Posts made by baron Münchhausen

@Cow:

A- Cannot be taken as a casualty.
B- I would like it if transports fired at a 1.
Similar to aa guns… which transports are equipped to fire.
C- I also believe aa guns should cost 4.
D- Cruisers should be at 11.

A) Do you mean transport are taken last?

B) If I follow you, Transport is a A0D0M2C7 unit with Def@1 only against planes.
That’s nearer the historical truth, because their guns wasn’t so effective against other surface vessel.
With this proposal, Transport should be able to escape or flee against warships.
Would you let them fire three times (ex.: 1 DD = 3@2 against 1 group of TT.) before Transport can escape?

On the other way, I still think that 1/6 to kill is too high vs aircraft units according to historical truth.
(I read somewhere that even for warships it was about 1/10. I imagine that just for TP it is far less.)
Unless you give aircrafts Air supremacy strike to reduce the shooting down rate, something like a preemptive shot against TP. (If Transport is hit, then no returning fire @1.)

C) You should start a tread on this.
IMO 4 IPCs is ok, but at 5 IPCs maybe we can let them having other capacity after AA first round.

D) Their is many old treads on the price of cruiser.

I prefer the Imperious Leader version:
Cruiser A3D3M2(3 in 1940) Cost: 12 IPCs when it rolls a “1” it take down a plane.
I also add 1DefAA@1 against 1 aircraft at the beginning of the battle.

It has more psychological impact but every one buy it for this antiaircraft capacity in a fleet, specially UK.

@elevenjerk:

it will make many situations where 1 escort ship and 1 TT an interesting task force

The escort ship changes everything. If there is a destroyer and a transport then the only thing defending is the destroyer for the first round of firing. If the plane gets a hit, takes out the destroyer, then he has to endure 1 round with the transport. If he misses, the transport fires back and flees. You could even make the rule that the transport has to do one or the other.
Either way it would make the attacker have to bring more than one plane in order to take them out. You would want to make sure that the attacking force would get 2 hits instead of just one.

even a lonely TT become a freaking AA against 1 plane

That is the point. Take that out of the game.
You shouldn’t be able to just use one plane to eliminate a transport with no consequence.

That’s the hard consequence about introducing TT@1 with 1 hit.
It is about changing the odds and diverting more Fgs and Bombers from other important targets.

In historical sense, the OOB rules is nearer the truth, a lot of planes can destroy transport ships with no real consequence overall.
(Maybe 1 plane was shoot downed out of 2 or 3 transports sunk. It is far from a whole flight group.)

In game terms, auto-kill is quite predictable and give no thrill.

I try to answer you in my lasts posts when I reply about greater ratio than TT@1 vs BB @4 or Fg@3.
Because the point is about the signification and historical representation of the odds between TT and all the air and sea combat units.
I still prefer not to give any defense to a TT but still being able to escape after 1 rounds.
So, the battle is still unpredictable but you don’t lose a precious Fg or Bomber against a lucky shot.

Don’t forget about the psychological effect of 1 AA TT gunship 1@1, it really affects the strategy, we shouldn’t take it lightly.
You can think of it like the reverse of the No attacks on Sub when DD are absent.
1 Transport can not destroy any warship or aircraft unless another TT is present.

@DizzKneeLand33:

For all of you who say that a stack of transports would never be used as defense, you have clearly not played the original game…. **If Germany only had say 4 planes left, the U.S. could stack 12 trannies all by themselves and be pretty darn safe.**� � Run your odds calcs if you don’t believe me….

Now, to say that in a d6 game system each trannie should defend at a one…. well, then that means that a trannie has 1/4 the firepower as a Battleship, and 1/3 the firepower of a cruiser. � lol.

Seriously.

Now, the ratio fighting unit vs transport is the greatest suggested in this tread (except for auto-kill):
1 StrB against 2 TT. About same cost, 12 vs 14 IPCs.
3@4 (take 1 hit) vs 1@1 (take 2 hits).
4% no lost TT, 22% for 1 lost TT, 74% to sink both TT vs 84% no hit, 16% to shoot down the bomber.

