Paratroopers

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.

@cminke:

@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.

1. 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.

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.

@allweneedislove:

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.

@allweneedislove:

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.

Well that’s the point, to my knowledge paratroopers weren’t used very often in the Pacific theater. The European theater on the other hand is a completely different situation, and I’m sure they’ll be very useful.

Honestly they should just do away with tech/na’s and give countries the techs they achieved during the war.

I was just thinking the same thing over lunch!

@Brain:

@cminke:

@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.

1. 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.

Thank you for defending me on point #2, BD.  And as for point #1, I know that China cannot produce tanks; I was referring to other nation’s tanks (particularly Japan’s).  Which is especially interesting considering that you point out that China can’t make tanks in your first point, and then follow it up by suggesting that China could have paratroopers?  They can’t make tanks or planes (or airbases for that matter, if we’re getting technical) and you think they should have paratroopers?

Regardless of the amount of training necessary to be a paratrooper, one needs to have transport planes to have paratroopers, otherwise all China gets are base jumpers, which aren’t helpful in military applications; but if you want to have all your Chinese soldiers jumping off of buildings, go ahead…

@cminke:

@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.

1. china cant make tanks(maby a house rule?)
   2)it doesent take a lot of skill to jump OUT of an airplaine.
   :p

LOL, you are talking about chinese paratroopers in a WWII game???  You have to have planes first for that to work!

The usefulness of the ‘Paratroopers’ tech shouldn’t be underestimated: especially if an enemy territory is within the overlapping ranges of two of your air bases. Imagine driving 1 Japanese tank into Burma, for example, and having 4 supporting infantry magically float in from your air bases in French Indo-China and Kwangtung to act as cannon fodder. Now imagine doing that in different directions, every turn, for the rest of the game. With air bases (and, hopefully, minor industrial complexes) in those two territories, you could also hit China, India, Malaya, Borneo, the Philippines, and Guam. Niiice.  8-)

@Make_It_Round:

The usefulness of the ‘Paratroopers’ tech shouldn’t be underestimated: especially if an enemy territory is within the overlapping ranges of two of your air bases. Imagine driving 1 Japanese tank into Burma, for example, and having 4 supporting infantry magically float in from your air bases in French Indo-China and Kwangtung to act as cannon fodder. Now imagine doing that in different directions, every turn, for the rest of the game. With air bases (and, hopefully, minor industrial complexes) in those two territories, you could also hit China, India, Malaya, Borneo, the Philippines, and Guam. Niiice.  8-)

Good thought.  Combo IC/airbases would also provide Germany with a powerful method of transporting their infantry to the Eastern Front just about immediately.  Of course, it’ll help the UK get more troops into Europe without needing as many transports too.

@SAS:

@Make_It_Round:

The usefulness of the ‘Paratroopers’ tech shouldn’t be underestimated: especially if an enemy territory is within the overlapping ranges of two of your air bases. Imagine driving 1 Japanese tank into Burma, for example, and having 4 supporting infantry magically float in from your air bases in French Indo-China and Kwangtung to act as cannon fodder. Now imagine doing that in different directions, every turn, for the rest of the game. With air bases (and, hopefully, minor industrial complexes) in those two territories, you could also hit China, India, Malaya, Borneo, the Philippines, and Guam. Niiice.  8-)

Good thought.  Combo IC/airbases would also provide Germany with a powerful method of transporting their infantry to the Eastern Front just about immediately.  Of course, it’ll help the UK get more troops into Europe without needing as many transports too.

I agree! But I’m less sanguine about the paratroopers’ ability to get Germans to the front in Africa. See:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18231.60

I think that part of the problem in how to correctly rate/value paratroopers is that for now we’re stuck talking about Europe and Global interchangably (that’s inevitable, really, as they’re two games being sold in the same box, using the same board and pieces). I suspect they’ll be a much more powerful tech in Global for the Allies, because the UK and the US (the tech-buying Allies) will have roughly twice the number of units on the board to be affected by those techs.

For paratroopers to be as reliably fun and interesting as we want them to be, we’d need to house rule them into Europe 40 and Pacific 40, first thing, and then maybe even playtest giving the paratroopers tech to every player at the start of the game, just to see what kind of effect they’re going to have on gameplay.

I imagine, for example, that the paratroopers tech might make it (even more) worth it for Japan to snap up Midway, Wake, and Guam for free while she has the chance.

@Make_It_Round:

I agree! But I’m less sanguine about the paratroopers’ ability to get Germans to the front in Africa.

Sanguine, now there’s a word you don’t hear in most people’s everyday vocabulary. There are people here who can barely spell and here he goes spouting off words like sanguine. In case some of you people don’t know what sanguine means, it means confident.

I still think that paratroopers should be a standard unit for every nation except China.

@Brain:

@Make_It_Round:

I agree! But I’m less sanguine about the paratroopers’ ability to get Germans to the front in Africa.

Sanguine, now there’s a word you don’t hear in most people’s everyday vocabulary. There are people here who can barely spell and here he goes spouting off words like sanguine. In case some of you people don’t know what sanguine means, it means confident.

I still think that paratroopers should be a standard unit for every nation except China.

Now dat’s jus’ karazy tawk!

Paratroopers as a normal thing would be cool though.

@Make_It_Round:

The usefulness of the ‘Paratroopers’ tech shouldn’t be underestimated:

the usefulness of the paratroopers tech should not be over estimated

@Make_It_Round:

Imagine driving 1 Japanese tank into Burma, for example, and having 4 supporting infantry magically float in from your air bases in French Indo-China and Kwangtung to act as cannon fodder.

imagine as japan spending 20ipc to get paratrooper tech, then another 30ipc on two airbases. thinking how great it would be to drive one tank into burma and bring 4 infantry from the skies as fodder. but wait, imagine that you not only have to get the tank to burma but you have to get 4 infantry to the airbases aswell.

does not sound so sweet does it. this tech is weak for usa and anzac aswell as they would first need to get land units into a combat then get get units to an airbase, but to get to an airbase in range of any action those units need to come from a transport, why would you need paratroopers if you have already have the transports in range.

this tech is very weak.

@allweneedislove:

@Make_It_Round:

The usefulness of the ‘Paratroopers’ tech shouldn’t be underestimated:

the usefulness of the paratroopers tech should not be over estimated

@Make_It_Round:

Imagine driving 1 Japanese tank into Burma, for example, and having 4 supporting infantry magically float in from your air bases in French Indo-China and Kwangtung to act as cannon fodder.

imagine as japan spending 20ipc to get paratrooper tech, then another 30ipc on two airbases. thinking how great it would be to drive one tank into burma and bring 4 infantry from the skies as fodder. but wait, imagine that you not only have to get the tank to burma but you have to get 4 infantry to the airbases aswell.

does not sound so sweet does it. this tech is weak for usa and anzac aswell as they would first need to get land units into a combat then get get units to an airbase, but to get to an airbase in range of any action those units need to come from a transport, why would you need paratroopers if you have already have the transports in range.

this tech is very weak.

Kwangtung already has an airbase in Pac40, and most Japanese players build an IC in Kwangtung anyway, so Japan wouldn’t be wasting extra IPCs to set this scenario up.  Now FIC is different since it doesn’t start with anything on it, but still…  And yes, spending 20 IPCs to try to get this tech would be kind of ridiculous, but you would only be spending that much if you were going all-out for tech anyway, which isn’t necessary either.

Is this tech as powerful as retro heavy bombers or as useful as others like long-range aircraft?  No.  And it has been pointed out earlier in this thread that paratroopers will be much more useful on the European side where there will be more constant trading of territories to make it more consistently useful (how often does Japan really trade Burma back and forth with India?).  But being able to move the infantry you’re already building at Kwangtung 3 spaces away to attack Burma immediately, leaving your transports available for shuttling other units from even further away, is still useful.  Japan has limited applications for this tech, but it still is like getting a free transport, which simply means more flexibility.

@SAS:

Is this tech as powerful as retro heavy bombers or as useful as others like long-range aircraft?  No.  And it has been pointed out earlier in this thread that paratroopers will be much more useful on the European side where there will be more constant trading of territories to make it more consistently useful (how often does Japan really trade Burma back and forth with India?).  But being able to move the infantry you’re already building at Kwangtung 3 spaces away to attack Burma immediately, leaving your transports available for shuttling other units from even further away, is still useful.  Japan has limited applications for this tech, but it still is like getting a free transport, which simply means more flexibility.

I think that this is the right way to look at it.

