Posts made by elevenjerk

Uncrustables are really good!!!  :-D

Every time when it’s David and Goliath :-D.

Great example though.  My exact reason for supporting the expulsion of defenseless transports.

I doubt transports were faster than warships

The stuff I found on them stated that they were designed to be faster so they could get away.  Which carries over to BJCards point….

a transport many times was a converted ocean liner or purpose-built bare bones ‘liberty ships.’

This is also true.  In fact the titanic would have been a transport ship in the war.  White Star Line actually provided ships in WW1 and WW2 as transports.

Yes, I agree that there were some transports that had defenses, but they are not heavily defended and are extremely vulnerable.  An air unit represents more than 100 aircraft- how many transports had air defenses to make them able to kill 100 aircraft 1/6 of the time?  These transports seem to be designed to defend against small surveillance squadrons at best.

I think that we can agree that with only six #'s on a dice, it can never be perfect.  But the transports did have weapons to fire at aircraft and warships, they were faster than warships so that they could escape.  1@1 is not heavily defended and makes them extremely vulnerable.  Especially if there are more than one transport.  AA Guns were designed to shoot down aircraft and its ok that they only fire 1@1 once.

How effective was WWII anti-air anyway?

This would counter what you said about infantry having AA with the unit.  Yet they defend at 2.  You think a ground infantry unit could take out 100 + planes with the AA they carry in their unit at 2/6 odd.

All this to say is that it cannot be perfect.  No matter what, there will be some sort of situation where it won’t make sense historically or even logically.  The thing in my opinion that makes the least sense is that there is a unit in a game about war that has 0 capability of protecting itself.  Especially like someone said earlier “in the spirit of the game” where rolling dice is the key.

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!

Then its just a 19 point bid, you can do that now if you’re playing with bidding.

A restricted bid since only the french get to spend the money.

I was talking about when each transport rolls a dice

I think that is too much as well.  That is why I believe that the group of transports get 1@1 and then retreat.

If they can’t move at all, it really seems to defeat the purpose of letting them start before Germany.

It would allow them to place additional 5 inf and 1 art in France so that germany would have to bring a bit more to take it.

Well letting transports defend at a 1 (not just against aircraft) lets them do some pretty absurd things like sink battleships

No, cause they only get 1@1 and then have to retreat.  It takes 2 to sink a battleship.

I meant lower transport cost from 8 to 7 implies combat value too usefull and too affordable, so Larry as to denied it in the new OOB rules.

Misunderstood initially but yes I agree.

So you prefer this option and its drawback? :

I do in theory.  It would have to be tested to see the actual effect.  I just believe it takes out the “no risk” factor for the attacker on the transport.  As you can see by my last post, they had the capability to fire back.  It also makes it impossible for transports to wipe out multiple air units attacking them.  They also were designed to be faster than surface warships so they could outrun them hence the mandatory retreat after getting one shot at the attacker.

I don’t know who exactly came up with all the different ideas.  I just read the thread and pulled out the ideas I thought could make it more realistic and most importantly eliminate the name of this thread.  “The aberration of the defenseless transport”

Well, an infantry unit would inherently have some AA capability or it wouldn’t be able to kill aircraft

Here is a small list of some of the ww2 troopships

dual purpose gun  or dp

A dual purpose gun is a naval artillery mounting designed to engage both surface and air targets.

USS Le Jeune AP-74

1 x 5"/38 caliber dual purpose gun
4 x 3"/50 caliber dp guns
8 x 40mm guns
13 x 20mm guns

USS General William Mitchell AP-114

4 x single 5"/38 caliber dual purpose guns, 4 x quad 1.1" guns, 20 x single 20mm guns

USS Hermitage AP-54

1 x 5"/38 caliber dual purpose gun
6 x 3"/50 caliber dp guns

So the transports as well had the AA capability.  Obviously not strong but they were not “defenseless”.

5 out of 5 on your first roll was pretty harsh as well :-o

Well, you could love this but the French will still have a sizable force in Southern France-  they could go to Normandy and the Brits could land there- perhaps land a bunch of fighters there.  Or stay in Southern France and the Brits land units there from Egypt/Malta/etc.

