FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: AIR TRANSPORT

[Imperious Leader]

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

[almashir]

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.)

[moralecheck]

Here is what I’m thinking.

Paratrooper:

Paratrooper 1/2/1. cost 4ipcs.  Functions like an inf in all regards except that it can be paradropped.  
There is no bonus assigned to paratroopers who are airdropped.  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.  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.  Must load in an airbase. Does not need an airbase to unload.

Combat move:  Load a paratrooper unit (only) onto a transport, they must start in the same space and there must an airbase.  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.  Empty transports CANNOT be combat moved as fodder.

During combat:  An air transport drops it’s paratrooper immediately after AA fire.  As a loaded air transport costs more than a bomber, it need not be chosen last.  After dropping it’s paratrooper, it immediately retreats from the battle, to be landed in the NCM.  If defending, and air transport cannot fire but can be taken as a loss, again it need not be chosen last.

Non Combat move:  If the plane moved in the CM, land it.  If not:  It can be loaded with one inf or para and be moved to a destination within range and unloaded.  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.  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.  The transport must land.  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:  I support 10 ipc cost over 5 as these units are very hard to kill and more versatile then sea transports.  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.  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.  I think we should leave the large loads to the barges.

[Tall Paul]

IL, Almashir, and Moralecheck,

I’m sorry but IMHO it’s too powerful to give the C-46/C-47 2-Engine Air Transports a range of SIX (6), the range of a 4-engine intercontinental aircraft.

I strongly feel it’s range should be FOUR (4). This would be FIVE (5) when used in concert with an Airbase. Giving these Air transports a range of SIX (6) is way too much in that you could then air transport directly from the United States to England,…which IMHO would radically imbalance the game.

---

I believe an air transport having TWICE the range of a Sea Transport, as well as the capability of combat PARATROOP DROPS fully justifies the cost of 10 I.P.C.s.

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that any BUILDING limit, or TOTAL limit on Air Transports is UNACCEPTABLE and inconsistant with what A&A players have always been able to do by forming their strategy through their purchases.

And the requirement that Air Transports(N/C) MUST START AND END their turns at an AIRBASE further strengthens this viewpoint. By having to invest in Airbases keeps a player from “running amock all over the map” and allows his enemy to see the possibilities of future operations and plan his counter moves.

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLY Paratroopers can make Paratroop Drops in the combat phase.

However, ANY Infantry-type unit, including Marines, can be air transported in the non-combat phase.

Why would you think that Marines shouldn’t fly in a Transport plane? They had their own
C-47s that they designated R-4Ds if I remember correctly.

---

And a non-combat air tranport would have the capacity of TWO Infantry types.

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if America wanted to n/c air transport Infantry only type forces to Europe/Africa it would have to develope an intermediate Airbase such as Iceland or Brazil. And it would also have to defend these bases.

These thoughts, mostly IL’s, with the exception of air transports having a range of FOUR (4), IMHO are the most thoroughly thought out and acceptable rules for
Air transport / Paratroop drops.

“Tall Paul”

[Imperious Leader]

ok keep it four for either mission. thats fine.

[moralecheck]

Tall Paul,

I forgot about the marines, sorry.  Yes, carrying any infantry type piece in the NCM is fine with me.

[moralecheck]

I’ve still been thinking about how hard air transports are to kill.  I had an idea, so I thought I’d run it by you guys.  An air transport can destroyed by SBRing the airfield of the territory that it is in.  If the damage is to the airfield is 3 or 4 an transport is destroyed (in addition to the airbase being unusable). If the damage is 5 or 6 than 2 air transports are destroyed (the most that can be destroyed, with an attack like this), assuming there are 2 or more.  This gives them a vulnerablity, increases SBRs, and adds a realistic depth of making sure that you give them adequate fighter protection.  Air transports in territories without airbases cannot be attacked in this manner, but they are not a position to do anything anyway.

[almashir]

Okay, I looked it up, and the maximum range on a C-47 was 3,800 miles.  But the normal range (fully loaded) was 1,600 miles.  So that wouldn’t be a non-stop flight across the atlantic, unless it was empty (JFK to Heathrow is 3458 miles).  A B-17 could fly 2,000 miles with a “useful bomb load.”  And a B-17 would be flying empty for the return trip on a bomb run, so that would extend the range further.

