Posts made by baron Münchhausen

@ Uncrustable
You probably mean why not the other option from Krieghund:
10 TTs alone are worthless and auto-kill.

Is it?

@zanetheinsane:

I would hate to imagine a Germany that bought 10 transports and did Sealion and now you’re facing a fleet of transports that are all rolling on defense. :roll:

That’s mean 5 hit to sink them all and you got all preemptive strike.
5 Fgts can probably do the job…

Very low luck:
R1) 5Fg@3= 15, 2 hits + 3/6         10TTs-4= 6TTs@1= 1 hit
R2) 4Fg@3= 12, 2 hits                    6TTs-4= 2TTs@1= 2/6
R3) 4Fg@3= 12, 2 hits                2TTs-4= 0TTs@1=0
Lost: 10 IPCs                             70 IPCs

Actually, as you can see 4Fgts or even 3Fgts can be OK.

@Baron:

Many discuss the historical plausibility of TT Def@1 or not. And the nature of 1 unit.
I think their is in either way acceptable rationalization. The main focus should be on game mechanism and rules if we want to find out a better rules with TT with the less drawback.

Der Kunstler option, is like making wishful thinking when he hopes than in a tactical calculation (and trying to survive against an overwhelming attackers) someone would prefer to loose a Fg@4 at 10 IPCs before loosing 10 IPCs TTs@1 just to not recreate transport screening battle. Impossible.

The defender will probably still use TTs has screen.

In the 2 TTs for 1@1 and 1 hit, you see that there is only 3 hits to soak by TTs and it is much less unbalancing against Subs (and nearer the TTn0 version of Taken last.)

I’m still thinking under the assumption that we are making adjustment to the actual game, not creating a new one like changing placement of starting units for an other historical period (ex.:1939). Because, in this case, DK’s option is viable for the lover of Classics.

For me, I want the best of both world:
No Warships always protect TTs neither It is almost always preferable to screen my Warships with TTs.
I will always prefer a defender choose casualities over the Taken last rule.
But the game was balance under this last rule and must still be taken in account.

@Baron:

Do you disagree with the principles: defender chooses casualties or, more generally, each player picks is own casualties?
The Transport are taken last rule broke this principle.

I think that is the consequence of the first principle in the Naval battles with TT that most people hate.

For my part, I don’t like either that Warships always protect transport. Historically, I’m sure that on some occasions some TTs were destroyed first. For instance, if the battle of Leyte gulf was made according to Japanese, they would have lured warships away and destroy TTs before retreating. They would have keep their warships for later battles. The plan was to gain time and destroying invasive capacity of the attacker. For them, it was the best way to delay USA.

To keep the core principles of A&A system, we need to find incentive in which defender will find a bit foolish to pick TT before warships. So anybody can hit first TTs then warships but doesn’t see great tactical advantage in it.
You already get into it when you suggested: need 2 TTs to get 1 unit able to @1 and take 1 hit.

Now I have another incentive:
When TT are mixed with warships they don’t get any @1.
It is only when their is no more warship with them that each unit can get 1@1 on defense.
But in any situation a TT worth 1 casualties.
So in a this way any defender will lose some chances to make more hit by picking them first over warships.
Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to six hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2.
Or after 2 hits, can now got 6TTs def@1 and 6 hits.

You see now that it can simulate the warships screening even under the defender choose casualties.

Of course, we can combine with your idea to get it tactically less interesting:
1 TT is @0 and Auto-kill. 2TTs is 1@1 and worth 1 hit. But when in any warships group they loose the @1.
However, defender can still decide to loose first TTs then loose warships.
And, according to my addition, if defender has only 3TTs amongst warship and prefer to pick TTs as casualty, he must destroy all the three TTs in 1 shot (a 21 IPCs hit for the attacker!) It hurts just to soak 1 hit!
But it is still defender’s choice.

Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to 3 hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2 but every hit cost him 14 IPCs vs 8 IPCs for 1 DDs.
Or after 2 hits, can still have 6TTs for 3def@1 and 3 hits.

All in all, the real ennemy of Defenseless TT his :

very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs.

