Lets Talk Paratroopers!

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.

What’s OOB?  Did it allow bombers to attack with the infantry?

An opening fire round strike is certainly in order to simulate a night drop.  If they stay at 1-2, perhaps just an opening fire hit on 1.

I don’t think any inf should defend for less than a two.  Even the 101st w/ low supplies still held back the Germans during the Bulge.

If airborne cost me 5, I’d just buy a tank.  Tanks via transport is much cheaper and more effective, since tanks attack and defend on 3 till they are taken out.

Are you making a “Points of Power” argument?  A 1-2 inf has (1+2 =) 3 points of power, therefore 3 IPCs.  3-2 inf is 3+2= 5 IPCs?

right the cost will be determined though play testing but my main points are

1. it shoud attack and defend at 0-1( just becasue an the 101st defened a small town in the middle of nowhere does not mean they have the same stats as inf and it does not mean they are inf, plus the 101st was one of the best equipped airborne units of the war and even their defence is probably not deserving of a 2 or less, just because a unit one means that it hit,not that it had a high chance of hitting )

2. it should have to pay to do an airborne attack, but does not need other units for assitance

3. It has some kind of attack where it chooses the enemies casaulty, or something else that represents its irregularness

When i was saying an airbone unit would represent a division, i was thinking that in your average invasion of france 2-3 if not more airborne units would be used, about 3 airborne divisons were dropped into normandy so there for an airborne unit is a division.

i would still say airborne units are more commando that shock.
When i think of shock i imagine 100,000 Russians armed with PPsh’s and grenades riding ontop t34’s charing german lines.
shock is more like putting all your eggs with the intial attack, and while airborne operations are similar they are operating completly indpendently form the other units, where as true shock units might be supported with aircraft and artillery.

also i wouldn’t say airborne have the same traits as infantry when they are on the ground. They might have more submachines guns, but infantry have more heavy machine guns and light artillery which i think should be considered part of the infantry peice and not the artillery peice.

so becasue airborne have almost no artillery or heavy weapons if any, it is not unresonable  for them to normally attack at 0. and a defence of 1 represents airborne’s inabilty to hold against heavy firepower, a primary example would be operation market garden

well you could incremntally decrease their value each rounds like that, however

1. that makes it slightly more complicated

2. If the airborne units are not being resupplied they will have likly used up all most all of their ammunition in the time that represents the the first time they attack. After the first round of combat i think we can imigine the paratoopers have linked up with at least part of the main force. so they would be getting supplies its just that the weapons they are given do not have the firepower to take out tanks or entreanched positions like all the other units have. Airoborne units can surpirse and that’s why they should have a selective attack

3. the first round is the most important round of any battle in axis and allies, so puting extra detail that i dont even think is accurate into the subsequent rounds of combat is sort of a waste.

I mean airborne units couldn’t have brought supplies for more that ten days of fighting and would i would say each round of combat represents 10-30 days.

basically if the intial attack is a succes it is is a win, otherwise the airborne units are chewed up my armor which they dont stand a chance against just like in arnhem