We need to fix this in 2.2: transports of iron!

[Diplomaticus]

AAR: I'm playing Jo. It's 1940, and a badly depleted fighter loads on a transport to run away. The transport is attacked by 1 DD. Result: 1:1. Yes, the unescorted transport actually damaged a flotilla of destroyers (full strength, Eff about 50). So then I hit the transport with 2 BB's. Result? Transport survives at '3'.

Now, come on guys. This is just plain ridiculous. I suggest that we discuss a rule that allows for 2 levels of defense for transports. If they are adjacent to a friendly surface ship, the transports get their current defense value. However, when on their own they should get a *much* lower defense. For instance, a surface fleet ought to be able to sink them every time--without taking casualties.

[pk867]

Well one way to look at it is that if the unit was full strength when it first loaded it now has a strength of three.

Since the unit was depleted when loaded it probably has about oe strength point left. That will cost time and PP's before that unit is back in action.

[Samhain]

The survivability could be reduced to 1. The default is 2 at least according to the last one I've seen.

[gsmart04]

When I first saw this post, I thought it was talking about transporting iron ore and I wondered how'd I missed that feature in the game!

[Clark]

AAR: I'm playing Jo. It's 1940, and a badly depleted fighter loads on a transport to run away. The transport is attacked by 1 DD. Result: 1:1. Yes, the unescorted transport actually damaged a flotilla of destroyers (full strength, Eff about 50). So then I hit the transport with 2 BB's. Result? Transport survives at '3'.

Now, come on guys. This is just plain ridiculous. I suggest that we discuss a rule that allows for 2 levels of defense for transports. If they are adjacent to a friendly surface ship, the transports get their current defense value. However, when on their own they should get a *much* lower defense. For instance, a surface fleet ought to be able to sink them every time--without taking casualties.

I don't know about this. Crazy things happen in war.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Garrison transports have 2 less survivability (to prevent using garrisons to screen against invasions). So in 1939 a BB does on average 7 steps of damage. Transports with non garrison units will in 1939 on average receive 4 hits per attack. So 3 BB's can sink a full strength transport.

After 1939 naval units will get more naval attack from techs and the damage will become even higher. In 1944 a BB inflicts on average 14 steps on a garrison transport and 7 steps on a regular transport.

I think those casualties are quite high and not bad.

A transport is actually not just a passenger ship. It's also smaller support vessels that was meant to protect the passenger ships (like frigates, corvettes etc.). One reason a garrison transport has a lower survivability is because there were fewer support ships to protect it. So transport survivability can be seen as support ships etc. that the naval units have to destroy before getting to the ships sailing the units.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Think what would happen if we drop the survivability of transports to just 1. Let's then look at Overlord. When the Allies sail transports to the coast line in France then the Luftwaffe can attack each transport (several twice) and inflict horrible losses on the transports. You could then e. g. see a single tactical bomber unit sink a who armor corps onboard a transport.

This would make amphibious landings too difficult.

So I really don't see the transport survivability as a problem. That naval units sometimes get a step of damage can be seen as flak vs air or small cannon fire from the transport support vessels.

[zechi]

Perhaps the survivability of transports gets better at a certain date? For example after 1942? This would make landings for the Allies easier, but Sealion a little bit harder, which I think would realistic.

I also like the idea of transports getting better survability or even other stats, if they are escorted by warships.

The problem with the current sytem is, that transports (mostly with GAR) are used for a lot of unrealistic missions, like blocking bottlenecks or protecting important/valuable units.


Another idea would be to make transports tougher which are capable of amphibious invasions (which GAR are not, even if if port is near)

[Kragdob]

Think what would happen if we drop the survivability of transports to just 1. Let's then look at Overlord. When the Allies sail transports to the coast line in France then the Luftwaffe can attack each transport (several twice) and inflict horrible losses on the transports. You could then e. g. see a single tactical bomber unit sink a who armor corps onboard a transport.

This would make amphibious landings too difficult.

