The aberration of the defenseless transport

We’re very few warships purchased in favor of transport spams?
Like it is in revised?

Already stated too many times in this thread that only an idiot would spam trannies when a destroyer is a far better screening ship. I think Trannies should still have a defense. Played some recent F2F games and didn’t make much of a difference for or against except that nobody was able to dominate the sea by transport or air power.

@Uncrustable:

We’re very few warships purchased in favor of transport spams?
Like it is in revised?

Destroyers and BBs cost quite a bit more then too. DDs in revised were more like the role of the cruiser, hence not built often just like now.

Quite simply, I hated classic transport. Because everyone did spam them. And warships were rarely purchased.

Even with destroyers at 8 it would make more sense to spam trannies at same cost with 1 less defense, because you force your opponent to defend all over the place against amphibious assault, and you could always get the odd chance at sniping an enemy capital

It’s makes for a very stale game

@Uncrustable:

Quite simply, I hated classic transport. Because everyone did spam them. And warships were rarely purchased.

Even with destroyers at 8 it would make more sense to spam trannies at same cost with 1 less defense, because you force your opponent to defend all over the place against amphibious assault, and you could always get the odd chance at sniping an enemy capital

It’s makes for a very stale game

I totally get what you’re saying but I also agree with DK. You’d have to be a total idiot to use Trannies as an effecient screen. My big beef is that many of these rule changes to many units in the history of A&A seem more to accomodate the sales pitch of why you should buy the latest edition. I see alot of rule changes to retroactivley make sense to accomodate new units. It seems LH has been making the A&A games into more of a “play-set” rather than a game.

Many of these rules are justified with “George-Lucas-esque” retroactive connectivity by LH and WOTC. An arguement is made with tactical examples mixed with strategic justification. This in my opinion is resulting in some of the confusion and dissappointment within the community. I can play with new or classic rules just fine. However just because LH says it doesn’t make it right nor does it make it make sense. Hence DK and others who agree are not some kind of unthinking moron player just because the TripleA generation of gamers and LH say so.

I can play by either set of rules, but much of the arguement is justifeied on dubious or weak reasons and arguements, based upon excuses that cater to sales and “videogamers” who want to keep thier scoreboard stats high.

your argument is the worst IMO, while i provided ingame scenarios, you just go on some type of old man serman about the good ol days :P

literally none of your argument applies to the game. The most recent changes, esp to naval, have made the game more fun to play, this is evident by the sheer number of G40 games played on tripleA alone

how many games of classic and/or revised are played for every game of global?

my argument: classic trannies made the game stale because they were spammed and warships were rarely purchased. go play some games of revised on GTO, you will see just how stale naval combat is with transports that defend

your argument: erehggh im old! george lucas ruined star wars, turn off the dammned rock and roll,back in my da……snore…

LH came up with all the origional rules, and through many years of testing/tweaking and community input, we have the better game that is now

just because it is change, and its not like it used to be, doesn’t make it terrible

now go put your pants on gramps!

@Uncrustable:

your argument is the worst IMO, while i provided ingame scenarios, you just go on some type of old man serman about the good ol days :P

literally none of your argument applies to the game. The most recent changes, esp to naval, have made the game more fun to play, this is evident by the sheer number of G40 games played on tripleA alone

how many games of classic and/or revised are played for every game of global?

my argument: classic trannies made the game stale because they were spammed and warships were rarely purchased. go play some games of revised on GTO, you will see just how stale naval combat is with transports that defend

your argument: erehggh im old! george lucas ruined star wars, turn off the dammned rock and roll,back in my da……snore…

LH came up with all the origional rules, and through many years of testing/tweaking and community input, we have the better game that is now

just because it is change, and its not like it used to be, doesn’t make it terrible

now go put your pants on gramps!

Like I said I get what you’re saying, I have no problem with playing with 0/0/2/7 trannies. but acting as if it is some revelation of genius from LH is horseshit. Go ahead and call me gramps too, I’m 35 and played F2F far more than any TripleA which I’d guess where most of the disargreement comes from. I’m also not an idiot and neither is anyone else who sees through the lines that most of the reasons for rules changes are an aquiessence to sales and marketing.

Don’t really care either way, fact is A&A is a business venture that’s fine. The arguement that this is some form relevatory genius and historical accurate revision is bogus. It has more to do with accomodating a sales driven game push is reality. My old crew wanted more units either way, a lot of the people who complain about OP units are the same people that complain when some new DLC on Battlefield or COD gives players a new gun etc.

