Everyone,
Has anyone gone back to the thread I spoke about in my response #13 to update themselves with all of the different facets of the Air Transport/Paradrop issues?
I truly feel if you would do so you’d have a much better understanding of both sides of the issue and the outcome of the discussion.
“Tall Paul”
I have considered air transports at 10 ipc, with the same movement as bombers. � They can carry 1 para inf for a combat drop in the CM phase and then land in the NCM phase like any other aircraft. �
In the NCM phase (if they did not move in the CM), they can carry 1 inf or para, but must end their movement in the destination space (paratroops would not be dropped in a NCM, but landed instead).
In either case, the land unit cannot have move first.
This makes them carry less than transport ships but very useful so their cost is justified. �  They attack and defend on 0 and can be taken as a loss, paras are dropped immediately after AA fire, but the transports stick around until the NCM (and can be taken as a battle loss). � If the transport is hit by the AA gun, the para is lost with it.
The only thing still under discussion is if an air transport can move first, pick up a unit and continue.
A Para inf costs 4ipc, and is identical to inf in all respects (except that it can be paradropped).
Moralecheck,
What was decided earlier by IL & others was:
If you’re Air Transporting in a non-combat turn that you could air transport TWO Infantry types, but they must to START and END their non-combat moves at airbases.
If you Paratroop Drop in a combat move, the aircraft and ONE Paratrooper BOTH had to start at the SAME AIRBASE but the aircraft did NOT have to land at an airbase.
Whether ParaDropping in a combat move,…or Air Transporting in a non-combat move, the aircraft AND the Infantry type units must BOTH START at an airbase.
I hope this helps you. Enjoy “Death from Above” and let me know how it works for you. I’m glad you understand that because of the capablities it offers, the
Air Transport is worth 10 IPCs.
“Tall Paul”
Tall Paul,
Thanks for the reply. Â I will admit that while we came up with a few house rules for the new pieces from HBG/FMG we have never used them, so I can’t give first hand results.
That said, 2 inf on an air transport seems a bit too powerful. Â The problem is that they are 3 times faster than sea transports, have the same inf capacity, and only cost 3 IPC more. Â Adding to that, they are always shielded by the inf they carried over (in the NCM), so they are much harder to kill. Â If they are allowed to carry 2 inf, the USA would be crazy to even consider sea transports, except for the odd occasion. Â Keeping their limit to 1 makes them more of a ‘special occasion’ unit and keeps sea transports relevant. Â
Again, I have not tried them in a game, so I’m only spouting theory. Â If you have tried them, I’d be interested in the results.
Moralecheck and Others,
I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you meant by the statement that they would “always be shielded by Infantry they carried over”.
If you meant that the aircraft would be defended by the Infantry CARGO,…no,…the Infantry do not defend the aircraft,…just like if a Sea Transport were attacked the cargo doesn’t defend, it is only cargo.
The Air Transporting of TWO Infantry type units is accomplished entirely in the non-combat phase between two airbases that you owned/controlled at the beginning of your turn so no combat should occur.
The reasoning behind allowing for TWO Infantry to be air transported in non-combat is you HAVE TO START AND END AT AIRBASES. This means you have to invest IPCs in airbases to reap the benefits of this capability. And it’s limited to INFANTRY type units.
And as for never using Sea Transports, they have the capabilty to transport units that the Air Transport can’t, like TANKS. So if the U.S.A. wants to attack with any Tanks they’ll have to be transported by Sea Transports.
And the Air Transports range would be FOUR movements, or FIVE when starting from an Airbase. I’m guessing that you thought the range of an Air Transport was the same as a a Bomber. It isn’t. It is the same as a Fighter. FOUR, or FIVE from an airbase.
I hope this further explains Air Transporting in non-combat. You’d really benefit from reading the thread I meantioned previously in response #13 if you haven’t already.
“Tall Paul”
I may have remembered the aircraft range incorrectly. I remember that there was discussion of a/c range being FOUR for combat Paradrops and SIX for non-combat air transports. I will have to re-read the info. Irregardless, I know that combat Paradrops DID NOT have a range of six. Combat Paratroop Drops having a range of six was obviously seen as a game-changer.
“Tall Paul”
It does clear things up, thanks.
By shielding, I meant a plane lands and unloads in the NCM phase and has 2 inf to protect it when defending, plus whatever else was there. Â I totally get that in combat drops that the inf count as cargo and go down with the plane if hit by AA. Â Thanks for the clarification on the movement. Â 2 still seems high (it implies air transport was a better way to move inf across the atlantic then shipss), but I will try it.
Are you guys requiring a special para inf to be used in combat drops, or just any old inf will do? Â I undertsand that any inf is fine during NCM as cargo.
I’m also a bit concerned that these may effect the balance with behind the line drops. Â That will put a heavy burden on the russians. Â The OOB tech rules from AAG40 do not allow para’s to drop into territories unless you are sending other land units.
