Lets Talk Paratroopers!

If we have a special second infantry piece (compliments of the FMG project) would you want to incorporate it into AAR or AA50 as a paratrooper?  Or would you rather just have a second theatre piece such as an Afrika Corps (German) and a US Marine for the Pacific?  If you want to create a new unit that has new capabilities, what would those capabilities be?

For my part, I’d rather just have a second sculpt for the other theatre.  This doesn’t really work for Russia, but this is a small point.

I believe the complexity of handling a new infantry type would not be worth the effort of keeping up with them.  To make them effective enough, you are likely to make them “balance busters” (units that upset the balance in the game).

Another problem is the balance in the purchase system.  There is a delicate balance between an infantry purchase of 3 IPC, an artillery purchase of 4 IPC and an armor purchase of 5 IPC.  I don’t think you can create an infantry piece that costs 4 IPC and maintain play balance because to give it additional capabilities you will almost certainly make it worth clearly more than an artillery piece rendering the artillery useless.

The only system I can think of that even comes close is this …

Each nation is only allowed to purchase one airborne infantryman each turn.  The cost is 3 IPC.  It attacks and defends on a 2, but provides no bonus to other units in the way artillery helps infantry, but may be helped by artillery as other infantry are for a +1 on their attack.  An airborne infantry unit may move two spaces if it starts its turn in a territory with any type of aircraft piece (either fighter or bomber).  The aircraft piece does not have to attack the same territory and in fact is not even moved with the airborne infantry piece unless the player wants to add the aircraft to the attack.  The reason for this is that an aircraft piece represents a group of aircraft, not just the single aircraft type.  Also note the player may move airborne infantry two spaces from one friendly territory to another without attacking.  One down side is that the airborne infantry are subject to AA fire if they fly through or to an enemy territory with AA.  The aircraft piece is not subject to this unless it is also flying to the same battle.

These rules attempt to keep the numbers of Airborne infantry at reasonable levels while providing some opportunity for their deployment on a strategic level.  The costs are low for what you get, and enhanced infantryman, but the new capabilities are not outrageous and the limit should help keep them from from dominating the battlefield.  Players will want to protect their ABI with grunt infantry so you should still see mostly combined arms attacks with GrI, Arty, Arm, Fgtr and ABI.

I don’t agree with limiting the number of airborne.  IMO, it’s a gratuitous rule. 1 airborne inf cost 3/4 IPCs, + 1 bomber cost of 12 IPCs = 15/16 IPCs for one airborne op!  Italy would never use airborne.  One of the great things about A&A is the WIF (What If Factor).  If someone wants to foot the cost for a massive 10 inf airborne op (150/160 IPCs!), well God bless 'em.  They deserve to take whatever territory they land in.

Also, IMO, the Paratrooper Tech for AA50 would have been better named as Gliders.  Being able to both carry inf and bomb makes no sense unless the fully loaded bomber is also hauling a glider, which justifies the range limit.

Therefore, the “elite inf” piece, whatever nation specific power it gets, should also be the airborne unit, coat 4 (for the extra training) and each bomber carries 1, but cannot attack unless you have “gliders”.

I feel the key to good special infantry rules, and especialy airborne rules is that the infatry must defend at one. This is realistic as airborne troops did not have the firepower and mobility of other ground units. It also lends its self to good play.
If airborne units defend at one, airborne attacks will occur in concert with conventional attacks in order to hold the territory. The advantage of paratroopers should be that they can have a very powerful intial attack that can take out key targets. This should be done by giving paratroopers and opening fire attacks of 2 or less and allowing the attack to chose any resulting casualties of the when they paradrop.

In general i do not like the idea of an independent transport plane unit and of course it is unrealistic for fighters and bombers to transport paratoopers.

I do think the idea of the amount of air units in a terriotry determing how many partoopers can exicute a paradop the turn is and interesting idea, but i also i think we can do better.

in order for a airborne unit to do a paratroop attack (which has a range of 2 space and attackss like an air unit) 3 ipcs must be paid per unit each time this attack is done.)

I dont like the resoning behind limiting paratoopers either. Fighter pilots were also rare during the war but fighters are not limited in the game because the game’s resource system is simple and it should remain that way.

The standard stats for paratoopers should be attack-1 defence-1 move-1 cost-3 and can be supported by artillery, and transported like inf. i know, not very sexy, but a quite reasonable way to represent a peice which at most represents a division, while other infantry peices represent more than a corp.

also although paratoopers can remain in unoccpied enamy terriotry they should not be able to take control of if. To gain resources and control territory you need units with more logistical support attached to them, plus a land or sea supply line, not just air.

And they cannot retreat when they paradrop which would be similiar to the amphibious attack rules.

For those of you who are just joining this thread.  Here is the original comment below that started this conversation.  If you want to go to the original thread you can go here
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13894.135

The only real specialty infantry I would use is paratroopers since they have big strategic value and I would make it available to all.  I have created a rule for the use of paratroopers that uses existing pieces. Let me know what you think.

