Posts made by baron Münchhausen

@BJCard:

@Krieghund:

How about this for a house rule idea: leave the transport rules exactly as they are, except transports in excess of combat units can be taken as casualties.  This allows combat units to “screen” transports, but unscreened transports can be lost.

Example:
A fleet containing a carrier, 2 fighters, a destroyer, and 5 transports is attacked.  The first hit could be taken on the carrier, damaging it.  The next hit may be taken on a transport, as there are 5 transports but only 4 combat units.  However, the following hit must be taken on a combat unit, as the number of transports and combat units is now equal.  The remaining order of loss could be destroyer, transport, carrier, transport, fighter, transport, fighter, transport.

I actually like Krieg’s solution a lot.  transports are defended on a 1-1 basis. Â

I still cannot see why is this a solution?
Transport become a 1 unit value @0 like AAA after first round.

They will play a similar role, mostly if defender thinks he couldn’t make it against attacker’s units.

Transport becomes cannon fodder or tampering unit for the defensive valuable unit (D2/D3/D4) like what many critics about classic pointed out.

What it does, is only regulate the rate of attrition amongst Transport.

@Uncrustable:

Im just saying it would be absurd to give transports an attack value while aircraft carriers do not

It would be absurd to give transports an attack value period lol

Maybe we should just get rid of all boats except transports, they attack/ defend at 3/3 can carry 2 of any unit, can also carry 2 of tacbomber/or fighter (and conduct flight operations) also can shore bombard and amphib assault while simultaneously fight of other transports and raid convoys, they cost 36 IPCs and there you have it, military transports in action

Thanks Uncrustable about “spagghetti thing”.

I will try to clean up a bit…

You have good reason (balance between other units) to be reluctant about AKA TTCowA1.

I know that you prefer, for historical reason (nature of troops transports and limited firepower) AAA or @1 only vs aircrafts, something like these two:

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.

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 TT 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:

Right now looks like everyone is in the phase of throwing spaghetti at the wall.
Kim

What does this mean? I never eard of this expression.

@Cow:

Under my plan transports pew pew @ 1 but do not provide fodder.

What is wrong with that? They have weaponry and are capable of assisting a battle. Yes other naval ships protect them which is why they die first. Does not mean a transport had no tactical value in a naval engagement when in fact they did. Transports have rammed into other naval vessels and fired upon aircraft.

A ship was always better than no ship in ww2.

Yeah I think carriers should attack and defend at 1 instead of 0-2.

If I had command of a transport and my marines were offloaded… yes I would do what I can to help a major naval engagement. I might try to ram a sub while trying to engage aircraft above. 3 subs were rammed by a transport in WWII. It just happens.

Back to the topic. 1-1 and no casualty seems like a better transport both game mechanic wise and realistically.

Many seems reluctant to give A1 to a TT even our new AKA. Even if the debate is still raging on, from Cow idea it is easy to extrapolate another type of TT: a simply less dangerous one on attack. That is both mine and Cow:

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

TTn3 Cow A1D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill.

@KimRYoung:

And while you’re thinking of ideas, consider the following about American amphibious cargo ships (originally called Attack Cargo Ships, or AKA):

"Attack cargo ships played a vital role in the Pacific War, where many were attacked by kamikazes and other aircraft, and several were torpedoed, but none were sunk or otherwise destroyed. "

So why are so many sunk so mercilessly in A&A??

Kim

Cool, that it as the historical core ship of a real TTc A0D1C8 or even Cow version TTn A1?D1C? unit that can take better care of himself!

They weren’t that many, they should cost 10 IPCs like Der Kuenstler suggested.

Now we have:
the defenseless one:     TTn A0D0C7          :oops:
The escorted one:         TTc2 A0D1C7+2EF   8-)
The attacking one AKA: TTcow A1D1C10   :evil:

EF: Escort Frigate (slower and lighter than DD)
I’m kidding.
But it is quite funny for those who wants Global Navy look like historical navy.

@Baron:

So what if a lone fighter can’t simply wipe out a bunch of transports? Is it fair or unbalanced that ONE unit can wipe out and theoretically destroy an INFINITE amount of transports because they are unescorted?

That’s the aberration portion.
You may play 1940 Global with TT Def@1 8 IPCs.
But giving starting TT Def@1 will have an impact.

I already thinking about a similar unit: TT+corvette/frigates Def@1 9 IPCs.
And also keeping TT @0 7IPCs.
And transport are taken as last casualities.

