it happens to the best of us :-)
:-o dude, the replies are coming fast.
this might as wee be a live chat :lol:
I did read your posts. Don’t ASS/U/ME (you for the assumption, me for the link).
The thing is, if an airborne unit attacks at 0, it has no value in an A&A battle other than to die in an attack, and airborne units weren’t cannon fodder. I would much rather spend the extra 3 IPCs on an infantry that can actually attack on a 1 and defend at 2. Also, the slight risk of an AA gun blowing both the inf and the plane out of the sky doesn’t help in the cost/risk assessment.
Yes, airborne ops had many problems:
1. logistics
2. equipment
3. cost
4. time
5. training
6. risk
but I think you’re over compensating
AA does owe alot of its DNA to the idea that the units are based ( not entirely) on considerations about points of power and assigns the costs based on these or the combat results would prove fatal and some units would never justify purchase. The end result is the units cant be imbalanced or a major flaw would develop, so you need some system to account for this and its just one way to look at solving it.
3-3 tanks was an attempt to show among other things that the more you spend the more value in return a unit can present because you have to also take into account each unit takes 1 hit, so a unit with power of a fighter vs. a tank must have some other justification to its price.
10 infantry or 6 tanks need to have a balance point that is justified in the design so players wont buy one over the other, but some of each. Thats why the combat results show that a balance of all 3 land units is the best overall based on the hit value of one to each unit.
Another example is the 2 destroyer vs. 1 battleships argument. The design makes the case that in situations you may need one over another.
for airborne the OOB is 1-2, so if we adjust the variation to 3 on first round and 1 latter, we should be adding 1 IPC to the cost and its really hard to have a value on selective hits because we don’t have another unit to qualify this value to. But i don’t see airborne as selective hits. I see commandos in this capacity.
ok, but i have also said they should have a 3 or less attack the first round or before the battle even begins, plus they get to choose their target
if anything these units are overpowerd and steel some of the crusiers limelight. maybe it should be a two or les attack any be before battle starts
THis is what I have so far
Airbourne
Attack: 0
Defence: 1
Movement: 1
Cost: 3
Special rules
Airbourne units are land units
if in the combat move phase you pay 3 ipcs for each airborne unit may move like an air unit to attack a land terriotry 2 spaces away.
It may reamain in a terriotry it attacked this turn
Surprise!:airborne units may preform a specail attack before battle starts where they pick any of the enemy units and on a 3 destorys it.
Airborne cannot retreat during a combat where they have preformed and airborne assault
:oops:
I just saw that two second ago…not Larry Harris. Mike Selinker. :oops: I am shamed twice in one day. I might as well wear donkey ears.
I admit, the 1.5 inf/tank power/cost ratio only applies to the ground units. In fact, according to that, art have a 1.3 rating, meaning that they are not worth buying. My whole point with the article was to show that the 3 attack + 2 defense = 5 IPC argument does not cover all factors.
Also, the 3 is only on the first round. The Marines NA in revised attacked on a 2 only i the 1st round and could not be supported by artillery, and cost 3 IPCs. Pacific Marines cost 4, yet could be supported by artillery and got their attack bonus in all rounds of an amphibious assault. That’s a 4 IPC inf attacking on a 3 in all rounds of combat.
Based on the points of power argument, an inf with a base of 2-2 should be 4.
ok, but i have also said they should have a 3 or less attack the first round or before the battle even begins, plus they get to choose their target
Hmmm, I must have missed that. I apologize, and hereby add a tail to my donkey ears.
THis is what I have so far
Airbourne
Attack: 0
Defence: 1
Movement: 1
Cost: 3Special rules
Airbourne units are land units
if in the combat move phase you pay 3 ipcs for each airborne unit may move like an air unit to attack a land terriotry 2 spaces away.
It may reamain in a terriotry it attacked this turnSurprise!:airborne units may preform a specail attack before battle starts where they pick any of the enemy units and on a 3 destorys it.
Airborne cannot retreat
The airborne costs me 3 IPCs + 3 more for the op, totaling 6 IPCs. Why pay 6 IPCs for a unit that attacks on a 3 only in the first round when I can pay 5 IPCs for a unit that attacks on a 3 in all rounds. A tank also defends on a 3, and I don’t have to pay 3 IPCs in the future to use it again? I don’t think being able to chose a target makes up for it.
the paratooper chooses the enemy casaulty though, so it it could take out a tank or a fighter that might other wise kill many of your units while a tank will mostly just kill inf. also it moves two space like an air unit, which is more versitle than moving two spaces like a land unit. plus the first round of combat is always the most important anyways. In general tanks are better becasue they can defend, and this is good becasue everyone should purchase many more tanks than paratoopers. But airborne units also have a purpose, one that is congurent with their historical counterpart
Yeah, but I don’t know if like the idea of any inf choosing a target. Maybe I’m just being stupid, but I just don’t like the idea…I’ll think about it, though.
I hate this idea. I have no reason to think that the argument that these are lightly armed dudes with parachutes can wipe out a Panzer army.
The only thing they do is ‘shock’ the defenders temporarily so that in short order the objective can be accessed by normal troops. They have limited weapons and not enough to fight the big pieces.
