FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: AIR TRANSPORT

[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:

[almashir]

My apologies also for going off-topic.  Paratroops are kind of related, but marines are straying a bit.  I’ve created a new topic. :oops:

[moralecheck]

@Tall:

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”

Me too.  :-)

[crusaderiv]

This is not historical…  Way too cheap. 10 is perfect since the bomber can perform it’s attack mission as well
You mean used a bomber to drop paratroopers and/or perform bombing?
That’s ridiculous….Air transport 10 IPC + paratroopers 4 IPC = 14 IPC…too much.
For this price, I’m gonna buy bombers and make more damages…

Oh and wait…should I pay also to build an air base? Come on…hom much that it’s going to cost me?
It takes only a few days for the Marines and Japanese forces to build air field in the middle of nowhere!

[Imperious Leader]

You mean used a bomber to drop paratroopers and/or perform bombing?

Yes because the game does not have a separate piece for air transport. Under the introduction of a new piece, this new unit would not have any attack values. So i was referring to a rule using the OOB pieces.

That’s ridiculous….Air transport 10 IPC + paratroopers 4 IPC = 14 IPC…too much.
For this price, I’m gonna buy bombers and make more damages…

Not really because it can ferry 2 infantry twice the distance as a naval transport and avoid stopping at the first land space. You get +2 mp for 3 IPC extra…not a bad deal

Oh and wait…should I pay also to build an air base? Come on…hom much that it’s going to cost me?
It takes only a few days for the Marines and Japanese forces to build air field in the middle of nowhere!

I think the air base requirement should be just for combat movement, not NCM.

[knp7765]

I had an idea last night regarding the new Air Transport planes (which we should have for every nation before too much longer if FMG can kick their Chinese factory in the butt) and the Paratroops tech for Global 1940. So far, the rules regarding Air Transport planes seems to be:
Cost 10, Move 4, Attack=0, Defense=0
Last unit in territory to be destroyed, much like sea transports in naval battles.
Can carry 1 Paratroop unit for Combat Move, 2 infantry/paratroop/marines/etc. in Non Combat Move. MUST be loaded at an Air Base in CM or NCM.
Paratroops can be dropped behind enemy lines and transport can land in any friendly territory in Combat Move.
Infantry/Paratroops/Marines/etc. must be off loaded at a friendly Air Base in Non Combat Move.
Can be hit by AA fire and if so, paratroops/ infantry/ etc. are lost with plane.

Okay, so I thought if we didn’t want to change the Paratroop tech too much and to accomodate our new piece, the Paratroop Tech could simply be changed to say that now Air Transport planes can carry 2 (TWO) Paratroop units into a battle. Perhaps simply call it “Improved Paratroop Abilities”.
Sound Good?

[gliven]

I was thinking that air transports move 5 +1 with air base for the desired 6. it moves farther than a fighter but less than a bomber. troops have to be loaded at an airbase. when you are in combat move you have to drop troops off then fly back to friendly zone, so really…you wont be going too far into enemy territories. in non combat, transports can move the full 5+1 to allied territory, but the transport movement is over and cant move till next turn. can only transport 1 infantry ncm and cm. cost 10 ipc. can load 2 soldiers if you get the paratrooper tech

[GuamSolo]

@ Tall Paul (or anyone)

Why do you want to require AB for return flight of air transport after dropping paratroop in CM but not for bombers?  If a bomber can fly five spaces, drop bombs, and then land one TT behind a newly conquered one why can’t the transport do the same?