Well,
I can’t speak for anyone else on that issue as I remember that there were differing opinions of Infantry vs. Paratroopers.
What follows is ONLY MY OPINION.
I think that ANY Infantry-type can air transported in a non-combat move as there wasn’t any special training necessary to sit in a seat and ride.
But I believe that ONLY PARATROOPERS should be allowed to do Parachute Drops as their definately was a special training necessary to make an Infantry unit AIRBORNE QUALIFIED. And so I believe that Paratroopers should cost more than standard Infantry because they have the extra capability of Airborne Drops.
I don’t believe there was a final agreement on this point but we can get discuss it between ourselves and then see what the Imperious Leader and others think.
So,…What do YOU Think?
“Tall Paul”
Also, since there is no “fog of war” in A&A it only makes sense that your enemy should be able to “see” your Airborne capabilities by noticing any Paratroopers and their locations. If he is sharp he might be able to counter their possible moves before they happen.
And by using Airborne units as a decoy,…you might be able to re-direct your enemy’s attention by forcing him to defend against the threat of an Airborne operation elsewhere instead of where you’re actually going to attack.
This is a GREAT GAME!
“Tall Paul”
Agreed. Â Like I said earlier in the the thread, I think paras should cost 4 ipcs and act as normal inf in all other aspects. Â For non-combat cargo, standard inf or paras can be carried, but NO para drops on friendly territories in the NCM with the transport landing elsewhere. Â In the NCM the air transport must land with its cargo regardless of type.
I’m glad HBG is doing airborne figs, they are a nice little extra.
It’s not the ‘fog of war’ I’m worried about. I’m concerned that the Russians in particular will have a hard time defending their front lines from land attacks and their rear areas from all the para possibilities, particularly if the germans have lots of fighters/bombers in rang of Moscow. I’m willing to give it a go. I’m still leaning toward a 1 unit capacity for air transports for a few reasons (including keeping para drops reasonably uncommon), but I’ll try it your way first and see how it goes.
Hi Tall Paul,
I like what I read so far and agree with all your suggestions and opinions.
The heavy transports and airbornes units add a new twist in the game. With the costs involved there won’t be that many of those units around because after the initial battles you will have to build more airbases into captured enemy territories to keep going with airdrops. Same if you want to use the heavy transport planes in ncm, you need to buy more airbases, all those IPCs that we used to buy other units with before.
Of course, once you buy a few heavy transports and don’t lose them, you don’t have to buy more anymore like tanks,infantries etc.
J. 8-)
Radar231 and Others,
I’m glad you see things the way I believe to be the best way.
But I think EVERYONE should ask questions and voice their own opinions, especially if they don’t agree with me. No one person is always correct. I KNOW I’M NOT. And someone else may have a BETTER or DIFFERENT idea than I or anyone else does. That’s why this forum is such a wonderful TOOL. But the main idea is to listen to ALL sides of these differing viewpoints and then you can UNDERSTAND the best solution.
We have a LOT of very cogent thinkers here on A&A.ORG. Just stick around and you’ll develope your own appreciation of people. The Imperious Leader, with his vast wealth of experience in gameplaying and design is a fountain of knowledge as he understands to a large degree the reason behind why things are the way they are in our games. I’ve only disagreed with his views once or twice, but like I said,…No one person is perfect. IL comes pretty close, though.
Gargantua is another, although sometimes I think he must have been dropped on his head by his Mother(Grin)! There are several other really good “thinkers” that would be to long to list.
And another thing,…I’m not usually in favor of changing things just to change things. And we make should certain that any changes we make don’t IMBALANCE the game in any way.
“Tall Paul”
Oh, Moralecheck and Radar231,
YES, HBG is producing Airborne Paratroopers in their Sets. They’ve already made the U.S.A. Airborne Troopers(see below).
I was somewhat surprised when HBG listed their proposed units for their two Sets of Russians that there were NO AIRBORNE PARATROOPERS listed in them.
So if your interested in having Airborne Paratroopers for ALL of your country’s, you might want to “voice your opinion” to them, possibly on their “HBG Russian Set” thread in the VARIANTS area. It might also be a good time to voice your appreciation for their producing all of the detailed units that have already come and will come out in the future.
I really need Paratroopers for ALL of the countries because I have my “Screaming Eagles”, “Angels”, and “All-Americans” just waiting around.
There’s no way my opponents would allow me to use these in a game until they had some of their own Paratroopers! By the way, I hope you enjoy the pic. I have several.
“Tall Paul”
Wow, those look great!
Glad you liked them. I didn’t paint them myself. I paid a professional artist to paint them for me. He goes by the knick-name of “Allworkandnoclay” and has a thread of some of his work in the “1940-Global” thread area, probably page 8 or 9 by now. Here’s a pic from the back so you can better see all of the unit graphics he hand-painted.
