I’m looking forward to seeing the Osnaz minis in particular… :wink:
Lets Talk Paratroopers!
-
Bardoly, I like how you do not put a limit on the paratoopers you can build, but with your rules what is the point of them.
Well, obviously, their use in the Pacific would be quite apparent. Also, they would be very useful in supporting attacks on the front lines where you are running low on infantry, but you don’t want to lose an armor unit just to trade the terrritory.
maybe you don’t care, but that use has nothing to do with history.
You are absolutely correct. I was simply giving an example of how some players might use paratroopers. Further down in my above post, I gave further reasoning to back up my stand. The issue isn’t necessarily to replay history exactly as it was, but instead to play this game as though we were back there with the various choices to make. America COULD have used paratroopers to take over the Pacific Islands if it REALLY wanted to. Once again, I just want options which COULD have happened. The more options that a player has, the better that I feel the game is. We’ve just got to stay away from making the game entirely too complex.
@Imperious:
Yes, that is true, but if Germany sees that UK is amassing a lot of Paratroopers and transport planes which are just sitting there, and Germany doesn’t protect himself, then he is just a poor player. Also, 1 paratrooper costs 4 IPCs, and 1 transport costs 8-9. That’s 12-13 IPCs, you could have bought 1 transport and 2 infantry for about the same cost. The sea transport is still more effective.
In any real war this is not possible. Its not even an issue. The game should not model them in any way that reflects even more poorly on reality. If anything it should above all be balanced, but try to reflect something realistic. To create house rules that create an environment that would allow such strange types of strategies is not the best option.
Under this rule if you have transport planes at 8-9, and moving 4 or 6 you gain a lot of speed in deployment. It’s almost like our current rapid deployment forces only this is 1942 and you’re modeling modern capabilities in a game for WW2.
I would be fine with the air transports only having a range of 4 with no Long Range upgrade.
@Imperious:
Please play it out. Most players are gonna keep these planes in the capital because of their range and the builds just fly and drop like buck rodgers armies…especially it helps the Russians as UK builds bombers on UK 1, then instead of naval she buys all transports and shucks stuff direct in Russia with America doing the same.
The speed of deployment is a huge allied advantage if the cost is 8-9 IPC for transport even if its only moving one infantry, because they land exactly where they are needed and Germany cant “intercept” these with subs.
Just remember that the Paratroopers are a 1 attack, 1 defense, 1 movement, 4 IPC cost unit. I don’t think that people will want to purchase so many of these weaker units for greater prices.
I would possibly even be okay with saying that air transport units could ONLY transport paratrooper units or it takes 2 air transport units to transport 1 regular infantry, but I don’t think this is necessary.
-
You are absolutely correct. I was simply giving an example of how some players might use paratroopers. Further down in my above post, I gave further reasoning to back up my stand. The issue isn’t necessarily to replay history exactly as it was, but instead to play this game as though we were back there with the various choices to make. America COULD have used paratroopers to take over the Pacific Islands if it REALLY wanted to. Once again, I just want options which COULD have happened. The more options that a player has, the better that I feel the game is. We’ve just got to stay away from making the game entirely too complex.
Thats not ture though, the US could not have taken over the pacific inlands with soley paratroopers, and it would be complelety impractivle to use paratroopers to move soldiers quickly to the front.
Paratoopers are most useful in conjuction with amphibious assaults and other operations that require getting behind your enemies front lines, so how do your rules reflect that?
-
You are absolutely correct. I was simply giving an example of how some players might use paratroopers. Further down in my above post, I gave further reasoning to back up my stand. The issue isn’t necessarily to replay history exactly as it was, but instead to play this game as though we were back there with the various choices to make. America COULD have used paratroopers to take over the Pacific Islands if it REALLY wanted to. Once again, I just want options which COULD have happened. The more options that a player has, the better that I feel the game is. We’ve just got to stay away from making the game entirely too complex.
That’s not true though, the US could not have taken over the pacific inlands with solely paratroopers, and it would be completely impractical to use paratroopers to move soldiers quickly to the front.