Paratrooper Rules Version 1
Each nation may choose to deploy airborne infantry.  To activate, players must purchases an airborne marker for 1 IPC for each infantry unit that will be deployed by air.
A maximum of 3 Airborne markers may be available for use at any one time.
An Airborne unit may be deployed up to a range of 3 space (One way) from a friendly territory.
Airborne units are deployed in the attack phase.
Airborne units may be engaged by anti-aircraft guns as if they were aircraft.
An Airborne unit attacks on a 2 the first round.  After first round.  Airborne units operate as normal infantry.
If supply line rules are used, Airborne Inf. is not affected.  Keep airborne marker with infantry to identify unit.
Airborne Markers start from factory like all other units (added)

My thought here is that paratroopers were not used very often.  One reason was that they were expensive.  Two, they were not heavily equipt and designed for prolonged engagements.

The purpose for paying to use them is to essentially to pay for the use of the aircraft.  Also, it is to prevent them from being abused.  People will think twice about using them if you have to pay for it.

Let me know what you think.

Quotes are from Emperor Takai from the previous thread but my replies adresses his comments above.

Black Fox

the main porblem with those rules is that you have made transports obsolete

id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war and airbourne units are very differently equiped from infatry units.

I now think airbourne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once. airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.

Emperor_Taiki

I understand your concerns and you do have some validity to your points.  However I don’t feel that this rule will make Transports obsolete.  Although it is cheaper in the short run, it is very expensive in the long run.  With a transport, you spend 7 IPC for something that be used over and over and can be very cost effective in the long run (as long as it isn’t sunk).  Plus you can transport armor.  With the exception of the Pacific islands, no assault is going to survive in the long run unless you have armor.  So transports will always be needed.

Also for clarification, the Airborne marker under my rule is a one time use.  Once the unit has been moved by air, the marker is removed.

I now think airborne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once.
I think 3 IPC to move Airborne Inf. is too expensive.  At this cost I would never use it.
Personally I think 3 IPC for 2 Airborne Inf. is better but what do you charge for 1 Air. Inf.?  The purpose of charging to move Inf by air is to prevent it from being over used and abused.  You want to make cost effective enough so that you can use that option once in a while but make it too expensive to use it frequently

they also cannot capture territory

I disagree with this.  If you have boots on the ground and you’re in control.  You own it.

airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.

This is a game play issue and not a historical one.  One issue that I always had with the AA map is that some zone in the Atlantic and Europe makes movement to easy. (I always felt that the Atlantic should have extra sea zones so that transport would have to sit a sea for at least one turn, to make them more vulnerable like they really were)  Where in the Pacific everything is so far apart.  If you limit Air. Inf. to a range of two, it will make this option useless in the Pacific.  You’ll never be able to go from one island to the next unless you consider islands as part of the sea zone for movement purposes.

I also defend the airbourne units having a defence of 1, airbourne units are lightly equiped and can only take and hold terriotry if supported by other units.

I think their defense should be kept at 2 for two reason.  One is for game simplicity.  The other reason is that Airborne guys were tough.  These guys were considered the cream of the crop and had a very long training time compared to your average soldiers.  So even though they were not as heavily armed compared to your standard infantry unit.  They made up for this with their extra training and toughness.  So in my opinion I think it balances everything out.

i would also get rid of the limit, although IL’s are symetrical i have yet to hear the historical reasoning behind them.  a good game limits units by their utility not by some artificial cap.

I agree with you on this.  If the cost issue can be worked out right, then caps would not be needed.  The cost alone will pretty much dictate how many can be built.  That said though.  There is still the potential for abuse.  I remember the day where guys would build a factory in South Africa then pump out 6+ armor from it.  The Germany would do the same in Libya.  So I think a cap still may be necessary but it should be set the same for all nations, such as a max of 3, and not according to historical use.  A&A has always been exploring about how things would have turned out if things were done differently (within reason of course).

also, if dont c how tanks keep airborne soldiers from getting to the rear and executing their first strike ability.

I think what IL is thinking here is that because they were lightly equipt that they were not as adept to take on armor.  But I agree with you on the account of game playability.  In Europe there is almost always least one in Germany, Western & Southern Europe where the highest chance of airborne will be used.  If that rule is used, then most likely airborne will rarely get to use the first strike option.  However, I think this one will need a little game testing to see how it will work.

id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war.

You have a very good point.  Perhaps a way avoid this is that when a player purchases an airborne marker, it starts from the factory with an infantry unit and remains with that unit until it engages in combat.  Up until that point it can move as an aircraft.

Ultimately, the best way to resolve this would be to have some aircraft transport unit for both parachute drops and non-combat movement.  Air transports were used heavily by all side to move troops around.

I believe the complexity of handling a new infantry type would not be worth the effort of keeping up with them.  To make them effective enough, you are likely to make them “balance busters” (units that upset the balance in the game).