Just a way to upgrade starting TT for 2 IPCs near IC or NB.
In this way, it follows the rule for navy unit: average is 2 IPCs for 1 point Att or Def.
Anyone can buy either TT at 7 IPCs or TT lightly escorted at 9 IPCs.

It can simulate the progressive introduction of this small naval units during WWII specially to protect against Subs.

Probably no one will buy TT with no hit value after introducing TT@1 C9…

Hey! Someone steal my ideas!   :-o

@toblerone77:

Okay heres an idea.  Why not house rule this:

Corvettes- Any player may build corvette class escorts that defend @ 1 for an extra 2 or 3 IPCS per transport. It is marked on the board by placing a national marker underneath each transport. The corvette is ‘built-into’ the transport and is non-transferable. It (the corvette escort coupled with a TRNS) can be taken as a casualty the same as any other unit.

I may use some old Attack! pieces for this if I decide to do it. They’re small and would make a good marker.

M-2* Coupled to transport. A-0 D-1 C- +2/3 (You/Play Group decide) to transport at time of purchase. 1 corvette/escort to one transport.

Actually, you got exactly what I was thinking about how I could introduce both units: the nation markers!
I will make the adjusment +3 (and add your name as a partisan) in my summary post.

I’m glad to see how this tread evolve and develop upon others ideas.   :-D

This option with 2 TT units is a kind of historical oriented Global mid-term for Pro-escort in a TT unit and the No-escort in a TT unit.

So you can play with both OOB rules (classic and new) in the same Global game because of the 2 units. Isn’t nice and beautiful ?!  8-)
Everybody should be happy, no need to decide.  :lol:

@Cow:

I thought of this idea the moment someone said AA gun roll… I was like… you know what… how about transports roll at 1 on attack and defense… but none of that casualty stuff. That is a good middle. Plus it is cool rolling more dice.

It is nonsense to play a board game and get no dice out of a unit. Even a bomber rolls a 1 on defense.  :-D

Plus all the people that complain about it, they really only want a dice. They do not care if it is a casualty or not, they just miss the roll. :-D :-D

All the people that complained about the classic transport… were mad about 4 lone transports defeating their 3 fighters attacking. The odds are much better for them to kill lone transports, but it is not 100%.  :evil:

I agree all the way.

The more I think about, the more I wonder that is not so complex and you get some dice rolls, why does Larry and all play-testers didn’t explore that opportunity?

@Cow:

Yeah it is just to make it fair for both sides of a big naval conflict. Before you could take them as losses in classic… the defender got a roll at 1, which kind of made it better to defend.

Now it is lopsided. The defender losses out and the attacker gets an even bigger payday because the risk is small. If he has to make the same commitment and lose out on a possible counter attack… then the game better promotes action for both sides.

One side has a reason to advance and the other side has a reason to attack.

I still didn’t see the attack part but only defense…
By “on a possible counter attack…”, you mean the 1 round Defense@1 from each TT?

Here, I’m lost:

One side has a reason to advance and the other side has a reason to attack.

One  side? Attacker? is “advancing” ? Correct?
Other side? Defender and his TT? is counter-"attack"ing? Correct?

I dont’t see where we can use the A1 from a TT.
If there is 1DD and 1TT, it would mean: 1@2 and 1@1 for first round.
What happen after?
Does the TT still can fire 1@1 if it haven’t been hit on 1st round?
Which unit from the attacker will take the first casuality?
Is it possible that attacker choose one unloaded TT as cannon fodder and keep is DD for another round?

Help!!! :?

@Cow:

I mean that… attackers can send their boats in for the attack… sure you can’t choose them as casualties but you are attacking with them like before and when you choose your casualties before retreating you are not totally screwed, you have some flexibility as far as choosing what you want to defend with.

Still me, I little short example will help me surely understand what your words mean. Please.  :-)

I thought that even in the “good older times” transport have no attack value, and it can participate into an amphibious assault. Of course, it was also used as cannon fodder (taking hits as the carrier can do in OOB rules) in naval battle, but still didn’t get A1.

Thanks for the explanations.

Interesting idea that TT can be use as attack@1 but to a great danger for them.

Did it take a long time to come with it?

The more I think about it the more it seems simple to play with it.

Attacking units will make 100% casualties if only 1 survive the TT defensive rolls.
They could still do damage to TT group even if they didn’t survive.

I’m wondering why I didn’t think about it, it seems an obvious possibility now. :mrgreen:

I insert your option in my summarize post “Reply #184” and formulate that way, is it OK?

