Paratroopers-A new approach

That’s not a bad concept.  But could get out of hand quickly…

And by open fire step do you mean a -sneak- attack?

Why can’t it just be as easy as 1 bomber can carry 1 infantry when launched from an airbase?

@oztea:

Why can’t it just be as easy as 1 bomber can carry 1 infantry when launched from an airbase?

Because it just can’t OK!

Guys,

––With the Air Transport units that have ALREADY been produced,…the Italian from[ b]FMG and the American C-46 and German JU-52 from HBG, I’m wondering why some gamers aren’t making more use of them in their games.  :?
––These three units are enough to enable players of ALL countries to deploy Air Transport units until more are produced,…like the up-coming Japanese Air Transport from HBG.
––They’re inexpensive & available.
----And whether you play with ‘optional R&D’ rules,…or allow their purchase from the start for all countries except China they make worthwhile and cool units as far as GAME PLAY is concerned.

----Some gamers have brought up a concern about another piece cluttering up the already too small game board. Pardon me, but IMHO this is somewhat ridiculous as there more than likely wouldn’t be very many of them in total on the whole game board.

----Whether you use the generally agreed upon ‘house rules’ or make up your own doesn’t matter. My whole point is that Paratroopers should be carried by Air Transport units ONLY and Bombers should ONLY bomb.
––I think if more players were to consider this they would agree and probably have more FUN, too!

“Tall Paul”

@major:

If you assume that 1 infantry unit on the board is 1 corps consisting of 40,000-80,000 soldiers, 2 airborne infantry, or even only one, dwarfs the largest air operations ever easily.

Yes, but you forgott that one turn equals 3 months.

So imagine the first wave are paratroopers. But this 21 transport planes will continue to fly back and forth with men and supply, only now they land on an airfield, and after 3 months of work I guess they managed to bring 100 000 men from home to the battlefield. So I guess the OOB paratrooper rule isnt that bad after all.

@Tall:

Guys,

––With the Air Transport units that have ALREADY been produced,…the Italian from[ b]FMG and the American C-46 and German JU-52 from HBG, I’m wondering why some gamers aren’t making more use of them in their games.  :?
––These three units are enough to enable players of ALL countries to deploy Air Transport units until more are produced,…like the up-coming Japanese Air Transport from HBG.
––They’re inexpensive & available.
----And whether you play with ‘optional R&D’ rules,…or allow their purchase from the start for all countries except China they make worthwhile and cool units as far as GAME PLAY is concerned.

----Some gamers have brought up a concern about another piece cluttering up the already too small game board. Pardon me, but IMHO this is somewhat ridiculous as there more than likely wouldn’t be very many of them in total on the whole game board.

----Whether you use the generally agreed upon ‘house rules’ or make up your own doesn’t matter. My whole point is that Paratroopers should be carried by Air Transport units ONLY and Bombers should ONLY bomb.
––I think if more players were to consider this they would agree and probably have more FUN, too!

“Tall Paul”

Already on it. I’m using Japanese and German HE111s from 41.

I don’t see why air transports/paras are such a big problem. There were tons of them used during the war. As for paras I don’t see this as a game breaker either. Paras are expensive en masse if we use say 15 IPCs for a transport and 4-5 for a para unit with COMBAT transport stats at a 1:1 transport/para ratio. They will play a role but will by no means be a war winner. Neither do transports during NCM 2:1 transport/inf ratio.

I always thought it un-realistic that magically an entire bomber division would be converted for one round to carry troops  into combat and that the division being transported was parachute trained.

No offense either but Stalingrad and North Africa are not the best examples of air transport capability. The US used C-47s in India to supply the Chinese and there was also the Berlin Airlift after the war. It is completely reasonable for A&A to have and use air transports in the game in NCM and CM phases.

toblerone77,

@toblerone77:

I don’t see why air transports/paras are such a big problem. There were tons of them used during the war. As for paras I don’t see this as a game breaker either.
––I completely agree!
----I deleted the specific costs in order to concentrate the focus on the MAIN issue, instead of the details of specific costs.

I always thought it un-realistic that magically an entire bomber division would be converted for one round to carry
troops  into combat and that the division being transported was parachute trained.
––Such a LOGICAL opinion! Halaluyah!

No offense either but Stalingrad and North Africa are not the best examples of air transport capability. The US used C-47s in India to supply the Chinese and there was also the Berlin Airlift after the war. It is completely reasonable for A&A to have and use air transports in the game in NCM and CM phases.

“Tall Paul”

Okay, I have an Idea for those not so enthralled with HBG air transports and paras. Simply take some of your national markers and write AB or Airborne whatever you like and place it under an infantry sculpt.