Another problem is the balance in the purchase system.  There is a delicate balance between an infantry purchase of 3 IPC, an artillery purchase of 4 IPC and an armor purchase of 5 IPC.  I don’t think you can create an infantry piece that costs 4 IPC and maintain play balance because to give it additional capabilities you will almost certainly make it worth clearly more than an artillery piece rendering the artillery useless.

I agree.  And if Mech Infantry is included.  It would further make special infantry obsolete.

Each nation is only allowed to purchase one airborne infantryman each turn.  The cost is 3 IPC.  It attacks and defends on a 2, but provides no bonus to other units in the way artillery helps infantry, but may be helped by artillery as other infantry are for a +1 on their attack.  An airborne infantry unit may move two spaces if it starts its turn in a territory with any type of aircraft piece (either fighter or bomber).  The aircraft piece does not have to attack the same territory and in fact is not even moved with the airborne infantry piece unless the player wants to add the aircraft to the attack.  The reason for this is that an aircraft piece represents a group of aircraft, not just the single aircraft type.  Also note the player may move airborne infantry two spaces from one friendly territory to another without attacking.  One down side is that the airborne infantry are subject to AA fire if they fly through or to an enemy territory with AA.  The aircraft piece is not subject to this unless it is also flying to the same battle.

I don’t think tying airborne units is the best way to control the potential abuse or limit the use of airborne units.  I think the best way to do this to charge an additional 1 or 2 IPC per airborne infantry.  The additional expense will prevent excessive use and abuse but still allow players to explore the “What if” option.  The additional expense though, is also essentially paying for temporary use of Transport aircraft until the Airborne unit reaches a combat zone.  For example (Infanrty 3-IPC + Airborne Marker 1-IPC)

By the way, I think an Airborne Marker the best way to identify Airborne.  This marker would essentially represents a group of transport aircraft.  So there is no need, nor should it be required, to use other aircraft to move the airborne unit.  If the player wishes to send in the paratroopers in unescorted, well that’s his choice.

I think the best way to make an Airborne Marker would be to use a chip and paint it sky blue.  When you place an infantry on a skyblue chip then it designates that infantry as Airborne.  After it make it’s first attack.  The chip is removed and it operates as normal infantry.

I also think that an Airborne unit should be given a first round attack value of 2.  After the first round it operates as normal infantry.

I have been considering giving a “preemptive” surprise attack value of 2 against any infantry or artillery units on the first round but I am not sure if this would give it too much power.

Another option to control abuse is to simply place a general cap of 4 max at any one time.

a cap on paratoopers is a horrible way to limit their use.

Black Fox, you still have not explained how allowing infantry to paradrop for the cost of 1 ipc does not make transports irrevelvant

paratoopers should be used only in certain situations and along with a large amount of conventionally deployed troops. your rules would make airborne drops the primary way to attack long distances or over water. This is historically inaccurate as i am sure you are aware.

also  openeing fire attacks are used to represent suprise or long range fire capability. Paratoopers are unique becasue they can land anywere the enemy is, so for this reason along with an opneing fire attack of 2, airborne unit should be able to pick the enemy casaulties if they hit.

It is also unrealistc for units to switch between being paratoopers and infantry, besides it making for bad startagy( what if every peice could switch to any other piece), paratooper divisions from both sides retained their characteristic of having limited heavy support once they were not being used as paratoopers and regularly trained infantry obviously could not go through the intence training overnight. Imagine the whole red army flying over poland to capture Berlin.

No, all 2-2 units should be 4 IPCs.

I dont think airborne should have as much combat power as mechnized infantry and artilery, they should have a special attack where they can pick the enemy casaulty. That makes this peice a truly unique unit.

agains i do not like the idea of bombers transporting units, i think paratoopers should be able to move themselves on their own.

Well, in my opinion all infantry should defend on a two.  It seems the attack will have to be either a one or a two.  If you give them a 1, they are only a slightly more mobile infantry with no other benefit.  If you set them at 3 IPCs, who is going to buy grunt infantry?  If you set them up with an attack of 2 and charge 4 IPC, I think folks are going to buy artillery.  This is why I thought giving them a little more punch would have to be offset by limiting their numbers, setting the purchase at one per turn.  I think it will be very hard to prevent a balance buster without an artificial limit.

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

i agree infantry should defened at two,

however airborne is different from infantry.

infantry have trucks, anti-tanks guns, anti-tank rockets, feild artillery, mortars, heavy machine guns, armored vehicles, entrenching equipment and the supplies for it.

airbourne, have recoiless rifles and maybe mountain guns

naturally infantry are going to be much stronger on the defence

in fact airborne probalby should have no attack value at all. This is due to the fact that i have no knowledge of airborne units being effective at any conventional attack.

the only attack airborne should have is a 3 or less attack at the begining of a combat where they are deployed by air and of course they get to choose the causaulty, i do not understand why no one else agrees that having airborne units choose their target is extremly realistic.

of course they should still defend at one, cost 3 to build and 3 to do an airborne attack. also they should have range of two since no airborne attack was done at a range longer than that.

@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.