2 StrB vs 2 TT. 6@4 (2 hits) vs 1@1 (2 hits). Same number of units and hits on each side.

Example: 4 Fgt @3 =4x3 12@3 against 12 TT=12/2= 6@1
So in very low luck game, 6 TT will be sink and 1 Fgt will be down.
(Roughly, like 300 transports vs 100 planes)

And after, 6 transports can escape or decide to pursue fighting.
This time the odds will be:
3fgt@3= 3x3 9@3 vs 6 TT= 6/2= 3@1
4.5 TT will down against .5Fgt. � and survivors can still flee.

For me it seems a more interesting fight than auto-kill with no option and the odds seems nearer the reality. (Since 400 planes against 600 transports is a large battle that worth playing it because it is possible to get casualities on both sides, not only on the TT side.)

I hope those who don’t want classic TT in Global would like this other kind of TT house rule and feel it is somewhat balance and representative. Given the change made about autokill and no hit value from OOB 1940 TT rules.

@knp7765:

Making transports defenseless makes more sense. I remember playing classic and having fleets of 1 or 2 battleships, a carrier and a stack of 10+ transports. No one would attack your fleet because they would never get to the high dollar stuff. That is, unless they had a huge stack of transports to throw in as fodder, which is also ridiculous.

You should have to protect your transports with warships, or suffer losing them and not transporting your troops. Someone mentioned Japan taking those little Pacific islands and how it’s not worth it to divert your fleet to protect the transports. Well, you could do that or simply write off those transports. Yeah, it sucks wasting 7 IPCs but if you get the islands you need (I’m thinking that 5 island NO for Japan) then perhaps it is worth losing a few transports in the long run. Plus, since now those guys have no transport, you have garrisons on those islands and the Allies will have to invest more to take them back. It just depends on your needs I think.

One downfall of defenseless transports that I don’t like is when you have a whole stack of transports and a single plane or ship takes them all out. Perhaps a good idea would be to limit the killing of defenseless transports to something like 3 per attacking unit (warship, sub or plane).

For example: The US has goofed and left 5 unescorted transports sitting in SZ 91. Germany sees this but has only 1 U-boat sitting in SZ 105. Germany also has a bomber sitting on the air base in Paris. Germany wanted to SBR London with his bomber.
Now, if Germany wants to sink all 5 US transports, he will have to send the U-boat AND the bomber. If Germany wants to SBR London with his bomber, he can just send the U-boat but will sink ONLY 3 of the US transports.
In summary, every 3 transports require 1 attacking unit to sink them. 1-3 transports=1 attacker, 4-6 TT=2 attackers, 7-9 TT=3 attackers, 10-12 TT=4 attackers, and so on.
Attacking units can be submarines, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, fighters, tac bombers and bombers.
Doesn’t that sound better than just one single attack unit being able to kill a whole stack of transports?

I don’t like the auto-kill but maybe I can adjust my precedent TT house rule, we can allow every attacking unit 3 rolls instead of only two.
Thus three rolls does not necessary mean 3 TT destroy. However, it increase the destructive capacity of combat unit against transport unit.

Example, after battle against warships escort, their is 2 damage BB against 7 TT.
2BB= 6@4 against 7TT= 3@1. In this situation, their is at least one surviving TT, but their is about 3/16 to kill both damaged BB.

In an historical sense: that could mean that around 350 transports fight against 4 or 6 Battleships already damaged during many days. It is acceptable.

I prefer this 3 rolls over 2 rolls because of the fleeing capacity TT get after 1 round.
It shouldn’t be easy to escape, in a sense making 3 rolls instead of 2, is like having another round of free attacks against fleeing targets.

3 rolls of each attacking unit is meant to balance the “dispersion” capacity gave to TT.
I think it is a house rule that can be introduce without great unbalancing damage to the OOB Global setting.

@Baron:

Here is what I think is a more balance TP 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.

TP A0D0M2C7 when paired to another transport give a +1 def. so a pair get 1@1
Ex.: 1TP get 0@1/ 2-3 TPs get 1@1 / 4-5 TPs get 2@1 / 6-7 TPs get 3@1, etc.

**Can defend when no more warships are present.

Attacking’s unit against a lonely TP or a TPs group get a double to hit rolls each.**
Ex.: 1 Sb 2@2/ 1 CA 2@3 / 1Fgt 2@3 / 2 StB 4@4, etc.

“Dispersion”: 1 or more TPs 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.

@Uncrustable
The difference between yours here and mine above, is?

@Uncrustable:

Transports still cost 7 and alone still have no defense and cant be taken as casualties….

But in pairs they act as a ‘single unit’ that defends at a 1.