TTn1.5 Cow A1D1C7, 1 hit value, can survive if no enemy after 1st round. No escape, auto-kill.

Sorry, I’m not very good and fast thinker:

it allows attackers the same flexibility as before when it comes to choosing casualties

Are you in the TT Classic paradigm: defender [attacker, for this rare TT type] can choose casualties?
Because I thought you were elaborating a “Taken last” TT house rule.

@Der:

Wow - still going I see. I think everyone needs to back up and look at what this game is. Axis and Allies is what’s known as a “Beer and Pretzels” game among game enthusiasts. It is by no stretch of the imagination a serious military simulation!

Because the game is played at the scale of the entire world on your kitchen table, it must paint with a wide brush as far as reality goes. Now you have rules in it like “subs can’t hit planes.” Why not? Why did u-boats all mount AA guns? “planes cannot hit subs without a DD present.” Why not? You’re telling me a plane never caught a sub on the surface while on patrol? These are attempts to force more realism into the game.

Special rules can enhance play if used sparingly, but they can also seriously reduce the fun factor and bog the game down.

My proposal to return to the classic transport fits it nicely with the guiding rules of Axis and Allies since its beginnings.

• Every attack involves chance
• Defender chooses his own casualties

Realism should NOT be the priority here. There is no weather in this game. There is no supply. Japanese tanks are just as effective as German ones. What the game does do well is allow players to have fun, make strategic decisions, and cuss or shout at dice rolls.

If you are worried about transport fodder, just bump the transports up to 10 IPCs. If your opponent wants to take his transport first as a casualty, let him. He’s still losing IPCs. He’s losing his ability to move units across water. Let the player be the commander. And you are still playing AXIS & ALLIES, not some mutant hybrid game that is attempting to match reality by flooding the classic game system with a bunch of forced extra rules.

Good to see you back.  :-)
It is a kind of closing the circle you started…
Or maybe extinguishing the fire you started?  8-)

I see that you still emphasis your preference for Classics.
It is still very appealing.
Strangely, there was many more suggestions of adjustment for the “Taken last” transport. It took me much more time than I expected at first to summarize the 15 variations and it maybe still going.

You said:

And you are still playing AXIS & ALLIES, not some mutant hybrid game that is attempting to match reality by flooding the classic game system with a bunch of forced extra rules.

Strangely, if you pick option one by one and take the time to understand it, you will see that most of them are just taking some little modifiers from existing rules, or used an A&A mechanics applied elsewhere and use it for their Transports rule.

Of course, their is still more or less simple variations, more or less realistic, more or less balance vs other units and have more or less  consequences on the play balance between Axis vs Allies. And I’m sure, many made their posts for the sake of those criterias, not to create a monster.

Actually, I think the more we directly revert back to Classic TP, the more it changes the balance toward Allies. But many think Global is too much pro-Axis, so they can try a different TP rule instead of a bid.
However, after all that have been said, I’m still wondering:
If I change for less defenseless transport Taken last, which one will I choose to introduce to my friends for playing?

Nonetheless, thank you very much Der Kuenstler for your initial post and question.  :wink:

It was a very stimulating one, I like all the thinking outside the box which generated from.

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

Give transports each one AA dice. thats it all else stays the same

You mean for OOB Global TT Taken last?
TT A0D0M2C7, each TT AA@1 against 1 aircraft only. Auto-kill vs other units. No escape.

Does Aircrafts can retreat when their is any surface vessels with them (DDs, Subs, BB, etc.) that can do the slaughter of the poor little TT lambs?

@Uncrustable:

Well AA dice is generally rolled BEFORE the battle begins and casualties are removed BEFORE the battle begins.
So give current OOB transport each an AA dice (defense only).
Treat that dice as an AA dice.

NOTE: AAA get up to 3 dice per AAA OR the total number of aircraft. Whichever is LESS……
----Transports would get ONE AA dice apiece or the total number of aircraft. whichever is LESS…

So if 5 planes attack 2 transports…roll 2 AA dice.
If 3 planes attack 4 transports roll 3 AA dice.
If 7 planes attack 7 transports roll 7 AA dice.

Thanks for the emphasis on the real AA nature of the @1.

Its another avenue.
If that’s so you mean they got a preemptive strike against aircrafts.
Is it acceptable for you?

When there is warships and aircrafts, survivors of a prior battle against escort warships, don’t consider aircrafts (be safe and not submitting to AA fire) for this second step of naval combat since the warships, by themselves, can take care of transports?