My standard for Infantry units is to have the country’s national insignia painted on their bases. But for “Special Forces” type units, like my Paratroopers, Marine Raiders, ParaMarines, Army Rangers, etc., I’ve had him paint the units shoulder patches on their bases.
I hope I’m not boring you with the details.
“Tall Paul”
But I think EVERYONE should ask questions and voice their own opinions, especially if they don’t agree with me. No one person is always correct. I KNOW I’M NOT. And someone else may have a BETTER or DIFFERENT idea than I or anyone else does. That’s why this forum is such a wonderful TOOL. But the main idea is to listen to ALL sides of these differing viewpoints and then you can UNDERSTAND the best solution.
We have a LOT of very cogent thinkers here on A&A.ORG. Just stick around and you’ll develope your own appreciation of people. The Imperious Leader, with his vast wealth of experience in gameplaying and design is a fountain of knowledge as he understands to a large degree the reason behind why things are the way they are in our games. I’ve only disagreed with his views once or twice, but like I said,…No one person is perfect. IL comes pretty close, though.
Gargantua is another, although sometimes I think he must have been dropped on his head by his Mother(Grin)! There are several other really good “thinkers” that would be to long to list.
And another thing,…I’m not usually in favor of changing things just to change things. And we make should certain that any changes we make don’t IMBALANCE the game in any way.
I agree with your thought Tall Paul.
OK Guys,
I got the info from IL concerning the Air Transports.
Paratroop Drop:
Aircraft and ONE Paratrooper must both start at the same airbase.
Has a range of FOUR(total).
After making the Paratrooper Drop in the combat phase, the Aircraft in the
non-combat phase must land in a friendly country by the end of it’s FOURTH movement.
Air Transport:
Aircraft and TWO Infantry types must both start at the same Airbase.
Has a range of FOUR movements in the non-combat phase.
Aircraft and cargo(Infantry) must both land at a friendly Airbase.
With all of the discussion on BOTH sides of many issues concerning Combat Paratroop Drops and Non-Combat Air Transport these rules were the most logical and equitable ways to employ our Air Transport Aircraft.
Some people may disagree with them,…but it’s a free country and they’re welcome to their own opinions. However IMHO these are the best rules.
“Tall Paul” Â
I agree with all of that with the exception of having to land at a friendly airbase on the non-combat move. That’s just too restrictive. You should be able to transport your troops in the NCM to any friendly territory. After all, you can’t go and pick up troops there, you will still have to load back at an airbase. Also, the main reason for using air transports to shuttle 2 infantry is to get them closer to the front line, which in many cases is several spaces from a friendly airbase. If you make them land at a friendly airbase everytime, you pretty much nullify the advantage of air transports. Unless you want to go the expense of plopping an air base in every territory you capture. That’s a lot of money just to get a couple of extra infantry to the front.
knp7765,
One of the reasons for having to land at an Airbase is to reflect the infrastructure necessary to accomodate large scale air transport. Heavy duty runways, hangers, etc.
Also, it would preclude a player from landing air transported reinforcements anywhere on the map within range, a somewhat unpredictable and almost undefendable developement. If you wanted to land some units on any territory, including enemy held, that can be done via a Paratroop Drop.
And the “advantage” of air transport over sea transport is that it’s TWICE as fast as sea transport and has a combat Paratroop Drop capability.
And, only in the cases of amphibious invasions are troops landed near the front lines in sea transport either.
Unless you want to go the expense of plopping an air base in every territory you capture.
I believe you may be exagerating on this point. I certainly wouldn’t suggest this as a valid strategy. I was thinking ONE main Air Transport Route would be all most any country would need. Think about this a little more, perhaps. From the defensive side as well.
“Tall Paul”
@Tall:
One of the reasons for having to land at an Airbase is to reflect the infrastructure necessary to accomodate large scale air transport. Heavy duty runways, hangers, etc.
Actually, I have given this some thought. I still think it’s restrictive, but I do see your point. If you are going to move a couple of divisions of infantry, you can’t just land and drop them off in some dusty field. You would need decent runways, marshaling areas, etc. So, maybe it is a better idea to limit the NCM to landing at airbases as well.
Air transports would be a nifty tool for any nation that had to attack an island to get their troops back to the mainland, like Germany doing Sealion for example. More than once I have seen Germany pull off a Sealion and have a good amount of men, artillery and tanks left in London only to have the US Navy or Air Force come along and whack the Kriegsmarine, sinking all those fine German transports and stranding all those land units on England.
An alternate strategy for Germany could be to not invest so heavily in tanks or artillery and send more infantry instead with perhaps more air support for punch. Then if Germany’s sea transports get hit and there is too strong of an Allied naval presence in the area, Germany could send over some Air Transports to London on one turn and ferry back a bunch of men on the next (hopefully USA doesn’t try to liberate London while all those transports are sitting there).
