Are you making a “Points of Power” argument? A 1-2 inf has (1+2 =) 3 points of power, therefore 3 IPCs. 3-2 inf is 3+2= 5 IPCs?
right the cost will be determined though play testing but my main points are
1. it shoud attack and defend at 0-1( just becasue an the 101st defened a small town in the middle of nowhere does not mean they have the same stats as inf and it does not mean they are inf, plus the 101st was one of the best equipped airborne units of the war and even their defence is probably not deserving of a 2 or less, just because a unit one means that it hit,not that it had a high chance of hitting )
2. it should have to pay to do an airborne attack, but does not need other units for assitance
3. It has some kind of attack where it chooses the enemies casaulty, or something else that represents its irregularness
Are you making a “Points of Power” argument?
yes sort of. But also taking the original Airborne rules as the base point and building the new unit from that point by determining what each new value/ ability it will have and adding cost on that basis.
Making it 0-1 is reducing it from OOB, which is strange because the size of what a unit is is not established uniformly by the designs intent. Larry has stated this is a varying level.
For example the SS waffen units made up at one point 25% of the Wehrmacht forces and its not represented in the game.
Artillery are not separate units but integrated in infantry and armor. So what could be represented and is not is also possible which can allow for units of other various types to be included.
I would say a commando unit would be able to select target, but airborne unit is not a commando unit.
Airborne units are ‘shock value troops’ to control key spots for a short period.
They are also trained infantry that have specialized training in drops in addition to more use of automatic weapons, so they are normal infantry otherwise. When used as infantry they have the same values as infantry.
if they are defending they should be treated as normal infantry because they are not jumping when defending. Its not correct to assume they are smaller units, because if you buy one of them it could represent from 1 division to even a corps of airborne.
examples:
Operation Market Garden of September 1944, involved 35,000 troops dropped up to 100 miles.
The Soviets mounted only one large-scale Airborne operation in WW2, despite their early leadership in the field in the 1930s. The largest drop was corp-sized, and was not successful (the Vyaz’ma Operation, the 4th Airborne Corps)
if they are attacking its either gonna be a 2 or 3 followed by a 1 on 2nd round and latter. I would say that if they were used with other units in the attack that combat loses go against the airborne first before other land units for the first round only.
When i was saying an airbone unit would represent a division, i was thinking that in your average invasion of france 2-3 if not more airborne units would be used, about 3 airborne divisons were dropped into normandy so there for an airborne unit is a division.
i would still say airborne units are more commando that shock.
When i think of shock i imagine 100,000 Russians armed with PPsh’s and grenades riding ontop t34’s charing german lines.
shock is more like putting all your eggs with the intial attack, and while airborne operations are similar they are operating completly indpendently form the other units, where as true shock units might be supported with aircraft and artillery.
also i wouldn’t say airborne have the same traits as infantry when they are on the ground. They might have more submachines guns, but infantry have more heavy machine guns and light artillery which i think should be considered part of the infantry peice and not the artillery peice.
so becasue airborne have almost no artillery or heavy weapons if any, it is not unresonable for them to normally attack at 0. and a defence of 1 represents airborne’s inabilty to hold against heavy firepower, a primary example would be operation market garden
so becasue airborne have almost no artillery or heavy weapons if any, it is not unresonable for them to normally attack at 0. and a defence of 1 represents airborne’s inabilty to hold against heavy firepower, a primary example would be operation market garden
ahh but that was my previous rule about armor units negating the 3 attack and reducing it back to one or eliminating the preemptive strike. The Arnhem drop was on top of SS Panzer troops resting and the heavy equipment was key in eliminating them.
Remember the assault against the 2nd Battalion at Arnhem bridge? It was armored units and it was repulsed. That would be the part in the movie Bridge to far where you see all those halftracks and tanks getting shot to pieces trying to cross the bridge to take the other side.
I have a new idea…
The airborne attack starts at 3, then 2, then 1, then 0?!!! This would reflect diminishing supplies and model this unit.
What do you think?
well you could incremntally decrease their value each rounds like that, however
1. that makes it slightly more complicated
2. If the airborne units are not being resupplied they will have likly used up all most all of their ammunition in the time that represents the the first time they attack. After the first round of combat i think we can imigine the paratoopers have linked up with at least part of the main force. so they would be getting supplies its just that the weapons they are given do not have the firepower to take out tanks or entreanched positions like all the other units have. Airoborne units can surpirse and that’s why they should have a selective attack
3. the first round is the most important round of any battle in axis and allies, so puting extra detail that i dont even think is accurate into the subsequent rounds of combat is sort of a waste.
I mean airborne units couldn’t have brought supplies for more that ten days of fighting and would i would say each round of combat represents 10-30 days.
basically if the intial attack is a succes it is is a win, otherwise the airborne units are chewed up my armor which they dont stand a chance against just like in arnhem
ok then how bout this:
if used as a paratrooper (dropped from the air) attack:
1st round at 3
2nd round at 1
3rd round at 0
as normal infantry sitting around they attack at 1 and defend at 2 no matter what as per OOB.
no additional cost and they must be dropped by bomber ( 1:1) as per OOB.
Note: this makes only two changes from OOB 1st @3 and 3rd @0
These rules make it as simple with a little bit of flash. yes no?