I agree.  I don’t think allowing this type of army to stay alive is a very good idea.  I would take all the german forces available to try and wipe them out asap.  Moving them into southern france would make that difficult to do on G1.  S France could have 10 inf, 3 art, 1 armor, 2 fighters, 1 AA gun.  (possibly more powerful units with a different purchase).  Germany could only get 4 mech, 3 tanks, 4 fighter, 4 tacs, 2 strat.  The odds are only 62% that germany wins with one ground unit to take the land (63% otherwise).  That also takes away most of the attacks, if not all, on the Royal Navy.  Tough spot for germany to start at.

Large group of TTs become too dangerous in itself.

Agree 100%.  Thats why whether it is 1 TT or 6 they get 1@1 and then can reatreat ONLY when all warships and Planes are removed from the battle and attackers are left.  No attack value at all.

TT could destroy too much valuable pieces (mainly aircrafts).
Historical inaccuracy.

The same argument could be made against inf.  Do you think 1 inf unit could wipe out an entire unit of planes?  I would think no, yet they defend at 2.  So they have twice as good of odds to do so.  They also have twice as good of odds to get a hit as an AA gun.  Where in history would a defending AA gun only fire once and then abandon the gun for the next wave of planes?  Not that I disagree with the current AA rules but as far as historical accuracy its not even close.  Not to mention once again that the whole game is historically inaccurate because the axis win most of the time.  The countries this rule would benefit the most would be Japan, UK, and US.  It may even the game out a bit.

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.

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 flee’s.  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.

Ouch!  was having a hard time connecting with my 4’s in 97.  I knew it was a little thin but I had to risk it.  I also hate that ethiopia battle. It goes bad a lot!  I am glad I made it out of there with a victory even.  Especially when the Bombardment misses.  That is a real downer :-(

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.6

Game History

Round :1

Purchase Units - British
            British buy 1 fighter and 6 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

Purchase Units - UK_Pacific
            UK_Pacific buy 1 armour, 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

Combat Move - British
            1 destroyer moved from 109 Sea Zone to 106 Sea Zone
            1 cruiser moved from 91 Sea Zone to 106 Sea Zone
            1 bomber and 1 fighter moved from United Kingdom to 97 Sea Zone
            1 destroyer moved from 98 Sea Zone to 96 Sea Zone
            1 tactical_bomber moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone
            1 carrier and 1 cruiser moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone
            1 armour and 1 infantry moved from Alexandria to 98 Sea Zone
            1 armour, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 98 Sea Zone to 76 Sea Zone
            1 armour and 1 infantry moved from 76 Sea Zone to Ethiopia
            1 infantry moved from Anglo Egyptian Sudan to Ethiopia
            1 mech_infantry moved from Egypt to Ethiopia
            1 cruiser moved from 39 Sea Zone to 76 Sea Zone
            1 fighter moved from Malta to 97 Sea Zone
            1 fighter moved from Gibraltar to 96 Sea Zone

Combat - British
            Italians scrambles 3 units out of Southern Italy to defend against the attack in 97 Sea Zone
            Battle in 106 Sea Zone
                British attack with 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer
                Germans defend with 1 submarine
                British win, taking 106 Sea Zone from Germans with 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6
                Casualties for Germans: 1 submarine
            Battle in Ethiopia
                British attack with 1 armour, 2 infantry and 1 mech_infantry
                Italians defend with 1 artillery and 2 infantry
                British win, taking Ethiopia from Italians with 1 armour remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0
                Casualties for British: 2 infantry and 1 mech_infantry
                Casualties for Italians: 1 artillery and 2 infantry
            Battle in 96 Sea Zone
                British attack with 1 destroyer and 1 fighter
                Italians defend with 1 destroyer and 1 transport
                British win with 1 fighter remaining. Battle score for attacker is 7
                Casualties for British: 1 destroyer
                Casualties for Italians: 1 destroyer and 1 transport
            Battle in 97 Sea Zone
                British attack with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber
                Germans defend with 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber; Italians defend with 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 fighter and 1 transport
                Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Italians
                Italians win with 1 battleship, 2 fighters and 1 transport remaining. Battle score for attacker is -48
                Casualties for Germans: 1 tactical_bomber
                Casualties for British: 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber
                Casualties for Italians: 1 cruiser
            Moving scrambled unit from 97 Sea Zone back to originating territory: Southern Italy
            Moving scrambled unit from 97 Sea Zone back to originating territory: Southern Italy