So if you have 5 transports in a tt defending against an attack (even if multi-national) then you would roll 2 dice for the transports hitting on a 1. If the enemy gets a hit and you decide to lose a transport pair over a warship or plane then you lose 2 transports and now have 3, so one pair is left rolling one dice at a 1
The odd numbered transport does not participate

Is it mainly that
a) your attacking unit still get only 1 attack , 1Sub= 1@2 vs 2 rolls/units, ex: 1Sub= 2@2.

b) The dual Transports unit @1 can take 1 hit and is now treated as any other warship, vs
  a completely different battle and group in which 2TPs can take 2 hits but Def @1.

c) Your TP cannot flee, vs mine TP can “disperse”, but doesn’t must, after first round?

@Uncrustable:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

The biggest argument in this thread is whether or not player can choose thier 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.

You have a point.

However, I’m not sure to understand your option:

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

Do you mean a classic TP C8 Def@1 but only in paired ?
or a new TP C7 “Taken last” but when paired Def @1?
But I know for sure that you mean that for every 1 attacking hit, it destroys 2TPs, except for the last one.

But do you include in your package “dispersion” or flee tactics?

@elevenjerk:

I kind of like this idea.

A lone transport can defend on 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.
(Eliminates the 1 fighter taking out a lone transport with no risk)
A group of transports is the same thing, 1@1 for 1 round then retreat.
The attackers can only kill as many transports as they get hits.

Ex. 2 fighters, 2 tacs attack 5 transports. Attackers roll 2@3 get 1 hit, roll 2@4 and get 2 hits.
The transports roll 1@1 and get 1 hit.
Attackers lose 1 fighter. Defenders lose 3 transports and retreat the other 2.

I think with this formula it makes it so they are not a powerful defensive unit.
It also makes it so there is a bit of risk to it (the dice have to get rolled).
Lastly, it makes the attacker have to maybe forfeit an attack somewhere else or have a few more weaker attacks in order to take out the transports.

I think all the points have been really good on this thread.

Powerful defensive unit depend on where you start from. If we stay Inside OOB1940, it will make a big difference even if it’s less powerful than classics 1@1.

By giving a lonely transport a defense @1, it will make many situations where 1 escort ship and 1 TP an interesting task force, even a lonely TP become a freaking AA against 1 plane. OOB TP rules make this historical non-sense disappear.

I would rather prefer just to give a lonely one TP the escape solution, and be able to flee in the same sea-zone if it wasn’t hit during 1 round of enemy’s fire against TP only.

However, in terms of balancing units, the “dispersion” or flee option is more powerful than the submerge for a subs on defense. Since it cannot submerge while their is a DD attacking.

It is quite strange than a surface vessel is able to escape even in the presence of faster units like DD or Cruiser, not even talking about planes!

Their is more, giving this possibility in Global will mean: it will be far more difficult to control and destroy those TPs without involving more units for getting a killing blow.
The OOB game was play-tested including the possibility of destroying many Transports with even only one surviving attacking units.

That situation is of course an over-achievement
(Ex.: 1 surviving TcB against 10 TPs, after a long battle against a large warships escort.) and need adjustment (as some earlier posts pointed on).
Sorry, but if we allow “dispersion” it is a far different game because it means the difference between a group of 9TPs surviving vs 0 survivors. A great escape or a total wreck.

I think it still needs adjustment (if we don’t want too much unbalancing turmoils with a new house rule), whether more destroying capabilities for attacking units or a more restricted “fleeing” option.

@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.

This house rule reduces the number of hit the defender can take and it increases the impact of a hit from attacker.

The disadvantage with this rule is that it breaks the A&A principles: “1 unit = 1 hit”
It’s add another layer of complexity.
Between giving two dices per attacker’s unit or giving one hit per 2 TPs, I will prefer the first.

But, it doesn’t mean that it can be house ruled.

However, “devil is in the details”.

In this way, I have a question: what do you mean exactly?

Odd numbered transports do not participate.

You should present some examples to see if some problems arise.

Here is what I think is a more balance TP 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.

TP A0D0M2C7 when paired to another transport give a +1 def. so a pair get 1@1
Ex.: 1TP get 0@1/ 2-3 TPs get 1@1 / 4-5 TPs get 2@1 / 6-7 TPs get 3@1, etc.