A1 D2 C13-18 M1/2-3* Special: Airborne units may move up to 2-3 TTs (depending upon the players HRs) when starting from an air base. They are subject AA fire and operate within the same guidlines as regular infantry except when deployed from a friendly or player controlled AB (The AB must have been captured and held from previous turn) increasing it’s movemnet only when moving from an AB.

The cost you may debate amongst your play group as well as movement. When calculating a cost for this unit I decided that a dedicated Transport Air wing would be “built-in” to the unit adding a cost of 10-15 IPCs to a regular INF unit. A movement of 2-3 while airborne reflects that the “aircraft” “attached” to this unit will be used only for this particular unit hence no need to model a return flight path for Airborne units (i.e. M4/6). If not operating from an AB during CM phase the Airborne unit operates with all the same stats as regular infantry.

I think this solution will work well for those who do not wish to utilize HBG’s fantastic pieces and may work well as an interim solution until we have proper units for all armies from HBG or other manufacturers.

Solution 2 or some more to add to your airborne forces.
Take one national marker and write a GB or Glider Borne whatever you wish. This token will act as a glider for infantry. Stats are A0 D0 C3-5 M2-3*-Special: Gliders are a one time use weapon and must be towed by a bomber into combat. The bomber can not attack while towing a glider. The glider may only be used once and must be removed from play once it has transported it’s payload or it’s “bomber/tug plane” has been destroyed during combat or AA fire.

Tobleone77 and Others,

––IMHO, if you are going to play an Axis & Allies games including Paratroopers,…the main point that I feel is vitally important is that the Air Transport and Paratrooper units be DEDICATED and SEPARATE pieces. By dedicated I mean that the Air Transports, Bombers, Infantry, and Paratroopers ARE what they are and cannot “MAGICALLY” transform into some other unit.  :-o
––It doesn’t matter if you use the HBG units,…or pieces of paper to represent the Air Transports and Paratroopers in the game,…but that they are obvious to ALL players exactly what thy ARE.
----The use of dedicated units allows your opponents the opportunity to prepare a counter-strategy that includes the possibility of paratroop drops and/or non-combat air transport. I feel that this is a KEY POINT OF A&A GAMEPLAY!
––This point is completely nullified if a bomber and Infantry unit can “MAGICALLY” transform into a Air Transport and Paratrooper unit with much improved capabilities and deliver a complete surprise attack where the defender hasn’t had ANY opportunity to defend against this capability. IMHO this version of paratroopers is COMPLETELY UNFAIR and not true to AXIS & ALLIES GAME PLAY. All players should have the opportunity to know WHAT has been purchased by all other players when they are purchased.

––As far as using the HBG Air Transports and Paratroopers, most if not all, are available for separate piece sale and are relatively inexpensive if you prefer this method. I think I left out the Russian Air Transport that is now available from the list of German JU-52, American C-46, and Italian Air Transports that are currently available.

––Summing up, It’s not important WHAT you use to represent Air Transports and Paratroopers in your games.  However, IMHO it is important that they be DEDICATED and SEPARATE pieces that can’t “MAGICALLY” transform into any other units.

“Tall Paul”

Tobleone77,

––I didn’t mean it to appear I was in anything other than AGREEMENT with you on the issues of Air Transports & Paratroopers. :-D
----I simply wanted to share what seem to me to be very logical and obvious points so that others might consider them.

––Axis & Allies is such a FANTASTIC game that I feel it’s very important that any alterations or ‘house rules’ that we make keep all of the main gameplay attributes included.
––IMHO changes just for the sake of change,…or changes that would drastically lower the cost of units for the sake of “more action” would radically imbalance the game and should be discouraged. However, I completely respect the right of any/all players to play the game as THEY like it. But their changes shouldn’t become the normally accepted ‘house rules’ for the majority of A&A players.

“Tall Paul”

@Tall:

Tobleone77,

––I didn’t mean it to appear I was in anything other than AGREEMENT with you on the issues of Air Transports & Paratroopers. :-D
----I simply wanted to share what seem to me to be very logical and obvious points so that others might consider them.

––Axis & Allies is such a FANTASTIC game that I feel it’s very important that any alterations or ‘house rules’ that we make keep all of the main gameplay attributes included.
––IMHO changes just for the sake of change,…or changes that would drastically lower the cost of units for the sake of “more action” would radically imbalance the game and should be discouraged. However, I completely respect the right of any/all players to play the game as THEY like it. But their changes shouldn’t become the normally accepted ‘house rules’ for the majority of A&A players.

“Tall Paul”

No worries brother. I was using my smart phone when I tried to quote you… didn’t quite come out right. My para-token idea was just a springboard for those who don’t like the HBG pieces. I personally already have most of what I need to get all of my player countries stuff for paras and air transports. I’m hoping we’ll eventually get gliders from someone someday. Cheers!