So I really don't see the transport survivability as a problem. That naval units sometimes get a step of damage can be seen as flak vs air or small cannon fire from the transport support vessels.

I fully support the lowering the survivability of transports but understand the reason above. I think air battles are flawed in the way you are unable to stop bombers as long as opponent has any air asset (be it low efficiency 1 step fighter).

I think when fighter combat is a result of a bombing mission than interceptors should have the possibility to influence the attack based on the air battle with escort to the point when no escort or very weak then bombing mission fails.

Simpler solution:
Also transports could have basic survivability of 1 and each adjacent vessel could increase it by 1 or 2.

[Diplomaticus]

Think what would happen if we drop the survivability of transports to just 1. Let's then look at Overlord. When the Allies sail transports to the coast line in France then the Luftwaffe can attack each transport (several twice) and inflict horrible losses on the transports. You could then e. g. see a single tactical bomber unit sink a who armor corps onboard a transport.

This would make amphibious landings too difficult.

So I really don't see the transport survivability as a problem. That naval units sometimes get a step of damage can be seen as flak vs air or small cannon fire from the transport support vessels.

True, but this wouldn't happen if we could implement my suggestion to have two tiers of survivability: unescorted (i.e. not adjacent to friendly surface fleet) transports would have a lower #. The Overlord problem would never happen unless the Western Allies were foolish enough to send in transports without a surface fleet presence.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

One problem with such a solution is that units move separately. So a transport can move and become intercepted by subs with no naval units adjacent and then it might get sunk since the survivability is so low. In the real war the transports and escorts would always stay together.

I think a better way to do this is to let transport survivability and firepower become a function of surface ships tech. Then late game Allied transports will be more resilient while the early game transports can get into serious problems if caught at sea.

[Cybvep]

I like this idea. However, I'm not sure that we should be worried about the issue you described, because a proper way of moving transports safely is to screen the area with DDs and BBs first.

[Kragdob]

I like this idea. However, I'm not sure that we should be worried about the issue you described, because a proper way of moving transports safely is to screen the area with DDs and BBs first.

Exactly. This is why I prefer weak transports with increased survivability for escort ships.

[rkr1958]

AAR: I'm playing Jo. It's 1940, and a badly depleted fighter loads on a transport to run away. The transport is attacked by 1 DD. Result: 1:1. Yes, the unescorted transport actually damaged a flotilla of destroyers (full strength, Eff about 50). So then I hit the transport with 2 BB's. Result? Transport survives at '3'.

Now, come on guys. This is just plain ridiculous. I suggest that we discuss a rule that allows for 2 levels of defense for transports. If they are adjacent to a friendly surface ship, the transports get their current defense value. However, when on their own they should get a *much* lower defense. For instance, a surface fleet ought to be able to sink them every time--without taking casualties.

Personally, I don't any problem with the damage that transports (escorted or unescorted) receive. I think it's about right. I thing the only correction really needed, and this would solve your case, is that the strength of the transport should be the strength of the unit when loaded. So, if you loaded a 3-step air unit then the transport would be 3-steps and much easier to sink than say a full strength 10-step unit loaded on a transport.

[Diplomaticus]

I like this idea. However, I'm not sure that we should be worried about the issue you described, because a proper way of moving transports safely is to screen the area with DDs and BBs first.

Exactly. This is why I prefer weak transports with increased survivability for escort ships.

I agree completely with both of you. A simple DD run along the path you intend to follow can insure that you don't accidentally run into a sub.

Personally, I don't any problem with the damage that transports (escorted or unescorted) receive.

Really? You don't have a problem that the entire Italian fleet was unable to do more than 7 points of damage to a lone, unescorted troop transport? I'm sorry, but I just cannot stretch my imagination to conceive how such a thing could be possible.

[rkr1958]

Personally, I don't any problem with the damage that transports (escorted or unescorted) receive.

Really? You don't have a problem that the entire Italian fleet was unable to do more than 7 points of damage to a lone, unescorted troop transport? I'm sorry, but I just cannot stretch my imagination to conceive how such a thing could be possible.