Under the defender choose his casualties, these are rules in which I create the most incentive to keep transport as last casualties without using an automatic obligation rule like “TT are taken last”.
I also try to apply only actual game mechanics develop for different units to create this specific mechanic for TTs.
Subs as special ability, TTs have similar ones.

First, TT are not warship and are less armoured and slower than any units able to combat in a sea-zone,
1 single hit from a combat unit destroy 2 transport units. This imply that to soak 1 hit, you must have 2 TTs.
If 1 TT is choose as casualty and there is also a combat unit present, then you must also destroy this combat unit.

2- All TTs defend @1 against any unit, but they cannot defend (@1) as long as their is 1 warship unit defending them in the sea-zone.

3- When TTs are directly attack by any combat unit, this attack is a treated as a First strike, it is preemptive so if a hit is score, 2 TTs are sunk and unable to use their defense @1.

4- TTs can escape (but it is not mandatory), like a submerge ability, by “Scattering” in the same sea-zone.
It is possible under 3 conditions:
a) there is no combat unit able to defend them (like only subs against TTs and Fgs)
b) they endure at least 1 round of enemy’s direct fire on them.
c) there is no aircraft still attacking TTs, aircraft blocks TTs escape (like DDs blocking submerge for Subs).

Well, that’s it. Defender can still now decides to pick transports as first casualties.
But, if their is only one TT, it is a tactical mistake, because loosing 1 TT and 1 combat unit instead of only 1 combat unit, the choice is obvious.

If their is 2 or more TTs, it can be interesting to pick two TTs (but the cost is higher: 2 TTsx7= 14 IPCs) to prevent one warship with higher defense to sink. But it also means that he loose 2 Def@1.

And last, because of the escape possibility, he must evaluate where are is better chance of survival: for the warships or his group of transports submitting to only one round of fire from the surviving attacker’s unit ?

Do you see now, there is much more tactical decision to make for the defender (TT are cannon fodder or they should be preserve at all cost by combat units),
there is no more rules like automatic destruction of defenseless transport and “Taken last rules”.

Example: 7 subs against 1DD 2Fg 1CV 6 TTs.

Under Taken last, it requires 3 hits from sub to destroy the entire fleet.
Now it can take 3 hit soaked by (3 pairs of) TTs + 3 hits to destroy the entire fleet.

It can also be 3 hits, then giving 6 TTs 6@1(or less depending on the how many subs got a hit) against surviving Subs then possible escape.

In the special case, when more hits are taken than warships can take, then the surviving TTs are allowed to fire back, counting it as in the same round.

It is a balance and half-way solution between the Classic, which give to much units for the defender to serve as cannon fodder and change the balance between units (specialy against subs) and the New TT rule which imply automatic and boring destruction of many TTs even if there is only one attacking survivor to destroy them all.

I hope you will take the time to think about it…

@toblerone77:

ASW is fine with or without planes. You’re right that escorting convoys was thier original role. However as the war progressed thier role as a carrier became more important because the Essex class carriers took a long time to build and were far more expensive. The US needed the Casblanca because it was going to take until 1944 to get the Essex class carriers fully produced to needed force requirement.

Casablanca-class carrier was more a slow merchant ship escort.
Actually, I was more thinking about an Independence class aircraft-carrier.
A light aircraft carrier, faster than Casablanca class able to follow a warships fleet.
That’s why I prefer A1D1C10 in 1942 (even A1D2C12 for simplicity about Attack and defense value of aircraft carrier)
but, since fleet carrier CV A0D2C16 2 hits in Global, it becomes A0D1C9-10 1 hit ASW and carry 1 Fg

@Baron:

@americancyco:

Ok I’m liking this but here is something I noticed

ok so lets say the sub takes out the escort then the fighter/ tac bomber will no longer be able to attack or land (ouch).

If the escort doesn’t have a fighter it still wont be able to attack the sub (if it’s on it’s own)

The CVE can still choose to retreat.
That’s why, I prefer the 1942 version, it keeps a little attacking value  @1:
In 1942.2 can be **CVE A1D1M2C10 carry 1 Fg and has ASW   ** vs CV A1D2M2C14 carry 2 Fgs.