**Can defend when no more warships are present.

Attacking’s unit against a lonely TP or a TPs group get a double to hit rolls each.**
Ex.: 1 Sb 2@2/ 1 CA 2@3 / 1Fgt 2@3 / 2 StB 4@4, etc.

“Dispersion”: 1 or more TPs 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 TP firepower against 1 BB unit.
1@1 vs 1@4 is very unrealistic but 1@1 for 2 TPs 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 TPs 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.

@Eggman:

@BJCard:

My vote is any transport that survives the initial attack is allowed to retreat to another friendly SZ- if no friendly SZ exists then they are dead.

A Transport costing 10 IPCs may as well invite the Allies to never land in Europe.  The Allies already have a tough enough time building a defensive fleet to move in range of Germany’s Air.

This is probably as far as I would go as well, or possibly raising the price back up to 8 and giving back the defensive roll @1.  I don’t think any unit should ever just be automatically eliminated- including the AA guns.

Your post contain almost all different points of debate in this topic:

1- Automatic elimination of Transport or not?
2- To flee or not to flee? 1 sea-zone away or same sea-zone (like Sb submerge)?
3- If able to defend, @? For how many TPs units and which odds? And what cost?
4- OOB 1940 transport rules (TPs are taken last) or Classic rules (TPs are part of the warships fleet and are often used as shield)?
5- If TPs taken last but able to defend, at the same time as other warships or only once warships are no more?

@elevenjerk:

Seldom agrees about defender choosing casuality.

I just don’t see what any other options would be that didn’t provide the same type of result in a different manner.  If the person rolling the dice chooses then obviously things like infantry and subs would be the last in the battle.  So the end of the dice rolls are looking for 1’s and 2’s to try to get hits and finish off the battle instead of the 3’s and 4’s.

Could be a whole different thread, but I don’t see any way that it would make the game better to change who picks casualties.

“Seldom” I mean “few people”, all is about following the “The transports are taken last.” or instead letting the defensive player choose the casualities between warships and transport.

My point is that without this rule, it is very difficult to not use Transports as a shield for the stronger units.

@Der:

Larry Harris said this about transports in 2007 on his site:

“I will say this Transports are considered to be lightly defended with escorts. Additional ships provide additional defense and so on.” (Posted: Fri 23.Feb, 2007)

So originally transports were not to be thought of as just transports.

**Two maxims of the game have generally been:

1. every decision involves some risk (dice rolls)
2. defender chooses his own casualties**

The new transport rules violate both.

That’s really the point here.

**And I can say it is very convincing, but the other aspect is the strategical effect of introducing TP Def@1 C10:

1. on Amphibious assault.
2. on the moves of naval fleet.**

With TP @0 C7 their was always another unit (DD, Carrier) to protect them from StrB or evil subs roaming on sea-zones.

Now, with a bunch of them they get a far better protection:
Ex.: 3TPs @1 & 1DD @2. D5 pts, 4 hits, 38 IPCs, 6 units on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 3DDs @2. D6 pts, 3 hits, 38 IPCs, 4 units on board.

After 1 hit, see what happen:
Ex.: 2TPs @1 & 1DD@2. D4 pts, 3 hits, 28 IPCs, 4 units left on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 2DD@2. D4 pts, 2 hits, 30 IPCs, 4 units left on board.

After 2 hits, let’s see:
Ex.: 1TP @1 & 1DD@2. D3 pts, 2 hits, 18 IPCs, 2 units left on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 1DD@2. D2 pts, 1 hit, 22 IPCs, 4 units left on board.

After 3 hits, let’s see:
Ex.: 1TP @1 & 0DD@2. D1 pt, 1 hit, 10 IPCs, 2 units left on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 0DD@2. D0 pt, 1 hit, 14 IPCs, 4 units left on board.

If their is still attacking units, it is over for 2TPs @0 but they were protected all the way.

If their is still attacking units, it’s not over for 1TP @1 but they were used all the way as a screen for DD. I could have kept the DD instead on the third hit.

Against both StrB or Subs, it will be the return of the screening transports…
Unless you kept the TP chosen last.

The more I think about it, the more I see how it is required to specify which rules you chose to help searching for a balance unit:

Many agree about the rule: TPs are chosen last.
Few agrees about defender choosing casuality.

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.

If one of these house rules was apply, there was still defending units left to fight:

TPd Spendo02 @1 C7 as a group of 1 or more / 1 hit value.
TPe Baron M   @1 C7 as a group of 2 or more / 1 hit value. 1 TP alone is TPa.