If the Japanese had left an island undefended (i.e. there are no defending units on it), then the U.S. DEFINITELY could have used paratroopers to take out the token force of defenders which just maintain control of the island.
Paratroopers are most useful in conjunction with amphibious assaults and other operations that require getting behind your enemies front lines, so how do your rules reflect that?
Well, what I would actually like would be for there to be an air transport unit with 0 attack, 0 defense, 4 movement points, and costs 8-9 IPCs which may only transport 1 infantry unit per turn, and if it is involved in a combat move attacking a defended territory (i.e. a territory which contains at least 1 unit which could defend – I’m still deciding if undefended IC’s could be attacked with only paratroopers or not, but I do feel that a territory only defended by an aa gun should not be able to be attacked with paratroopers alone), then there must be at least 1 other land unit also attacking as well. I think that this would solve a lot of the problems, but this may add a little too much complexity to the game, and I’m trying to keep it simple. With this option, one doesn’t even need a special infantry piece for paratroopers, because there are no special paratroopers. Although, I do like having more pieces , but every new unit adds a little to the complexity of the game.
-
your rules still dont relfect history or encourage players to use paratroopers in a hisotrical way.
And even if the japanese left an inland undefenended, it would be a waste of resources as you can capture inlands for much less with a regualr transport and without elite soldeirs. Plus many pacfic inlands were not very big so you would risk many of your soldeirs drowing in the water.
If you dont want to add complexity I do not think there is a way to add a historical paratooper unit.
-
If you dont want to add complexity I do not think there is a way to add a historical paratooper unit.
There must be a way!
-
Bardoly asked me for my thoughts for a dedicated paratrooper unit on the “2 Infantry” thread. This was my response:
Yes, I’m aware of the thread and have contributed to it. My paratrooper rules allow a bomber to be “retrofitted” as an air transport and carry 1 infantry, heavy bombers carry two. The Paratrooper Tech I’m renaming Gliders Tech, since it allows carrying of infantry and the bomber can still attack. Medium bombers will also be able to carry an artillery in their glider, Heavies can carry a light tank glider.
Since I’m allowing for airdropped artillery and tanks, I see no reason for a dedicated paratrooper piece.
-
artillery and tanks being airdropped in airborne attacks is not world war 2
and there definetly should be an airbourne unit
-
I agree w/ Emp Taiki on this, I don’t think art or tanks should be dropped into battles. Maybe allow air movement in non combat only. I thought this tread was made to see what uses we could come up with for the new sculpts. We are getting a new inf unit right? Maybe that unit could have multiple roles. If your using it in amp assault its a marine +1 attack, defending coastal tt its island def +1 def, if dropped from an air unit its a paratrooper etc. Maybe only give it a bonus in the 1st round of battle. I know the training would be different for each unit but I’m just trying to make a unit/rule that would be easy to follow. I’m not sure were there airborne marines in the 1940’s?
-
tanks cant be dropped. Only the Soviets considered such an idea in WW2 and it was rightfully discarded. Only airborne units can drop.
-
Yes, I’m aware of the Soviet experiments with light tank gliders. The Germans also considered glider born tanks for Operation Sea Lion using two bombers fused together to tow it.
I do know, however, that the US delivered artillery via gliders. So, since I’ve made the decision to include an option for airdropped artillery, and there will be no distinct “airborne artillery” sculpt, I see no reason for a dedicated airborne light infantry piece.
The airborne tank idea I may scrap anyway, along with my idea for a submarine aircraft carrier tech.
I thought this tread was made to see what uses we could come up with for the new sculpts. We are getting a new inf unit right? Maybe that unit could have multiple roles. If your using it in amp assault its a marine +1 attack, defending coastal tt its island def +1 def, if dropped from an air unit its a paratrooper etc. Maybe only give it a bonus in the 1st round of battle. I know the training would be different for each unit but I’m just trying to make a unit/rule that would be easy to follow. I’m not sure were there airborne marines in the 1940’s?
I’ve considered this as well. Maybe.