The real value of a CVE is still as an escort carrier. This means protecting the bigger ships.
It give the option between CVE and DD for defense against Subs.
In itself @1 vs @2 it is not that good, but if you had a Fg Def@4,
it can fit naturally beside a Fleet Carrier without adding another DD to block the Subs preemptive strike.

If you compare, 1DD@2+ 1 Cruise@3= 20 IPCs Att5/Def5.
On defense, CVE@1+Fg@4 get the same Def5 for the same 20 IPCs but Att 3-4 depending of CVEA0-1.
So this unit really become an escort unit (not that good on offense), and not just another mini-carrier.

@americancyco:

Ok I’m liking this but here is something I noticed

ok so lets say the sub takes out the escort then the fighter/ tac bomber will no longer be able to attack or land (ouch).

If the escort doesn’t have a fighter it still wont be able to attack the sub (if it’s on it’s own)

The CVE can still choose to retreat.
That’s why, I prefer the 1942 version, it keeps a little attacking value � @1:
In 1942.2 can be CVE A1D1M2C9-10, 1 hit, carry 1 Fg and has ASW � � vs CV A1D2M2C14, 1 hit, carry 2 Fgs.

But in either way, a sub cannot hit the aircraft so it is the CVE that will sink.
That happen during WWII. Subs torpedo escort carriers.

It is part of the fun, for almost the same price (16 IPCs) you got 2 DDs, Att4Def4.
They will be better but they cannot help in amphibious battle vs CVE+Fg, Att3-4 Def5.
The CVE is a versatile unit but is neither better than DD neither than a CV.
But able to do both jobs in his limited ways.

@knp7765:

ASW is a cool idea. Never thought of giving a carrier ASW.
I think A 0, D 1, M 2, C 9 , 1 hit, carry 1 plane are excellent values for this unit.
With that in mind, say you have 1 CVE with 1 fighter on board. You see an enemy sub in range so you decide to attack it. In your combat move, you would move both the CVE and the fighter. While the CVE has no attack value, **it’s ASW ability allows the fighter to attack the sub (where as if the fighter went by itself, it couldn’t target the sub).**This kind of attack could be potentially costly to you. While you have decent odds of hitting the sub with your fighter @ 3, and the sub’s weak defense of 1 makes you mostly safe, whether you hit the sub or not, it could get that lucky 1 and sink your CVE costing you a 9 IPC unit to kill a 6 IPC unit. What’s more is now the fighter has to find a place to land with it’s remaining moves. If it can’t, you also lose the fighter. So, it just cost you 19 IPCs to kill the enemy’s 6 IPCs.
With that in mind, would any of you attack a lone sub with a CVE and fighter?

By the way, I am assuming we would give these same values to the Seyditz class Light Aircraft Carrier in the German Set, right?

ASW with the CVE also works like a DD (for simplicity) but at lower odds.
However it means you can bring more aircrafts from other carriers (fleet or escort or even airbase) to accomplish Anti Sub Mission.
Once the CVE is hit and there is no other ASW like a DD, then aircraft can no more attack the subs.
A0D1M2C10 seems to me a more balance unit.
Loosing a plane or a CVE will cost the same when taken has a casualities, so their is more chance that CVE will be the casualities. And that is historically accurate, more of them were destroyed than Fleet Carrier (CV).

@toblerone77:

ASW is probably fine with just a fighter or none at all. I’m not looking to make another destroyer in my game. My primary desire with this is a cheap alternative to fleet carriers no matter which edition we’re talking about. You could give it general ASW abilities but they don’t necessarily need to be overly strong. Cancelling sub advantages in general would be fine in and of itself.

This unit you are looking for can be a A0D0M1C8 and carry one unit. That’s all.
But this kind of unit was a converted cargo ship with ASW on board and a small flight of aircraft to protect merchant marine’s ship against subs.
Thus wasn’t made to protect warships.

Making a half aircraft carrier could be as you said A0D1M2C9 but I think it is a more versatile and interesting unit if you give both capacity: ASW and carry 1 aircraft. They really had both roles during WWII.

In 1942.2 can be **CVE A1D1M2C9-10, 1 hit carry 1 Fg and has ASW  ** vs CV A1D2M2C14 1 hit, carry 2 Fgs.
CVE under 9 IPCs, it is too cheap vs CV 14 IPCs.