If a House rule introduce that TP can take hit in Global 1940, it is a real defensive advantage for them even if it means only 1 @1 per group of TPs.

The reason is that for 70 IPCs, TP C7 makes 10 units on the board, so it is 3 more units than TP C10.

3 hits to soak damage can lead to 2 more rounds @1, 2x1/6= 11/36 odds to kill something.

TP @1 C10 is 42% more expensive than TP @0 C7.
It can have a great impact on troops moving when their is less danger around them. Surely it will impairs Allies logistics and communication roads.

Here is another simulation:
Ex.: 3TPs @1 &0DD@2. D3 pts, 3 hits 30 IPCs, 6 units on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 2DD@2. D4 pts, 2 hits 30 IPCs, 4 units on board.

After 1 hit, see what happen:
Ex.: 2TPs @1 & 0DD@2. D2 pts, 2 hits, 20 IPCs, 4 units on board vs
      2TPs @0 & 1DD@2. D2 pts, 1 hit, 22 IPCs, 4 units on board.

After 2 hits, 1 TP @1 survived, its over for TP @0 if any surviving enemy:
Ex.: 1 TP @1/0DD@2. D1 pt, 1 hit, 10 IPCs, 2 units on board vs
      2 TPs @0/0DD@2. D0 pt, 1 hit, 14 IPCs, 4 units on board.
or    0 TP @0/0DD@2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 0 IPC, 0 units on board.

After 3 hits: Everything is destroyed for both, unless giving TP @0 can take hit.
In this situation, it means TP flee after one round of fire.
Ex.: 0 TP @1 & 0DD @2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 0 IPC, 0 units on board vs
      1TP @? & 0DD @2. D? pt, 1 hit, 7 IPCs, 2 units on board.

Here is a last simulation:
Ex.: 2TPs @1/2DD@2. D6 pts, 4 hits, 36 IPCs, 4 units on board vs
      4TPs @0/1DD@2. D2 pts, 1 hit, 36 IPCs, 8 units on board.

After 1 hit, see what happen:
Ex.: 2TPs @1 & 1DD@2. D4 pts, 3 hits, 28 IPCs, 4 units on board vs
      4TPs @0 & 0DD@2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 28 IPCs, 8 units on board.

After 2 hits, 2TPs @1 survived, its over for TP @0 if any surviving enemy:
Ex.: 2TPs @1 & 0DD@2. D2 pts, 2 hits, 20 IPCs, 4 units on board vs
      0TP @0 & 0DD@2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 0 IPCs, 0 units on board.
or   3TPs @? & 0DD@2. D? pt, 3 hits, 21 IPCs, 6 units on board.
Everything is destroyed for TP @0, unless _giving TP @0 can take hit.
In this situation, it means TP flee after one round of fire.

After 3 hits,      
Ex.: 1TP @1 & 0DD@2. D1 pt, 1 hit, 10 IPCs, 2 units on board vs
      2TPs @? & 0DD@2. D? pt, 2 hits, 14 IPCs, 4 units on board.

After 4 hits,
Ex.: 0TP @1 & 0DD @2. D0 pt, 0 hit, 0 IPC, 0 units on board vs
      1TP @? & 0DD @2. D? pts, 1 hit, 7 IPCs, 2 units on board._

@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.

@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.

@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.

@toblerone77:

How would that be when transports CANNOT attack offensively? The opposition could just as easily build destroyers to counter them.

How effective is AA on a one to one basis? It seems to me you heavily emphasize on fighter/aircraft attacks against transports which is great for the player deploying the aircraft. They get to spend less and have no risk against transports if unescorted.

Unless you build at least two destroyers per transport it’s an easy victory for one plane because you essentially knock out a transport, it’s cargo and it’s destroyer and if you lose even a bomber it’s the same risk attacking lone infantry except you wipe out a whole lot more of the enemies IPCs. Especially for the Luftwaffe which is why players who play as Germany a lot love this ruling.

It really doesn’t matter what I think anyway. I doubt Larry Harris is reading this board and I doubt anything said here will change anything else within the game played by the community as a whole.

I still maintain that transports should have a defense and those of us here who agree will simply house rule it in our home games.

You don’t need much offensive navy with airplanes (UK/USA).

I imagine almost Germany vs UK&USA.

