Heavy transports and special forces

[radar231]

Hi Tall Paul,

I like what I read so far and agree with all your suggestions and opinions.

The heavy transports and airbornes units add a new twist in the game. With the costs involved there won’t be that many of those units around because after the initial battles you will have to build more airbases into captured enemy territories to keep going with airdrops. Same if you want to use the heavy transport planes in ncm, you need to buy more airbases, all those IPCs that we used to buy other units with before.

Of course, once you buy a few heavy transports and don’t lose them, you don’t have to buy more anymore like tanks,infantries etc.

J.  8-)

[Tall Paul]

Radar231 and Others,

I’m glad you see things the way I believe to be the best way.

But I think EVERYONE should ask questions and voice their own opinions, especially if they don’t agree with me. No one person is always correct. I KNOW I’M NOT. And someone else may have a BETTER or DIFFERENT idea than I or anyone else does. That’s why this forum is such a wonderful TOOL. But the main idea is to listen to ALL sides of these differing viewpoints and then you can UNDERSTAND the best solution.

We have a LOT of very cogent thinkers here on A&A.ORG. Just stick around and you’ll develope your own appreciation of people. The Imperious Leader, with his vast wealth of experience in gameplaying and design is a fountain of knowledge as he understands to a large degree the reason behind why things are the way they are in our games. I’ve only disagreed with his views once or twice, but like I said,…No one person is perfect. IL comes pretty close, though.

Gargantua is another, although sometimes I think he must have been dropped on his head by his Mother(Grin)! There are several other really good “thinkers” that would be to long to list.

And another thing,…I’m not usually in favor of changing things just to change things. And we make should certain that any changes we make don’t IMBALANCE the game in any way.

“Tall Paul”

[Tall Paul]

Oh, Moralecheck and Radar231,

YES, HBG is producing Airborne Paratroopers in their Sets. They’ve already made the U.S.A. Airborne Troopers(see below).

I was somewhat surprised when HBG listed their proposed units for their two Sets of Russians that there were NO AIRBORNE PARATROOPERS listed in them.

So if your interested in having Airborne Paratroopers for ALL of your country’s, you might want to “voice your opinion” to them, possibly on their “HBG Russian Set” thread in the VARIANTS area. It might also be a good time to voice your appreciation for their producing all of the detailed units that have already come and will come out in the future.

I really need Paratroopers for ALL of the countries because I have my “Screaming Eagles”, “Angels”, and “All-Americans” just waiting around.

There’s no way my opponents would allow me to use these in a game until they had some of their own Paratroopers! By the way, I hope you enjoy the pic. I have several.

“Tall Paul”

[moralecheck]

Wow, those look great!

[Tall Paul]

Glad you liked them. I didn’t paint them myself. I paid a professional artist to paint them for me. He goes by the knick-name of “Allworkandnoclay” and has a thread of some of his work in the “1940-Global” thread area, probably page 8 or 9 by now. Here’s a pic from the back so you can better see all of the unit graphics he hand-painted.

My standard for Infantry units is to have the country’s national insignia painted on their bases. But for “Special Forces” type units, like my Paratroopers, Marine Raiders, ParaMarines, Army Rangers, etc., I’ve had him paint the units shoulder patches on their bases.

I hope I’m not boring you with the details.

“Tall Paul”

[crusaderiv]

But I think EVERYONE should ask questions and voice their own opinions, especially if they don’t agree with me. No one person is always correct. I KNOW I’M NOT. And someone else may have a BETTER or DIFFERENT idea than I or anyone else does. That’s why this forum is such a wonderful TOOL. But the main idea is to listen to ALL sides of these differing viewpoints and then you can UNDERSTAND the best solution.
We have a LOT of very cogent thinkers here on A&A.ORG. Just stick around and you’ll develope your own appreciation of people. The Imperious Leader, with his vast wealth of experience in gameplaying and design is a fountain of knowledge as he understands to a large degree the reason behind why things are the way they are in our games. I’ve only disagreed with his views once or twice, but like I said,…No one person is perfect. IL comes pretty close, though.
Gargantua is another, although sometimes I think he must have been dropped on his head by his Mother(Grin)! There are several other really good “thinkers” that would be to long to list.
And another thing,…I’m not usually in favor of changing things just to change things. And we make should certain that any changes we make don’t IMBALANCE the game in any way.

I agree with your thought Tall Paul.

[Tall Paul]

OK Guys,

I got the info from IL concerning the Air Transports.

Paratroop Drop:

Aircraft and ONE Paratrooper must both start at the same airbase.
Has a range of FOUR(total).
After making the Paratrooper Drop in the combat phase, the Aircraft in the
non-combat phase must land in a friendly country by the end of it’s FOURTH movement.

Air Transport:

Aircraft and TWO Infantry types must both start at the same Airbase.
Has a range of FOUR movements in the non-combat phase.
Aircraft and cargo(Infantry) must both land at a friendly Airbase.

With all of the discussion on BOTH sides of many issues concerning Combat Paratroop Drops and Non-Combat Air Transport these rules were the most logical and equitable ways to employ our Air Transport Aircraft.

Some people may disagree with them,…but it’s a free country and they’re welcome to their own opinions. However IMHO these are the best rules.

“Tall Paul” Â

[knp7765]

I agree with all of that with the exception of having to land at a friendly airbase on the non-combat move.  That’s just too restrictive.  You should be able to transport your troops in the NCM to any friendly territory.  After all, you can’t go and pick up troops there, you will still have to load back at an airbase.  Also, the main reason for using air transports to shuttle 2 infantry is to get them closer to the front line, which in many cases is several spaces from a friendly airbase.  If you make them land at a friendly airbase everytime, you pretty much nullify the advantage of air transports.  Unless you want to go the expense of plopping an air base in every territory you capture.  That’s a lot of money just to get a couple of extra infantry to the front.

[Tall Paul]

knp7765,

One of the reasons for having to land at an Airbase is to reflect the infrastructure necessary to accomodate large scale air transport. Heavy duty runways, hangers, etc.

Also, it would preclude a player from landing air transported reinforcements anywhere on the map within range, a somewhat unpredictable and almost undefendable developement. If you wanted to land some units on any territory, including enemy held, that can be done via a Paratroop Drop.

And the “advantage” of air transport over sea transport is that it’s TWICE as fast as sea transport and has a combat Paratroop Drop capability.

And, only in the cases of amphibious invasions are troops landed near the front lines in sea transport either.

@knp7765:

Unless you want to go the expense of plopping an air base in every territory you capture.

I believe you may be exagerating on this point. I certainly wouldn’t suggest this as a valid strategy. I was thinking ONE main Air Transport Route would be all most any country would need. Think about this a little more, perhaps. From the defensive side as well.

“Tall Paul”

[knp7765]

@Tall:

One of the reasons for having to land at an Airbase is to reflect the infrastructure necessary to accomodate large scale air transport. Heavy duty runways, hangers, etc.

Actually, I have given this some thought. I still think it’s restrictive, but I do see your point. If you are going to move a couple of divisions of infantry, you can’t just land and drop them off in some dusty field. You would need decent runways, marshaling areas, etc. So, maybe it is a better idea to limit the NCM to landing at airbases as well.
Air transports would be a nifty tool for any nation that had to attack an island to get their troops back to the mainland, like Germany doing Sealion for example. More than once I have seen Germany pull off a Sealion and have a good amount of men, artillery and tanks left in London only to have the US Navy or Air Force come along and whack the Kriegsmarine, sinking all those fine German transports and stranding all those land units on England.
An alternate strategy for Germany could be to not invest so heavily in tanks or artillery and send more infantry instead with perhaps more air support for punch. Then if Germany’s sea transports get hit and there is too strong of an Allied naval presence in the area, Germany could send over some Air Transports to London on one turn and ferry back a bunch of men on the next (hopefully USA doesn’t try to liberate London while all those transports are sitting there).

[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?

[crusaders1]

Thanks to everyone for all the replies. Lots of great ideas. I am implementing the idea of having to take off from AB but do not like the idea of having to land back at one (too restictive). A lot of the ideas discussed IMO are to restrictive. Here’s what my group will use moving forward.
Heavy transport $10, move 6 no attack or defend value (last unit removed - NEW) (must take off from AB-NEW) (limit 3 per major power) (can transport 3 Inf or 3 Special forces)
Special forces (paratroops) $5 Att3 Def1 (limit 5 per major power but can be replaced when destroyed).