I play those “new-fangled video games” too but let’s call it what it is, new units and new sales. Trying to sell them in a D6 format is hard.

@Uncrustable:

your argument is the worst IMO, while i provided ingame scenarios, you just go on some type of old man serman about the good ol days :P

literally none of your argument applies to the game. The most recent changes, esp to naval, have made the game more fun to play, this is evident by the sheer number of G40 games played on tripleA alone

how many games of classic and/or revised are played for every game of global?

my argument: classic trannies made the game stale because they were spammed and warships were rarely purchased. go play some games of revised on GTO, you will see just how stale naval combat is with transports that defend

your argument: erehggh im old! george lucas ruined star wars, turn off the dammned rock and roll,back in my da……snore…

LH came up with all the origional rules, and through many years of testing/tweaking and community input, we have the better game that is now

just because it is change, and its not like it used to be, doesn’t make it terrible

now go put your pants on gramps!

Also kind of funny how personal you get about your argument. If you read I also stated I got where you were coming from and that I’ve played either set of rules for transports and have no problem playing either set.

*Edited to be nice for the young folks  :mrgreen:

Idk or care about historical accuracy

i just hated when fleets consisted of mostly transports and what few battles there were was just transport trade offs

whether making transports defenseless was ‘genius’ (by LH) or not, is pretty irrelevent, when considering the fact that the entire game/series was created from scratch by LH, and his ‘genius’ has kept this game alive for what? 40 years? that is damn impressive

how many games can say that? yeah id say it was/is genius, because of instead of the game fading off into the sunset, it remains a staple tabletop game in the strategy/war section.

all this just because of transports? no of course not, but it is the culmination of updates/improvements that make the game what it is

what really makes this game great is LH listens to the community, and will combine his ideas with those of the community to better shape the game

@Uncrustable:

Idk or care about historical accuracy

i just hated when fleets consisted of mostly transports and what few battles there were was just transport trade offs

whether making transports defenseless was ‘genius’ (by LH) or not, is pretty irrelevent, when considering the fact that the entire game/series was created from scratch by LH, and his ‘genius’ has kept this game alive for what? 40 years? that is damn impressive

how many games can say that? yeah id say it was/is genius, because of instead of the game fading off into the sunset, it remains a staple tabletop game in the strategy/war section.

all this just because of transports? no of course not, but it is the culmination of updates/improvements that make the game what it is

what really makes this game great is LH listens to the community, and will combine his ideas with those of the community to better shape the game

There are plenty of games like this and others that have been around for years. This game is from 1982, so not 40 years.
Do you actually own a real copy of any Axis & Allies Game?

Do you think DK who has a big ass Axis&Allies room in his home just is whining and bitching about transports as some un-experinced noob? A wise TripleA player like you knows SOOOOOO much better than some fools who simply were discussing why they liked the old rule better. Which they probably played before YOU were born.

They changed rules in all major sports and previous generations I’m sure previous generations complained about them too.

You called down the thunder sir so show and prove. Tell us about your first game, what editions you own.
You know, anything besides tripleA, which by the way supposedly has nothing to do with your best buddy Larry and technically breaks all kinds of copyright law.

We (playtesters for the AA50) talked him into/worked with him to come up with defenseless transports based on our experiences with other games.

The main example being this game (the first edition):
http://www.ww2wargame.com/

That game along with Xeno’s Europe/Russia at War have more involved combat systems that allow for air to air combat prior to each round of ground or sea combat.  As such, nuances like naval AA and extra warships (cruisers and destroyers) allow for defenseless transports.

Classic (and even Revised) transports could be said to have escorts (corvettes, destroyer escorts, etc.) that are included in the unit but not big enough to warrant an individual piece at this scale.  That way they have a defensive number but not an offensive number.  Also, the inclusion of two hit battleships and now two hit carriers have shifted the damage taking to warships.

Is it perfect?  No.  But the using of transports as hit takers is a joke.  On the scale of the Classic and Revised games, it is a necessary evil.  Only by giving the map more sea zones can you then bring in more units and start differentiating better between the unit capabilities.  We were able to start that transition in AA50 because of the expansion of the map.  And it continued in Global.

How about reducing the cost of these defensless transports to say $4 and keep the rules.
How about reducing the cost of all Navy’s significantly and introducing the escort at say $4. That brings you back to an $8 transport that can be defended and it is an actual warship(escort) doing the fighting.

Be reducing the cost of all Navy’s, maybe you can have a realistic battle of the Atlantic.
Subs cost $4 and base the cost of all other Navy’s off of that.

My favourite thing to do with the ‘old’ style transports was leave them behind in places to “cock block” an advancing force.

If axis and allies was always won by cheap “delay” tactics - I’m pretty sure I would win every game. :)

Here is an Ideal, transports cost 7, get no defense dice, must be selected as final casualties and only stay in battle for 3 rounds of combat, “submerging” (I.e. disengaging) after the third round of battle. This way they are never auto-killed. A single bomber firing at 7 unescorted transports could only sink 3 of them, but 4 fighters attacking those 7 are likely to kill 6 of them before 1 got away. In a big naval battle, your whole transport fleet would not be lost because of a few lucky dice.

A variation might be, they only disengage after 3 rounds in which transports were targeted.

Any comments, would this be too complex? Would it help? Even a single sub engaging a single transport is likely to defeat the transport with 3 rolls.

If you follow this overly long thread you’ll find that most opposed to the rule change will simply house rule a defense or escape strategy. I’ve recently played a couple F2F games. One waa with someone used to Revised and Classic. I told him when we set up 1942SE about no defense for TRNs he thought it was stupid as well as the weird AA guns so we left it old school on those two units. Made no difference on destroyer purchases or any other naval unit.

Next game: Was teaching a veteran Catan player how to play AA41. After game one they won as the Axis. One comment was made in naval battles “why don’t transports get to roll dice?”. Second game we used old school transports. Alas no murdering horde of transports destroying navies. And the fact that you had the cheap reliable destroyer opposed to the expensive battleship as an all purpose warrior of the sea, still spawned no monster aramada of Luftwaffe murdering transports.

As stated before, I can play with or without an armed transport I’ll take a destroyer any day over relying on transports to screen more expensive warships. However the arguement transports alone should have some measure of defense is neither stupid nor ignorant, nor is it trivial to those who have played the game for years.

I own every A&A released, including classic
It’s a sickness  :roll:

@Craig:

We (playtesters for the AA50) talked him into/worked with him to come up with defenseless transports based on our experiences with other games.

The main example being this game (the first edition):
http://www.ww2wargame.com/

That game along with Xeno’s Europe/Russia at War have more involved combat systems that allow for air to air combat prior to each round of ground or sea combat.  As such, nuances like naval AA and extra warships (cruisers and destroyers) allow for defenseless transports.

Classic (and even Revised) transports could be said to have escorts (corvettes, destroyer escorts, etc.) that are included in the unit but not big enough to warrant an individual piece at this scale.  That way they have a defensive number but not an offensive number.  Also, the inclusion of two hit battleships and now two hit carriers have shifted the damage taking to warships.

Is it perfect?  No.  But the using of transports as hit takers is a joke.  On the scale of the Classic and Revised games, it is a necessary evil.  Only by giving the map more sea zones can you then bring in more units and start differentiating better between the unit capabilities.  We were able to start that transition in AA50 because of the expansion of the map.  And it continued in Global.

I couldn’t agree more, transports as hit takers are a joke

@Gargantua:

My favourite thing to do with the ‘old’ style transports was leave them behind in places to “cock block” an advancing force.

If axis and allies was always won by cheap “delay” tactics - I’m pretty sure I would win every game. :)

I play mostly spring 42 on GTO, and I love the mechanics of it when compared to revised (also on GTO)
To each his own, if you prefer the old rules then play the old games IMO
But no reason to go about bashing LH for improving the game, with the help of the community
G40.2 is the culmination of years of A&A, and I love it
My only wish is I had more opportunities to play F2F

@Uncrustable:

I own every A&A released, including classic
It’s a sickness  :roll:

@Craig:

We (playtesters for the AA50) talked him into/worked with him to come up with defenseless transports based on our experiences with other games. Â

The main example being this game (the first edition):
http://www.ww2wargame.com/

That game along with Xeno’s Europe/Russia at War have more involved combat systems that allow for air to air combat prior to each round of ground or sea combat.  As such, nuances like naval AA and extra warships (cruisers and destroyers) allow for defenseless transports.

Classic (and even Revised) transports could be said to have escorts (corvettes, destroyer escorts, etc.) that are included in the unit but not big enough to warrant an individual piece at this scale.  That way they have a defensive number but not an offensive number.  Also, the inclusion of two hit battleships and now two hit carriers have shifted the damage taking to warships.

Is it perfect?  No.  But the using of transports as hit takers is a joke.  On the scale of the Classic and Revised games, it is a necessary evil.  Only by giving the map more sea zones can you then bring in more units and start differentiating better between the unit capabilities.  We were able to start that transition in AA50 because of the expansion of the map.  And it continued in Global.

