About your first comment, it seems that between giving TT@1 and the OOB rule, you prefer the second.
However, your historical oriented comment let us think that instead of auto-kill TT, it would have been better to let a space for escaping maneuver for TT.
About Larry and WoTC, I think we all agree with you.
But initial question stay, how far can we go to revert back to Classics TT in Global 1940?
Der Kuenstler is asking a good question and help to think outside the box.
@Baron:
@Cow:
I said I like that transports cannot be taken as a casualty.
I just hate not rolling an attack value for them. They should roll a 1. They can ram naval and pew pew with their 50 cal mounted.
It is plausible that some of US Marines TPs for examples decide, for the sake of the many, to ram into a battleship or a cruiser.
The remaining units will survive while the battleship had to mend his wounds.
I agree with you on this.
There is much more boats in a TP unit than a cruiser or BB unit.It isnt plausible at all, they would have been destroyed before they would get in reach. Besides only the japanese where fanatic enough to do suicide attacks.
That is also 1 of the main causes the marines actualy did so wel japanese would do WW1 style wave attacks against fixed positions.
The chance of getting in reach with a destroyer would be nearly 0 a transport that is slower then a combat ship cannot ram the other 1 because it cannot catch up.
That is the point: is all TPs slower than destroyer? And about a damage DD (because some posts shows transports have some cannons)?
I like the idea of keeping the transport as is, but maybe have another transport unit that is 9-10 IPC’s that functions like the transport from revised. This way you would have a mix of both transports being purchased possibly.
@theROCmonster
So you agree with this kind of unit ?
The difference is that 9-10 unit will be part of the warships group and can be choose as a first casualities by the defender.
Isn’t it?
@Baron:
I already thinking about a similar unit: TT+corvettes/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…
@Cow:
I said I like that transports cannot be taken as a casualty.
I just hate not rolling an attack value for them. They should roll a 1. They can ram naval and pew pew with their 50 cal mounted.
It is plausible that some of US Marines TPs for examples decide, for the sake of the many, to ram into a battleship or a cruiser.
The remaining units will survive while the battleship had to mend his wounds.
I agree with you on this.
There is much more boats in a TP unit than a cruiser or BB unit.
@Uncrustable:
But this is an absurd scenario which you have proposed because the attacker would just choose to retreat the units that can be hit by the transport and instead only attack them with subs/battleships/cruisers…therefore no casualties to the attacker if the transports were without escort
It is not that absurd scenario, according to OOB rules, if attacker decides to retreat, their is no partial retreat: it is all or nothing.
(Exception, maybe, is amphibious assault.)
Do you see now, here is the devil in the details.
You would have to add another special rule for the attacker:
“Aircrafts can retreat from a naval battle when their is only transports in defense.”
Of course, it didn’t mean the end of transport screening, but it will be a last resort I think. It is the flaw of Classics TT but…
Paying 14 IPCs or even 21 IPCs, anyone will do it to protect a BB@4 (like in the example), but DD and Sub will be the real screen first.
@Uncrustable:
Ive thought about letting transports defend in ‘pairs’
Each ‘pair’ of transports is considered one unit, rolls ONE dice hitting on a one and can be taken as a casualty. (both transports are sunk)
Odd numbered transports do not participate.
@Uncrustable:
I think transport pairs is a much better idea.
The biggest argument in this thread is whether or not player can choose their own casualties (even transports)
Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….
Let each ‘pair’ of transports be a unit that fires at 1 and can be taken as a casualty, the oddball transport (if there is one) does not participate and auto dies.
I will devellop another type of TT rules based on these suggestions of Uncrustable:
This time it will be Classics paradigm:
Transport are casualities as the defender chose.
TT A0D0M2C7 when paired with another TT it get Def@1. Except when alone, a TT is either paired or join a pair of TT.
For casualities determination, all TT units either 1, 2 or 3 TT count only as 1 hit.
Example 1: 1BB@4 1DD@2 1TTD@0 are attacked and takes 2 hits:
Defender can damage BB and lose 1TT.