@toblerone77:

I’m thinking more like “cheap carrier”. One IPC (9 total) over the half price of a regular fleet carrier, otherwise you may as well just buy a fleet carrier. As far as ASW I’m thinking that it should have destroyer-like abilities only when paired with a tactical bomber.

So if we stay in Global,
CVE : A0D1C9, 1 hit, carry1 plane, become ASW when paired with a TacB.
vs
CV A0D2C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes.

And from an historical point of view,
are you sure Fg have no attack capabilities against Subs, even non-submerge one?
I find this more simple to give ASW to the CVE, whether Fg or Tac inboard.
Besides, it is a less powerful ASW than DD because it has only @1. Their real strentgh still lies in the plane.

@toblerone77:

So what are people’s thoughts on implementing the light carriers from HBG into the D6 mechanics of A&A?

I’m thinking A0 D1 M2 C9 carries one fighter or tactical bomber. Same rules as fleet carrier apply except capacity and absorbs only one hit.� �

They were used as escort and protection ship. They should be AntiSubWeap and 10 IPCs. A1D1M2
Or A1D2M2 12 IPCs Under 1942. For Global A0D1M2C10 ASW. So the only fighter can do patrol mission against Sub.
And it would make more sense to match them with Fleet Carrier for protecting them.

Discussion open on the ASW…

@Uncrustable:

I would argue that a bomber would have time to get airborne, however at a severely reduced capacity.

A bomber is a combat unit, a transport is not a combat unit (it is simply there to TRANSPORT). Please stop comparing apples to oranges to prove points.

I for one, (don’t care if i’m the only one) hated classic transport rules. The naval system was stale and pungent. Naval buys (other than transports) were very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs. How stupid.

The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

I would be happy to add a ‘frigate’ unit to the game that cost 4 IPCs A/D at 1/1, movement of 1 (+1 movement when paired with transports 1:1). Would make a great transport escort. But it still would be a COMBAT unit transporting a NONcombat unit.

Many discuss the historical plausibility of TT Def@1 or not. And the nature of 1 unit.
I think their is in either way acceptable rationalization. The main focus should be on game mechanism and rules if we want to find out a better rules with TT with the less drawback.

Der Kunstler option, is like making wishfull thinking when he hopes than in a tactical calculation (and trying to survive against an overwhelming attackers) someone would prefer to loose a Fg@4 at 10 IPCs before loosing 10 IPCs TTs@1 just to not recreat transport screening battle. Impossible.

Example: 1CV 2Fgs 1DDs and 6TTs vs 7 Subs
In this case, even the DD (8 IPCs) will be preserve to let the Fgs destroying Subs.

In the Taken last, it take only 3 hits from the Subs to destroy all the defender’s fleet.

With DK’s, it requires 9 hits and 6 will be defending @1!
First TTs will be sink, then either DD or CV depending on the number of surviving Subs.

With this example, do you see that the transport screening still effective and the impact on naval battle and (the impact on Germany, not worth the mention).

That’s why other option for “Defender choose casualities” must be find out and promote.

Even my last post solution, isn’t that good but has some advantages.

The defender will probably still use TTs has screen.
However, the subs won’t be attacked by numerous @1 defense unless the attacker decides to sink first DD and CV, then the 6 TT@1 will be against the surviving Subs.
But, I think the best tactical option will be to keep DDs because of the 2Fg@4 and soak hits with TTs then CV.

In the 2 TTs for 1@1 and 1 hit, you see that there is only 3 hits to soak by TTs and it is much less unbalancing against Subs (and nearer the TTn0 version of Taken last.)

I’m still thinking under the assumption that we are making adjustment to the actual game, not creating a new one like changing placement of starting units for an other historical period (ex.:1939). Because, in this case, DK’s option is viable for the lover of Classics.

For me, I want the best of both world:
No Warships always protect TTs neither It is almost always preferable to screen my Warships with TTs.
I will always prefer a defender choose casualities over the Taken last rule.
But the game was balance under this last rule and must still be taken in account.

@Uncrustable:

I would argue that a bomber would have time to get airborne, however at a severely reduced capacity.

A bomber is a combat unit, a transport is not a combat unit (it is simply there to TRANSPORT). Please stop comparing apples to oranges to prove points.

