Transports

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
User avatar
Guerrilla Guy
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Texas Baby!

Post by Guerrilla Guy » Mon Dec 27, 2004 1:59 pm

Is it a possibility to make Transports in a Convoy strung across the sea? like you get so many to start the game and after you get enough built up to the SZ where you will launch your invasion you can use the amount of trans(more particularly carry limit) you have to land... of course they would cost less... Sorry if I sound choppy...

Thoughts, ideas?

GG
"We're airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded."

Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne

Games are like my Avatar...

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:13 pm

Larry wrote:Actually this time of year ... it's WHITE and not because Larry made it so...
I know its white, I live here, remember.
But Larry, FRANKLY, are you sure you dont have anything to do with that ?

I only ask because I dont remember it to have been white before.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:41 pm

ah but your lucky, and you should be happy, germany should be the only grey zone as larry has suggested...give your son a hug for changing larrys mind about it, but just pray larry doesnt make it soft pink instead !!

kurt3892
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:07 am
Location: White Haven, PA.
Contact:

fodder

Post by kurt3892 » Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:45 am

I'm not crazy about this idea of transports not being able to be used as fodder. I think the defender should be able to choose his casualties as is now the case but I think if a 'one' is rolled then the attacker should be able to choose the casualty...as others have mentioned before.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:59 pm

Well kurt the idea is that transports arent attached in naval actions, they represent merchant marine shipping. The destroyer cost at generally 6 IP is the insentive to buy this fodder rather than 8 IP trannys. Now some naval units will have more historical duties and give them a real character. Destroyers are to protect fleets and conduct ASW . Cruisers take their role as large ships that can lead task forces into battle on their own terms but not cost too much for a poor economy. This way subsare now given new powers which can roam thru enemy controlled spaces and attack transports/ and convoy centers that are unprotected , or conduct fleet attacks in groups. All these things become more realistic changes from the old rules.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:04 pm

Comments noted.
//////

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2666
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:15 am

Reposting this here from the "Transports as Fodder" thread. I don't want this idea to get lost in the shuffle:

Transports may only be taken as casualties when they outnumber the warships and fighters in the fleet.

This is realistic, in that transports can be protected by warships and fighters, but only on a 1 for 1 basis. It also eliminates the unrealistic practice of using transports as fodder. It also avoids the clunky and unrealistic result of all warships being destroyed, leaving a fleet of helpless transports to be slaughtered.

Example: A fleet consisting of a DD, a CV, 2 fighters and 3 transports is attacked. If the owner wants to take the maximum number of transports possible for casualties, the order of loss would be: DD, fighter, transport, fighter, transport, CV, transport.

This spreads the transport losses accross the battle, rather than lumping them at the beginning or end. Of course, if you want to preserve the transports 'til the end, you still can - you just can't take them all up front.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:45 pm

This would depend on what was doing the attacking, Submarine hits on ships cannot go against planes but only ships, while if the advanced naval rules are anything like the sub rules, then im seeing "targeted" units style of rules (e.g. each ship matching up to another ship with extra ships "ganging up" as they choose). So from another perspective i can see the same result since the extra transports would de divided into the smaller groups and taken as loses. But the detracting point is transports at eight IP and destroyers at say 6IP would help end this problem.
If we kept the destroyers at eight IP then when the enemy subs came to hunt, the defender would protect his destroyers and let the transports sink!! The reality must be the other way around and one way to accomplish this is to make destroyers at 6 IP.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests