I also don’t think a 3 IPC unit should be a 1-1 unit. Why bother buying them at all?
i agree infantry should defened at two,
however airborne is different from infantry.
infantry have trucks, anti-tanks guns, anti-tank rockets, feild artillery, mortars, heavy machine guns, armored vehicles, entrenching equipment and the supplies for it.
airbourne, have recoiless rifles and maybe mountain guns
naturally infantry are going to be much stronger on the defence
in fact airborne probalby should have no attack value at all. This is due to the fact that i have no knowledge of airborne units being effective at any conventional attack.
the only attack airborne should have is a 3 or less attack at the begining of a combat where they are deployed by air and of course they get to choose the causaulty, i do not understand why no one else agrees that having airborne units choose their target is extremly realistic.
of course they should still defend at one, cost 3 to build and 3 to do an airborne attack. also they should have range of two since no airborne attack was done at a range longer than that.
If you set them at 3 IPCs, who is going to buy grunt infantry?
yes but these are costing 5 IPC and the 3 is first round, after which its 2
I also don’t think a 3 IPC unit should be a 1-1 unit. Why bother buying them at all?
you dont want to pay 3 ipcs to have a 50% chance of taking out an enemy fighter before combat begins
I think IL’s airborne are more like super soldiers than light infantry
i agree with IL, except for the IPC cost. I’ll post a full argument later.
i dont understand, why do airborne units have the same combat stats as mechnaized infantry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_forces
I consider them having a large first punch, but lacking any ability to sustain themselves w/o more support. To make them a 2-2 and cost 4, players would be inclined to buy a larger number of these.
To make them a 3-2 on first round and 2-2 and cost 5, players will not throw them under the bus. IN fact i feel players will protect them and only use them sparingly as they were used.
You also have to look at them as commandos as well as airborne infantry , which lends itself to the idea of a nice first punch. But then again they could be a 3, then fell back to 1-2 infantry starting on second round. that could work too.
I likewise do not understand why folks can’t buy into the idea that being limited to purchasing one. I consider these the elite men in the countries infantry service. These are the men in better physical shape, with the better mental toughness, and the better leaders handling missions similar to the grunt infantry, but I am willing to add on an airborne capability because it all seems to fit together well. Nations had units that were known to be stronger than average, and the elite infantry having a +1 attack capability is quite understandable. Limiting the production of elite units is also understandable because a nation isn’t going to produce high quantities of exceptional warriors.
If we are ever going to have mechanized infantry units while maintaining play balance, I can’t see paying more than 3 IPCs for airborne infantry. If we’re going to pay 3 IPCs for airborne, we have to limit them or there will be no grunt infantry. The other scenarios are not giving the airborne a big enough punch to make them worth it in the long run. And if you make the punch any bigger, then you have something crazy going on.
well if you agree that airborne units are light infantry and that they can not withstand prolonged combat and except for their initail shock value do not have much combat power, dont you think my rules are a lot better.
i think we can agree airbourne infatry should not regularly attack at 2, but i dont know of any evidence that suggests they should attack at even 1.
certainly you dont beleive that airborne units have the firepower to defend as well as infatry and artillery so why give them a defence of 2, then their just like every other land unit anyways
also as an armument agaisnt limits. fighter pilots were also rare to come by, but fighter production is not limited in the game
I guess there are some things we will have to just agree to disagree.
I wouldn’t have a problem limiting fighters either, for just the reason you give. If there were two fighters, I wouldn’t have a problem assigning all the fighters after the second purchased each turn to a lower class, say attacking and defending at -1 due to scarcity of the best pilots. Look what happened to Japan as the war went on.
We just disagree.
the problem i c with having a new resource such as quality manpower is that i consider it an econmic factor in a very uneconamic game. I think if you wanted more resources things like oil, steel and overall manpower would have to be introduced before we started putting limits on different units based on the jobs physical and technical difficulty. For that matter you would also have to but a pretty significant limits on research too.
another way my paratoopers are better is that after the opening fire they attack at zero and so will natuarally be the first caulaites (not being able to retreat or kill any units) this is accurate of course becasue it represents the high casaulties airborne units resceivied in airborne assaults.
If ariborne attacked at two or one then causalties would not be simulated accuratly at all.
So you have to do a few things with them to make them work.
They need a punch and attack at 2 is not really a punch
They need to ‘wither away’ after the first round to simulate lack of supplies
They need to not be expendable, so people wont throw them in battles every turn because they are worthless compared to other units.
They need to have some counter to thwart them as a defense and limitations of where they can land.
So how bout first round 3, all other rounds its attack at 1. In defense they are at 2
They cost 5 because at 4 they will become expendable and artillery will suffer.
They cant be dropped in capitals and not dropped too far away say 2-3 spaces ( prob say 2 like OOB rules)
also i guess you should limit quantity to 3 or 6 of these…
i agree with your first two points
well i think after their initail attack has withered away they should be expandable, in fact i am sure that is the way many paratoopers felt and were problably even told, other wise you will more likly thannot take infantry before paratoopers which is simply unrealistic. and rember to fully deploy them one time they cost six, so it is not lik these units will be used lightly.
I dont think you need a counter in terms of one peice, the main counter would be to not have powerful units defending the cost that can be picked off by airborne units before the battle starts
I think they should always attack at zero except for an opneing fire shot of three where they select the targart. Remeber after the inital suprise these guys a sitting ducks against any other unit type. I would take armored vehicles and artillery over well “elite” soldeirs with submachine guns and rifles anyday.
I argee the should be expensive to deploy, but not really that costly to build.
I think operation sealion had room for airborne assault so i dont like the idea of not being able to attack capitals
range should be 2
also i dont see why you still support limiting them, if you have to put a cap on how much of a piece you produce it is not a fair or well desgined peice, unless of course you limt everything that took especially trained men, which is like everything and is already taken care of buy IPCs
And defending at 2 is ridiculous how do guys firing pistols compete with heavy artillery and tanks
I think they should always attack at zero
Thats a bit harsh. at least one right?
Limits on purchase i guess would be seem in playtesting, so not now. The problem is these moves where Germany or somebody buys bombers and has like 6 or so and plays some sucker punch move on a capital ( think Japan having a bomber in Alaska)
ok so what we got now is first round selective or first round preemptive at 3?
selective is too powerful, making them like commandos.
cost of 6 seems high. but it will limit quantity which is good.
Im good with no counter if they cost 6, since few will be bought.
Main thing is they have to have normal 1-2 values after first round. The 101st and 82nd were out elite infantry divisions
i dont like the idea of bombers transporting units, they should just get their 2 space attack by paying 3 ipcs
also i think if the 3 or less slective attack in the opening fire ( may be it should be 2 or less) is two powerful then
that is balacened out by the 0-1 attack and defence
THis is much more realistic for representing elite light infantry. They are not elite because they shoot faster or more accuratly, or because it takes more bullets to kill them. They are elite becasue they know how to jump out of a plane and and maintain clear thought when they are surrounded by units that will kill if their initial attack does not succeed and even then their chances fo survival are not good.
if you still think they should be 1-2
what weapons or training made them as powerful as regular infantry when it came to convetional battles?
what conventional attacks were airborne apart of?
why should a unit that maybe represents a division or two have just as much defence as a much more heavly armed unit that represent multiple corps
Well for the 5-6 bucks if they miss rolling the 3 first round they are destroyed because they are as useless as transports at 0-1.
secondly, if the hit is selective they become saboteurs that blow up bombers and battleships, where using LL you need 2 of them (total cost is 10-12) blowing up a bomber.
Selective is bogus and leads to situations where ‘trick plays’ or what they call “Cheapos” occur. Id much rather the attack is preemptive like a sub, even having my armor void the preemptive, then have it like a normal infantry after that.
IN AA not all units have the same scale. So in some cases an infantry or armor could be a division, corps or army. Thats what Larry says about this and the time issue of turns, so you got to place some weight on that.
They have to have some attack ability after round one, or you let them stay in place and limit combat to own round. In NCM allow them to retreat if the territory was not taken by other forces during combat.
Also, in desperate situations they should be used as normal infantry if forces to defend.
the point of them defending at one is so they are only used for defence in desperate situations
and airbourne units are like saboteurs and their meant to take postions that are usaully pertected, like an airfield.
excepet i dont know why you said they might take out battleships.
the main thing i am hoping that can be argreed upon is airborne units should not have the same combat stats as infantry because they are very diferently equiped and have a very different purpose
if their should be a new unit it should reflect its historical couterpart and i dont know of any evidence that suggest airborne should have a 1-2 attack defence.
the point of them defending at one is so they are only used for defence in desperate situations
yes but attack at zero? if they miss they die?
and airbourne units are like saboteurs and their meant to take postions that are usaully pertected, like an airfield.
excepet i dont know why you said they might take out battleships.
you said selective attack, so if a bomber or fighter and a tank with infantry is defending and they hit they can select the bomber or fighter?
yes airborne should be able to choose their target and pick who they kill
and hopefully their are some other units attacking with the paratoopers, but yes if the airborne units do not have anyone else helping them, and since they cant retreat they will die as is historically accurate. They will problaby be the first to be taken as causaulties anyways, due to their low attack, even if they have support, but that just makes sence right? Why should the most lightly armed units that are also most likly completely isolated have anything but low survivability?
