Lets Talk Paratroopers!

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

I don’t have AA50.  What are the OOB paratrooper rules?  Are they nation specific?  Are the part of a set of optional rules?

I still wish you would consider another perspective on paratroopers.  Paratroopers are used in combined operations where during the initial phase they sieze key objectives to disrupt and delay the enemy preventing them from counter-attacking in the initial phases of a new campaign.  The best example is the Normandy invasion, a campaign reasonably close to the scale of AAR.  In this role, the airborne troops did much more to the enemy in their part to assist in the invasion than a single equivalent sized grunt infantry unit.  Yes it is true that they were “relieved” in short order, but I view their participation in the same way that I view artillery as helping the effectiveness of infantry.  I do not think the rules you are steering toward capture this relationship that airborne are part of a bigger battle.

i dont like them being transported by bomber

and i dont see how airborrne units which are basically light infantry attack the same way infantry do

I think my rules reflect exatly how airobrne units act. they have an intial attack that takes out key targets then they delay the enemy mainly by sacrficing themselves, then if they survive they are put in the rear and are not a main defensive unit unless in exteme circumstances

i think we should wrroy about how this effects tech later, the main thing is that they are not transported by bomber becasue that doe snot makes any sence

i dont like the slowly decreasing offensive firepower, as soon the first few day of battle have passed and the enemy knows where the paratoopers are they are done for.