ok then how bout this:
if used as a paratrooper (dropped from the air) attack:
1st round at 3
2nd round at 1
3rd round at 0
as normal infantry sitting around they attack at 1 and defend at 2 no matter what as per OOB.
no additional cost and they must be dropped by bomber ( 1:1) as per OOB.
Note: this makes only two changes from OOB 1st @3 and 3rd @0
These rules make it as simple with a little bit of flash. yes no?
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.
They are optional and comprise of part of the technology tree.
The rules for AA50 can be downloaded from the Avalon Hill site or from some link under AA50 section.
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.
i dont like them being transported by bomber
its a means or artificially limiting the number of them that can be dropped. It could be a trick if you lose your capital and the enemy build nothing but airborne every turn to prevent you ever from getting the capital back.
and i dont see how airborrne units which are basically light infantry attack the same way infantry do
Thats the OOB rules. Remember 35,000 dropped at Market Garden thats a huge amount. 35,000 men wont be defending at 0 against another infantry attacking at 1.
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
ok they will always be one round attackers, then retreat. but the problem is defense. they should have normal combat values if they are not being “paratroopers” Germany had lots of divisions that were paratroopers and didnt drop and behaved as normal infantry.
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.
Well i guess they are one round attackers then.
you should just pay 3 ipcs to do an airborne attack instead of needing bombers
and the 35,000 paratoopers in market grarden which i thing in are game would be represented by over 3 airborne units took almost 50% causalties by 20,000 germans which on the western front probably would be represented by less that an infanrty and tank.
market garden failed because the airborne units could not defend, so it is realistic for them to have a defend on 1
and of course there were many german airborne units that were used for defence, but couldn’t have been very good at it with out heavy weapons and armor, and if there were german paratooper units with these weapons, well then they were only paratoopers in name and should just be represented by infantry
and the 35,000 paratoopers in market grarden which i thing in are game would be represented by over 3 airborne units took almost 50% causalties by 20,000 germans which on the western front probably would be represented by less that an infanrty and tank.
well a battle of three 1-2 attacking vs. one 3-3 and one 1-2 defending would result in a defenders win even in AA.
market garden failed because the airborne units could not defend, so it is realistic for them to have a defend on 1
Well i think its better than defend at zero.
no it would not becasue the airoborne units are doing a airborne assault and are attack at 3( or maybe 2) or less the first round and choosing their target
and i am not saying they should defend at zero, but at one.
that just makes sence, becasue they have less weapons and numbers they are 0-1 instead of 1-2
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=14208.45;num_replies=53
This is an article by Larry Harris that goes into the “Points of Power” argument.
Paratroopers attacking at 0?! So let me get this straight, I’m paying extra for the infantry, extra for the actual airborne op, I have to pay for the stupid bomber, all so the inf can attack for less than if I had just dropped him off on the beach? That’s just retarded.
You’re trying to represent troops with “less equipment”, but here it sounds like your not even giving them parachutes and are just pushing them out of a plane hoping they’ll fall on top of some poor unlucky German taking a smoke.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=14208.45;num_replies=53
This is an article by Larry Harris that goes into the “Points of Power” argument.
Paratroopers attacking at 0?! So let me get this straight, I’m paying extra for the infantry, extra for the actual airborne op, I have to pay for the stupid bomber, all so the inf can attack for less than if I had just dropped him off on the beach? That’s just retarded.
You’re trying to represent troops with “less equipment”, but here it sounds like your not even giving them parachutes and are just pushing them out of a plane hoping they’ll fall on top of some poor unlucky German taking a smoke.
how about you read what i posted
then i can respond with something besides snide coments such as the one above
and yes, i just gave you -1 karma
and your link is to this topic, so thanks
lol yes nice link. lol nice loop back
:-o
you’re right. it is.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20040302a
I am ashamed… :oops:
it happens to the best of us :-)
:-o dude, the replies are coming fast.
this might as wee be a live chat :lol:
I did read your posts. Don’t ASS/U/ME (you for the assumption, me for the link).
