From what I’m reading yes you can move those pieces on your actual turn again.
As midnight said US can make non combat moves to plan.
China have a bit of hope. Lol
Calcutta saved ?
This will give each country some extra planning and moves to think about during turns which was stated to keep players more focused per each countries turn.
Lots of things to check out
FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: AIR TRANSPORT
-
The price alone should justify the number of builds because no other unit is limited in any manner. To limit builds because you made the cost too cheap is not Axis and Allies. It is silly Xeno style rules.
Oh I see…so you can build 12 paratroopers and so for you is historical?
Special units like paratroopers must have limitsThe Japanese will take Russia with dropping 5 of these each turn behind Soviet lines. THey will also due to the 4 space reach constantly invade Alaska, Australia and other spaces just because they now got cheap air planes that bring infantry 4 spaces for 5 IPC each. Your often cited example of Italy and Germany would have them using Air transports to invade UK, and use a few naval transports for the armor. Italy also usually buys infantry so your point is moot. The US player will max out air transport every turn and land the maximum each turn, which is ahistorical. Japan will do the same against Russia and quickly block out the Russians from the border, while taking the interior.
The limit is 5 paratroopers on the gameboard not each turn!!!
Air transport cannot land in the same territory as paratroopers.
They must return to their base or land on a friendly zone so at least 2 spaces to drop and 2 toeturn.
We play over 15 games like this and no one used air transport as you mentionned.
You know what? because good player will see this poor strategy and is going to laugh.
Build a lot of air transport and paratroopers, no more money to build anything else!!
Wow…I’m amaze!!!Now you see that artificially inventing a number of 5 out of thin air as an upper build limit is not axis and allies? It reflects nothing in terms of capabilities of the nations involved. Its just an invented rule you just made up to cover the fact that you made air transport ridiculously cheap.
Before to say anythnig in the air…just try it.
You’re jealous because you’re not the only one has to invent ridiculous rules… :evil: -
The price alone should justify the number of builds because no other unit is limited in any manner. To limit builds because you made the cost too cheap is not Axis and Allies. It is silly Xeno style rules.
Oh I see…so you can build 12 paratroopers and so for you is historical?
Special units like paratroopers must have limitsIf you did that and spent 12 X 10 or 120 IPC to build that nonsense, you would have lost the game. Thats why you make them refect their ability, so the economics will take care of the ‘historical’
If you made 5 IPC battleships, every nation will always have 5 battleships. But this is not AA or historical either. The PRICE justifies the economics of the buy, not the Xeno rules or artificial limits because they invented a game breaker
The Japanese will take Russia with dropping 5 of these each turn behind Soviet lines. THey will also due to the 4 space reach constantly invade Alaska, Australia and other spaces just because they now got cheap air planes that bring infantry 4 spaces for 5 IPC each. Your often cited example of Italy and Germany would have them using Air transports to invade UK, and use a few naval transports for the armor. Italy also usually buys infantry so your point is moot. The US player will max out air transport every turn and land the maximum each turn, which is ahistorical. Japan will do the same against Russia and quickly block out the Russians from the border, while taking the interior.
The limit is 5 paratroopers on the gameboard not each turn!!!
Air transport cannot land in the same territory as paratroopers.
They must return to their base or land on a friendly zone so at least 2 spaces to drop and 2 toeturn.
We play over 15 games like this and no one used air transport as you mentionned.Thats what i am saying, every turn each player will have 5 of these 5 IPC air transports and attack some NEW PLACE WITH 5 more infantry EACH TURN. 5 different places with one infantry each or just one either way the game is broken. Germany lands 5 in Russia, and Italy does the same, both from Romania into Russia. Also, France is 2 spaces from UK.
Also paratroopers are just infantry, not a new unit. The air transport is supposed to support the OOB rules from the game of which paratroopers are just normal infantry. Because YOU have them as specialized units does not mean FMG has them that way. You must take the OOB rules and build the air transport around that. Because it works in some completely different set of house rules and map does not mean it works for AA maps.
You know what? because good player will see this poor strategy and is going to laugh.
Build a lot of air transport and paratroopers, no more money to build anything else!!
Wow…I’m amaze!!!Or spend 25 IPC to land another 5 infantry 4 spaces away each turn…. poor mans naval transport. You can’t argue that Italy “cant afford them at 10 IPC” then claim at 5 IPC they will have “no money for anything else”
Now you see that artificially inventing a number of 5 out of thin air as an upper build limit is not axis and allies? It reflects nothing in terms of capabilities of the nations involved. Its just an invented rule you just made up to cover the fact that you made air transport ridiculously cheap.
Before to say anythnig in the air…just try it.
You’re jealous because you’re not the only one has to invent ridiculous rules… evilI just know it wont work. The unit is too cheap and if you start down the road of limiting units, then make the same rule for all pieces…limits on builds… but thats not AA. People dont like Xeno style rules and if they did Xeno would do much better.
-
If you made 5 IPC battleships, every nation will always have 5 battleships. But this is not AA or historical either. The PRICE justifies the economics of the buy, not the Xeno rules or artificial limits because they invented a game breaker
LOL…a battleship and air transport it’s not the same at all.
I just lower a bit the price of air planes including fighter and that’s not change dramaticaly the games.I just know it wont work. The unit is too cheap and if you start down the road of limiting units, then make the same rule for all pieces…limits on builds… but thats not AA. People dont like Xeno style rules and if they did Xeno would do much better.
I’m not a fan of Xeno rules either. But a game without limit for special units like paratroopers has no sense.
It’s not because unit is cheap than player will start to use it.
If the price of air transport and let see…the destroyer is the same, it’s ridiculous.
In fact, price of unit must be different between each country anyway. -
In fact, price of unit must be different between each country anyway.
Thats another indication of that Xeno ideas creeping into AA games. Xeno has this concept and all the same concepts that you have brought up. These rules are no good.
The AA way of doing things is to make the price the same for everyone and not have limits on builds. Thats why the cost needs to be justified at 10 IPC per, since the naval transport is 7 IPC and cant travel nearly as far and require a navy to protect. The air transport can be protected by cheap land units ( advantage) , has double the distance ( advantage) and can be used to effect in one turn ( advantage) the only bad thing is it can only ring one infantry, but at your price of 5 IPC you just buy them in pairs. The only reason why you made up the limit was because you know that people will buy tons of these and turn the game into starship troopers. Thats why the price needs to be 10 IPC and each player starts with one, so poor nations don’t have to buy one to be competitive.
-
I agree this unit should be more expensive as it does have a lot of advantages. I would also add that it can only load units from a territory with an Air Base? So they will not replace transports!
-
Yes from an air base, but the distance it must be 4 spaces total. If more than the game has many problems.
If you allow 6 space movement then US will just buy a fleet and buy infantry and shuck 10 men a turn in UK, then Berlin the turn after that.
-
The only reason why you made up the limit was because you know that people will buy tons of these and turn the game into starship troopers.
You completly wrong. I put a limit on some unit beacause it’s historical. 10 paratroopers from the same country it’s laughable
So if I understand you will buy a cheap piece just because it’s cheap? Even if you don’t need it?.
An air transport more expensive than a naval transport is ridiculous.
Air base is useless… -
The only reason why you made up the limit was because you know that people will buy tons of these and turn the game into starship troopers.
You completly wrong. I put a limit on some unit beacause it’s historical. 10 paratroopers from the same country it’s laughable
I think forcing players into a FIXED limit of 5 is most laughable and more ahistorical as opposed to just letting people buy what the hell they want if they can afford it. The economics of your model should work themselves out if the price was correct at 10, but at 5 IPC per unit, i will take 20 air transports.
The result? The result is if you just thru away this 5 air transport limit and let people buy what they want you make the most ahistorical game imaginable, which only proves that the only reason you insist on a ceiling of 5 per nation IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT THIS WILL BE GLITCHED AND STARSHIP TROOPERS IS NOT FAR BEHIND.
So if I understand you will buy a cheap piece just because it’s cheap? Even if you don’t need it?.
Because its too cheap for what it does: result every nation will max out at 5 air transports ASAP. Hows that for historical?
If you just make them at 10 IPC this does not occur and you don’t need a max out rule, the economics will not justify it. The proof of this is the value relative to the naval transport. 2 spaces move vs. 4 spaces but with 1/2 the cargo capacity, paying +3 IPC for the extra movement but getting 50% rate of cargo transferred is balanced IMO, except note that i the 10 IPC air transport needs to be able to fly 1 inf in combat or 2 inf in noncombat. If the second part of this is not adopted, the price must go down but not even close to 5 IPC. More like 8 IPC air transport if you can only shuck 1 infantry.
You may ask why or how can an air transport carry only 1 inf in combat but two in NCM?