I couldn’t agree more, transports as hit takers are a joke

@Gargantua:

My favourite thing to do with the ‘old’ style transports was leave them behind in places to “cock block” an advancing force.

If axis and allies was always won by cheap “delay” tactics - I’m pretty sure I would win every game. :)

I play mostly spring 42 on GTO, and I love the mechanics of it when compared to revised (also on GTO)
To each his own, if you prefer the old rules then play the old games IMO
But no reason to go about bashing LH for improving the game, with the help of the community
G40.2 is the culmination of years of A&A, and I love it
My only wish is I had more opportunities to play F2F

Uncrusable, you’re the guy who took it to the personal level. You’re also the same guy using GTO as if its the best example of how a game should run. The way you’ve expressed much of your end of the debate was to act as if DK and others are chumps and noobs because the dissagree with you. There are countless others on this board who are excellent players in this game other games, and also happen to be well versed in history. That said they also have admiration but complaints about WOTC and LH. So to act as if anyone who happens to dissagree with you, or your playing style, has no business differing with your opinion, doesn’t constitute an invalid arguement just because it differs from yours.

@Der:

Just as a follow-up we recently played an 11 hour game with five players using 10 IPC classic transports with Global '40 carrying capacity and it played out great - no one missed the chosen last, auto-kill transports at all.�  � Â

DK reported a play test of his house rule his group played. This is in the House Rules Forum don’t see what the big beef was. He house ruled it and it worked for him. I don’t think anyone’s afraid LH is going to change the stats for transports on any new editions of the game.

Cheers DK.

@Craig:

We (playtesters for the AA50) talked him into/worked with him to come up with defenseless transports based on our experiences with other games. �

The main example being this game (the first edition):
http://www.ww2wargame.com/

That game along with Xeno’s Europe/Russia at War have more involved combat systems that allow for air to air combat prior to each round of ground or sea combat. � As such, nuances like naval AA and extra warships (cruisers and destroyers) allow for defenseless transports.

Classic (and even Revised) transports could be said to have escorts (corvettes, destroyer escorts, etc.) that are included in the unit but not big enough to warrant an individual piece at this scale. � That way they have a defensive number but not an offensive number. � Also, the inclusion of two hit battleships and now two hit carriers have shifted the damage taking to warships.

Is it perfect? � No. � But the using of transports as hit takers is a joke. � On the scale of the Classic and Revised games, it is a necessary evil. � Only by giving the map more sea zones can you then bring in more units and start differentiating better between the unit capabilities.� � We were able to start that transition in AA50 because of the expansion of the map.� � And it continued in Global.

Craig, that’s fine. However showing a game that isn’t Axis & Allies but similar doesn’t outright invalidate others opinion. Secondly, totally away from this particular subject discussed in this thread, play testing hasn’t exactly hit the mark of perfection in quite a few releases since revised. I don’t think I need to list all the problems including the latest game 1914 that have come up.

The transport issue wasn’t about absorbing hits. It was about transports having some protection. DK suggested a 10 IPC TRN, costing more than what a DD costs, at a 1 defense only roll. who in thier right mind is going to use a weaker transport that costs more as fodder?

Lastly, I simply pointed out that I leave it up to my play groups as to give a defensive roll to transports or not. My arguement was that at the right cost DDs and TRNs play thier intended role and keeps easy picking air raids to a minimum in some games. This entire thread started as a way to give LIGHT protection to transports while not negating the role of a destroyer as the workhorse of naval engagement. It was also brought up that in several editions of Axis&Allies the destroyer has performed differing roles constantly. This may seem ridculous when it applies to transports to some, but ask those same people what they think about Cruisers. You’ll hardly get a standing ovation for the addition of that unit. MANY HAVE CALLED THOSE GIMMICK. In fact our Liason Imperious Leader has suggested increasing the movement to 3.

So I simply ask WTF is so outlandish about DK’s HOUSE RULE? It’s not going to change anyone else’s game here unless they choose to use it. Why throw venom at those who choose to use it in thier own house games or even thier own tournies?

@Uncrustable:

I would support transports costing 8 IPC and defending at a one.

However i dont think they should be able to be taken as casualties before surface warships/planes/ or subs.

So best of both worlds ;)

I suggest to anyone reading this thread here, to actually read the whole thing. If you ingnore Baron Munchausen’s endless Post-Edit-Post-Edit streams of higher math lessons, and total de-railing of the thread it will all make sense and only go around 3-5 pages tops.