Non Combat Move - British
            1 fighter moved from 96 Sea Zone to Malta
            1 transport moved from 109 Sea Zone to 106 Sea Zone
            1 artillery moved from Alexandria to Egypt
            1 destroyer moved from 71 Sea Zone to 81 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from West India to Eastern Persia
                  British take Eastern Persia from Neutral_Allies
            1 infantry moved from Burma to Shan State
            2 infantry moved from India to 39 Sea Zone
            2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 39 Sea Zone to 44 Sea Zone
            2 infantry moved from 44 Sea Zone to Celebes
                  UK_Pacific take Celebes from Dutch
            1 fighter moved from Burma to India
            1 battleship moved from 37 Sea Zone to 39 Sea Zone
            1 battleship moved from 111 Sea Zone to 118 Sea Zone
            1 fighter moved from Scotland to United Kingdom
            2 infantry moved from Scotland to United Kingdom
            1 infantry moved from Egypt to Anglo Egyptian Sudan
            1 artillery moved from Egypt to Anglo Egyptian Sudan

Place Units - British
            1 fighter and 6 infantry placed in United Kingdom

Turn Complete - British
            British collect 29 PUs; end with 29 PUs total
            Objective British 1 Original: British met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 34 PUs

Place Units - UK_Pacific
            1 armour, 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry placed in India

Turn Complete - UK_Pacific
            UK_Pacific collect 20 PUs; end with 20 PUs total
            Some Units in India change ownership: 1 armour, 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry

I think transport pairs is a much better idea.

This could still make the odds of battles change a bunch.  When you have 10 TT’s (which I have in one particular strategy with Japan) that is a lot of firepower on the defensive side of things.  My rule (with the help of BJCard’s ideas) is mostly to make transports as irrelevant (when it comes to battles) as possible but still able to protect themselves.

Also its kinda absurd that 1 transport would roll the same dice as 100 transports….

Cause there are a lot of games that someone has 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.

Seems like the general point of the thread is to eliminate the “auto die” part of the current rules.

If we implemented some kind of house rule for this, would the initial setup have to be changed?  It may make it harder to take out the British and Italian fleets for instance.

I don’t think it would effect it too much.  I also forgot to mention that they are not part of any battles when warships are in the sea zone.  They would only get to fire at the end if they were the only one left.  I believe I got that from one of the posts that you put up earlier in the thread.

Ex. 1  sz 97.  UK comes in with a carrier, cruiser, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 1 strat.  Italy doesn’t scramble.  UK rolls and gets 4 hits. Italy defends with 1@3 (cruiser) and 1@4 (Battleship).  Since UK got four hits that takes the 2 hits for the BB, 1 hit for the CV, 1 hit for the TT.

Ex. 2    UK comes in with a carrier, cruiser, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 1 strat.  Italy doesn’t scramble.  UK rolls and gets 3 hits.  Italy defends with 1@3 (cruiser) and 1@4 (Battleship).  Since the UK did not get enough hits to take the transports as well there is another round of firing.  The TT gets to defend 1@1 and then gets to retreat if the remaining UK forces was unable to muster up the last hit.

If I was the french I would buy 5 inf 1 art, move guys from S France and Normandy to France, fly fighter in from London.  This makes Germany have to bring all available ground units.  Add 2 bombers and a tac to that and the odds are still only 63% that Germany wins with only 2 tanks left.  Thats not the odds I want.  I at least want all my tanks and planes left after the France battle.

Who knows what happens after that.  It could balance the game or maybe skew it toward the allies.  It may be more fun if the allies are favored.  Axis gets to initiate all the action at the expense of it being a little more difficult to win.  Right now, the axis get to initiate all the action and kick ass for the most part so no one wants to be the allies.  Sit around and wait to get your ass handed to you:)