Lets Talk Paratroopers!

@Upside-down_Turtle:

I also don’t think a 3 IPC unit should be a 1-1 unit.  Why bother buying them at all?

you dont want to pay 3 ipcs to have a 50% chance of taking out an enemy fighter before combat begins

I think IL’s airborne are more like super soldiers than light infantry

i agree with IL, except for the IPC cost.  I’ll post a full argument later.

i dont understand, why do airborne units have the same combat stats as mechnaized infantry

I likewise do not understand why folks can’t buy into the idea that being limited to purchasing one.  I consider these the elite men in the countries infantry service.  These are the men in better physical shape, with the better mental toughness, and the better leaders handling missions similar to the grunt infantry, but I am willing to add on an airborne capability because it all seems to fit together well.  Nations had units that were known to be stronger than average, and the elite infantry having a +1 attack capability is quite understandable.  Limiting the production of elite units is also understandable because a nation isn’t going to produce high quantities of exceptional warriors.

If we are ever going to have mechanized infantry units while maintaining play balance, I can’t see paying more than 3 IPCs for airborne infantry.  If we’re going to pay 3 IPCs for airborne, we have to limit them or there will be no grunt infantry.  The other scenarios are not giving the airborne a big enough punch to make them worth it in the long run.  And if you make the punch any bigger, then you have something crazy going on.

well if you agree that airborne units are light infantry and that they can not withstand prolonged combat and except for their initail shock value do not have much combat power, dont you think my rules are a lot better.

i think we can agree airbourne infatry should not regularly attack at 2, but i dont know of any evidence that suggests they should attack at even 1.

certainly you dont beleive that airborne units have the firepower to defend as well as infatry and artillery so why give them a defence of 2, then their just like every other land unit anyways

also as an armument agaisnt limits. fighter pilots were also rare to come by, but fighter production is not limited in the game

I guess there are some things we will have to just agree to disagree.

I wouldn’t have a problem limiting fighters either, for just the reason you give.  If there were two fighters, I wouldn’t have a problem assigning all the fighters after the second purchased each turn to a lower class, say attacking and defending at -1 due to scarcity of the best pilots.  Look what happened to Japan as the war went on.

We just disagree.

the problem i c with having a new resource such as quality manpower is that i consider it an econmic factor in a very uneconamic game. I think if you wanted more resources things like oil, steel and overall manpower would have to be introduced before we started putting limits on different units based on the jobs physical and technical difficulty. For that matter you would also have to but a pretty significant limits on research too.

another way my paratoopers are better is that after the opening fire they attack at zero and so will natuarally be the first caulaites (not being able to retreat or kill any units) this is accurate of course becasue it represents the high casaulties airborne units resceivied in airborne assaults.

If ariborne attacked at two or one then causalties would not be simulated accuratly at all.

i agree with your first two points

well i think after their initail attack has withered away they should be expandable, in fact i am sure that is the way many paratoopers felt and were problably even told, other wise you will more likly thannot take infantry before paratoopers which is simply unrealistic. and rember to fully deploy them one time they cost six, so it is not lik these units will be used lightly.

I dont think you need a counter in terms of one peice, the main counter would be to  not have powerful units defending the cost that can be picked off by airborne units before the battle starts

I think they should always attack at zero except for an opneing fire shot of three where they select the targart. Remeber after the inital suprise these guys a sitting ducks against any other unit type. I would take armored vehicles and artillery over well “elite” soldeirs with submachine guns and rifles anyday.

I argee the should be expensive to deploy, but not really that costly to build.

I think operation sealion had room for airborne assault so i dont like the idea of not being able to attack capitals

range should be 2

also i dont see why you still support limiting them, if you have to put a cap on how much of a piece you produce it is not a fair or well desgined peice, unless of course you limt everything that took especially trained men, which is like everything and is already taken care of buy IPCs

And defending at 2 is ridiculous how do guys firing pistols compete with heavy artillery and tanks

i dont like the idea of bombers transporting units, they should just get their 2 space attack by paying 3 ipcs

also i think if the 3 or less slective attack in the opening fire ( may be it should be 2 or less) is two powerful then

that is balacened out by the 0-1 attack and defence

THis is much more realistic for representing elite light infantry. They are not elite because they shoot faster or more accuratly, or because it takes more bullets to kill  them. They are elite becasue they know how to jump out of a plane and and maintain clear thought when they are surrounded by units that will kill if their initial attack does not succeed and even then their chances fo survival are not good.

if you still think they should be 1-2

what weapons or training made them as powerful as regular infantry when it came to convetional battles?

what conventional attacks were airborne apart of?

why should a unit that maybe represents a division or two have just as much defence as a much more heavly armed unit that represent multiple corps

the point of them defending at one is so they are only used for defence in desperate situations

and airbourne units are like saboteurs and their meant to take postions that are usaully pertected, like an airfield.
excepet i dont know why you said they might take out battleships.

the main thing i am hoping that can be argreed upon is airborne units should not have the same combat stats as infantry because they are very diferently equiped and have a very different purpose

if their should be a new unit it should reflect its historical couterpart and i dont know of any evidence that suggest airborne should have a 1-2 attack defence.

yes airborne should be able to choose their target and pick who they kill

and hopefully their are some other units attacking with the paratoopers, but yes if the airborne units do not have anyone else helping them, and since they cant retreat they will die as is historically accurate. They will problaby be the first to be taken as causaulties anyways, due to their low attack, even if they have support, but that just makes sence right? Why should the most lightly armed units that are also most likly completely isolated have anything but low survivability?

I can see part of our problem in agreeing (you and IL seem to agree fairly well) is that I am letting a nation build elite infantry that can also do airborne operations.  You fellows just want some kind of airborne infantry.  Another reason we don’t agree is that I believe if infantry is in its proper terrain, it can fight tanks.  The spaces represented in AAR and AA50 are plenty big enough for the infantry to get suitable terrain even if not ideal.  I would love someone to playtest these two approaches and report back which was more fun.

@Imperious:

I don’t see how airborne should select target. half the time they are not even dropped in the right spot.

I understand what your saying, but i want some way to show that they were meant to take out specific targets and had paticular missions, like capturing an airfeild, bridge or fortifications. not just attack forward like everyone else

and with a 3 or less attack intialiy and no attack later they are landing in the wrong spot half the time

also i dont think they should be tranported by bombers. because a bomber lookes somewhat like a transport plane therefore it carries airborne units is riduclous

they just pay 3 ipcs and they can move 2 spaces like an air unit except they can land in newly captured territory.