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.
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.
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
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, 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.
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 alot of speed in deployment. Its almost like our current rapid deployment forces only this is 1942 and your modeling modern capabilities in a game for WW2.
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.
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.
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.
Thats not ture though, the US could not have taken over the pacific inlands with soley paratroopers, and it would be complelety impractivle to use paratroopers to move soldiers quickly to the front.
Paratoopers are most useful in conjuction with amphibious assaults and other operations that require getting behind your enemies front lines, so how do your rules reflect that?
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.
That’s not true though, the US could not have taken over the pacific inlands with solely paratroopers, and it would be completely impractical to use paratroopers to move soldiers quickly to the front.
If the Japanese had left an island undefended (i.e. there are no defending units on it), then the U.S. DEFINITELY could have used paratroopers to take out the token force of defenders which just maintain control of the island.
Paratroopers are most useful in conjunction with amphibious assaults and other operations that require getting behind your enemies front lines, so how do your rules reflect that?
Well, what I would actually like would be for there to be an air transport unit with 0 attack, 0 defense, 4 movement points, and costs 8-9 IPCs which may only transport 1 infantry unit per turn, and if it is involved in a combat move attacking a defended territory (i.e. a territory which contains at least 1 unit which could defend – I’m still deciding if undefended IC’s could be attacked with only paratroopers or not, but I do feel that a territory only defended by an aa gun should not be able to be attacked with paratroopers alone), then there must be at least 1 other land unit also attacking as well. I think that this would solve a lot of the problems, but this may add a little too much complexity to the game, and I’m trying to keep it simple. With this option, one doesn’t even need a special infantry piece for paratroopers, because there are no special paratroopers. Although, I do like having more pieces , but every new unit adds a little to the complexity of the game.
your rules still dont relfect history or encourage players to use paratroopers in a hisotrical way.
And even if the japanese left an inland undefenended, it would be a waste of resources as you can capture inlands for much less with a regualr transport and without elite soldeirs. Plus many pacfic inlands were not very big so you would risk many of your soldeirs drowing in the water.
If you dont want to add complexity I do not think there is a way to add a historical paratooper unit.
If you dont want to add complexity I do not think there is a way to add a historical paratooper unit.
There must be a way!
Bardoly asked me for my thoughts for a dedicated paratrooper unit on the “2 Infantry” thread. This was my response:
Yes, I’m aware of the thread and have contributed to it. My paratrooper rules allow a bomber to be “retrofitted” as an air transport and carry 1 infantry, heavy bombers carry two. The Paratrooper Tech I’m renaming Gliders Tech, since it allows carrying of infantry and the bomber can still attack. Medium bombers will also be able to carry an artillery in their glider, Heavies can carry a light tank glider.
Since I’m allowing for airdropped artillery and tanks, I see no reason for a dedicated paratrooper piece.
artillery and tanks being airdropped in airborne attacks is not world war 2
and there definetly should be an airbourne unit
I agree w/ Emp Taiki on this, I don’t think art or tanks should be dropped into battles. Maybe allow air movement in non combat only. I thought this tread was made to see what uses we could come up with for the new sculpts. We are getting a new inf unit right? Maybe that unit could have multiple roles. If your using it in amp assault its a marine +1 attack, defending coastal tt its island def +1 def, if dropped from an air unit its a paratrooper etc. Maybe only give it a bonus in the 1st round of battle. I know the training would be different for each unit but I’m just trying to make a unit/rule that would be easy to follow. I’m not sure were there airborne marines in the 1940’s?
tanks cant be dropped. Only the Soviets considered such an idea in WW2 and it was rightfully discarded. Only airborne units can drop.
Yes, I’m aware of the Soviet experiments with light tank gliders. The Germans also considered glider born tanks for Operation Sea Lion using two bombers fused together to tow it.
I do know, however, that the US delivered artillery via gliders. So, since I’ve made the decision to include an option for airdropped artillery, and there will be no distinct “airborne artillery” sculpt, I see no reason for a dedicated airborne light infantry piece.
The airborne tank idea I may scrap anyway, along with my idea for a submarine aircraft carrier tech.
I thought this tread was made to see what uses we could come up with for the new sculpts. We are getting a new inf unit right? Maybe that unit could have multiple roles. If your using it in amp assault its a marine +1 attack, defending coastal tt its island def +1 def, if dropped from an air unit its a paratrooper etc. Maybe only give it a bonus in the 1st round of battle. I know the training would be different for each unit but I’m just trying to make a unit/rule that would be easy to follow. I’m not sure were there airborne marines in the 1940’s?
I’ve considered this as well. Maybe.
artillery and tanks being airdropped in airborne attacks is not world war 2
and there definetly should be an airbourne unit
I totally agree with you.
Just because a few artillery pieces were dropped a few times doesn’t mean that an artillery division was ever dropped.
@Imperious:
tanks cant be dropped. Only the Soviets considered such an idea in WW2 and it was rightfully discarded. Only airborne units can drop.
Absolutely.
We’re just trying to find the best way to implement an airborne unit.
@WILD:
I agree w/ Emp Taiki on this, I don’t think art or tanks should be dropped into battles. Maybe allow air movement in non combat only. I thought this tread was made to see what uses we could come up with for the new sculpts. We are getting a new inf unit right? Maybe that unit could have multiple roles. If your using it in amp assault its a marine +1 attack, defending coastal tt its island def +1 def, if dropped from an air unit its a paratrooper etc. Maybe only give it a bonus in the 1st round of battle. I know the training would be different for each unit but I’m just trying to make a unit/rule that would be easy to follow. I’m not sure were there airborne marines in the 1940’s?
I would like to have various types of infantry units, but each piece should be it’s own special unit and not to be different types in different situations.
It is true that tanks were never air dropped.
However, artillery was.
Both the Soviets and the Germans considered glider tanks. Because AA is partially about the “What If”, I will include glider tanks. Tank airdrops have been done with the Sheridan Tank in more recent years. It’s not that far out an idea for WWII. It was simply very difficult to do.
It is true that tanks were never air dropped.
However, artillery was.
Both the Soviets and the Germans considered glider tanks. Because AA is partially about the “What If”, I will include glider tanks. Tank airdrops have been done with the Sheridan Tank in more recent years. It’s not that far out an idea for WWII. It was simply very difficult to do.
Yes, but an entire tank division? I don’t think so.
It could work.
Taboo to post in a long dead thread? maybe… but played Dday last week and wondered if the already standard Paratrooper rules were overlooked in this discussion. I had forgotten about them myself until I played–had been awhile for DDay. Couldn’t find them here when looking at least. If they were, oh well, if not, here they are.
DDay has paratroopers standard, only AA game to do so, and contains rules for them. Now, they are set in a specific place in that game, but they could be taken out of that spot for use in other games.
Cost–?? DDay doesn’t use IPCs to purchase.
Move/Attack/Defend–all the same as standard Infantry 1/1/2
Airborne drop advantage–fires preemptively (or defender doesn’t return fire 1st round, whichever way you prefer to look at it.) @ a 1.
LH talked about not putting them into games, but he already did, and for the fact that they would be guys with chutes carrying only light arms into battle, in using a 6d to play, attacking at a 1 preemptively when an normal infantry division does the same could be reasonable…