I guess you could say transports have a range of 4 if they are carrying something, and range 6 if they are empty.  And if someone asks why we don’t do that with bombers, the official answer can be “because.”  :lol:

As for carrying marines, I go back and forth on that one.  I guess you could say their landing craft and other amphibious landing equipment is pre-staged at their destination.  They also don’t need as many vehicles as mech infantry, because they can re-use the same landing craft for multiple trips to the beach, at which point they are basically leg-mobile.

Specifications First flight: Dec. 23, 1941
Model Number: C-47/R4D
Wingspan: 95 feet 6 inches
Length: 63 feet 9 inches
Height: 17 feet
Service ceiling: 24,000 feet
Normal range: 1,600 miles
Maximum range: 3,800 miles
Weight: 31,000 pounds
Cruise speed: 160 mph
Power plant: Two 1,200 horsepower Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radial engines
Accommodation: Three crew and 6,000 pounds of cargo, or 28 airborne troops, or 14 stretcher patients and three attendants

[Tall Paul]

Moralecheck and Almashir,

Moralecheck

While your idea of destroying Air Transports via SBR raids on Airbases is very interesting,…I believe it might “open up a can of worms” that we don’t want to.

You reasoning allows you to kill the Air transports easily enough, even after your enemy has gone to the trouble and exspence of buying Airbases, Air transports, and Paratroops and/or Infantry. I don’t think this is just. And there certainly is no equivilent for the killing of Sea Transports. So I would respectfully disagree.

---

Almashir

As for NOT air transporting Marines,…I can see no reason to restrict them from this capability. After all, Army soldiers are allowed to be sea transported, which is the Marines specialty. So what purpose does this serve?

Do you think the Marines don’t deserve air transport and should only be sea transported in the smelly hold of a slow ship? I’ll let YOU tell that to my “grunts”. They have their eyes on you(grin).

“Tall Paul”

[suprise attack]

Four seems like it would be the best for range

[moralecheck]

@Tall:

While your idea of destroying Air Transports via SBR raids on Airbases is very interesting,…I believe it might “open up a can of worms” that we don’t want to.

You reasoning allows you to kill the Air transports easily enough, even after your enemy has gone to the trouble and exspence of buying Airbases, Air transports, and Paratroops and/or Infantry. I don’t think this is just. And there certainly is no equivilent for the killing of Sea Transports. So I would respectfully disagree.

Fair enough, it was more of a passing thought anyway.

i’m ok with marines on air transports, so I assume the last part was for Almashir.

[almashir]

Okay, let’s see if I have the general semi-official non-binding consensus down:

Air transport:  Attack 0 / Defense 0

Movement:  4

Combat movement:  Can carry Paratroops only (one unit per air transport).  Subject to AA fire from AA guns located in the landing zone.  If the air transport is destroyed, the paratroop is destroyed with it.

Non-Combat movement:  Can carry Paratroops, Marines, or Leg Infantry (one unit per air transport)

No suicide runs for air transports.  After dropping paratroops, they have to be able to land in a territory that was friendly controlled at the beginning of the turn.

Now it gets tricky.

I saw ideas earlier in the thread that would allow airborne drops to commence only from air bases.  With the range limited to 4, I think this would be too restrictive.  I would say that the paratroop and air transport have to begin the turn in the same territory, but it doesn’t need to have an air base.

Non-combat move:  An air transport and the unit it is carrying must begin the turn in the same territory.  The air transport ends its movement in the same territory as the unit it carried.  (This represents the reality that it would take multiple trips by a very large number of air transports to relocate a complete infantry corps with all its supplies and equipment.  Of course, in reality, the unit’s organic trucks, heavy artillery, and engineering equipment couldn’t go by air, but at some point you have to make allowances for a game  :lol:)

Any number of air transports can be built in a single turn.

I’m a little uneasy about allowing unlimited contruction of paratroops in a single turn, but I think I’m outnumbered on that one.  So crank 'em out to your heart’s content.