With the paratroopers tech, you get a fleet of invisible and invulnerable transports, one stationed at every air base.

If you’re willing to pay 7 IPCs for 1 (very vulnerable) transport with no combat value that needs surface warship protection for its survival (at least 1 destroyer @ 8 IPCs, say), then you’ve already dropped 15 IPCs on the board for the privilege of moving your troops around (and only over water, not land).

Once you actually have the paratroopers tech in hand, this will definitely warrant an air base purchase–also, coincidentally, 15 IPCs–in certain strategically valuable territories. (And this isn’t even taking into account the standard advantages of having an air base, namely the scramble and +1 air unit move abilities.)

The tech is good. You might have to work a bit to pull the trick off in certain situations, but the payoff looks promising.

At the very least, I think we can all agree it beats the snot out of the old paratrooper tech.  :wink:

@SAS:

@allweneedislove:

@Make_It_Round:

The usefulness of the ‘Paratroopers’ tech shouldn’t be underestimated:

the usefulness of the paratroopers tech should not be over estimated

@Make_It_Round:

Imagine driving 1 Japanese tank into Burma, for example, and having 4 supporting infantry magically float in from your air bases in French Indo-China and Kwangtung to act as cannon fodder.

imagine as japan spending 20ipc to get paratrooper tech, then another 30ipc on two airbases. thinking how great it would be to drive one tank into burma and bring 4 infantry from the skies as fodder. but wait, imagine that you not only have to get the tank to burma but you have to get 4 infantry to the airbases aswell.

does not sound so sweet does it. this tech is weak for usa and anzac aswell as they would first need to get land units into a combat then get get units to an airbase, but to get to an airbase in range of any action those units need to come from a transport, why would you need paratroopers if you have already have the transports in range.

this tech is very weak.

Kwangtung already has an airbase in Pac40, and most Japanese players build an IC in Kwangtung anyway, so Japan wouldn’t be wasting extra IPCs to set this scenario up.  Now FIC is different since it doesn’t start with anything on it, but still…  And yes, spending 20 IPCs to try to get this tech would be kind of ridiculous, but you would only be spending that much if you were going all-out for tech anyway, which isn’t necessary either.

Is this tech as powerful as retro heavy bombers or as useful as others like long-range aircraft?  No.  And it has been pointed out earlier in this thread that paratroopers will be much more useful on the European side where there will be more constant trading of territories to make it more consistently useful (how often does Japan really trade Burma back and forth with India?).  But being able to move the infantry you’re already building at Kwangtung 3 spaces away to attack Burma immediately, leaving your transports available for shuttling other units from even further away, is still useful.  Japan has limited applications for this tech, but it still is like getting a free transport, which simply means more flexibility.

I can’t remember right now, but I might be wrong about Kwangtung having an airbase, it might just be a navalbase; which would mean allweneedislove is right about spending a lot of extra IPCs to set up said scenario in Pacific, but paratroopers is obviously limited in Pacific (paratroopers weren’t used very often in the actual war in the Pacific anyway), the real theater for its use will be Europe between UK/Germany and Germany/USSR.

The paratrooper tech will also aid in island hopping (Pac). How many times do you end up stranding inf on islands because they got your transport. If you have an AB on that island (or can move them to an AB) you will still be able to para drop those inf into a battle on tt (island or coastal) in a neighboring sz. You only need to have an amp going. This will be a boost to the allies in Pac, because the US has a lot of AB’s. You should be able to set-up a cross fire, and come in from different directions. It could be helpful to Japan as well, if they take those American AB’s.

The key to the new Para rule will be in the Airbases.  They have to be built and kept in repair for it to work.  Depending on where you want to use Paras there are places setup already for them, but in other areas you’d have to build the AB first; perhaps requiring some further planning ahead of the drop.  Not that that is too off from reality, but the old ‘use the Bomber for the Para drop’ plan may have been a bit more simple.

Parachutes would be the big ‘tech’ in this Tech rule, as doors in the planes already were invented.

I personally like Paras getting the one-shot preemptive strike before the battle at 1, ala DDay and then functioning as INF after.  I don’t like increasing their attack, just seems overpowered.  I have played where they disrupt the enemy’s defense, lowering up to 3 enemy units DEF by 1 in the first round of combat.  Adds to the thinking and time, (not so fun) but seemed to work well otherwise.