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.