I for one, (don’t care if i’m the only one) hated classic transport rules. The naval system was stale and pungent. Naval buys (other than transports) were very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs. How stupid.

The new transport rules have greatly improved the game.

I would be happy to add a ‘frigate’ unit to the game that cost 4 IPCs A/D at 1/1, movement of 1 (+1 movement when paired with transports 1:1). Would make a great transport escort. But it still would be a COMBAT unit transporting a NONcombat unit.

Do you disagree with the principles: defender chooses casualities or, more generally, each player picks is own casualities?
The Transport are taken last rule broke this principle.

I think that is the consequence of the first principle in the Naval battles with TT that most people hate.

For my part, I don’t like either that Warships always protect transport. Historically, I’m sure that on some occasions some TTs were destroyed first. For instance, if the battle of Leyte gulf was made according to Japanese, they would have lured warships away and destroy TTs before retreating. They would have keep their warships for later battles. The plan was to gain time and destroying invasive capacity of the attacker. For them, it was the best way to delay USA.

To keep the core principles of A&A system, we need to find incentive in which defender will find a bit foolish to pick TT before warships. So anybody can hit first TTs then warships but doesn’t see great tactical advantage in it.
You already get into it when you suggested: need 2 TTs to get 1 unit able to @1 and take 1 hit.

Now I have another incentive:
When TT are mixed with warships they don’t get any @1.
It is only when their is no more warship with them that each unit can get 1@1 on defense.
But in any situation a TT worth 1 casualities.
So in a this way any defender will lose some chances to make more hit by picking them first over warships.
Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to six hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2.
Or after 2 hits, can now got 6TTs def@1 and 6 hits.

You see now that it can simulate the warships screening even under the defender choose casualities.

Of course, we can combine with your idea to get it tacticaly less interresting:
1 TT is @0 and Auto-kill. 2TTs is 1@1 and worth 1 hit. But when in any warships group they loose the @1.
However, defender can still decide to loose first TTs then loose warships.
And, according to my addition, if defender has only 3TTs amongst warship and prefer to pick TTs as casuality, he must destroy all the three TTs in 1 shot (a 21 IPCs hit for the attacker!) It hurts just to soak 1 hit!
But it is still defender’s choice.

Example: 2DDs and 6TTs are attacked.
The defender has the choice to soak up to 3 hits to keep the defense of 2DDs@2 but every hit cost him 14 IPCs vs 8 IPCs for 1 DDs.
Or after 2 hits, can still have 6TTs for 3def@1 and 3 hits.

All in all, the real ennemy of Defenseless TT his :

very rare and naval battles (the few of them there were) were mostly transport fodder trade offs.

@Der:

Global Transport - All battles are resolved by picking up the dead transports and dropping them back in your tray. Results are pre-decided and a bore.

@Baron:

1- Increase TTc cost because it is a more usefull unit than TTn. So loosing a higher IPCs TT unit vs cheaper (DD and Subs) seems a bad choice.
However, this cost affects directly all amphibious strategies: higher prices mean less transports or lack of Inf to move on board.

Not really, as I favor keeping the extra transport capacity of the Global unit. Plus the classic unit defending @1 will mean it will have to be replaced less often. So the extra cost should be negligible.

Very funny analogy. :-D
Did you played Global once both Classic and Chosen last? I’m curious.
Does this really have no impact on overall game (dis-)balance [some would say] when TT are at 8 IPCs?
The same strategic moves even if battle outcomes vary and the number of TTs available is different?
Will it be different?
TT won’t be used in large masse as naval cannon fodder, just to get sea domination?

Global Transport - All battles are resolved by picking up the dead transports and dropping them back in your tray. Results are pre-decided and a bore.

Predictable results is what we want disappear: many will agree on this.

However, their is two means to escape from defenseless transport.

After that, even a no more defenseless transport didn’t solve the other issue.

I will try to summarize the options for the New or No casuality transport (TTn) presented in this tread.

TTn0 (OOB 1940) @0 C7, no hit value.
Optional rule for Transport develop upon this first base rule:
Transports are chosen last.

