Lets Talk Transport Planes

o-o range of 4 are like sea transports in that if left alone they die. Cant be used for fodder. carry one infantry or airborne

cost 8-10

Ditto.

Except may transport inf only during the non-combat phase.  May transport airborne units during the combat and/or non-combat phase.

Also, may move to another territory, pick up a unit, move to a territory to drop the unit, and then fly to another territory to land as long as it has movement points available.

Also, may not be upgraded by the Long Range Aircraft tech.

yes correct

There are plenty of different aircraft that are not in the game that actually kill stuff. I would rather have a light bomber, carrier fighter, heavy bomber or jet fighter before a transport plane which is just aircraft we can assume is dedicated to a paratrooper unit or represented with a chip.

@Emperor_Taiki:

There are plenty of different aircraft that are not in the game that actually kill stuff. I would rather have a light bomber, carrier fighter, heavy bomber or jet fighter before a transport plane which is just aircraft we can assume is dedicated to a paratrooper unit or represented with a chip.

The units which you just mentioned ARE basically in the game in the form of the fighter, figter-on-a-carrier, jet fighter tech, bomber, heavy bomber tech.  The air transport unit is also in the game in the form of the paratrooper tech, but it’s just not right for bombers to be transporting military units.  They should be out bombing stuff!  So adding a dedicated air transport unit is the most needed air unit at this time.  IMHO.

Air transports bore me, just saying.

To be realistic air transports didn’t bring the quantity of forces over in this war. Air transport is more of Korea and Vietnam.

I still think these would be what drops airborne and limited to how many of them you have.

Bump, since the creater of this thread forgot and started another thread with the same title.  :-P

Air transports bore me, just saying.

Well air transports have been used in a lot of battle.
You can add gliders rules.

Transport ships are boring too, however they are a necessary component.

@Brain:

Transport ships are boring too, however they are a necessary component.

Transport ship peices are not as necessary as you think, most wargames do not have them, because in many ways they are unrealistic, however i would say that they are a tolerable, and even not boring, component to A&A.

It is unreanable to compare transport ships to transport planes in A&A for the reasons Imperious Leader stated above. They would just be out of place and it would not feel like World War Two it would feel like the cold war or modern day. The only time air transports and gliders were used in large amounts were during airborne assualts, so really what we need is a airborne infantry piece not an air transport piece.

I guess hitler tried to supply stalindgrad from the air, but that was just retarded and he wasnt flying in whole divisions of new soldiers.

so really what we need is a airborne infantry piece not an air transport piece.

Drop a paratropper from a bomber is unrealistic.

The only time air transports and gliders were used in large amounts were during airborne assualts

So what? If a piece like paratrooper can help me to win!
If i’ve the chance to conquer London with paratrooper, I’ll do it!!!

@crusaderiv:

so really what we need is a airborne infantry piece not an air transport piece.

Drop a paratropper from a bomber is unrealistic.

The only time air transports and gliders were used in large amounts were during airborne assualts

So what? If a piece like paratrooper can help me to win!
If i’ve the chance to conquer London with paratrooper, I’ll do it!!!

I think you miss understood me. I support airborne peices, but i do not beleive they should be transported by either bombers or air transport. It should simply be assumed that that have their own transports or they should have to pay IPCs for each airborne assualt that they make.

I could go either way on this one.

I think you should pay for the trans. as a separate unit.

@Deaths:

I think you should pay for the trans. as a separate unit.

The naval transports look good on the board, they dont take up a lot of room and it looks very realistic, like the accual pictures of troop transport all jumbled up along a coast. This would not be the case for air transports, they would take up a ton of room like bombers do and they would  only be used for airborne assaults. I just dont c the point, why not just assume airborne infantry have dedicated air transports. Or how about just having a chip that you put underneath airborne infantry to designate as being ready to preform an airborne assault.

This would not be the case for air transports, they would take up a ton of room like bombers do and they would  only be used for airborne assaults. I just dont c the point, why not just assume airborne infantry have dedicated air transports. Or how about just having a chip that you put underneath airborne infantry to designate as being ready to preform an airborne assault.

I have air transport on my game board. (1/700 scale airplane).
JU 52 for Germany and Italy and Betty for Japan.
Dakota for USA, UK.
I think it’s a great addition and better than chip.