Usually, Germany is not able to put many naval units and must use (more versatile) aircrafts  instead of DDs and Subs but have to pay the price.
In 1940, you need a defensive core of CV+2Fgt+1DD to protect transports.
Even when Germany could destroy those warships, it will face many TT x@1 and will pay the price of replacing lost needed Fgt (10 vs 8 IPCs) and trying to put enough ground units to repel USSR.

At last, it will come a time, it won’t be able to put naval units and will keep solely Fgt and Inf to create fortress Europe.

I agree Transport should have defense. And must be chosen last.
We disagree on the value:  @1/each unit vs @1 a whole group 2+ of TPs at 7 IPCs
and the cost: 7+1=8 IPCs vs 7+2 = 9 IPCs for a similar unit as you suggest.

And I may even introduce a fleeing tactics for isolated Transport against attacking units.

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

Maybe they are not very compelling arguments.
For now, I can just propose other means to solve the problems expose in this thread.

Forums are a place for exploration, creative and critical thinking about different aspects of A&A. Larry is a reference (not a dictator) and this does not exclude to think outside the box (like you were trying to do).

Everyone pick and try what he sees fit most for his players and style of game.
According to how the points are exposed, it could help people choosing what they prefer.
From my point of view, the more there is to pick, the better.

@bongaroo:

I hated the way transports worked in 2nd edition. �Most fleets were a bunch of transports with only a couple of carriers with planes and maybe a battleship. �The introduction of cruisers, destroyers, and multi hit capital ships makes a lot more sense.

You keep talking about how everything has risk, well you took the risk of sending an undefended transport. �

-edit-

Yes, those battleships or other fighting ships better not just watch the transports get creamed when they could defend them.� What kind of heartless captain would let practically defenseless ships get slaughtered nearby?�

Anyone eared about Leyte’s Golf Naval Battle?
Let’s see it in french:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrqGsOUojKY
Or in english:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLRteCJaA_Q

IJN BBs and many CAs were against some DD and escorts carriers, and they were protecting all marines transports. An Epic Battle!

There were not many units, some of us could see them as integrated to the transport unit.

But I prefer to create a specific unit like:
Escort carrier A0/1 D1 M2 Cost 10 Carry 1 Fgt and is ASW.

@toblerone77:

Based on the game’s simulation of WWII era combat, using a D6 system, a defensive factor of 1 which is lowest defensive score is appropriate.

The argument for no defense is still not valid, and the justification for removing it is as well. It is impossible for one unit comprising of mostly fighters to destroy the equivalent of hundeds if not thousands of ships.

I’ll use the submarine argument against air vs. sub imbalance then. A transport should be able to retreat after one round of attack. The same way a sub can submerge. The TRN can be tipped on it’s side as if retreating. There were blockade runners in all kinds of wars.

Hell let’s just get rid of them and go for sea routes ala Risk! There were thousands of transports travelling alone all over the globe un-contested.

It is possible to get a lower rate that 1 unit @1: 1/6 per unit.
AA guns get 3@1 once.
I suggested: 2 and more TPs get only 1D@1 but endure as many hits as they are.

A fleeing tactics can be imagine:
Philip Schwartzer from Gamers Paradise suggested that two or more TPs can be attack by 2@4 for each Sub and BB.

For a single round, you can double dice for every attacking units and let the remaining TPs as survivors: 1Fg @3 get 2@3/ 1StrB get 2@4, etc.

@toblerone77:

@Cow:

Transports have aa guns on them. Historically transports have rammed into subs. Not sure on aa gun kills or other ramming.

This^ Again, a token defense of one isn’t a game breaker in this “realisitic” game.

Actually, I think it will unbalance Global.
You will generates a small core fleet of warships and “sheep pack” of TPs
Maybe the warships will be destroyed but as soon as 5 or more TPs are rollings @1, it will become the infantry of the sea in an extensive group.

Because they will do both defending and transporting units.
Not a high rate but just enough to keep many Fgts and StrB at bay.

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 Transport Def@1 8 IPCs.
But giving starting Transport Def@1 will have an impact.

I already thinking about a similar unit: TP+corvettes/frigates Def@1 for 9 IPCs.
And also keeping TP D@0 7IPCs.
And transport are taken as last casualties.

Just a way to upgrade starting Transport 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 Transport for 7 IPCs or TP 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 TP with no hit value after introducing TP D@1 C9…