Example 2: 1BB@4 1DD@2 3TTD1@1 are attacked and takes 2 hits:
After damaging BB, if the TT take the hit, they will be all destroyed (Cost: 21 IPCs).
So it becomes a must to destroy the DD instead.
Example 3: 1BB@4 1DD@2 5TTD2@1 are attacked and takes 2 hits:
Defender can damage BB, if the TT take the hit, instead of the 1DD (C8 IPCs), and loose 1 group of TT (either the paired one 2TT C:14 IPCs or the group of 3TT C:21 IPCs).
So it becomes obvious to destroy the DD instead of any TT group, unless their is too many Subs attacking (defender can still prefer to keep this Anti-Sub Weapon and sacrifice 2 TT at least).
So their is no need to treat the third transport differently.
You see what I mean?
@Uncrustable:
And about the retreat deal that really goes against A&A (never has the defender been able to retreat save carrierless fighters/tacbombers)
and remember we are talking about vast areas of ocean(hundreds of miles) for each seazone. That is plenty enough room for attackers to chase down and slaughter every last defenseless transport :evil:so let transports roll dice hitting on a one ONLY ABLE TO TARGET ENEMY AIRCRAFT OR DESTROYERS
transports still must be taken LAST as casualties (they cannot screen)
transports would still auto die to submarines/cruisers/battleships (chased down and slaughtered before than can reach safety of the next seazone)
We should look at how many real things a unit represent.
Because I think for BB, it’s at most 4 Battleships. Transports units, I think is probably 50 transport boats.
So, it is still possible to escape from powerful ships, just by not staying in a slower convoy. Every boat on his own going everywhere. I think it’s still plausible.
Even merchant’s convoy were able to pass through German’s Wolfpack. Their was many casualties but they get in UK.
I think there is a room not for a “retreat” because it’s not an attacker option we are talking.
That’s why I name it “Dispersion” maybe “scattering” is better, I don’t know. Surely somebody can better name this “fleeing” option.
@ Uncrustable,
Since you don’t accept a scattering capacity of TT (I explained it under “dispersion”), the TT unit you propose imply auto-kill if any CA or BB and even CV are present.
Are you OK with this?
Are you also aware of this drawback?
If their is only 1 plane, 1 sub and 1 BB against TT for instance: it means plane will be destroy (on a 1 of course) instead of letting the attacker choosing either BB if undamaged or the sub. So the attacker loose a more expensive unit and have no choice.
@Baron:
This adjustment is better than just aircraft because, in game terms, a unit that take out only aircraft is much a pain in the ass than one that let the attacker choose casualities. So by restricting the TT’s capacity it could mean making a bit more dangerous or “annoying” unit that it should be.
As some people said like BJCard, TT unit could be a very large number of TT with a few close escort ships.
So it could be OK to give 1 TT unit Def@1 against every attacking units.
Of course, I let aside the other layer of complexity (we are exploring possibility), it adds for TT not able to destroy a certain type of unit, when it comes the time to have a global picture about subs, aircraft, AAA which have special abilty against type of unit….
“Dispersion”:
@Baron:
Here is what I think is a more balance TT unit for those who prefer to keep the Transport are taken last and don’t want to affect too much the OOB set up and balance but don’t want to let them defenseless and give them some tactical choices.
TT A0D0M2C7 when paired to another transport give a +1 def. so a pair get 1@1
Ex.: 1TT get 0@1/ 2-3TT get 1@1 / 4-5TT get 2@1 / 6-7TT get 3@1, etc.
Can defend when no more warships are present.
Attacking’s unit against a lonely TT or a TT group get a double to hit rolls each.
Ex.: 1 Sb 2@2/ 1 CA 2@3 � / 1Fgt 2@3 / 2 StrB 4@4, etc.“Dispersion”: 1 or more TT can retreat in the same sea-zone (as Sub submerge) after 1 round of enemy’s fire.
So they still share the same sea-zone with enemy’s warships, if their is.Historical meaning:
They flee everywhere in the sea, so enemy attacking group units pick only 1 single transport boat at a time and this become a long time-consuming process to destroy them.I think it is a middle term that reach many criterias presented in this tread.