I don’t have AA50. What are the OOB paratrooper rules? Are they nation specific? Are the part of a set of optional rules?
I still wish you would consider another perspective on paratroopers. Paratroopers are used in combined operations where during the initial phase they sieze key objectives to disrupt and delay the enemy preventing them from counter-attacking in the initial phases of a new campaign. The best example is the Normandy invasion, a campaign reasonably close to the scale of AAR. In this role, the airborne troops did much more to the enemy in their part to assist in the invasion than a single equivalent sized grunt infantry unit. Yes it is true that they were “relieved” in short order, but I view their participation in the same way that I view artillery as helping the effectiveness of infantry. I do not think the rules you are steering toward capture this relationship that airborne are part of a bigger battle.
They are optional and comprise of part of the technology tree.
The rules for AA50 can be downloaded from the Avalon Hill site or from some link under AA50 section.
i dont like them being transported by bomber
and i dont see how airborrne units which are basically light infantry attack the same way infantry do
I think my rules reflect exatly how airobrne units act. they have an intial attack that takes out key targets then they delay the enemy mainly by sacrficing themselves, then if they survive they are put in the rear and are not a main defensive unit unless in exteme circumstances
i think we should wrroy about how this effects tech later, the main thing is that they are not transported by bomber becasue that doe snot makes any sence
i dont like the slowly decreasing offensive firepower, as soon the first few day of battle have passed and the enemy knows where the paratoopers are they are done for.
i dont like them being transported by bomber
its a means or artificially limiting the number of them that can be dropped. It could be a trick if you lose your capital and the enemy build nothing but airborne every turn to prevent you ever from getting the capital back.
and i dont see how airborrne units which are basically light infantry attack the same way infantry do
Thats the OOB rules. Remember 35,000 dropped at Market Garden thats a huge amount. 35,000 men wont be defending at 0 against another infantry attacking at 1.
I think my rules reflect exatly how airobrne units act. they have an intial attack that takes out key targets then they delay the enemy mainly by sacrficing themselves, then if they survive they are put in the rear and are not a main defensive unit unless in exteme circumstances
ok they will always be one round attackers, then retreat. but the problem is defense. they should have normal combat values if they are not being “paratroopers” Germany had lots of divisions that were paratroopers and didnt drop and behaved as normal infantry.
i think we should wrroy about how this effects tech later, the main thing is that they are not transported by bomber becasue that doe snot makes any sence
i dont like the slowly decreasing offensive firepower, as soon the first few day of battle have passed and the enemy knows where the paratoopers are they are done for.
Well i guess they are one round attackers then.
you should just pay 3 ipcs to do an airborne attack instead of needing bombers
and the 35,000 paratoopers in market grarden which i thing in are game would be represented by over 3 airborne units took almost 50% causalties by 20,000 germans which on the western front probably would be represented by less that an infanrty and tank.
market garden failed because the airborne units could not defend, so it is realistic for them to have a defend on 1
and of course there were many german airborne units that were used for defence, but couldn’t have been very good at it with out heavy weapons and armor, and if there were german paratooper units with these weapons, well then they were only paratoopers in name and should just be represented by infantry
and the 35,000 paratoopers in market grarden which i thing in are game would be represented by over 3 airborne units took almost 50% causalties by 20,000 germans which on the western front probably would be represented by less that an infanrty and tank.
well a battle of three 1-2 attacking vs. one 3-3 and one 1-2 defending would result in a defenders win even in AA.
market garden failed because the airborne units could not defend, so it is realistic for them to have a defend on 1
Well i think its better than defend at zero.
no it would not becasue the airoborne units are doing a airborne assault and are attack at 3( or maybe 2) or less the first round and choosing their target
and i am not saying they should defend at zero, but at one.
that just makes sence, becasue they have less weapons and numbers they are 0-1 instead of 1-2
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=14208.45;num_replies=53
This is an article by Larry Harris that goes into the “Points of Power” argument.
Paratroopers attacking at 0?! So let me get this straight, I’m paying extra for the infantry, extra for the actual airborne op, I have to pay for the stupid bomber, all so the inf can attack for less than if I had just dropped him off on the beach? That’s just retarded.
You’re trying to represent troops with “less equipment”, but here it sounds like your not even giving them parachutes and are just pushing them out of a plane hoping they’ll fall on top of some poor unlucky German taking a smoke.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=14208.45;num_replies=53
This is an article by Larry Harris that goes into the “Points of Power” argument.
Paratroopers attacking at 0?! So let me get this straight, I’m paying extra for the infantry, extra for the actual airborne op, I have to pay for the stupid bomber, all so the inf can attack for less than if I had just dropped him off on the beach? That’s just retarded.
You’re trying to represent troops with “less equipment”, but here it sounds like your not even giving them parachutes and are just pushing them out of a plane hoping they’ll fall on top of some poor unlucky German taking a smoke.
how about you read what i posted
then i can respond with something besides snide coments such as the one above
and yes, i just gave you -1 karma
and your link is to this topic, so thanks
lol yes nice link. lol nice loop back
:-o
you’re right. it is.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20040302a
I am ashamed… :oops:
it happens to the best of us :-)
