warships
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!
I totally agree with you elevenjerk. :-)
Fair enough about the Infantry defending at 2- At least it is a military unit designed to fight whereas a transport many times was a converted ocean liner or purpose-built bare bones ‘liberty ships.’
In a perfect world we would be rolling d10s or d12s like the dice in Battle of the Bulge. I would feel better about a transport that had a 10% chance or less scoring a hit on defense.
I suppose you could equate the units in game to be a proper mix of units of varying quality. i.e. an Infantry unit having not just infantry but anti-tank and air support, but only enough to move one space and have a 1 att/2 def.
In that case you could say that a transport has some light escort vessels, but nothing large enough to make it have a 2 att/2 def like a destroyer.
I doubt transports were faster than warships
The stuff I found on them stated that they were designed to be faster so they could get away. Which carries over to BJCards point….
a transport many times was a converted ocean liner or purpose-built bare bones ‘liberty ships.’
This is also true. In fact the titanic would have been a transport ship in the war. White Star Line actually provided ships in WW1 and WW2 as transports.
