The aberration of the defenseless transport

Hmm.  I have a hard time finding an instance in WWII where a dozen or more transports destroyed 100 or more aircraft (1 Transport vs. 1 Fighter).  Sure, there are examples of transport ramming submarines or killing a few aircraft- but this is a strategic level game not a tactical one.

Escort carriers are part of the Aircraft Carrier unit, not part of Transports/Destroyers etc.

I will say it again- escort ships have been decoupled from transports in the form of destroyers.  It makes you defend your transports!

Instead of having transports rolling at a 1 and unbalancing the game I would get behind the thought of a transport that survives the opening attack to be able to retreat to a nearby sea zone- If there were ten transports undefended (extremely unlikely) attacked by a lone fighter, that fighter (represented by 100 or more actual fighters) would not be able to track down the 100 or more transports and sink them all.

So, with retreating transports the attacker would have to commit more assets to deal some damage…

I see a lot of reactions here that destroyers are overpowered or defending transports will unbalance the naval game. The problem I see is that the current naval game is inherently unbalanced in favor of the attacker.
The submarine, fighter and bomber are all extremely efficient at sinking boats that cost more than they do. Compare this to land units, where the most efficient unit is twice as good at defending as it is at attacking. To add insult to injury, once your expensive warships have been sunk by the cheap attackers, he can then kill your expensive transport fleet for no cost at all.
The remaining airplanes can even be used with decent efficiency in land battles afterwards. Having transports that can defend helps shift this balance back so the defender has a chance again.

I keep saying that escort ships have been decoupled from transports because they have been (otherwise transports would be like classic with a defense).  Destroyers represent small surface action groups ranging from small corvettes to larger destroyers; which is why they cost 8 and have 2 att/2 def.  Most of the UK’s transports in game setup have a destroyer escort.

How many examples of troopships screening larger naval assets anyway?  Or troopships killing 100’s of aircraft or dozens of Submarines?  It is ridiculous  that transports be taken first in battle- they were what the warships were protecting.  Its like putting your supply trucks or transport vehicles on the front line of the battle ‘because they have some light weapons,’ instead of in the rear area of a battle front.  If you have a force of defenseless transports in range of enemy air then you deserve to lose them.

Yes aircraft are efficient units to attack navies.  Guess what? They were powerful units, as evidenced by countless WWII examples of air attacks on naval units.  If a Navy is in a SZ next to an airbase (or better yet have an AC with it), they can use air to defend, which in defense are better than air in attack.

If anything, having to defend your transport fleet forces you to purchase defensive units.  If transports were back to costing 8 and defending at 1, like classic, we’d have navies like classic- 1 or 2 Aircraft Carriers w/fighters, 1 DD, 10+ transports to soak up hits.  How fun is that?  Its not even realistic.  It is better now that you have 3-4 transports that you are protecting, an AC w/Fighters, a CA, and 3-4 DD.

I’m not sure how the naval battles are in favor of the attacker- fighters defend better than they attack, 2 hit units on defense are closer to repair facilities.  I suppose submarines attack better than they defend; but that’s all I see.

Again, I could see a group of transports scattering if they survive the initial attack and thus the defender would lose less of them, but to think that a couple dozen ‘troopships’ could down a couple hundred fighter bombers or a couple dozen destroyers is crazy.  Let’s not even discuss how a transport harms a battleship (as you mentioned).

Regardless of any fiddling with the Transport rules, I certainly wouldn’t raise their price back up above the 8 they started with, since amphibious attacks are already too expensive to do as it is when they cost 7.

OR

Just make it that no matter how many TT you have, you roll a single die @1 in defense each combat round.

I think that would be pretty agreeable for everyone?

How would that be agreeable to everyone? It makes even less sense than the other rules and changes absolutely nothing. I actually liked the idea that a unit could kill only 3 defenseless transports but don’t think it goes nearly far enough and wouldn’t change anything in that form. If each (remaining) unit could auto-kill one defenseless transports before combat ends it would at least solve the problem of a single (or a few) fighters taking out a whole fleet with no risk.

Well there is certainly no chance of Larry making any change in the current rules until some 3rd edition comes out in the far future.

That said, I really like the defenseless transports. What I don’t like is a single bomber coming out of left field that I did not see wipe out 6 unprotected transports.

I good compromise would be simple:

**Transports in a sea zone DO NOT participate in any naval battle. After the battle is concluded, the winner side will sink ONE transport for each remaining combat unit. If any trasports are left after this they must be moved out on their next turn if there are still enemy units in a sea zone.

If attacking un-escorted transports, the attacker can only kill one transport for each attacking unit.**

This means that a single lone trasport or a small group could still get wipped out, but a large fleet of transports could not get completly wipped out unless a large amout of combat units go after it. After all, transports would never really be in the area of a naval battle (even in the same SZ). They would disperse away from the fight, and certainly some would get away.

So for example, Japan strikes at an American task force with 6 transports in it and destroys all the warships and has 3 ships (combat units) left, the US would have 3 transports sunk. On the US turn, these would have to move out of the SZ.