At worst they could have preemptive shot at 3 in first round but thats it. on second round they must retreat or they will attack at Zero. If they are not dropped and are defending they are 1-2 units as per OOB.
You have to have artificial limitations on quantity do deny weird “all paratrooper buy” to break the game with tricks… like somebody buying them all day long to keep the capital they took as pointed out before.
Ok, no selecting target (now that I think of it, does any other unit select a target? Oh yeah, Japanese suicide units).
How about Paratroopers get an “opening fire” bonus instead of a first round bonus, simulating surprise, and you only get the bonus from dropping from a plane. All other round they attack normally (whether it be 1, 2, or 0).
yes the attack is preemptive if they are dropped from a bomber. otherwise they are just 1-2 infantry because when they are not in a jump they get jeeps and all the goodies as any other infantry.
but nobody is gonna get these killed because they cost 4-5 IPC each , so players will protect them.
IL, you wouldn’t need limitations on how many paratoopers you can buy if they were realistic and 0-1 units
you have not given one reason they should be 1-2 excpet that that is the way OOB
and also why are paratoopers able to retreat in airborne assaults, that is not realistic at all.
IL, you wouldn’t need limitations on how many paratroopers you can buy if they were realistic and 0-1 units
The example would involve buying tons of these to secure a location that a player could not get to by sea and constantly buying these and sending fighters as defense. Japan or Uk comes to mind.
you have not given one reason they should be 1-2 excpet that that is the way OOB
it was demonstrated that 35,000 of these got dropped so they could be a normal infantry unit in this game because the size is sufficient in scale.
and also why are paratoopers able to retreat in airborne assaults, that is not realistic at all.
attackers can retreat if they control a friendly adjacent space. Thats standard. Obviously they cant retreat if they have no place. If they get dropped in UK they die after the first round if no other units remain.
well, hopefully the paratoopers have a range of only 2 and they attack at 0 after their 3 or less, so the captial thing really ins’t an issue.
also it is much harder for airborne to retreat so when they airborne assault they should have the same retreat rules as an amphibious landing.
Market Garden was the largest airborne operations in history or something like that so that attack would be represent by at least 3 paratooper units.
So when you make airborne units 1-2 really your saying 10,000 men with rifles and submachineguns has the same combat power as 50,000-150,000 men with armored vehicles and heavy weapons
Has this debate gone in full circle? I’ll just cast my vote w/ IL.
My personal peeve is w/ the AA50 rule that bombers can attack w/ paratroopers. I feel this tech should be renamed “gliders.”
Synopsis on my Proposes Paratrooper Rules
All bombers can be “retrofitted” as transport aircraft. Instead of attacking on their own, they may carry 1 “non-vehicle land unit.”
If the player develops Gliders, the bomber may “tow” an additional infantry, truck, or artillery independent of whether it is a standard bomber or a retrofitted bomber. Heavy bombers may tow a 3-3 tank.
All para-dropped units get a +1 modified opening fire hit. Otherwise, they attack normally.
well its not important who agrees with whom, but rather to find some more decent ideas because the OOB is too vanilla.
Has this debate gone in full circle? I’ll just cast my vote w/ IL.
My personal peeve is w/ the AA50 rule that bombers can attack w/ paratroopers. I feel this tech should be renamed “gliders.”
Synopsis on my Proposes Paratrooper Rules
All bombers can be “retrofitted” as transport aircraft. Instead of attacking on their own, they may carry 1 “non-vehicle land unit.”
If the player develops Gliders, the bomber may “tow” an additional infantry, truck, or artillery independent of whether it is a standard bomber or a retrofitted bomber. Heavy bombers may tow a 3-3 tank.
All para-dropped units get a +1 modified opening fire hit. Otherwise, they attack normally.
these idea’s have nothing to do with world war 2
@Imperious:
well its not important who agrees with whom, but rather to find some more decent ideas because the OOB is too vanilla.
my idea is the most decent
speaking of new ideas, I think I’ll start threads for all the other new FMG pieces
Here’s a thought, my apologies if you went down this road already, i have missed some of the discussion and tried to catch up but might have missed something.
What if Paratroopers didn’t have bonus attack power, that’s what all the AA games have given them, but as IL mentioned, they didn’t really carry bonus firepower with them, it came from catching the defenders off-guard, so what if they could disrupt the enemy defense power? Because they were mainly troops lightly armed for speed, their goal was to slip in and take bridges, cut power and phone lines, even take control of airfields and such to disrupt counter-attacks.
So instead of them firing at a 2 or 3 for the first round only, why couldn’t they roll for the disruption of enemy units. Say they roll for a 1 or 2 and hit, then the defender’s units defend at -1 for the first round due to paratrooper disruption. This gives your landing or attacking group extra help without creating a paradox of p-trooper firepower.
Questions?
-how many defending troops should be affected? -could be based on the 1 (affects 2 or 3) or 2 (affects 3-5) This way multiple paratroopers could affect larger groups. 1 p-trooper should probably not affect 8 INF and 4 ARM on the beaches, but 3-4 ptroopers could. Maybe ptroopers could choose which units where disrupted too.
So what would ptroops values be?
-maybe that of normal INF, a/d-1/2, m/c-1/3 still.