Specially the comparison of a classic TT firepower against 1 BB unit.
1@1 vs 1@4 is very unrealistic but 1@1 for 2 TT vs 4@4 to 2 BB seems correct to me.
It brings also more fun since their is no automatic killing.
And the presence of 10 or more TT is still a dangerous task since 5@1 is something that can hurt.
And let the option to the defender to fight to the death or not.
I was inspired by this post:
@Der:
Doesn’t that sound better than just one single attack unit being able to kill a whole stack of transports?
Yes it does- and that is something that should be brought up. In the current rules, a single fighter unit can destroy 10 lone transports instantly. How much ordinance does this guy have, anyway? You might argue that the unit represents many fighters. Then you’d have to also say that each TP represents many TPs. When a group of TPs gets attacked, they are going to pop smoke and disperse everywhere. In classic, if a single fighter attacks 10 transports, odds say he’s only going to get one before he dies.
@Baron:
In a perfect world we would be rolling d10s or d12s like the dice in Battle of the Bulge. � I would feel better about a transport that had a 10% chance or less scoring a hit on defense.
In that case you could say that a transport has some light escort vessels, but nothing large enough to make it have a 2 att/2 def like a destroyer.
I agree on all this points.
That’s why I prefer @1 against all units for TT.
The main difference along the tread is about this chance of scoring a hit.
Their is many ways to reduce the 1/6 against attacking units.A) Give 1@1 for 1 paired of TT, whether it worth 2 units (Baron M) or 1 units (Uncrustable).
B) It could even be 1@1 for three transports.
(Ex.: 1-2-3 TT Def@1 or 1-2 TT Def@0, 3 TT Def@1)C) It could be 1@1 only for any number of TTs (Elevenjerk).
Or a little variation: for 2 or more TTs (Baron M)But it is still 1/6 to hit 1 attacking unit. A, B, C just change the 1/6 per 1 TT, 2-3 TTs or a group of TT units.
For example, it will be different if it requires only 1/12 on a twelve sides dice.
The chances to hit attacking unit are strictly reduces in half.
Here is a new way to reduce the defensive power of TT without using D12 and giving 1D6 to each TT without allowing odds at 1/6:
Still in the TT are taken last.
TT A0D0M2C7 can “disperse” after one round of enemy’s fire. Each unit can be taken as one casualities.
Limited defensive capacity: every TT present throw a D6. 1 attacker’s unit is destroy for every 2x “1” rolled.
Example:
Round 1: a fleet of 5 TT is attacked. They throw 5 D6, “1” “2” “3” “1” “1”.
So their is 3x “1”, it means 1 ennemy unit is destroyed.
You keep the “1” left for the other round if TT don’t flee.
Round 2: TT don’t flee. 2 were destroyed. There is still 3 TT now. Rolls: “1” “2” “3”.
So you destroy another attacker’s unit.
In this situation, only one TT can not destroy 1 attacker unit in 1 round.
But, it still can in 2 lucky round. Even though, it will surely flee after the first round, if it survives.
The odds of destroying unit increase with the number of TT presents.
(10TT means 10D6, for each pair of “1”, there is a hit.)
It starts at 1/36 for 2 TT but increase for each additionnal TT. With 3 TT, it is around 3/36= 0.5/6 to destroy 1 unit.
This is a middle way between Uncrustable and Elevenjerk.
Between 1/6 for each TT@1 and only 1/6 for 1 group of TT @1, no matter the number.
For sure, it is different from the standard combat rule, but not that much.
Transports are already treated differently.
It can be a way to let them defend without doing too much damage to the attacker.
Sorry, if this doesn’t suit you.
My historical references about Transport in WWII are somewhat limited, that was the nearer I could think of a danger against marines TP because it was a small escort fleet.
Maybe there is something else in the first Japanese fleet attack on Guadalcanal, I don’t know.
Maybe someone has an idea where is the tread about the number of things a unit represent?
@Uncrustable:
Well you got me lost Baron lol
Not sure how what your talking about ties into the transport discussion
In this battle,
DEs and DDs were defending vulnerable escort carriers against a very superior ennemy.