-
artillery and tanks being airdropped in airborne attacks is not world war 2
and there definetly should be an airbourne unit
I totally agree with you.
Just because a few artillery pieces were dropped a few times doesn’t mean that an artillery division was ever dropped.
@Imperious:
tanks cant be dropped. Only the Soviets considered such an idea in WW2 and it was rightfully discarded. Only airborne units can drop.
Absolutely.
We’re just trying to find the best way to implement an airborne unit.
@WILD:
I agree w/ Emp Taiki on this, I don’t think art or tanks should be dropped into battles. Maybe allow air movement in non combat only. I thought this tread was made to see what uses we could come up with for the new sculpts. We are getting a new inf unit right? Maybe that unit could have multiple roles. If your using it in amp assault its a marine +1 attack, defending coastal tt its island def +1 def, if dropped from an air unit its a paratrooper etc. Maybe only give it a bonus in the 1st round of battle. I know the training would be different for each unit but I’m just trying to make a unit/rule that would be easy to follow. I’m not sure were there airborne marines in the 1940’s?
I would like to have various types of infantry units, but each piece should be it’s own special unit and not to be different types in different situations.
-
It is true that tanks were never air dropped.
However, artillery was.
Both the Soviets and the Germans considered glider tanks. Because AA is partially about the “What If”, I will include glider tanks. Tank airdrops have been done with the Sheridan Tank in more recent years. It’s not that far out an idea for WWII. It was simply very difficult to do.
-
It is true that tanks were never air dropped.
However, artillery was.
Both the Soviets and the Germans considered glider tanks. Because AA is partially about the “What If”, I will include glider tanks. Tank airdrops have been done with the Sheridan Tank in more recent years. It’s not that far out an idea for WWII. It was simply very difficult to do.
Yes, but an entire tank division? I don’t think so.
-
It could work.
-
Taboo to post in a long dead thread? maybe… but played Dday last week and wondered if the already standard Paratrooper rules were overlooked in this discussion. I had forgotten about them myself until I played–had been awhile for DDay. Couldn’t find them here when looking at least. If they were, oh well, if not, here they are.
DDay has paratroopers standard, only AA game to do so, and contains rules for them. Now, they are set in a specific place in that game, but they could be taken out of that spot for use in other games.
Cost–?? DDay doesn’t use IPCs to purchase.
Move/Attack/Defend–all the same as standard Infantry 1/1/2
Airborne drop advantage–fires preemptively (or defender doesn’t return fire 1st round, whichever way you prefer to look at it.) @ a 1.LH talked about not putting them into games, but he already did, and for the fact that they would be guys with chutes carrying only light arms into battle, in using a 6d to play, attacking at a 1 preemptively when an normal infantry division does the same could be reasonable…
-
I read through a couple pages of this, so if what I am thinking isn’t original forgive me.
How about a unique unit that costs 3IPC fights at a 1/1 (on a D6) but the unit gets the same advantage as submarines, hits don’t return fire. I would also eliminate the transports and give them a movement of two and alow them to cross water. They would also be allowed to be transported like Infantry.
I think I may give this a try in my next Game, but I would like to hear any feed back…
-
I read through a couple pages of this, so if what I am thinking isn’t original forgive me.
How about a unique unit that costs 3IPC fights at a 1/1 (on a D6) but the unit gets the same advantage as submarines, hits don’t return fire. I would also eliminate the transports and give them a movement of two and alow them to cross water. They would also be allowed to be transported like Infantry.
I think I may give this a try in my next Game, but I would like to hear any feed back…
Not a bad idea.
Let us know how it works out. I know that IL is worried about the game deteriorating into a Paratroop-fest, so perhaps a limit of some sort or raise the price to 4 IPCs would be a little better. Perhaps the Long Range Aircraft tech could increase their range by +1.
-
I read through a couple pages of this, so if what I am thinking isn’t original forgive me.
How about a unique unit that costs 3IPC fights at a 1/1 (on a D6) but the unit gets the same advantage as submarines, hits don’t return fire. I would also eliminate the transports and give them a movement of two and alow them to cross water. They would also be allowed to be transported like Infantry.
