Lets Talk Paratroopers!

@Imperious:

they should be destroyed only if you lose your capital. Transport planes are not military planes and the enemy does not have fighters patrolling vast tracts of enemy territory looking for planes to shoot down. Transports are infrastructure.

flying armies should be limited to transport tokens and the transports should cost like at least the price of a ocean transport

I think perhaps 12 IPC is fair.

yes, 12 dose seem fair if they allow are allowed to transport a paratooper 2 spaces for an attack, and can transport infantry 3 spaces in the non combat.

but like i said earlier, transport planes should be subject to AA fire becasue they were on Crete to a point that it hurt the German  later on in the war.

so all are destoyed if you take the capital, but they can also be shot down by AA guns?

Maybe trucks coluld be an off board abtraction of the overall motorization of your army. Right next to your tech chips you would put the trucks you have purchased. Each truck costs 12 IPCs and allows you to make addtional attacks after your first combat phase. Each truck allows you to attack again with 3 infantry/artllery or 5 tanks/fighters/bombers even if these units have already battled. For the second attack tanks have a movement of 1 and aircraft of 3.You do not lose the trucks each time you use them and you can buy more of them each turn. You do lose one  truck for battles in the second attack phase for every 5 units the enemy kills, but only if you lose the battle.

I think 12 IPC’s is pretty costly, but that is becasue it is a special investment and is not neccisarily purchased every game by every country.

I think this should be the rules for trucks

but yours sounds good too, and yours is easy to understand.

@Imperious:

Everything looks very clear and functional and crisp.

I agree

Ok a couple of things here. 1st are you doing away with the paratrooper tech? Or are these new invisible air buses only allowed to move troops in non combat until you develop paratroopers. 2nd for 12 ipc why not just use the oob rules and buy a bomber to paratroop. Then make a house rule that bombers can be used as air transport in non combat. Then you could at least use the bomber as a bomber later. Not sure I would pay for a bomber and not get the full use of it. I think I would rather pay a smaller one time fee per unit with limited range. If you were paying 2-3 ipc per unit depending on distance traveled cost alone should prevent abuse. If you wanted to transport 3 inf from Italy to Libya (2 spaces) cost $2 each or $6 From Italy to Egypt (3 spaces) $3 each or $9. You could charge an extra $1 for the 1st sz if you want. I would still purchase chips in beginning of your turn and mob them at the end, at least as the enemy you would see it coming. It would be like a supply token you don’t get to keep it forever, your paying for fuel. I also think you should have to develop PT or use one of the new inf molds at a higher cost (training) if not playing with tech. Just my 2 cents.

Idea #1, Very similar to your post about rail systems, I like the movement pts capped @ capital ipc value. This would help from as you said “Going Buck Rodgers”. Extending it to air units is something I would have to give more thought. This with LRA could be trouble. I kinda think the sea is a little tight in AA50, I was hoping for more sz in the N Atlantic & Med when it came out. The extra naval movement might be better suited for other variants with more sz. I think personally I would restrict it to just ground units at least for a few games to get a feel for it. After that I would toy with these other suggestions.

Idea #2, I was thinking trucks would be more like a transport for land. Cost in the $5-$6 range & move two 1 movement units an extra space. Yea its kinda boring. Your idea that it would give the tt a movement bonus is pretty cool. I’m not sure about bridging to move through multiple countries. Larry outlawed using transports that way. He also took away transports defending @ 1. I would hate loosing a plane to a truck.

I didn’t say I didn’t like the air bus concept. I just thought it was over priced. Just like a transport is the lowest priced surface ship @ $7, the air bus should be around $8-$9 making it the cheapest air unit. There is a call for an air transport like when Germany can’t build fleet. I don’t think any of the transport units should get to roll dice.

By the way GO WINGS!      Yea I’m from the metro Detroit burbs

Yea I guess with a range of 6 spaces the airbus merits more $. How about a range of 4 @ $9, would still be pretty good for non combat. Could also still paratroop short runs like from France to UK. If you wanted longer runs use a bomber to paratroop oob rules, or are you thinking bombers no longer paratroop?
Idea #2 I’m warming up to the trucks being linked, making it more like a rail track. I would think Builds would be @ IC then roll them out next turn. Maybe allow IPC value to dictate how many units could be trucked/railed trough a tt (might be to much). Should a truck be allowed to move units in combat & noncombat in the same turn. Can you use your allies trucks to pass through a tt. Maybe allow the enemy to steel them if they take over a tt w/truck, but like an AA gun they can’t move it until their next turn. hmmm maybe I need to buy little rail symbols instead lol.

I think an air transport unit is the answer to the paratrooper problem.  But how to implement it so as to avoid the 3 big problems outlined below?

1. Paratroopers should not be a tech.

2. An air transport unit makes the sea transport obsolete.

3. Players can stack paratroopers and capture an opponent’s capital with them which is unrealistic and ahistorical.

Answers

#1 All countries (except China of course) may build air transport units and paratrooper units, and may build as many as they wish.

#2 The air transport unit is a 0 atttack, 0 defense, 4 movement points unit which costs 8 (9 might be okay as well).  Also, this unit does not count as “holding” the territory, so an opponent’s armor unit may blitz through a territory which contains only air transport units, and the air transport units are still destroyed.  (Perhaps these units could even be captured, but I’m still thinking about this.)  It may be upgraded by the Long Range Aircraft tech to have a movement of 6.  In the Non-Combat Move Phase, It may transport 1 infantry per turn which may be picked up in any territory as long as it doesn’t use more movement points than it has.

Another help would be to lower the cost of sea transports to 5-6.  With them losing their “cannon fodder” status and not being able to fire back at all, I feel that they could be a speck cheaper.

