@SuperbattleshipYamato edited
Paratroopers
-
wow that sounds awesome! trying that with pacific!
-
wow that sounds awesome! trying that with pacific!
Then somebody has to develop a tech system.
-
Glad to hear it’s in :-D
-
Would be nice to get some paratrooper pieces to go with the new rule.
-
You don’t actually use different units. The ability just lets you move regular infantry.
-
Paratroopers should have different values than regular infantry.
-
There should be a hand full of paratrooper units. They should cost four, act like normal infantry but follow Larrys new rules for dropping. They would also attack on a 2 if dropped. They would not require a tech.
-
No. That’d be way to complicated.
-
Technology is more or less and afterthought in the game, Larry has made it well known he’s not a fan of it. Technology is not the focus of the game and creating some kind of hierarchy of technology that takes multiple turns to work through puts the game in a direction where it does not need to be going. It’s fine for house rules if you work on it but something like that is never going to get implement in the design process of A&A.
-
Every country should have paratroopers except China.
-
@Brain:
Every country should have paratroopers except China.
And Canada. But Canada is not in the game so … :-D
Bah, when China receive a starting land army two times greater than japanese one and tanks cannot blitz for China, I’ll agree with you. Until that, I disagree, China should be able of do the same as any other country :wink:
-
@Brain:
Every country should have paratroopers except China.
And Canada. But Canada is not in the game so … :-D
Bah, when China receive a starting land army two times greater than japanese one and tanks cannot blitz for China, I’ll agree with you. Until that, I disagree, China should be able of do the same as any other country :wink:
Heck, just make China’s starting land army equal to the number of Japan’s starting land troops and call it even “because of the civil war”. And yeah, if we’re going to have an “ACME wall” keeping Chinese units in “Chinese territory”, at least make it so that tanks can’t blitz through those same territories or something. Or just make a line of “no blitz” territories down the middle of China for the mountain range.
Let China just have infantry and the occassional artillery, that’s fine, but let the starting number be equal to Japan’s number of land units at the very least, if not more. Spread them out across the Chinese territories so that Japan can make some advances early and China can counter.
Paratroopers I can’t really see China having though, especially as they needed US volunteers to even have an air force worth speaking of.
-
wait, so i can’t paratroop my guys to an EMPTY enemy territory and take it over, without also having normal guys attack it also?
well, these goes my island hopping or sky-landing campaign ideas….
-
Quote from Larry talking about the new paratrooper tech:
“Paratroopers. Up to 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. If the territory being attacked has an antiaircraft gun, the paratrooper infantry units are subject to antiaircraft fire int he same way as air units. If attacking along with land units from adjacent territories, paratroopers may retreat as normal”.
I kinda like that it is a supplement to an attack, and you won’t be able to just have frying armies. Sounds like you won’t be able to capitalize on enemy mistakes of leaving open tt behind the lines or island hopping w/o transports.
-
wait, so i can’t paratroop my guys to an EMPTY enemy territory and take it over, without also having normal guys attack it also?
Two reasons:
-
I’m sure that it would promote undesirable game play. Just off of the top of my head (and without having seen the map), having an airbase in both England and Scotland would mean that without ever exposing a navy to attack you could threaten nearly every European coastal territory and many internal territories with a 4 (or 2) infantry + planes attack, every turn, forcing Germany to garrison every territory with a stack of infantry or risk empty territories being picked off right and left.
-
An infantry piece represents more than just the shooters, it is also the massive logistical tail involved in feeding and provisioning those at the front. Paratroopers are more of a tactical than a strategic element. They can be deployed behind enemy lines for only a matter of days or possibly weeks before they need to link up with ground troops and the supply chain. The planes themselves are only dropping the “pointy end of the spear”, and aerial resupply is not a long term solution in the WWII era. On the time scales of a single A&A turn, it would be impossible for airborne units alone to capture and hold even a completely unoccupied territory without ground or naval supply lines, which is what the requirement for a ground or amphibious attack represents).
-
-
Still, territories should not be protected by rules so that they can be left undefended.
-
@Brain:
Still, territories should not be protected by rules so that they can be left undefended.
They’re never completely undefended, you can assume they would have small garrison forces to keep the population under control, etc. but nothing that could hold up to a large force.
-
@SAS:
make it so that tanks can’t blitz through those same territories or something.
Paratroopers I can’t really see China having though, especially as they needed US volunteers to even have an air force worth speaking of.- china cant make tanks(maby a house rule?)
2)it doesent take a lot of skill to jump OUT of an airplaine.
:p
It might not take skill in your opinion, but it does take an airplane and last time I checked the US was flying all the planes in China and they were mostly fighters which does not accomodate paratroopers.
- china cant make tanks(maby a house rule?)
-
this technology will be extremely weak. look at the pacific map and try to find a usefull scenario for it. i have done so and it would not help usa, anzac, japan or china. it could be slightly usefull for uk. you could save 2ipc a round by buying 2 infantry instead of 2 mechinized infantry. thats not worth the cost of acquiring the technology.
-
this technology will be extremely weak. look at the pacific map and try to find a usefull scenario for it. i have done so and it would not help usa, anzac, japan or china. it could be slightly usefull for uk. you could save 2ipc a round by buying 2 infantry instead of 2 mechinized infantry. thats not worth the cost of acquiring the technology.
Honestly they should just do away with tech/na’s and give countries the techs they achieved during the war.
Suggested Topics