I think I may give this a try in my next Game, but I would like to hear any feed back…
YES! this is clearly the best option. Every time they airborne assault they have to pay 3 IPCs though.
-
One of the main problems when considering airborne troops for the basic Axis and Allies system is that the design doesn’t incorporate defensive advantages (beyond the basic advantage of being the defender). In WWII, paratroopers were seen as a means to circumvent the enemy’s specific defensive advantages (i.e.: coastlines, rivers, mountains, islands). If there were such a thing as defensive advantages in the game then paratroopers could be used to negate (either partially or fully) these advantages.
This would also prevent players from abusing paratroopers and using them unrealistic ways (flying over Europe to drop a single paratrooper in an undefended Italy for example).
Unfortunately what I’m talking about here is really a re-design of the basic system.
For what it’s worth here’s my take on including airborne troops with the standard A&A system.
For a cost of 5 IPC’s an infantry unit can be upgraded with an airborne marker. The marker is placed underneath the infantry piece during the “Place New Units” phase. This does not require the use of a factory. If an infantry unit that is upgraded with an airborne marker moves (either on foot or by being loaded on a transport) then the airborne marker is lost. During the “Combat Moves” phase the upgraded unit may conduct an airborne assault. The unit may be moved up to 2 spaces, just like an air unit (subject to enemy AA fire). At the start of the battle the unit is vulnerable to enemy AA fire and attacks at 2 during the opening fire phase of the first round of combat. After the first round of combat remove the airborne marker. The unit once again functions as a normal infantry unit (attacking at 1 if the combat is on-going). Infantry units performing an airborne assault may not retreat.
So that’s it. First you need to have a standard infantry unit (airborne troopers are usually trained as standard infantry first). Then you need to train the troops, accumulate the transport aircraft and prepare the logistics required to perform a major drop (this is what the 5 IPC’s is for).
People will not buy too many of these guys because they are expensive and limited. They don’t want to move them and lose their money. Players don’t want to build them “just because”. They have to have a specific purpose in mind. They are a nice bonus when attacking an enemy coast and they can fly out and capture lightly defended area’s.
What are your thoughts?
-
Holden
I think your idea is perhaps the best modification of my attempt to create a paratrooper rule that started this thread. It is simple and not overly complicated and I think would integrate well without the use of an air transport piece.
The idea of placing an airborne marker during the “Place New Unit” is a good idea. This means that unit would be potentially vulnerable for at least a full turn before it can be used.
I also like the idea that once an airborne marker has been place on a unit. It’s next move, no matter how it moves, the marker is considered spent. This will make players think hard about when and where to use this capability. Because if you don’t do it right, you could potentially throw your money away and/or tie-up some troops for a turn or more.
I would also add that once you purchase a marker, it must be deployed at during the “Place New Unit Phase”. This would prevent players from hoarding their markers and deploying them all at once.
Your range, attack and defend rule are good the way they are. However, I think paratroopers should have a little bit more of an advantage on the first round of combat to simulate the confusion they tend to create among the defenders. One is to give them a first strike capability like a sub as Emperor Taiki suggested. Two, all defending units defend at minus -1. I’d like to hear some thoughts on this one.
The only area I would disagree with is the cost. 5 IPC is too much. I think 3 IPC is more reasonable for something that is a one time use. Some may argue that this is cheaper than buying a troop transport. True, but a transport use is unlimited as long as it survives. Now lets say someone decides to buy 3 airborne markers at 3 IPC, that’s 9 IPC. The average IPC per country is 30 IPC. So if someone spends 9 IPC for an airborne attack. That’s a third of his budget for something that is a one time use. Now some may argue that it should cost more to prevent potential abuse. But lets say some one does decide to buy 4 or 5 markers. I say let them. They may gain in the short term but I think in the long term they’ll soon realize it was a big mistake. A big part of this game is learning how to spend your money wisely.
Anyway, great idea! With the exception of the IPC cost, I’m going to use this rule for my paratroopers!
Suggested Topics