#3 The air transport unit may transport ONLY paratrooper units during the Combat Phase.  For an air transport unit to move during the Combat Move Phase, it must be in the same territory as the paratrooper unit which it wishes to transport.  No other units are allowed.  Paratrooper units are 1 attack, 1 defense, 1 movement point (or possibly 0 – see below), and cost 4 IPCs to build.  Of course, you would need a special infantry piece to be able to distinguish between paratroopers and regular infantry.

A possible limitation to people overproducing paratroopers would be to say that paratrooper units may ONLY be moved by air units.

Another possible limitation would be that enemy aa fires at the air transports at “2” instead of at “1”, and if the opponent has Radar, then his aa fires at a “3” against air transport units.  Or, what I like better, is that the defender rolls aa shots against the air transport units as normal, and then after any air transports which were hit are removed from the battle board along with their corresponding paratrooper unit, then the defender gets another aa shot at all of the remaining paratrooper units before the rest of the attack is commenced.

I think that these rules would keep people from just loading up on paratroopers to take over the world.

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.

I think your right on track w/paratroopers. Maybe match them 1 for 1 with ground/air units, like bombardment is in AA50. That would help with abuse and keep transports in the game. Matching also makes paratroopers part of a battle and not the whole battle & gets more units to the front or across water. Could allow lone paratroopers to take unoccupied enemy tt only. I would like to see paratroopers attack @ 2 in the 1st round of battle, but that’s just me. With matching I don’t think you would need to change AA guns or take away movement pts. I’m assuming an air transport would have to land safely and could not stay w/paratrooper.

@Emperor_Taiki:

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.

@WILD:

I think your right on track w/paratroopers. Maybe match them 1 for 1 with ground/air units, like bombardment is in AA50. That would help with abuse and keep transports in the game. Matching also makes paratroopers part of a battle and not the whole battle & gets more units to the front or across water. Could allow lone paratroopers to take unoccupied enemy tt only. I would like to see paratroopers attack @ 2 in the 1st round of battle, but that’s just me. With matching I don’t think you would need to change AA guns or take away movement pts. I’m assuming an air transport would have to land safely and could not stay w/paratrooper.

Actually, matching then 1 for 1 with other ground units or at least requiring at least 1 other ground unit to be in the battle for you to use paratroopers is what I originally suggested several months ago in another topic.  But I do think that Paratroopers should be able to take unprotected territories by themselves.  (I’m not sure about if they attack an unprotected territory which has an aa gun or an IC though.  I think I would restrict those.)

@Imperious:

Then losing your capital is very possible. UK can build an army of Airborne and slowly build up transports to 4, then land 8 and fly in 8 and overwhelm Germany. This gives too much ability to the Allies.

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.

@Imperious:

I prefer something that is limited to transport planes costing 12, then to transports costing 7.

Play it out in your games. You will conclude limitations are required. Airborne don’t grow on trees and take time to develop. These rules impose no limitations, so you will get armies of these when in reality very few of these would be available

Yes, airborne take time and money, but if a country WANTS to invest most or all of their resources in Airborne, then why not?  I mean, if I’m playing the Soviet Union, and I’m determined to have the largest navy in the world, I can build navy every turn until I’m defeated.  I will have played badly, but the rules allowed me to do so.  So, should we put limits on other units?  No.  Now I have played several AA50 games where with Long Range Paratrooping, Heavy Bombers, the game degenerated into an Airborne war, which was boring, and very ahistorical.  I DO want to stay away from that, but also I do want options which are clearly defined, useful, and don’t unbalance the game.

With that said, let me restate my position on the matter in the simplest way possible.

I think an air transport unit is the answer to the paratrooper problem.  But how to implement it so as to avoid the 3 big problems outlined below?

1. Paratroopers should not be a tech.

2. An air transport unit makes the sea transport obsolete.

3. Players can stack paratroopers and capture an opponent’s capital with them which is unrealistic and ahistorical.

Answers

#1 All countries (except China of course) may build air transport units and paratrooper units, and may build as many as they wish.

#2 The air transport unit is a 0 atttack, 0 defense, 4 movement points unit which costs 8 (9 might be okay as well).  They do NOT participate in battles, and must be taken as casualties last.  It may be upgraded by the Long Range Aircraft tech to have a movement of 6.  In the Non-Combat Move Phase, It may transport 1 infantry or 1 paratrooper per turn which may be picked up in any territory as long as it doesn’t use more movement points than it has.

Another help would be to lower the cost of sea transports to 6.  With them losing their “cannon fodder” status and not being able to fire back at all, I feel that they could be a little cheaper.  This would mean that 1 air transport and 1 paratrooper would cost 12 IPCs, and 1 sea transport and 2 infantry units would also cost 12 IPCs.

#3 The air transport unit may transport ONLY paratrooper units during the Combat Phase.  For an air transport unit to move during the Combat Move Phase, it must be in the same territory as the paratrooper unit which it wishes to transport.  No other units are allowed.  Paratrooper units are 1 attack, 1 defense (This represents their smaller unit size.), 1 movement point, and cost 4 IPCs to build.  Of course, you would need a special infantry piece to be able to distinguish between paratroopers and regular infantry.

Here is another option to keep people from overproducing paratroopers.

In the interest of keeping the game as close to OOB as possible without adding complexities to an already complex game, perhaps the simplest and best rule for paratroopers would be as follows:  No Paratroopers may be dropped into territories which contain aa guns.  This rule is simple, easy, and stops stacking to take over capitals.

@Bardoly:

@Emperor_Taiki:

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 dont care, but that use has nothing to do with history.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Bardoly:

@Emperor_Taiki:

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.