Did I forget anthing?  Or does anyone see any game breaking problems?

[moralecheck]

I’m liking what you have written.  We need to iron out tech rules that effect them, and a replacement for airborne tech, but that’s about it.  I agree with the ‘representing a few trips’ idea as well.  I’m pretty sure the Me-323 Gigant would be able to carry an inf units organic trucks and artillery (over a few trips, with several aircraft) but I don’t think any other nation had an equivalent to it, nor would the the Gigant have been used for paradrops, so I guess the abstraction continues!

[Tall Paul]

Almashir,

Combat Paratroop Drops Must START at an Airbase and they have a capacity of
ONE Paratrooper.

Non-combat Air Transport Must START and END at Airbases and they have a capacity of TWO Infantry-type units.

You can make up whatever “house rules” you like to fit your desires. But without the Airbases being mandatory at BOTH ends of an non-combat air transport you are allowing the almost unlimited re-inforcing of units without having to invest in any infrastructure or allowing the enemy any capability of countering it.

And without the Airbase being necessary to start a combat Paratroop Drop from, all a player needs to accomplish a complete surprise attack is a Air transport and a Paratrooper without ANY other investment, OR the enemy having the capability of countering it. This allows a player to basically range the whole map with possible sneak attacks that can’t be defended against, were ahistorical, and would completely un-balance the gameplay.

IMHO this is completely wrong and I believe when you think it through you will see this also.

I would NEVER agree to playing an A&A game with these rules, and I don’t believe any other player after thinking them through would either! I’m sorry for being so blunt,…but the Airbases are NECESSARY from many different viewpoints. Offensive, defensive, historical, gameplay, basically the whole shebabang.

“Tall Paul”

[moralecheck]

It is balanced by only carrying one inf in the ncm, don’t you think?  10 ipc is still a big investment to fly around one inf so they will not result in ‘unlimited reinforcing of units’.  I actually see the 2 capacity/needs airfield way as more likely to result in over reinforcing. The problem with air transports is that they re WAY to hard for the enemy to hit, so this also addresses that by keeping their capacity down (you had mentioned the enemy countering them, what did you mean?  SBR’s on their landing zone AB’s?  That’s a lot of investment and risk to counter a transport).  I think in all likelyhood we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[almashir]

Thanks, moralecheck,

There is one item I forgot to address - paratroop stats.  I would lobby for the following:

Attack 1 / Defense 2 / Move 1 / Cost 4

Attack of 2 when air-dropped during combat move.

Can be supported by artillery, just like regular infantry.

Count as regular infantry if transported by ship.

Arguments for attack of 2 when air-dropped:

1.  Elite units/all volunteers

2.  If intelligence and counterintelligence people have done their jobs well, they should have the element of surprise.  (If they haven’t done their job, that would be represented by a roll of 3-6.)

3.  They are usually attacking high value targets (bridges, towns with major road and rail intersections, airfields, etc.), which means they are likely to do disproportionate damage for their numbers.

4.  They are probably dropping far from the front lines, where defenders are less alert.  The defenders in rear areas are also less likely to be as capable and experienced as those on the front lines.

Arguments against:

1.  Air drops are iffy.  If the wind is blowing the wrong way, they could be scattered, and lose time getting reorganized.

2.  Since they are behind enemy lines, they are going to have supply problems in a prolonged engagement, and they won’t have access to heavy artillery support.  This can be mitigated somewhat by air dropping supplies, and using bombers as a substitute for artillery.

[moralecheck]

I’d tend to be against this (reminds me of marines in AAP which actually made amphibious assaults EASIER than land battles).  But I might be open to attacks with a 2 (not increased by art) on the first round of combat, and then a 1 after that (or 2 with art).  Reflects the surprise nicely.  Even a 1 reflects their elite status as they are packing the same punch as their better equipped inf counterparts.

[Tall Paul]

Moralecheck,

I respectfully disagree with a N/C air transport limit of only one unit.