And this whole Task Force has the mission to protect marines’ TT on the Island of Leyte.
Indirectly few DDs and DEs were protecting TT against 1 BB and some CA.
So their is an historical background for TT@1 hitting cruisers and even BB.
In a perfect world we would be rolling d10s or d12s like the dice in Battle of the Bulge. I would feel better about a transport that had a 10% chance or less scoring a hit on defense.
In that case you could say that a transport has some light escort vessels, but nothing large enough to make it have a 2 att/2 def like a destroyer.
I agree on all this points.
That’s why I prefer @1 against all units for TP.
The main difference along the tread is about this chance of scoring a hit.
Their is many ways to reduce the 1/6 against attacking units.
A) Give 1@1 for 1 paired of TPs, whether it worth 2 units (Baron M) or 1 unit (Uncrustable).
B) It could even be 1@1 for three transports.
(Ex.: 1-2-3 TP Def@1 or 1-2 TP Def@0, 3 TPs Def@1)
C) It could be 1@1 only for any number of TPs (Elevenjerk).
Or a little variation: for 2 or more TPs (Baron M)
But it is still 1/6 to hit 1 attacking unit. A, B, C just change the 1/6 per 1 TT, 2-3 TTs or a group of TT units.
For example, it will be different if it requires only 1/12 on a twelve sides dice.
The chances to hit attacking unit are strictly reduces in half.
@Uncrustable:
@Baron:
You can think mutatis mutandis about the courageous defense of the Taffy 3 Task Force against IJN (Leyte’s Gulf Battle).
They weren’t many DD and destroyer escorts in it, but they make a hell of it against cruisers.huh?
Sorry, english isn’t my first tongue.
I meant that few DD and DE force to retreat an entire fleet (BB and CA) of the Imperial Japanese Navy:
Kurita’s force caught Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague’s Task Unit 77.4.3 (‘Taffy 3’) entirely by surprise. Sprague directed his carriers to launch their planes, then run for the cover of a rain squall to the east. He ordered the destroyers and DEs to make a smoke screen to conceal the retreating carriers.
Kurita, unaware that Ozawa’s decoy plan had succeeded, assumed he had found a carrier group from Halsey’s 3rd Fleet. Having just redeployed his ships into anti-aircraft formation, he further complicated matters by ordering a “General Attack”, which called for his fleet to split into different divisions and attack independently.[5]
The destroyer USS Johnston was the closest to the enemy. On his own initiative, Lieutenant Commander Ernest E. Evans steered his hopelessly outclassed ship into the foe at flank speed. The Johnston fired its torpedoes at the heavy cruiser Kumano, damaging her and forcing her out of line. Seeing this, Sprague gave the order “small boys attack”, sending the rest of Taffy 3’s screening ships into the fray. Taffy 3’s two other destroyers, Hoel and Heermann, and the destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts, attacked with suicidal determination, drawing fire and disrupting the Japanese formation as ships turned to avoid their torpedoes. However, the Hoel and the Roberts were destroyed by the slowly advancing fleet.
I said “mutatis mutandis” because we have to make some “adjustments”, i.e. not taking account of the escort carrier’s fighters in the Task Force and that they were a group of warships, but the last defense to protect the marines transport.
Sometimes, David wins against Goliath.
@Uncrustable:
Well i dont think one transport represents one transport either lol
Transports had AA defense but that was pretty much it.Def would be helpless against the big long range guns of cruisers/battleships and would also be helpless against lurking submarines
Why not let each transport roll a dice that can ONLY target destroyers and aircraft
This adjustment is better than just aircraft because, in game terms, a unit that take out only aircraft is much a pain in the ass than one that let the attacker choose casualities. So by restricting the TT’s capacity it could mean making a bit more dangerous or “annoying” unit that it should be.
As some people said like BJCard, TP unit could be a very large number of TPs with a few close escort ships.
So it could be OK to give 1 TP unit Def@1 against every attacking units.
You can think mutatis mutandis about the courageous defense of the Taffy 3 Task Force against IJN (Leyte’s Gulf Battle).
They weren’t many DDs and destroyer escorts in it, but they make a hell of it against IJN cruisers.
I still cannot picture these huge stacks of transports being used as fodder when we have a cheap nice little destroyer that not only attacks and defends but it stops subs!
The benefit would be 10 TT’s at 1 with 20 land units as opposed to 5 TT’S at 1 and 5 DD at 2 with only 10 available ground units. I don’t think there would be huge stacks of just transports (cause you would lose the guys and the transport) but I think a navy would consist of way less capital ships with a bunch of TT’s. It only takes 1 destroyer to stop all subs “special powers” :-D Overall I agree with you though. I dislike defenseless transports a lot!
I totally agree with you elevenjerk. :-)
Transports represent transports, DD’s represent small escort ships and ASW ships, Cruisers bigger ships, etc.
The idea that AA stops firing after the battle begins is due the fear of hitting the defending aircraft, if there were any. Otherwise I agree with you- seems silly that they would stop firing if only enemy air is present.
I think that one main reason is about the 1/10 accuracy of AA fire.
Giving 1/6 at the beginning of the round is enough and that’s why they seem to do nothing for the rest of the battle.
But if one AA hit twice, it has done much more damage than the bloodiest air battle of the WWII.
Large group of TPs become too dangerous in itself.
Agree 100%. Thats why whether it is 1 TP or 6 they get 1@1 and then can retreat ONLY when all warships and Planes are removed from the battle and attackers are left. No attack value at all.
It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.
It wouldn’t help the assault at all. It would only help the defense of the counter attack, and very little help at that. 1 round at 1 defense and then forced to retreat.
So you prefer this option (except that @1 starts with the first Transport) and its drawback of poor proportionality?
Much earlier I suggest a simpler one:
Taken last, defend 1@1 for a whole group of 2 and more Transports, every hit kill 1 Transport at a time.
Weakness: 2 Transports defend as well as 10 Transports It didn’t take long that someone spotted it.
Much simple but less realistic.
It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.
I meant lower transport cost from 8 to 7 implies combat value too useful and too affordable, so Larry as to denied it in the new OOB rules.
Uncrustable, good to see you’re back. I don’t recall anyone calling you stupid for thinking cruisers cost too much. A lot of people agree with that. What we disagree with is the idea that they are always a bad purchase, which is definitely not true in the right circumstances.
Transports defending @1 and being last casualty is a decent idea. Cruiser firing a single AA shot at 1 plane is also a decent idea for a house rule.
We can wonder why if this was so simple Larry didn’t prefer this (which is more respectful of the A&A system rules) over the no combat value (nor defense nor hit value) of TP.
My hypothesis:
1) Large group of TPs become too dangerous in itself.
2) TPs could destroy too much valuable pieces (mainly aircrafts).
3) Historical inaccuracy.
4) It needs a cheaper unit to make amphibious assault not too costly.
@Uncrustable:
Baron your solutions are far too complicated lol
I like cows idea, give them each an AA dice hitting on 1, but keep them as is other than that.
Also i agree 1000% on reducing the cost of cruisers to 11, i remember a thread not too long ago where everyone told me how stupid i was because i thought cruisers were overpriced lol
Do you see this in the cow proposition: automatic destruction of TPs group if no aircraft attacker?
Ex.: a group of 8 TPS are doomed against a single DD (with no risk of retaliation) but their will be a crushing forces of 8@1 against 4Fgt.
I’m not sure it will be balance either.
My option is more complex because it integrates many criterias (and mix classics with OOB 1940).
It’s the weakness here: less simple.
Of course, I will always prefer a simpler rule that can take account of the same numbers of criterias.
It’s up to us to find one, if we can.
Otherwise, we develop others with different weakness: less balance / or accurate.
And if we think of TP Classics: has a great simplicity…
But was counterweight by it’s great weakness:
no historical accuracy because of transports screening.
Much earlier I suggest a simpler one:
Taken last, defend 1@1 for a whole group of 2 and more Transport, every hit kill 1 Transport at a time.
Weakness: 2 TPs defend as well as 10 transports.
It didn’t take long that someone spotted it.
Much simple but less realistic.