Easy. When used as Airborne infantry and dropped into combat they carry alot more supplies and equipment. If just being transferred from friendly to friendly area, they just come as they are. Equipment is brought on the train, but in combat operations they need everything with them for the battle.
An air transport more expensive than a naval transport is ridiculous.
Right based on your idea its cheaper and more efficient, which the the greatest knock against your idea… you made it too cheap.
Air base is useless…
This reduces the element of surprise by just having a bomber stage in some undeveloped place on the map ( say a pacific island) and just hoping over to Hawaii or west coast USA.
Now you must establish some base to stage the airborne units, because using the can opener technique, Germany can take a space forward and Italy can airborne and land in this just captured space and glitch the game. Instead, Germany or Italy must leave an AB and if it wants to support the new captured area it must have an air base. Only in combat move you obviously dont need to land on AB, just take off from AB.
-
IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT THIS WILL BE GLITCHED AND STARSHIP TROOPERS IS NOT FAR BEHIND.
LOL…AND AS I SAID BEFORE, I TESTED IT (OVER 10 GAMES) AND NO ONE MAKE STARSHIP TROOPERS BECAUSE GUYS WHO PLAY WITH ME ARE GOOD PLAYERS
AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU’LL NEED MORE AIR TRANSPORT TO WIN THE GAME.
Somtimes I believe that you under respect the A&A players.When used as Airborne infantry and dropped into combat they carry alot more supplies and equipment. If just being transferred from friendly to friendly area, they just come as they are. Equipment is brought on the train, but in combat operations they need everything with them for the battle.
I totaly agree with you but you don’t thnik that 2 infantry per transport is too much?
For you, the value of 1 infantry means what…3 division? = 24 000 men? 18 000 mens?, 12 000?. so 2 infantry = 48 000 men…more less.Now you must establish some base to stage the airborne units, because using the can opener technique, Germany can take a space forward and Italy can airborne and land in this just captured space and glitch the game. Instead, Germany or Italy must leave an AB and if it wants to support the new captured area it must have an air base. Only in combat move you obviously dont need to land on AB, just take off from AB.
I understand that but it doesn’t change much in the progress of the game.
-
IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT THIS WILL BE GLITCHED AND STARSHIP TROOPERS IS NOT FAR BEHIND.
LOL…AND AS I SAID BEFORE, I TESTED IT (OVER 10 GAMES) AND NO ONE MAKE STARSHIP TROOPERS BECAUSE GUYS WHO PLAY WITH ME ARE GOOD PLAYERS
AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU’LL NEED MORE AIR TRANSPORT TO WIN THE GAME.
Somtimes I believe that you under respect the A&A players.How can anybody have respect for some limit of 5 air transport planes for every nation based on some notion that “its historical”?
When used as Airborne infantry and dropped into combat they carry alot more supplies and equipment. If just being transferred from friendly to friendly area, they just come as they are. Equipment is brought on the train, but in combat operations they need everything with them for the battle.
I totaly agree with you but you don’t thnik that 2 infantry per transport is too much?
For you, the value of 1 infantry means what…3 division? = 24 000 men? 18 000 mens?, 12 000?. so 2 infantry = 48 000 men…more less.Airborne unit = corps with all equipment
Air transport of infantry not related to combat is personnel minus equipment.
Now you must establish some base to stage the airborne units, because using the can opener technique, Germany can take a space forward and Italy can airborne and land in this just captured space and glitch the game. Instead, Germany or Italy must leave an AB and if it wants to support the new captured area it must have an air base. Only in combat move you obviously dont need to land on AB, just take off from AB.
I understand that but it doesn’t change much in the progress of the game.
It make a huge difference!! If you don’t have an air base you cant transport infantry via air transport. This removes the glitch of some bloke landing a bomber with infantry on some silly undeveloped island then taking Washington or west coast USA, because nobody was looking, which is not historical.
You have to launch from AB
-
Here are my ideas on air transports. It seems we have two basic schools of thought:
1- More expensive with greater abilities:
Cost=10 IPCs, Movement=6 spaces NCM, 4 spaces CM, Load=2 Infantry NCM, 1 paratroop CM, no attack or defense, Infantry/paratroop must be loaded at an airbase.
2- Cheaper with lesser abilities:
Cost=7 IPCs, Movement= 4 spaces NCM and CM, Load= 1 infantry or paratroop NCM and CM, no attack or defense, Infantry/paratroop must be loaded at an airbase.Either of those options seems great to me.
As for the cost, I think either is reasonable. 10 should be maximum and 7 should be minimum. Having air transports cost 5 IPCs is just ludicrous. That’s cheaper than submarines for crying out loud. Not to mention it is half the cost of fighters. Does anybody really think it would cost half as much to build a transport plane than it would a fighter plane? I sincerely doubt that and I bet if you checked building costs for that time, you would find they were roughly the same, with transports maybe being marginally cheaper.
On Movement, (of course, dependant on final cost) a combat move into a hostile area would be trickier so the range should probably show that. A NCM is of course easier and more peaceful so they could go farther. However, if FMG decides on the higher cost and people don’t want to mess with 2 different movements, then we should settle on 5 or 6 spaces for both NCM and CM with the load being the same (1 paratroop CM, 2 infantry NCM). The load carried would still be different enough to differentiate the abilities of combat vs NCM.
As for using airbases, having troops load at airbases only (CM or NCM) is a really good idea. If the airbase is functional, of course this will give the transport plane an extra movement point like all other aircraft. If the airbase is NOT functional, you just lose the extra movement point. Troops can still be loaded onto air transports for CM and NCM. As for air transports being used for paratroops in the CM, they should be able to land in any territory you owned at the beginning of your turn just like any other of your aircraft. They should NOT have to land at an airbase. That is too restrictive and in most cases would be impossible. The air transports would still have to fly back to an airbase to be able to pick up more troops which would cost you another turn. That should be restrictive enough whether we decide on the more expensive/greater abilities version or the cheaper/lesser abilities version.
As for the idea of interceptors and escorts involved with transport planes, I will leave that up to FMG as I am undecided on which would be a better idea.
One other though. Bob A. Mikelson suggested that since transport planes have not attack/defense value, if a territory is captured that has transport planes then all transport planes are immediately destroyed (similar to the naval tranport rule). I was wondering why you couldn’t capture enemy transport planes. One thing about A&A I’ve noticed is that all enemy units in every battle are simply destroyed. There is no representation of capturing equipment or even taking prisoners. I know if we tried to incorporate that into every battle, it would make things very complicated and this is already a fairly complex game and seems to be getting moreso with the new units. However, couldn’t we make an exception in this case? Perhaps treat enemy transport planes like enemy facilities? After all, those transport planes are not involved in the battle in this case so couldn’t an invader capture them instead of just destroying them? Upon a successful invasion, replace them with your own transport plane units? Just a thought. -
Imperious Leader,
I agree with YOUR thoughts concerning Air Transport(n/cm) and Paratroop Drops(cm).
I understand that there were two different schools of thought for a/c range.
FOUR in (combat) paratroop drops,…and SIX in (non-combat) air transport
OR
Four in ALL matters. Which did you end up thinking the best?
“Tall Paul”
-
Keep it the same as the game rules for combat movement for airborne, and 6 for NCM transport.
-
I still with my thought because me and my friend tested the transtport rules.
10 IPc for air transport is too much!
And 6 A/C range is too much.How can anybody have respect for some limit of 5 air transport planes for every nation based on some notion that “its historical”?
I never wrote that! Air transport Cost 5 IPC not limit.
But yes there’s some limit on some units like panzergrenadier, SS troops and paratroopers because everybody cannot be a special soldier!
that’s historical!!!
Try it before to say anything! -
Crusaderiv,
With all due respect,…I believe that if you truly thought it through you would see the wisdom and equity of having the Air Transport units cost TEN I.P.C.s and have a range of FOUR in Combat, and SIX in non-combat.
“Tall Paul”
-
Air transport Cost 5 IPC not limit
This is not historical… Way too cheap. 10 is perfect since the bomber can perform it’s attack mission as well
-
IL,
The rules that I’m concerned with for Air Transport pertain to the HBG C-46 Commando and FMG C-47 SkyTrain(when produced), both 2-Engine types, and NOT a 4-Engine Bomber of any type.
Would you then consider that a C-46/C-47 should therefore have a non-comat range of FOUR?
I’m much in favor of having Bombers ONLY BOMB, and Air transports ONLY TRANSPORT.
“Tall Paul”
-
The whole idea of transporting infantry to reinforce is to have another way to other than factories to sustain the front.
I consider this just a more rugged form of airline travel, which means the 6 range is adequate as trans Atlantic flights were occurring in this time.
It weakens the utility of spending 10 IPC to reduce the NCM range to say 4.
However, it makes the rule easier to remember if the range is the same…say at 4
-
I use the rules below. I think the use of notional garrison units keeps paratroops from running amok, so there is no need to limit the range to 4. The restriction on building one per turn per country keeps them from spamming all over the map, and is somewhat realistic, as they were elite units. I don’t like the idea of allowing an air transport to carry two units. That’s just a personal preference. I like the idea of being able to simulate airborne landings on D-Day, where the paratroops were part of a larger operation. Where paratroops were used by themselves, without immediate link-up with heavier ground forces, their success rate was lower, and/or their casualties were excessive (Market Garden/Crete/Malta, and post WWII at Dien Bien Phu). The only major exception I can think of is Eban Emael (although even this operation involved over 25% casualties).
Air Transports / Airborne Assaults
Air transports cost 7 IPCs to build. They have no attack or defense value, and may move up to 6 spaces per turn. (I use a bomber with a blue poker chip under it to represent an air transport.)
During the Non-Combat Movement Phase an air transport may be used to transport one paratroop or regular infantry from one friendly controlled territory to another friendly controlled territory. This ends the air transport’s movement for the turn, even if it moved less than 6 spaces. Air transports cannot carry tanks, artillery, mechanized infantry, AA guns, or marines.
During the Combat Movement Phase an air transport that starts its turn in the same territory as a paratroop may load that paratroop and air drop it onto an enemy-controlled territory. If there is an AA gun in the territory, the air transport must first survive anti-aircraft fire before dropping the paratroop. If the air transport is destroyed by AA fire, the paratroop is destroyed with it. If a paratroop is dropped into an enemy controlled territory that contains no enemy combat units, there is assumed to be a “garrison†unit in the territory. The garrison unit defends with a 1, and must be eliminated before the paratroop can capture the territory. The garrison unit is ignored if there are also units attacking the same territory that are not making an airborne assault. When air dropping paratroops, air transports may not make “suicide runs†(i.e., They must have enough range to land in a friendly controlled territory).
Paratroops
Any major power except China may build paratroops, but no nation may build more than one per turn. For purposes of this limit, the British player may build paratroops on either map, but can still only build one per turn total.
Paratroops cost 4 IPCs to build. They function as regular infantry in all respects, except that they attack with a 2 when making an airborne assault. (I use a regular infantry piece with a blue poker chip under it to represent a paratroop.)
-
Here is what I’m thinking.
Paratrooper:
Paratrooper 1/2/1. cost 4ipcs. Â Functions like an inf in all regards except that it can be paradropped. Â
There is no bonus assigned to paratroopers who are airdropped. Â They attack on a 1 unless there is an artillery that came by land or sea to raise their attack to a 2.Air Transport:
0/0/4. Costs 10 ipcs. Â An air transport does receive the 1 mp bonus for an airbase. Long range tech will increase their move by 1.
Capacity: 1 inf or para unit. Â Must load in an airbase. Does not need an airbase to unload.
Combat move: Â Load a paratrooper unit (only) onto a transport, they must start in the same space and there must an airbase. Â An air transport may not not move first and pick up a paratrooper on the way. Move the transport to its target territory for the airdrop. Â Empty transports CANNOT be combat moved as fodder.
During combat: Â An air transport drops it’s paratrooper immediately after AA fire. Â As a loaded air transport costs more than a bomber, it need not be chosen last. Â After dropping it’s paratrooper, it immediately retreats from the battle, to be landed in the NCM. Â If defending, and air transport cannot fire but can be taken as a loss, again it need not be chosen last.
Non Combat move: Â If the plane moved in the CM, land it. Â If not: Â It can be loaded with one inf or para and be moved to a destination within range and unloaded. Â There must be an airbase in the space where it loaded, but not where it lands. The transport, inf/para and airbase must all start the NCM in the same space. Â An air transport may not start its move empty and pick its cargo on the way. You cannot make a paradrop in the NCM even if the cargo is a paratrooper. Â The transport must land. Â If an air transport starts its NCM in a space without an airbase, it may still move, it just can’t carry any units.
Notes: Â I support 10 ipc cost over 5 as these units are very hard to kill and more versatile then sea transports. Â I’m not sure about the 6 move and 2 unit limit in the NCM as the capacity is too high and the range would allow units to fly across the atlantic, which never happened at this scale. Â I think it would lead to some very ahistorical stuff, in particular the USA flying inf units galore to the UK from the USA. Â
2 unit capacity could also allow the axis to flood africa. Â I think we should leave the large loads to the barges.
Suggested Topics