I know things aren't perfect but on the whole I feel they work pretty well. For example, does it really take 60-days (3-turns) to sail from the US to the UK? Does it take 100-days (5-turns) to sail from the UK to the Med? No. But; without these speeds then ships could sail from port to port in 1-turn without worry of intercept. My experience is that when you have something working well that a seemingly minor tweak can upset the entire balance.

By the way, I don't find it strange that 30% of a group of unescorted transports could get away from the entire Italian fleet. These transports would represent 50 or more ships. Once they encounter the Italian fleet it seems reasonable that they transports would scatter (every ship for themselves) and in the following melee 15 could get away. So, yes I do find this result reasonable.

[Samhain]

Considering that transports can't retreat and splitting units off into smaller ones is impossible I have to agree.

[gsmart04]

Personally, I don't any problem with the damage that transports (escorted or unescorted) receive.

Really? You don't have a problem that the entire Italian fleet was unable to do more than 7 points of damage to a lone, unescorted troop transport? I'm sorry, but I just cannot stretch my imagination to conceive how such a thing could be possible.

I know things aren't perfect but on the whole I feel they work pretty well. For example, does it really take 60-days (3-turns) to sail from the US to the UK? Does it take 100-days (5-turns) to sail from the UK to the Med? No. But; without these speeds then ships could sail from port to port in 1-turn without worry of intercept. My experience is that when you have something working well that a seemingly minor tweak can upset the entire balance.

By the way, I don't find it strange that 30% of a group of unescorted transports could get away from the entire Italian fleet. These transports would represent 50 or more ships. Once they encounter the Italian fleet it seems reasonable that they transports would scatter (every ship for themselves) and in the following melee 15 could get away. So, yes I do find this result reasonable.

I have to agree with this. There's always going to be things in any game or simulation that 'aren't realistic' but GS does a good job of abstracting a whole bunch of details to make a playable game with realistic overall results.

[Kragdob]

Personally, I don't any problem with the damage that transports (escorted or unescorted) receive.

Really? You don't have a problem that the entire Italian fleet was unable to do more than 7 points of damage to a lone, unescorted troop transport? I'm sorry, but I just cannot stretch my imagination to conceive how such a thing could be possible.

I know things aren't perfect but on the whole I feel they work pretty well. For example, does it really take 60-days (3-turns) to sail from the US to the UK? Does it take 100-days (5-turns) to sail from the UK to the Med? No. But; without these speeds then ships could sail from port to port in 1-turn without worry of intercept. My experience is that when you have something working well that a seemingly minor tweak can upset the entire balance.

By the way, I don't find it strange that 30% of a group of unescorted transports could get away from the entire Italian fleet. These transports would represent 50 or more ships. Once they encounter the Italian fleet it seems reasonable that they transports would scatter (every ship for themselves) and in the following melee 15 could get away. So, yes I do find this result reasonable.

I do not agree. Transport ship and war shop are two different classes. That's first. Second if you take 3 Italian BBs and one transport this should also mean equality in numbers (at least). Thirdly if you say that transports were accompanied by small escort vessels you should also count such support on the attacker side with much more fire power.

So basically your reasoning does not convince me as on both game and RL levels this exact case looks pretty similar.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't understand what people want to fix here? In my eyes the transports have a pretty right survivability. If you weaken the transport survivability you can see a full strength transport sunk by a single BB unit. Is that what we want?

It's risky enough as it is to send transports around so why make it harder?

I don't think the Italian BB vs transport is a good example. The Italians have a lower firepower due to tech 0 and lower efficiency too. So they perform worse. The Germans, UK and US will inflict more losses with their BB's.

A BB unit is not just battleships. It's a task force with battleship, heavy and light cruisers, destroyers and support ships. The main task of the task force was heavy bombardment.

A DD unit is a task force of smaller ship like destroyers, frigates, escort carriers and support ships.