It will be similar to this, but not exactly similar because of your real preemptive AA fire:

@The:

“They could have left the roll @1 and just made it so the TTs must always be the last to be assigned hits… which is a newly implemented rule anyway.”

This is basically what we do except only when being attacked by all planes. The transport cant take hits but they still get their one. If 4 undefended trans are attacked by a sole plane the plane must survive the barage of 4 1s if it wants to wipe out the 4 trans. If it gets hit but still gets a 3 or less then one plane and one trans are lost. We found this was a fair balance cause its kinda bs when you leave your transports undefended cause you think they’re out of range only to be popped by a single far off bomber.

@Cow:

I was thinking transports just roll 1s during defense and offense, cannot be taken as casualties, they just die (except for the special case where a sub rolls a hit and no other naval units are left in which case you roll one less)

As far as the whole “strategy this and that come up with a better one.” That is a stupid argument. It is not what this thread is about.

In actual game terms this increases the viability of sea lion as well as the viability of USA involvement in both theaters.

then again I am not sure how big of an impact rolling 1s will have. It just increases the variability of naval battles is all. As far as big naval showdowns go.

It does give a chance for say 5 transports alone defending against one unit. Which kind of makes sense, just score one hit and you live, but it is small risk big reward thing for say a lone destroyer… I would still attack it.

Still you do not see undefended transports too often when it is autokill. One roll won’t change much.

Sorry, I’m not sure to grab everything you said.

5TT, which can under your house rule, attack, so 5@1, a 1 DD Def@2.
If the DD hit, the 5 TT are all sunk. But if 1TT marks a hit then DD is destroy and 4TT are still alive. Is it?

@toblerone77:

Generally speaking in my group we play with a defense roll of one because that’s what we used to play when playing classic. We rarely get together for in person games so I don’t really care so much what Larry Harris or anyone else says. I suppose if I ever play a tourney or online I’ll have to deal with it. I just think auto kill is BS. I think those for some kind of defense have thought this out and are not some noob who is just making up rules.

I guess I’ve said my peace. The transport should not just get auto-killed.

What means “BS”? English isn’t my first tongue, sorry.

@Uncrustable:

Give transports each one AA dice. thats it all else stays the same

You mean for OOB Global TT Taken last?
TT A0D0M2C7, each TT AA@1 against 1 aircraft only. Auto-kill vs other units. No escape.

Does Aircrafts can retreat when their is any surface vessels with them (DDs, Subs, BB, etc.) that can do the slaughter of the poor little TT lambs?

@elevenjerk:

Last post on this for me….maybe:)  I agree with KimRYoung.  This thread is getting way to detail oriented on what could actually happen in real life.

IMHO this would be my rule (with the help of a bunch of people on this thread)…

1 or more transports get to defend 1@1 when they are all alone.

Whether that is because they get attacked by themselves or they are the last survivors of a naval battle.
Each transport represent an attackers hit (Can’t bring a bomber on 5 transports and wipe them all out with one hit.  To kill five transports you would need at least 5 attackers).

**After 1 round of firing, they retreat 1 seazone. ** If all surrounding seazone are occupied by enemy warships then they are dead.  All other rules still apply.

This rule is simple so that problem is solved.  I couldn’t quite keep it down to one sentence for you KimRYoung.  Transports are no longer defenseless so that problem is solved (which really is the point of this thread).  Transports can not be used as a screen for an otherwise weak navy.

I realise that there will be anomalies.  That will be no different than the ones that exist in the game already.  It is impossible not to have them. This would just solve the only rule in this game that I am really against.  All the other things in the game that “couldn’t really happen” don’t matter to me.  This one does because of reasons mentioned many times on this thread.

The teams that would benefit (very small benefit IMO) the most from this would be US, UK, Anzac, and Japan.  That alone tells me that the game would have a chance at being more even.  The axis almost always win (the most unhistorical thing of all) WITH bids.

Fun topic though.  I like all the ideas on here whether I agree with them or not :-D

Hi, Elevenjerk,
The evocation of history in this tread was a way to decide between a helpless Transport (somewhat able to escape, yet to decide) or a “combative” transport group able to do damage against even heavier ships (or solely aircrafts and Destroyers).

You seem to have pick in both ways to make a more playable TT unit.
And a way much more in favor of a defensive fleet, not too dangerous but more able to survive.
If I follow you:
A) No matter the number of transports, (1-2-3-4- etc.) TT get only 1 Def@1.
B) Attacker autokill 1 TT for each attacking unit.
C) All survivors must escape 1 sea-zone away. If all are enemy controled, they are all dead ones.

If I correctly understand you, I wonder why you decide B and C?
(For C, I rather prefer that unit stay in the sea-zone since its already an existing possibility that TT and Subs can share a sea-zone with ennemy units.)

If that true: "Last post on this for me….maybe:) "
I will miss you. :cry:

@Uncrustable:

So im not alone in wanting to let transports defend against planes but not warships  :lol:
I also threw in destroyers…

Alas… :cry:

For the sake of the truth, you got reason…
For the sake of the game simplicity, I think there is better… :?

On the other way (far away from “Taken last paradigm”), have you read about this post?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1115033#msg1115033

@The:

“They could have left the roll @1 and just made it so the TTs must always be the last to be assigned hits… which is a newly implemented rule anyway.”

This is basically what we do except only when being attacked by all planes. The transport cant take hits but they still get their one. If 4 undefended trans are attacked by a sole plane the plane must survive the barage of 4 1s if it wants to wipe out the 4 trans. If it gets hit but still gets a 3 or less then one plane and one trans are lost. We found this was a fair balance cause its kinda bs when you leave your transports undefended cause you think theyre out of range only to be popped by a single far off bomber.

Very interesting, since you have play experience here.  :-)

IMHO, I think it is a TT rule which modifies the initial balance, but for now I have questions:
What happen in your game with this situation ?

Rnd 1: 2 subs@2 & 2 Fgts@3 against 2DDs@2 and 4 TTs@?.
Does the TT can fire @1 against Fgts? Or @1 against the subs?

I continue with the example: casualities 1 sub vs 2 DDs.

Rnd 2: 1 sub@2 & 2 Fgts@3 against 4 TTs@1.
Does the 2 planes can retreat and let the sub do the slaughter?

If not, even if the Fgts hit nothing, is it still auto-kill for the subs since their is no hit value for the 4 transports?

Therefore, there is no third round. Correct?
However, 1 or 2 Fgts can be lost during the second round.

Is it the way you played it?

I think your rule is different than this one, am I right?:
@Kingpin2010:

My group has kicked this around to come up with a solution. What we came up with is against warships it’s same rules, but if the transport is attacked by just planes that it can defend at a 1.

@KimRYoung:

Given the choice between transports defending @ 1, or no defense at all, I prefer the later. Played way to many games of original A&A where large squadrons of transports killed lots of capital ships. That was absurd.

Having no defense is in fact correct, but still hate when a lone bomber or sub catches a half dozen transports and sinks them all.

In reality some would escape but I do understand that I as a player can prevent this by not allowing my transport fleet to be unprotected.

A SIMPLE rule I might by into, one short sentence, anything more than that just keep it as it is.

Kim

Unlike Der Kuenstler, many like you and me prefer the new TT but find it excessive to blow in pieces many TT (sometimes much more than 50 IPCs), just because 1 single StrB survived the slaughter against a combined UK and USA warships-escort fleet.

@Gekkepop:

I never liked the defenseless transport rule either, it makes the game hinge too much on a few dice rolls. If your major fleet gets killed with one enemy unit left you could instantly lose 70 IPCs of transports as well. This makes it so the allies have to invest much more in fleet and had to be made a lot stronger in other areas to compensate.

For me it seems a flaw and Der Kuenstler pointed it quite well:

@Der:

1. The “auto-destroy” rule violates the spirit of the game.

Everything in this game involves decisions and risk, and has since the beginning. That’s what makes it so much fun. As Alexander Smith said “Everything is sweetened by risk.” Now we have a rule introduced where there is no risk - only auto-destruction. It is an exception to every other rule and every other unit in the game. All excitement in dice rolling to see what happens is removed. What happens is already decided with no variants at all - no anticipation. Lone transports just get swept off the board. yawn.

Here is another genuine comparative analysis from Der Kuenstler:

@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**

I couldn’t resist to add this rightful critics and positive suggestions from Spendo02:
@Spendo02:

Let’s 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 still hope we can find some way to make little adjustment for either lover of Classic TT or new Global TT. Just to get more excitment in Global or even others A&A.

P.S. At the end, it will be probably better to transfer the tread into House rules so those not interessed by Global could have a chance to think about it.

@Uncrustable:

I said nothing about a carrier…also spell out the units lol i do not know which is CV or CA or DE…lol

@Uncrustable
I’m not sure if it is ironic or if you are asking for the sake of everybody?
Should I use the name or not?