These options are ordered upon the nearest from TTn0 (100% casualities & no defense, no hit value) to the farthest (1 regular attack/unit @1 to @4 & TT Def@1 vs specific unit, 1 hit value/TT).

TTn0.5 Krieghund @0 C7, 1 hit value. Transport unit can be chosen as casualty when TPs number is above number of combat units.

TTn1 Knp7765/BJCard/KimRYoung/Gekkepop @0, no hit value but max: 3, 2 or 1 TT per attacking unit is destroyed. (All auto-kills.) Can escape.

TTn2 Baron [Cow] A0D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill. Variation: Each attacker’s unit destroy 1TT instead of rolling D, if TTs hit all of them.

TTn3 Cow A1D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive on defense, if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill. Historical background: Attack Cargo Ships, or AKA (KimRYoung)

TTn4 Cow/Uncrustable 1AA@1, no hit value, treat as 1AAA preemptive shot per TT. No escape, auto-kill.

TTn5 Admirable Admiral @0, no hit value. @1/TT against aircrafts only for 1 round, if any warships: auto-kill. No escape.

TTn6 KimRYoung/Toblerone77 @0, 1 hit value each, no defense. Can escape.

TTn7 Spendo02 1@1 as a group of 1+, 1 hit value as a group. No escape.

TTn8 Baron Mun 1@1 as a group of 2+, 1 hit value each. 1 TT alone is @0. No escape.

TTn9 Spendo02 1@1 as a group of 1+, 1 hit value each. No escape.

TTn10 Elevenjerk 1@1 as a group of 1+, 1 hit value each. Must flee after 1st rnd.

TTn11 Uncrustable @1 for 2 TTs, 1 hit value for 2 TTs. Last single TT: autokill, no hit value. No escape.

TTn12 Baron Mun @1 for 2 TTs, 1 hit value each. 1 TT alone is @0. Attacker: 2D or 3D/ attacking unit. No auto-kill: can escape.

TTn13 Baron Mun @0, 1 hit value each. Low defense fire: each TT is @1D but 2 hits @“1” to kill 1 attacking unit. No auto-kill: can escape.

TTn14 (Philip Schwartzer & Gamers Paradise) @0, 1 hit value, @1/TT against aircrafts only. No escape against aircrafts until downed, or escape if only warships are present. Attacker: 2D/ attacking units. No auto-kill.

TTn15 Uncrustable/Spendo02/Toblerone77/Gargantua @1, 1 hit value each, cost 8. No escape. Classic TT taken last.

TTn16 Cow @1, 1 hit value each, cost 7. Can escape… (…instead of rolling D, Gargantua 7+1 IPCs).

TTn17 Uncrustable @1, 1 hit value each, against Aircrafts and Destroyers. Auto-kill vs other warships. No escape.

When escape is possible, it is either:
Escape 1: take the form of “Scattering” in the same sea-zone.
Escape 2: take the form of “Fleeing” in the next sea-zone (if not ennemy’s control).

I tried to be genuine but if you see any mistake:
Send a message or simply write a post (it could be erase after correction made.)

I can let you a question for the sake of the discussion:

According to you, which TTn seems able to be a somewhat less defenseless TT and to keep better the balance, no matter how imbalance are the initial settings?

Which one will increase risk, decision making, fun without affecting other important aspect of the game?

Since the beginning a lot of creative suggestions have been made.
I feel it is the time to summarize all of these. The present post regroup all Pro-Classics, the next one shows the numerous possibility (and creativity of everyone) for a better Transport and less defenseless based on the new OOB rules.

I will try to summarize the Pro-classic transport (TTc) options presented in this tread.
(I bold the differences.)

Optional rule for Transport develop upon this first base rule:
Defender choosing casuality.

TTc1 (Classic/Com. Jen./Der Kuenstler) @1 C8-9-10, 1 hit value each. No escape.

TTc2 Baron M/Toblerone77 @1 C9-10 (as 1 upgraded unit near IC, NB made of OOB Global TT@0 C7+Escort Frigates/Corvettes C2/3 Coupled EF/ ECorvette to transport A0D+1 at time of purchase.) 1 hit value each.  No escape. Both TT C7 & TT+EF/EC C9-10 can be built.