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My meaning of “the enemy being able to counter these moves” refers to the reaction of your enemy to your purchases and placement of units. For example:

If I were to see you buy two Air Transports, two Paratroopers, and build an Airbase close to the front lines my Intelligence Service (my eyes in this case) would let me know of the possible future capabilities of yours and I’d have to consider:

defensive adjustment of units
re-inforcement in the areas concerned
counter-attack possibilities (such as conquering the Airbase, or whatever the possibilities of the situation are)

The main point being that the attacker has to “invest” somewhat in his strategy and this allows the defender to react or counter it somewhat before the blow falls.

This makes it important for an attacker to be able to disquise their plans as much as possible and a defender to be aware of their opponents capabilities. These should already be cardinal rules of warfare for the players, but even more important when you add combat paratroop drops to the mix. These attacks can be devastating and war-winning!

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must say that I’m enjoying the intelligent and thoughtful discussion with everyone on this subject. It shows that ya’ll (I’m a Southerner) truly care for and understand this wonderful strategy game we have.

“Tall Paul”

[almashir]

moralecheck,

Yeah, I’d agree that having paratroops attacking with a 2 on the first round only during an airdrop makes better sense.  I had played with that before, and it seemed to work okay.  I dropped the idea because I thought people didn’t want that level of complexity.  But I see you tend to think along the same lines I do.

I also originally swiped an idea from World in Flames where paratroops dropped on an undefended enemy territory had to fight a notional garrison unit, which defends on a 1. It represents a unit, or multiple units, that are too small and dispersed to be represented by a playing piece on the map.  But no one seemed interested in that level of complexity at all. :-)

As for Marines, I’ve been toying with a similar idea.  Maybe give them an attack of 2 on the first round of an amphibious invasion, reverting to 1 on later rounds.  But I’m not sure that would make them worth the extra IPC.  So perhaps give them an attack of 2 for every round of the invasion, or maybe even give them an attack of 3 on the first round.  I’d also say tanks and artillery attack with a 1 on the first round.  Artillery can’t support infantry until round 2, and tanks can’t support tac bombers until round 2.  (But fighters can still support tac bombers.)  So, basically, the only land unit not attacking with a 1 on the first round would be the marines, which conveniently gives them a reason to exist.  What do you think?

Tall Paul,

I’m looking at the map, and trying to imagine a scenario where abuse would be rampant.  Based on factories and airbases that exist at the start of the game, I’m not seeing it.  That’s not to say someone couldn’t build a new factory, but that requires more money on top of the 14 IPCs for the air transport and paratroop.  Paratroops built in Britain could effectively be dropped in Normandy or Holland/Belgium on the next turn.  That seems reasonable (and historically within bounds).  Paratroops built in Germany could be dropped in Leningrad the next turn, IF the Germans already control the Baltic States.  Southern Italy could hit Alexandria or Egypt with paratroops (but they can only reach Egypt because of the airfield).  Most of the other scenarios involve moving for at least one turn to get in position from the factory, which would telegraph the threat to your opponent.  Either that, or the factory territory has an airfield in it anyway.  But it’s possible I’m missing something.  What are you seeing that I’m missing?

[moralecheck]

Been a long time since I played WiF… :-)

Well in A&A IB, marines attacked on a 3.  Too powerful.  In A&AP, they attacked on a 2 and could be raised to 3 by artillery (i think, it’s been a while).  Still too powerful.  Add to that, they were being used to assault territories that the unit could have walked into, just to activate shore bombardment and marine bonuses.  An amphibious assault should not be easier than an overland route.  An attack on a 2, doesn’t really work either as 2 marines are no more effective than an inf and an artillery combo (which would cost 1 less ipc).  To be honest, I was just gonna use HBG’s US marines as pacific infantry.  That said, if we were to have marine abailities, I’d suggest this:  cost 4 ipc, strength 1/2/1.  Ability:  A sea transport carrying marines (and only marines) can carry 3.  This would give them a distinct advantage, and maybe lead to more island battles.  It also emphasizes the importance of air support in those battles.  Don’t think of the transport as being overloaded, think of the marine units as smaller.

Sorry for the threadjack!  Maybe we should continue this in another thread.  :oops: