Yea, I’d agree with that as well. Makes sense to have different capabilities to drop into combat or just transport in a non-combat move.
To expand on this idea a bit: one detail that would have to be worked out regarding non-combat-move runway-landing missions would have to do with whether transport planes can transport things in both directions. To give an example: if a transport plane takes off from territory X, carrying 2 regular infantry, and lands on territory Y, where it unloads the infantry, does it have to fly out of territory Y empty? Or can it carry out a payload, if the player wants to take something out of territory Y for use elsewhere? In most cases, a player probably wouldn’t need to fly something out after bringing something in…but having that option could be handy, and I can’t think of any reason why the plane would be prohibited from carrying something on the way out. (In war, it’s common to fly supplies and reinforcements into a combat zone, and to fly out wounded personnel on the return trip, but A&A doesn’t have a mechanic for wounded infantry.)
A potential application of the fly-something-out concept would be a situation in which a player would want to fly something out which is more valuable that what was flown in. Interestingly enough, one possibility would be a scenario in which some paratroopers had been previously air-dropped into a territory to help capture it. Assuming that the paratrooper unit is more expensive than a standard infantry unit, and given that (as I’ve mentioned) paratroopers are usually relieved by ground troops soon after they’ve accomplished their mission, a player might want to fly in some regular infantry to take their place once the territory is secure, and to extract the valuable paratroopers on the way out.
@CWO:
Yea, I’d agree with that as well. Makes sense to have different capabilities to drop into combat or just transport in a non-combat move.
To expand on this idea a bit: one detail that would have to be worked out regarding non-combat-move runway-landing missions would have to do with whether transport planes can transport things in both directions. To give an example: if a transport plane takes off from territory X, carrying 2 regular infantry, and lands on territory Y, where it unloads the infantry, does it have to fly out of territory Y empty? Or can it carry out a payload, if the player wants to take something out of territory Y for use elsewhere? In most cases, a player probably wouldn’t need to fly something out after bringing something in…but having that option could be handy, and I can’t think of any reason why the plane would be prohibited from carrying something on the way out. (In war, it’s common to fly supplies and reinforcements into a combat zone, and to fly out wounded personnel on the return trip, but A&A doesn’t have a mechanic for wounded infantry.)
A potential application of the fly-something-out concept would be a situation in which a player would want to fly something out which is more valuable that what was flown in. Interestingly enough, one possibility would be a scenario in which some paratroopers had been previously air-dropped into a territory to help capture it. Assuming that the paratrooper unit is more expensive than a standard infantry unit, and given that (as I’ve mentioned) paratroopers are usually relieved by ground troops soon after they’ve accomplished their mission, a player might want to fly in some regular infantry to take their place once the territory is secure, and to extract the valuable paratroopers on the way out.
But then not all planes could land or take off with dirt runways. So would you need an airbase or airport strip to land and take off only ?
@SS:
But then not all planes could land or take off with dirt runways. So would you need an airbase or airport strip to land and take off only ?
I don’t think we need to require airports or air strips for the transport plane to land or take off. Remember that all A&A units are abstracted: they represent broad types of military equipment rather than specific models, and they usually represent groups of military equipment rather than a single vehicle or weapon. And remember that A&A territories represent large areas of land (such as whole countries) rather than an area broken up into battlefields and non-battlefields. So I don’t think it’s necessary to consider whether (for example) a specific plane model like the Dakota could land on a specific type of improvised runway on a specific battlefield; I’d go with the assumption that a generic group of generic air transports is allowed to make a generic landing in something as big as an A&A territory, without any restrictions.
But you make a good point that some A&A games do have an airbase unit, and that it would be interesting to put it to good use. So instead of having a rule saying that a transport plane can’t land in a territory that has no airbase, I’d go in the opposite direction: I’d go with a rule which said that a transport plane can land in any territory it wants, but that it would get some sort of bonus advantage from landing in a territory that has an airbase. Perhaps the advantage could be that it could land and take off in the same turn. Perhaps the advantage could be that it can make two trips per non-combat move rather than one, provided that (to keep things reasonable) it’s not flying a total distance greater than X number of terriories by doing so. Or something else that’s a suitable bonus.
I think that the ability to move troops through the air is a missing piece from A&A. Which is why I have Air Transports listed among my house rules. That said, I think the important part is “the ability to move troops through the air”, not necessarily a new piece of plastic. Riffing off of the way Paratroopers are handled in the Global '40, SE rule set (bolded section my editing):
@A&A:
3. Paratroopers. Up to 2 of your infantry units in each territory with an air base can be moved to an enemy controlled territory 3 or fewer spaces away that is being attacked by your land units from adjacent territories and/or by amphibious assault. When moving, paratroopers must obey the same restrictions that air units do. If the territory being attacked has AAA (antiaircraft artillery) units, the paratrooper infantry units are subject to antiaircraft fire in the same way as air units. If attacking along with land units from adjacent territories, paratroopers may retreat as normal.
Perhaps in addition to flinging out Paratroopers from Airbases, perhaps we could use Air Bases to shuttle troops around the world? Perhaps we could use Naval Bases in the same way? Either way (Air Base or Naval Base): start in a territory with an appropriate base, can move in NCM to any other friendly territory with the appropriate base type (Air to Air or Naval to Naval).
Thoughts?
-Midnight_Reaper
Just based on my experience playing Frostion’s Iron War map in tripleA, which has an air transport type unit, I think they’re a pretty entertaining piece to have around. In that game the unit can only move 1 inf and has a range of 4, which makes it pretty limited in combat for air drops, though on non com it can be effective at shuttling inf around the map.
Another novel use for the air transports comes when the enemy has a big air wall set up (like a dark skies type scenario) where it is hard to move naval transports in range of the desired target territory. I’ve seen them used to island hop too, like in situations when Japan has a couple dozen fighters at the ready to smoke a naval transport fleet, but where air-transports could be used to maneuver troops around from island to island with less vulnerability on the enemy’s turn. I could see the 2 inf capacity thing working, or with a different capacity if used only on non-com.
I think it fills an interesting gap, offering some new ways to play but without totally breaking things. I think the key is to keep the range pretty limited, and make them week or defenseless like CWO said with a fairly hefty price tag to match their usefulness.
@SS:
I have in my game d12 A0 D1 M5 C8
Can transport 2 inf non combat and must land plane or transport 1 paratrooper or elite which ever you use and also have a tech in tree where you can transport 2 para troopers and get a +1 for the whole battle of attack. AAA can shoot them down from any territory.https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww2-transport-aircraft.asp
The site above gives good info.
The Frenchies will run know !!!
This is for Global 1940.
Patrol Boat! No one has mentioned this. Cost 5 A2, D2, movement 2, naval base cannot boost movement. Cannot leave a coastline unless accompanied by destroyer, cruiser, or battleship.
Just my contribution. Would help with English Channel, Denmark Straits, all of Pacific area.
Thoughts?
$hit or cool?
This is for Global 1940.
Patrol Boat! No one has mentioned this. Cost 5 A2, D2, movement 2, naval base cannot boost movement. Cannot leave a coastline unless accompanied by destroyer, cruiser, or battleship.
I’m wondering about the “patrol boat” designation, which suggests a small ship which has little or no armament and whose function is basically just to observe what’s going on in a coastal waterway. If the unit you’re thinking about is going to have appreciable combat abilities, perhaps the correct designation would be “fast attack craft” – something along the lines of an American PT boat or a German S-Boot (which the Allies referred to as E-boats).
I’m also wondering about the ability to leave a coastline if accompanied by a major surface-combat combat vessel. Personally, I’d leave out (or modify) that part because the presence or absence of an accompanying ship doesn’t modify a vessel’s seagoing capabilities (or lack thereof), which are a function of design features like its hull size. A fast attack craft could manage narrow waters like the English Channel on its own, without needing an accompanying ship, and could not have managed a big body of water like the Atlantic, even with an accompanying ship.
Anything but Zombies. It’s more likely they could have had robots in WW 2 than zombies. Zombies aren’t a real thing, you might as well have leprechauns or easter bunnies.
Wait…You mean the “Easter Bunny” isn’t real ?
:lol:
Mostly agree with all the cool ideas thrown out there so far! Here are my recommended specs:
Air Transport
Cost: 9 IPCs
Attack: 0
Defense: 0, but can be taken as early casualty. If taken as casualty, cargo is lost.
Movement: 5 (or 6 if starting at Airbase). May freely interrupt movement to load/unload multiple times.
Cargo: 2 elite at any time, or 2 inf / 1 art / 1 AAA on non-combat only.
Elite
Cost: 5 IPCs
Attack: 2 (can be boosted by Artillery)
Defense: 1
Movement: 1
Cargo: can load 1 Elite on a CA or BB, or 2 Elites on an Air Transport, or treat Elites as Infantry on a Sea Transport.
PT Boat
Cost: 4 IPCs
Attack: 2 (can force subs to defend, but does not cancel sub sneak attack)
Defense: 2
Move: 1 (or 2 with Naval Base). Can never leave the coast it starts on, e.g. US Pacific Coast, or German Baltic Coast. Only moves laterally along a coast, never across a sea.
PT Boat
Cost: 4 IPCs
Attack: 2 (can force subs to defend, but does not cancel sub sneak attack)
Defense: 2
Move: 1 (or 2 with Naval Base). Can never leave the coast it starts on, e.g. US Pacific Coast, or German Baltic Coast. Only moves laterally along a coast, never across a sea.
“PT Boat” is a US-specific term – so unless this unit is to be restricted to the US (which I don’t think is the intention), it would be better to give it a more generic name like “fast attack craft”. I like the specification that such a craft can move along coastlines from one SZ to another, which is a realistic reflection of what these craft could do in WWII.
I like the idea of air transports being able to haul AA and artillery. As others have already mentioned you would want to let them haul 2 infantry. Otherwise you wouldn’t haul infantry hardly at all, probably : )
My question is, If you allow air to transport 2 infantry why would you use sea transport ? Increased cost I guess is a possible solution but, it just doesn’t seem right to have a air transport be able to haul as much as a sea transport.
Imo : )
Oh, gosh, Barney, lots of reasons!
CWO Marc, we could call the small local ship a “Gunboat” or even a “Coastal Gunboat.” I hesitate to call them “fast attack craft” because they have less move than an average ship, and they’re intended more to defend your coastline than to launch a strategic offensive, and because most units only have one or two words in their name, not three words.
Also Barney in my game I have Rockets tech so now with air transport plane I could non combat an AAA gun to a friendly territory and SBR a IC or a base. Im going with
A0
D0
M5 +1AB
C10
2 inf NC or 1 AAA gun / 1 Art
1 Para Tr C
Para Tr
C4
Think 5 is to high.
CWO Marc, we could call the small local ship a “Gunboat” or even a “Coastal Gunboat.” I hesitate to call them “fast attack craft” because they have less move than an average ship, and they’re intended more to defend your coastline than to launch a strategic offensive, and because most units only have one or two words in their name, not three words.
The designation would depend on what you have in mind in terms of which types of enemy units these vessels are meant to fight. If they’re only intended to attack enemy transport ships, calling them gunboats would be fine: gunboats are typically shallow-draft, often flat-bottomed, relatively slow vessels, intended mainly for bombarding shore targets, but I imagine that in a pinch they could be used against transport ships. A gunboat, however, would have virtually no chance of hitting (and even less of surving an attack against) a fully-fledged surface-combat vessel like a destroyer or a cruiser or a battleship, due to its slow speed and poor seakeeping qualities and its typically second-rate all-gun armament. Torpedo-armed WWII fast attack craft, on the other hand, could and sometimes did attack such targets with a decent chance of survival (though not necessarily of sinking the enemny), an example being the Battle of Surigao Straight phase of the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
I cant see using the Gunboat in a game the size of 40. But I really can see using it in the AA Guadalcanal game.
Oh, gosh, Barney, lots of reasons!
- Hauling 2 infantry isn’t as good as hauling 1 infantry + 1 tank
- Air transports can be preemptively shot down by AA guns, which would also kill the cargo
- Air transports have a deceptively short range; a sea transport can deliver infantry from London to Morocco, but (absent a forward landing base like Gibraltar) an air transport can’t.
- Air transports can only ferry infantry on non-combat; if you want to deliver the equivalent of two infantry during a combat move, you have to pay 9 for the transport + 10 for two elite units, for a total of $19 – almost 50% more than a sea transport with 2 infantry (7 + 3 + 3 = $13).
CWO Marc, we could call the small local ship a “Gunboat” or even a “Coastal Gunboat.” I hesitate to call them “fast attack craft” because they have less move than an average ship, and they’re intended more to defend your coastline than to launch a strategic offensive, and because most units only have one or two words in their name, not three words.
Not really following Argo.
Ncm transports can’t be shot at. Their range is 5, 6 with AB.
I’m seeing Air transport being able to move 2 infantry up to 5 or 6 spaces in ncm.
More movement than a sea transport. Moves same amount of units.
@barney:
The official range of a naval transport is 2 sea zones, but the infantry that load and unload from that transport can move through 4 zones. E.g. infantry starts in London, loads onto English Channel transport for free, then the transport moves one zone to French coast, then the transport moves a second zone to west coast of Gibraltar, then the infantry unloads for free into Morocco. Morocco is 4 moves away from London, but the 2-move transport can still make a delivery there. Even better, the 2-move transport can then remain in place just off the coast of Morocco, without needing to look for a landing site.
The air transport can move up to 6 zones, but it takes 4 of those zones just to make it to Morocco, so unless you have somewhere safe for the transport to land that’s only 2 zones away (e.g. Gibraltar), then the air transport can’t land anywhere after a combat move to Morocco, and so the air transport can’t deliver any units to Morocco from London on a combat move.
If you’re talking about strictly non-combat moves, then, sure, the air transport starts looking somewhat more cost-effective…but if you already have a beachhead, then you usually have other options for delivering reinforcements, like a minor factory, flying in fighters, building an airbase so that you can scramble fighters to protect incoming sea transports, conquering an adjacent territory to block the blitz, constructing a bunker, etc., etc. I might occasionally send a cargo plane to reinforce a key territory of my plane wasn’t busy, but the reason I would buy cargo planes is to invade and conquer valuable but unfortified islands like Malta, Crete, Java, Solomons, etc.
Ya but an AAA gun gets to shoot at a non combat plane. So rule is cant fly over any aaa guns period without getting shot at. Thats my rule. Plus the cost of plane should be no less than 10 icp if its going to do all that it can do.
I Getcha Arghotair :-D
The move 4 though is, idk to me. Loading and ( to a lesser extent ) unloading seem like they shouldn’t be counted as moves.
Anyway Good to talk to you : ) Not trying to be challenging : )