TTc3 Uncrustable @0 C7 no hit value for a lone TT, 2 TTs 1@1, 1 hit value for 2 TTs. No escape. Last single TT: autokill.

TTc4 Baron M @0 C7, 1 hit value for single TT and 2-3 TTs 1@1, 4-5 TTs 2@1, 2 hits value (2 groups: 2TTs, 1@1/2-3TTs, 1@1). No escape.

TTc5 Spendo02 @1 C7 as a group of 1 or more TTs, 1 hit value as a group. No escape.

I think I put them in decreasing order of impact, the first will have much more and the fifth will be the nearest from the OOB 1940 Global Transport.

I cannot hide I have a taste for TTc3&4 because of their middle position (which take account of proportionnality vs TTc5 and keeping the initial balance of OOB 1940 vs TTc1-2 but still trying to come back to the classic rules for TT).

Maybe you have another evaluation about those five?

If you have to try one of those, what will be your expectations?

@Cow:

Japan used subs as transports… those things attacked!

No need to push forward. AKA was enough for me.
Even though 1 Subs doesn’t embark as many troops than AKA, think now of 50.

We need to stay at a global level, individual prowess and heroism can’t be use in A&A as a reference for building unit rules and specs.

However, I find it a dangerous game braker, if you bring many TTs with a substantial fleet.
1BB 1CV 2Fg 2DD 6TT.
It means many 6@1 (at least 2, even 3 rounds) until all the 8 hits are taken against warships.

And even after, you have the right as an attacker to retreat to another sea-zone (OOB rules), so no need to loose all TT in this assault.

@Der:

Every “special rule” you come up with only further complicates the game.
ou just do this, guys - you make transports the way they were for 24 years.

In 2004 before all of this tinkering with the rules Larry Harris said on his site "Transports work well and always have."� �

Transports defended @1 because they were assumed to be escorted.
Now there are DDs in the game that defend @2.

However, there were still many types of escorts that took part in WWII protecting transports that were not as good as DDs but still offered some protection. There were Merchant aircraft carriers, Catapult Aircraft Merchantmen, Armed merchant cruisers, Corvettes, Frigates, and Escort Carriers. These can be represented by making the transports defend @1 as they used to. This is 1/2 the strength of a DD escort.

Stop the reminiscing “when we used to play back in the 80’s, blah blah” - it won’t work that way anymore - now BBs take 2 hits, subs cost 6 IPCs, and DDs are a purchase option. You bump the classic transport up to 10 IPCs and call it a troopship, which is what it is anyway. Nobody is going to be fool enough to use them as fodder anymore.

And best of all: no special rules. They fit in nicely with the rules already in place. Plug them in and just play.� � �

Now that I have done my part for finding a no defenseless OOB TTn, I will throw some mud in the fan against this hypnotical soothing call: “Come to the dark side… and revert back to classics trannies.” :wink:

1- A direct reverting from OOB TTn to TTc (no change in cost: 7 IPCs stay the same.)
will have great effect on the game. Maybe someone will try it and will tell us what happen. I hope.

For sure, the screening or cannon fodder effect will take a part. Not as important it was in classical version of A&A but, nonetheless, any player seeing that the odds of survival will be against his/her defensive fleet, will do anything to protect is @3-4 units just expecting making maximum wreckrage before loosing all.

2- If you agree, then rise the question: so what? If you like the changes of balance it creates in OOB Global. Fine. If you prefer to keep OOB balance, that is the problem.

3- Now also rise a question of personnal taste: do you prefer transport which transports (quoting but who?) and warship which makes war, battle and escort?

4- If this is the case, as it seems for many TTn likers criticizing transport screening, you will need some incentive which modify the unit and the rule so their will be no great reward in picking TT instead of warships as casualities. Hence, willingly creating similar combat dynamics as the OOB Global.

5- What can be these adjustments?
For now, 2 ways have been develop:

1- Increase TTc cost because it is a more usefull unit than TTn. So loosing a higher IPCs TT unit vs cheaper (DD and Subs) seems a bad choice.
However, this cost affects directly all amphibious strategies: higher prices mean less transports or lack of Inf to move on board.

2- Minimize the usefullness of TT as cannon fodder in battle. That’s Uncrustable idea, Spendo02 and I followed. Their is also 2 ways: a) the number of casuality a hit make and b) the number of Def@1 each unit can do.

(3- The third way will be a combination of both.)

I think it increases the tactical fun when a player can choose himself is own casuality.

Actually, the dilemma is more:
whether loosing a future useful transport unit but protecting higher defensive unit and making a higher rate of damage on ennemy , because fearing the defeat  vs whether loosing immediate defending unit, because of higher hope of victory, for the sake of future.

This tactical dilemma should be increase: loosing  a future valuable TT and expensive unit vs loosing a cheaper but immediatly valuable defending unit.

Here is the interest of Uncrustable principle “2TTs are required to have 1 whole combat unit Def@1”:
You can buy the same number of TT (7 IPCs) and have no effect on moving troops around the globe but TT becomes less usefull as a combat fodder unit and it will be at a higher price than 9-10 IPCs since 2x7=14 IPCs (more than a cruiser but far less effective combat unit).

In essence, 1 hit killing 2 transports reflect the much higher combat value of other unit vs TT.
Bomber (12 IPCs) unit @4 has not just a ridiculous 4 times killing ratio! than TT@1 (7 to 10 IPCs), it has at least similar destructive effect (14 IPCs).

This will increase the caring for TTs but will generate a higher price to pay for the player in order to let them be fodder to obtain more firing rounds by protecting @3-4 warships and aircrafts.

Where is the balance, I think it has still to be tuned.

That is what I think:
the simplest (no difference between casuality units (Fg vs Sb or BB) from TT fire),
no more defenseless in mimicking the classic TT defensive roll for 1 round (1 single @1/TT)
and nearer the OOB TT (Roll to destroy TT if no attacker’s unit survive, if any attacker survive then auto-kill):

TTn2 Baron [Cow] A0D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill.

Don’t you think?

@KimRYoung:

Garg had it right that transports used to be used as ablative armor for the fleet.
This is why Larry changed the rules. Any concept that the TT has intrinsic support vessels went out with the addition of cruisers and destroyers. Protecting transports is part of their responsibility.

This debate really needs to go one of two directions: 1. a House Rule that would at least have popular use, or 2. a viable change that might actually have a chance to find its way into future additions of the game (this would have to be a subtle change to have any chance with Larry).

Kim

Do you think this defensive only, 1/6 chance per transport, for 1 single round to destroy all ennemy’s unit, to get a chance to survive for them is THAT subtle change?

Their is still risk and no more totally predictable endings.
Because of the autokill, the attacker greatly overwhelms the transports defense.
If their is many much more TTs units than attacking units, they still got a chance of survival.

Do we need to increase the killing rate against TT by adding the maximum killing rate for 1 round?:

If all attacking units are destroyed by TT’s fire, for each attacking unit, their is still 1 TT casuality.

@Uncrustable:

Let them defend classic style for 1 round, then after that all dead

Is their any difference with this?
@Baron:

But don’t you think, it is still a less powerfull TT version when giving the possibility to the attacker to pick any unit of his choice instead of only precious aircrafts (10-11-12 IPCs).
For example: Subs (6 IPCs), DDs (8 IPCs), taking a hit on a Carrier (CV) (x) or a BB (x).

That is what I think is:
the simplest (no difference between casuality units from TT fire),
no more defenseless in mimicking the classic TT defensive roll for 1 round (1 single @1/TT)
and nearer the OOB TT (Roll to destroy TT if no attacker’s unit survive, if any attacker survive then auto-kill):

TTn2 Baron [Cow] A0D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill.

I presume the slight difference is that you mean: no matter attacker’s units survive or not TT defensive fire, TT are all toasted.

It is like a consolation price, TTs bring some attacker’s units into the death…
Is it?

@KimRYoung:

Transports still get used as a cheap soak off, when in reality attacking units would go for capital ships.
Transports should get the hell out of a combat zone ASAP since the only thing they want is to survive!
Kim

That’s why their is no planified attack against naval warships by transport units. Their firepower is for defensive situation.
Maybe AKA was the only exception in WWII.
Hence, if transport unit get @1, it is for defense.

P.S. Thanks about the info on “Spagghetti”.
It seems their is two different but complementary meanings…