The thing is, if an airborne unit attacks at 0, it has no value in an A&A battle other than to die in an attack, and airborne units weren’t cannon fodder. I would much rather spend the extra 3 IPCs on an infantry that can actually attack on a 1 and defend at 2. Also, the slight risk of an AA gun blowing both the inf and the plane out of the sky doesn’t help in the cost/risk assessment.
Yes, airborne ops had many problems:
1. logistics
2. equipment
3. cost
4. time
5. training
6. risk
but I think you’re over compensating
AA does owe alot of its DNA to the idea that the units are based ( not entirely) on considerations about points of power and assigns the costs based on these or the combat results would prove fatal and some units would never justify purchase. The end result is the units cant be imbalanced or a major flaw would develop, so you need some system to account for this and its just one way to look at solving it.
3-3 tanks was an attempt to show among other things that the more you spend the more value in return a unit can present because you have to also take into account each unit takes 1 hit, so a unit with power of a fighter vs. a tank must have some other justification to its price.
10 infantry or 6 tanks need to have a balance point that is justified in the design so players wont buy one over the other, but some of each. Thats why the combat results show that a balance of all 3 land units is the best overall based on the hit value of one to each unit.
Another example is the 2 destroyer vs. 1 battleships argument. The design makes the case that in situations you may need one over another.
for airborne the OOB is 1-2, so if we adjust the variation to 3 on first round and 1 latter, we should be adding 1 IPC to the cost and its really hard to have a value on selective hits because we don’t have another unit to qualify this value to. But i don’t see airborne as selective hits. I see commandos in this capacity.
ok, but i have also said they should have a 3 or less attack the first round or before the battle even begins, plus they get to choose their target
if anything these units are overpowerd and steel some of the crusiers limelight. maybe it should be a two or les attack any be before battle starts
THis is what I have so far
Airbourne
Attack: 0
Defence: 1
Movement: 1
Cost: 3
Special rules
Airbourne units are land units
if in the combat move phase you pay 3 ipcs for each airborne unit may move like an air unit to attack a land terriotry 2 spaces away.
It may reamain in a terriotry it attacked this turn
Surprise!:airborne units may preform a specail attack before battle starts where they pick any of the enemy units and on a 3 destorys it.
Airborne cannot retreat during a combat where they have preformed and airborne assault
:oops:
I just saw that two second ago…not Larry Harris. Mike Selinker. :oops: I am shamed twice in one day. I might as well wear donkey ears.
I admit, the 1.5 inf/tank power/cost ratio only applies to the ground units. In fact, according to that, art have a 1.3 rating, meaning that they are not worth buying. My whole point with the article was to show that the 3 attack + 2 defense = 5 IPC argument does not cover all factors.
Also, the 3 is only on the first round. The Marines NA in revised attacked on a 2 only i the 1st round and could not be supported by artillery, and cost 3 IPCs. Pacific Marines cost 4, yet could be supported by artillery and got their attack bonus in all rounds of an amphibious assault. That’s a 4 IPC inf attacking on a 3 in all rounds of combat.
Based on the points of power argument, an inf with a base of 2-2 should be 4.
ok, but i have also said they should have a 3 or less attack the first round or before the battle even begins, plus they get to choose their target
Hmmm, I must have missed that. I apologize, and hereby add a tail to my donkey ears.
THis is what I have so far
Airbourne
Attack: 0
Defence: 1
Movement: 1
Cost: 3Special rules
Airbourne units are land units
if in the combat move phase you pay 3 ipcs for each airborne unit may move like an air unit to attack a land terriotry 2 spaces away.
It may reamain in a terriotry it attacked this turnSurprise!:airborne units may preform a specail attack before battle starts where they pick any of the enemy units and on a 3 destorys it.
Airborne cannot retreat
The airborne costs me 3 IPCs + 3 more for the op, totaling 6 IPCs. Why pay 6 IPCs for a unit that attacks on a 3 only in the first round when I can pay 5 IPCs for a unit that attacks on a 3 in all rounds. A tank also defends on a 3, and I don’t have to pay 3 IPCs in the future to use it again? I don’t think being able to chose a target makes up for it.
