Transports used to block warships - Issue for RC8?

[zechi]

I know this issue already has been discussed, but I want to raise the issue again to consider for RC8. In my current game with Supermax he used transports to block the western entry of the Med. Furthermore, he used some transports to trap some Allied naval units near Sicily.

In both cases I could destroy/breach the blockade quite easily with my naval assets. Nevertheless, I think using transports to block Battleships is cheesy.

I could imagine that these transports are armed merchantmen or auxiliary cruisers which were used in WW2 by the Axis as well as the Allies (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_merchantman) and could possibly be used as a diversion against regular warships. However, in GS it is first necessary to load at least a GAR or some other ground unit on the transport which makes this especially silly.

A Division or Corps is loaded on a transport for a suicide blockade of warships. This would never have happened in the real war. I also doubt that even armed merchantmen could have blocked warships for a full turn (20 Days).

Therefore I think the best solution would be, if transport could simply bypassed by any naval unit.

Alternatively the loss of a transport should hurt more. Right now there is no real limit to build as many transports as necessary. It will result in PP penalties, but nothing else. This is also unrealistic, as transports were not available as easily.

With implementation of the rule that you get back the PP for a transport it is now easier then ever to load many units on transports as the costs will be get back evetually.

[Crazygunner1]

The cost for a lost transport like this is 15pps for GAR and the another 8pps, total 23pps as a blockstopper. You don´t think that is enough?

[zechi]

The cost for a lost transport like this is 15pps for GAR and the another 8pps, total 23pps as a blockstopper. You don´t think that is enough?

That depends on the situation. Of course a transport is only used as a "blockstopper" if it is really worth, i.e. in critical moments. Then 23 PP can be worth to sacrifice. Furthermore, the transport is not necessarily destroyed. You usually need at least two naval or air units to destroy a transport, i.e. a transport can be used to divert important attacks. Furthermore, in my game with supermax he withdrew transports which were damaged and immediately formed fresh transports to continue the blockade. As you get the PP for forming the transport back, the costs can be less then 23 PP.

[Crazygunner1]

The cost for a lost transport like this is 15pps for GAR and the another 8pps, total 23pps as a blockstopper. You don´t think that is enough?

That depends on the situation. Of course a transport is only used as a "blockstopper" if it is really worth, i.e. in critical moments. Then 23 PP can be worth to sacrifice. Furthermore, the transport is not necessarily destroyed. You usually need at least two naval or air units to destroy a transport, i.e. a transport can be used to divert important attacks. Furthermore, in my game with supermax he withdrew transports which were damaged and immediately formed fresh transports to continue the blockade. As you get the PP for forming the transport back, the costs can be less then 23 PP.

I see your point...bypassing could be a solution if the opposite side is not occupied by a unit.

[Kragdob]

I see your point...bypassing could be a solution if the opposite side is not occupied by a unit.

I like this option. I also think that transports should be destroyed by one medium/high tech naval unit in ~85% of times if it comes to combat.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This one is rather tricky to fix. The game engine won't allow for units to be transparent (like transports or subs).

One alternative could be to lower th survivability of transports, but that means they can too easily be destroyed by bombers, subs etc. A nasty strategy is for the Axis to place subs in ports and use them to attack adjacent transports.

If we want to do something then I think we could let BB's ONLY get a bonus to the naval attack against transports. This means transports are vulnerable to BB's, but not other unit types at sea. So when you transport the units across the Atlantic you can make a blob around them and prevent them from being sunk.

We have a similar issue with subs blocking the entry to the Mediterranean. It takes some time for the DD's to clear that. I think we can live with that because ahead of Torch you can send a DD scouting for to clear the Gibraltar. DD's have bonuses vs subs so the subs will pay if the try to block the entry.

So doing the same for transports can prevent players from using them as cannon fodder. If a BB can almost sink a transport then a DD or sub or CV can finish it off. So you better not let your transports become exposed to BB's. Adding naval attack by 2 or 3 for BB's vs transports can be a good idea. Maybe we can let BB's get a bonus vs convoys too. Surface raiders would be even more devastating against convoys than subs.

We could even let the bonus for BB's be surface tech / 2 rounded up. This way the bonus is higher late in the game. A reason for that is that otherwise the RN can crush Sealion invaders more easily.

[rkr1958]

This one is rather tricky to fix. The game engine won't allow for units to be transparent (like transports or subs).

One alternative could be to lower th survivability of transports, but that means they can too easily be destroyed by bombers, subs etc. A nasty strategy is for the Axis to place subs in ports and use them to attack adjacent transports.

If we want to do something then I think we could let BB's ONLY get a bonus to the naval attack against transports. This means transports are vulnerable to BB's, but not other unit types at sea. So when you transport the units across the Atlantic you can make a blob around them and prevent them from being sunk.

We have a similar issue with subs blocking the entry to the Mediterranean. It takes some time for the DD's to clear that. I think we can live with that because ahead of Torch you can send a DD scouting for to clear the Gibraltar. DD's have bonuses vs subs so the subs will pay if the try to block the entry.

So doing the same for transports can prevent players from using them as cannon fodder. If a BB can almost sink a transport then a DD or sub or CV can finish it off. So you better not let your transports become exposed to BB's. Adding naval attack by 2 or 3 for BB's vs transports can be a good idea. Maybe we can let BB's get a bonus vs convoys too. Surface raiders would be even more devastating against convoys than subs.

We could even let the bonus for BB's be surface tech / 2 rounded up. This way the bonus is higher late in the game. A reason for that is that otherwise the RN can crush Sealion invaders more easily.

If you did this, why wouldn't DD's also get a bonus against transports?

[pk867]

IMO subs that stay in port and attack adjacent transports or ships should attack at half strength.

Subs can not deploy properly in shallow and congested area around ports.

This tactic is ahistorical.

Also why do Strategic bombers perform a Strategic attack against a port when there is a naval unit present.

I have HotSeated this and if you attack a hidden sub or a visible sub in port the SAC unit uses the strategic value and

not the Naval or ASW values. FTR's, TACs, and CV's use a value, but I can not determine if those units use the Naval or ASW values.

Subs are immune to surface vessels when in port.

[zechi]

IMO subs that stay in port and attack adjacent transports or ships should attack at half strength.

Subs can not deploy properly in shallow and congested area around ports.

This tactic is ahistorical.

Also why do Strategic bombers perform a Strategic attack against a port when there is a naval unit present.

I have HotSeated this and if you attack a hidden sub or a visible sub in port the SAC unit uses the strategic value and

not the Naval or ASW values. FTR's, TACs, and CV's use a value, but I can not determine if those units use the Naval or ASW values.

Subs are immune to surface vessels when in port.

I agree with your assessment. SUBs should be vulnerable in ports. In fact the Germans had to build massive Monster blockhouses (which exist until today as they are nearly undestructible) in their most important SUB bases (like Bordeaux or La Rochelle), see the pic:

[zechi]

Just a wild idea, would it be possible to make some ports "Fortresses"? These Port-Fortresses would make it much harder to bombard (attack) naval units in these ports, but in ports without a "fortress" naval units would be more vulnerable.

[pk867]

right now it is hard to get rid of powerful sub units now. I can deal with them, but the attack factor should be reduced coming from a port.

Subs need to be able to maneuver to perform their attacks. operating in shallow water is a killer for subs. So I am not for reducing their SURV or give bonuses to the attackers, just that their attack will not be as deadly if they attacked in open deep water.

I know this is a compromise but this tactic makes it very hard to get ashore in France even in 1944.

I still have the question why do SAC use their Strategic attack factor and attack the resource and not any units inside the port.

Most subs would try to escape if the sub pens were attacked. The submariners did not want to get caught inside the sub pens.

They were bunkers so that a sub would have a place to come back for repairs, replenishment, and rest. they did not stay when under attack or perform attacks.

Also why is the rule their that surface vessels can not attack a visible sub? Maybe modify it to one attack like we have for subs attacking vessels in port.

[pk867]

back to the subject of transports blocking ports, whatif if they return to port you only get back a portion of the 8 PP's according to strength of the transport? That would reduce the tactic of returning and loading a brand new transport for free.

[Diplomaticus]

This has really turned into two threads:

1) The gamey tactic of using tranports as blockers.
I agree with those who are arguing to make transports more vulnerable. I have seen repeatedly very strong aircraft--sometimes completely maxed on tech--take damage while attacking transports. While maybe this is realistic for fighters who have to get close (assuming transports really did have effective AA, or escorts with AA), but Strat bombers? That just doesn't make sense to me. I agree that transports should always be sunk by attacks by no more than 2 capital ships, assuming that they're at full steps and reasonable Efficiency.

2) Subs attacking from port. Hmmm... I haven't seen this as a big problem. Why not simply avoid landing right next to a port? There are plenty of spots along the coast of France that are away from ports.
On the other question, it's the design of Strategic bombers that they hit cities/resources, not units (unless the unit is in the open). We must maintain this, so it's possible to render a port hex unusable via strat bombing. If you want to hit the sub in port, use Tac or fighters.

[pk867]

I have played games where the ports in France have a U-Boat and practically sink the transport trying to do a landing.

You have to return to a port and send a fresh unit. If you lose 5 to 7 points on the transport that is what you are losing on your cargo.

So instead of landing with a 10 Mech it is down to 5 or below. It does effect a lot of hexes along the coast.

[ncali]

One easy solution that would at least partially address the problem would be to make garrisons that are transports much more vulnerable to all forms of attack (naval and air). After all, garrison units represent smaller detachments and would presumably be smaller convoys that are easier to destroy. And it is usually the cheap garrisons that are used in this gamey way.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We could let transports with garrisons have -2 survivability.

[Morris]

We could let transports with garrisons have -2 survivability.

Yes ! -3 survivability is better !

[rkr1958]

We could let transports with garrisons have -2 survivability.

Yes ! -3 survivability is better !

I think that's a very good idea. I'm not sure what the values should be; but we should make garrisons so vulnerable to attack when at sea that the player is very careful when transporting them. Of course; this would only apply to garrisons and not airborne divisions. While in port I would vote that the have the same survivability as all other transports. I'm not sure what the correct values are but I would vote to decrease garrison transport survivability by -2 or more. I would also vote to increase BB, and possibly DD, attack value against all transports too.

[Kragdob]

Why don't do this like SUBs vs DDs. Naval transport could have -3 survivability when attacked by a naval unit.

This applies regardless of what you transport. Do you pull tanks on the deck if transport is being attacked?

[pk867]

I still think that the player who owns the transport does not get all of his PP's back.

Those transports are lost permanently, so they do not receive the full refund.

Is transports blocking a problem to be fixed or tweaked. The player was taking advantage of the change that we were refunding the cost of loading a transport

as long as it unloaded in port no matter how many strength points were that the transport has.

So I think if you lose shipping (i.e. damage to the transport) then the player has the refund reduced comparable to the strength points lost.

Prior to this the player using this tactic would have to spend 8 PP's to load each time the player wanted to replace the blockade units after damage.

Now it is free...


Paul