Add any ideas you think off.

Kim

KimRYoung - Doesn’t sound too bad except for the absence of any random result from dice as happens in the rest of the game, which I think adds a lot to the fun.

Then let every remaining combat unit make ONE attack on the transports.

Even when wolfpacks and convoy raiders attacked transport flotillas, they did not kill everything!

Kim

@Gekkepop:

How would that be agreeable to everyone? It makes even less sense than the other rules and changes absolutely nothing. I actually liked the idea that a unit could kill only 3 defenseless transports but don’t think it goes nearly far enough and wouldn’t change anything in that form. If each (remaining) unit could auto-kill one defenseless transports before combat ends it would at least solve the problem of a single (or a few) fighters taking out a whole fleet with no risk.

Lets detail out the concerns:

Side A: TT in bulk create a problem of balance if they defend @1 because those add up and effectively act as screens because they are sinking ships that will no longer be able to attack.

Side B: It is poor form to decide that anything in a dice rolling game is auto destroyed by the mere presence of a hostile offensive unit.

So we give TT a chance to defend themselves, but limit the dice they roll.  It effectively eliminates them as a screening unit because no matter the quantity, they only roll a single die when in combat, at the lowest possible odds to “hit”.  However when left undefended, they are not free kills because there is a risk, albeit small, that they could shoot down a fighter or ram a ship and cause it to sink.

I’d even be willing to go as far as once a hit is scored against the TT (which are always the last remaining naval units), the entire flotilla is lost but they can, as a whole still roll a single die @1 to defend themselves.

@Gekkepop:

The problem I see is that the current naval game is inherently unbalanced in favor of the attacker.

It’s supposed to work like that.

In the naval game, the force that is advancing has to have a defensive fleet.  That seems counter-intuitive, but it’s how it works.
Perfect example - the Allied fleet, when preparing for D-Day or some similar invasion, needs to be able to withstand any sub/air assault from the Axis.  Even though they’re on the attack in this theatre, the Allies must have much more defensive punch than offensive.
This is how the game is supposed to be.  It’s pretty much perfect as is, as far as unit cost and power goes.
Defense - Destroyers + Carriers - is pricier than an equivalent offense - Subs + Air power.
This way, America and Britain have to spend more than Germany does in order to make any sort of invasion happen.  In other terms, Germany’s position is more cost-efficient…in the same way that Germany must outspend Russia in order to make a successful attack on the ground.  I think we agree that this is how it should be.
I think.  :lol:

What a GREAT thread!!!

I agree with both sides to a certain extent.

I personally have never liked that transports don’t defend.  Maybe cause at least once per game I leave some unescorted transports and fail to see the ONE unit that can get there to wipe them all out with no consequence.

I also think that if they all defended a 1, it could get a little lopsided.  That is one thing that I did not like about revised.  Like it has been mentioned many times the attacking navy had very little capital ships and a bunch of TT’s to take the hits.

Has anyone even tried to play the game with the old transport rules?  For the most part I think it would be pretty easy to tell if it skews the game so badly that it is not fun for one side.  I bet you wouldn’t even have to finish one game in order to tell.

I like the idea by BJCard of them being able to retreat after taking a round of fire, if they are unescorted, and taking one round of fire after all other warships/airforce have been eliminated.  That would effectively take away the one bomber that could get to 5 TT’s and wiping them out without taking any fire.  You could only lose 1 at the most with that attack.

My reason of disagreement: the risk of unbalancing the game in favor of Allies.

I think it is pretty clear with all the bids going on for the allies that it already favors the axis.  Lots of people have talked about trying to keep it as historical as possible.  If thats the case, wouldn’t you want the Allies to be favored since we won the war?

When the axis are able to even out the economic battle then it is impossible for the allies.

EX.  US inf and art to attack in Europe.  7 ipcs, TT to get them there 7 ipcs.  However many ships to protect the transport, lets just say 1 DD for the sake of argument, 8 ipcs.  22ipcs total and 2 turns.

Germany to defend that attack evenly.  2 inf.  6 ipcs.  1 turn.

Might make it so that people actually want to be the allies instead of taking a bid in order to HAVE to play the allies.

@Spendo02:

@Gekkepop:

How would that be agreeable to everyone? It makes even less sense than the other rules and changes absolutely nothing. I actually liked the idea that a unit could kill only 3 defenseless transports but don’t think it goes nearly far enough and wouldn’t change anything in that form. If each (remaining) unit could auto-kill one defenseless transports before combat ends it would at least solve the problem of a single (or a few) fighters taking out a whole fleet with no risk.

Lets detail out the concerns:

Side A: TT in bulk create a problem of balance if they defend @1 because those add up and effectively act as screens because they are sinking ships that will no longer be able to attack.

Side B: It is poor form to decide that anything in a dice rolling game is auto destroyed by the mere presence of a hostile offensive unit.

So we give TT a chance to defend themselves, but limit the dice they roll.  It effectively eliminates them as a screening unit because no matter the quantity, they only roll a single die when in combat, at the lowest possible odds to “hit”.  However when left undefended, they are not free kills because there is a risk, albeit small, that they could shoot down a fighter or ram a ship and cause it to sink.

I’d even be willing to go as far as once a hit is scored against the TT (which are always the last remaining naval units), the entire flotilla is lost but they can, as a whole still roll a single die @1 to defend themselves.

I will try to summarize:
Many agree about the rule: TPs are chosen last.
Few agrees about defender choosing casuality.

TPa (OOB 1940) @0 C7 no hit value.
TPb (classic)      @1 C8   1 hit value.
TPc Spendo02   @1 C7 as a group of 1 or more / 1 hit value as a group.
TPd Spendo02    @1 C7 as a group of 1 or more / 1 hit value.
TPe Baron         @1 C7 as a group of 2 or more / 1 hit value. 1 TP alone is TPa.
TPf Baron  as a rregular AA1@1 C8 1 hit value, @0 against any warships.
TPg Baron    @1 C9 as 1 upgraded unit made of TPa C7+Escort Frigates C2=1 hit.
TPh DerK, TPb   @1 C10 1 hit value.

Some are able to flee:
A) Every attacking unit automatic-kill 3 units. Flee after 1 round.
B) Every attacking unit automatic-kill 1 unit.   Flee after 1 round.
C) Every attacking unit must roll twice.           Flee after 1 round.
D) Each attacking unit rolls once.                   Flee after 1 round.
E) Every naval unit rolls twice but TPs are able to flee after 1 round.
   Every aircraft unit must roll once/round but TP is unable to flee.
   (Until one side or either side is destroyed.)

Some defend on:
I) the very first round of the naval battle against protecting warships.
II) the first round after all protecting warships are destroyed.

I explain TP+E:
It was the version developped by Philip Schwartzer from Gamers Paradise.

Transports without escort can withdraw and flee against any naval unit after 1 round receiving 2 rolls@4/ships (Subs & BB) or 1 roll @1 @2 or @3/ship (CV, DD, CA).
Transports cannot flee against aircrafts but each TP got 1@1 against them.

If that’s the case, wouldn’t you want the Allies to be favored since we won the war?

What you mean “We” round eye?

Kim

DK I think even with all the discussion that has gone on in this thread (excellent topic and discussion) I believe your point has been well made for a 10 IPC transport with a defense of 1 is and was the best approach all along. These game stats fit the bill. Anyone stacking ten buck transports would be a fool and a defenseless-transport gravy-train is averted.

You won my vote sir.

What you mean “We” round eye?

Good point.  My sincere apologies!  Very bad assumption on my part.  Could do without the name calling cause I meant nothing derogatory by that.  Should have said the allies won.

@toblerone77:

DK I think even with all the discussion that has gone on in this thread (excellent topic and discussion) I believe your point has been well made for a 10 IPC transport with a defense of 1 is and was the best approach all along. These game stats fit the bill. Anyone stacking ten buck transports would be a fool and a defenseless-transport gravy-train is averted.

You won my vote sir.

I will reply this, the solution may create another problem for Allies:

@Eggman:

Regardless of any fiddling with the Transport rules, I certainly wouldn’t raise their price back up above the 8 they started with, since amphibious attacks are already too expensive to do as it is when they cost 7.

Ten IPCs is still cheaper than the DD/TT combo that is essentially required to transport anything via the sea and not have it blown out of the water by air or subs by default.

@Der:

Yeah! Glad to see I’m not alone in the pro-classic transport camp.

The classic transport:

• Represents a TROOPSHIP - not a supply ship.
• Blends nicely with one of the maxims of the game “defender chooses his own casualties”
• Makes learning the game easier - less “special” rules
• Keeps the element of chance involved, thus more suspense = more fun
• Keeps battle command decisions in your hands - not the rules

The Global transport:

• is auto-slaughtered in large groups if alone
• removes some of your battle command power - you HAVE to choose transports last
• Does not fit with the general game rules - it is like an orange thrown into a barrel of apples

Only the transport can move land units across water. They will have to be bought no matter what they cost. that’s why I’m in favor of a classic transport costing 10 IPCs. It would fit nicely in the naval price scale (ss-6, dd-8, tp-10, ca-12, cv-14).

The 10 IPCs is very appealing because it fits in.
But why reject the 9 IPCs?
It also fit in: their is no unit at 9 IPCs.
Fighters already cost 10 IPCs. TacB cost 11 IPCs.
Which can be part of a fleet on CV.
It still over the price of a DD 8 IPCs.

When both UK/USA and Germany lose one unit its means usually trading a 10 IPCs fighter for something else :
now, it could be a TP D@1 10 IPCs to preserve DD@2 and ASW at 8 IPCs.
It means a draw between Allies against Germany, at 9 IPCs Axis is minus 1.

I assume that you prefer the “defender choose casualty” rule.