Oztea,
I know airborne operations happened a lot, but lets put this in perspective.
We have a suggestion that germany can funnel troops to the front lines against Russia with air transports.
How did that go during Stalingrad?
Not so well.
Even with a massive air effort, they couldn’t even get supplies in to feed a fraction of the forces already there.
––You’re talking about ONE specific case versus the whole idea of Air Transport.
----The game of A&A doesn’t take into consideration the effects of weather,…like oil freezing in aircraft and truck engines, roads turning into quagmires, Russian Anti-Aircraft guns blowing more than half of the German Air Transports out of the sky, etc. The Germans could NOT have re-supplied their forces by Truck transport, either!
----The reason that the German Air Re-supply of their forces at Stalingrad failed was because Goering OVERPROMISED what the Luftwaffe transport forces could do at that time, NOT because it wasn’t possible. Because of losses, and production priorities the Luftwaffe by that time didn’t have near the amount of transports available to do the job. It was simply a political promise by a bumbling Goering seeking fame and favors from his Fuehrer. Much the same as when he said the Luftwaffe by itself could destroy the British Expeditionary Force retreating from France at the start of the war. Enough got away to man another British army.
----I suggest you read more history, and stop comparing apples and oranges.
The mechanics of the game don’t account for supply, but does account for the fact that all the stuff that tags along with each infantry piece wouldn’t fit on an “air transport”.
––The ONLY thing we’re talking about here is the transport of Paratroopers or Infantry,…NOT supplies.
Paratroops had enough supplies for a few days (and even in the game, paratroops must attack WITH other forces to represent someone resupplying them)You have to think of all the stuff that is tagging behind 1 infantry piece……food, cooks, bullets, medics, trucks, barracks supplies, command staff, replacements.
All that gets left behind for one, very special circumstance, paratrooping.
But just using air transports as ferries for this massive blob of logistics would be beyond the capabilities of 1940s technology.
––Again, you need to read more about what you’re talking about. In the SouthWest Pacific Area, New Guinea in particular, an overwhelming majority of the beans, bullets, and bast*rds were air transported to forward bases. The 5th AF under General Kenney air transported several whole brigades/divisions of troops from Austrailia to New Guinea. And when on the offensive they air transported everything forward, even small bulldozers for airstrips, and 2-1/2 ton trucks that were cut into two pieces and then re-assembled at destination.Just because “it would be kewl” to have Germany be able to reinforce its front line with the USSR by air with bodies, that is just brushing aside the logistical headache that would be.
––The C-47 was DESIGNED to air transport supplies and/or personnel. Whether Trucks or faster Air Transports are used is simply a choice.
----And it has nothing to do with it being “kewl” or not. It is an OPERATIONAL ability, which is a faster but slightly more exspensive option than Truck transport that allows a player to quickly deploy troops to the front lines. Just as in reality, I might add.
You need to build the planes with metal (you could be using for fighters) and training the pilots (who could be blowing stuff up instead of on transport duty) and using the fuel (which could be in other fighters or bombers
––With all due respect, these points are irrelevant and meaningless to our discussion concerning Air Transports.
to carry the men (who can walk or ride in much more efficient trucks).
––With all due respect, you can’t walk from Australia to New Guinea,…or anywhere else over water except by Air Transport, Sea Transport, or both.
You need to use dozers to clear landing strips (that could be building fortifications)
––See above concerning bulldozers.----
and staff to run more airfields (that could be pointing guns at russians) all to put a lot of men in a very vulnerable tube that is using a lot of fuel driving back and forth.
Realistically it could be done. But a power like Germany, would be using half it’s manpower and fuel on a front just in transportation, which could be done at a fraction of the cost by things that won’t fall out of the sky: namely, feet, hooves, trucks and trains
––You’re talking specifics again, which are still irrelevant to this discussion----But if you put these in gameplay terms, they would be decissions that were available to a player to make for himself as to what he wants/needs/decides to spend his IPCs on.For a LONG time I thought everyone should have paratroopers.
––Me, too! Some of my Paratroopers have been painted for over a year.
But a new piece to do it….that can also fly around a brigades worth of men and their support staff, just wasn’t something common place in the 40’s.
something like 98% of all US supplies moved by sea during WWII.
––I completely agree that the overwhelming majority of supplies were sent into the theaters using ships. After that, a much larger percentage was shipped via Air Transport.
Germany still had an enormous amount of horses used for transportation.
––Are you wanting a NEW UNIT called a Horse Transport???WWII was an air war. But not a war of air mobility. � �
––You’re confusing strategic vs. tactical moves now.
Germany still had an enormous amount of horses used for transportation.
––Again, irrelevant to this discussion.WWII was an air war. But not a war of air mobility.
––WRONG. The Air Transports existed and were used. When an up-coming Airborne operation was planned they were used for that.
I believe it might help if you were to remember that we are discussing a GAME, and the rules that allow operational options to be used.
“Tall Paul”
The game is grounded in reality, and to reflect that, a wing of air transports (one pice, enough to move 2 divisions a la normandy) That would reflect the entire US air participation on d-day.
The piece would realistically cost 15 ipcs.
What do you know….exactly what an airbase costs.
And please stop insinuating that I have a loose grasp on history. I am the lookout for unrealistic glitches. More air drops stretches the fabric of history.
In my opinion this forum is designed for players to share ideas to enhance their gaming experience. You can take someone’s idea or leave it; the choice is yours. With that said there are people who want to add elements to the game that have a historical foundation like paratroopers.
I’ve been playing Axis since the 80’s and have used plenty of expansions, and house rules. I personally like having the paratrooper option and have used them for years. Not sure if it was Xeno or Gamers Paradise that first turned me on to the idea. Over the years I’ve come to use the following rules.
Only the major powers are allowed to build paratroopers. It is not a tech and can be purchased as early as the first turn.
Paratroopers cost 1 extra IPC to convert an infantry. Max of 4 paratroopers in play at any time. Once converted to a paratrooper it will remain so until destroyed.
I’ve used both bombers and air transports to deploy the units. In either case the paratrooper and the air unit must begin the turn from the same territory. Also each plane can only carry 1 paratrooper.
For air transports we use a cost: 12, move: 4, attack: N/A, defense: 1 (D6), 2 (D12), 3 (D20). Air transports can also carry 2 infantry during the non-combat movement phase. Starting set-up for air transports: Germany 2, Britain 1, Japan 1, Russia 0, US 1.
The biggest issue with adding new rules & ideas is maintaining game balance. I don’t feel like using paratrooper this way is unbalancing at all.
The most common rule is to pay 1 IPC and one bomber can carry one airborne unit ( use oob rules for this). Everyone should start with this tech BTW.
Both must start at air base. So the limit is determined by number of bombers that can carry.
In battle they fire at 2 in first round and 1 after that, and they must fight to the death unless you also attacked from separate adjacent land area.
Bombers can still fight in the turn they are used to drop off Infantry.
Thats all you need.
Pretty much what IL said.
Notice how he importantly left out the ability to transport units during NCM.
NCM air transportation is my only real gripe with the whole shebang.
Without having to account for NCM transportation, there is really no need for the air transport piece.
It can be imaginary, or a bomber can sub in.
Air transportation was used rarely. And when it was used, it was used for paratrooping.
Beyond that it was used to transport supplies more than men. (over the hump and into Stalingrad were bullets and beans not men)
Sure, you are going to find some examples otherwise.
But, in order of priority, air assets were used in this order: (fuel, aircraft, trained pilots)
1. Air Reconnaissance
2. Air Combat
3. Strategic Warfare
4. Paratrooper Operations
5. Resupply Operations
6. Mobility Operations (NCM transportation)
It’s total war. You don’t use your scarce resources to accomplish a task slightly faster, if the alternative is 10x safer, 10x cheaper (walking to Moscow)
I left it out because most systems don’t use them in NCM.
If you wanted that, you might say:
In NCM the Bomber can transport 2 infantry, ( you still need to pay for Infantry upgrade)
And the thing is the Bomber can only do this ( not perform in combat or SBR)
The infantry fight normally at 1-2, ( not 2 in first round)
….but I don’t want that. Because that isn’t realistic.
NCM air transportation of brigades/corps/divisions and all their support staff and cargo isn’t plausible considering its 100x safer and more efficient to transport all that on the ground.
It might not be plausible, but I admit it is possible.
But to be translated into game terms that sort of transportation could only be done airbase to airbase, and the plastic piece to do it with would probably cost like 15 IPCs considering its as many actual planes and men as a bomber wing.
Well in 6 month turns, moving 2 infantry units by air could be possible.
For the game, it works as a tool for cash poor nations that have no navy and usually the bomber is used in combat.
But the option adds alot to the game because you can still reinforce areas separated by sea zones.
I prefer that units are like in a “tool box” and each have some unique value to solve a game problem.
Air Transportation was done by only the wealthiest nations, particularly us.
It was done for special reasons, important parts, personnel, important communiques and documents.
Or out of desperation……because there was no alternative.
Line infantry. Boots and Bayonet kind of guys, never even got on a plane in WWII.
Thats my point. I don’t want to see Germany with 5 Air Transports in West Germany cycling back and forth, carrying troops to the front lines.
In reality, they could have done that. But it would have been so cost prohibitive that it would have been deemed insane. (right up Hitler’s alley)
I don’t want to see Germany with 5 Air Transports in West Germany cycling back and forth, carrying troops to the front lines.
That would mean buying 5 bombers, and not using them during the turn. That is already expensive.
AS for nations not having the notion of air transport, you might look at a number of rules that allow all nations the same ability though they never had this ability… and remember it is a game, and giving options for players is part of the fun factor.
Like I said I’ve played both versions bombers & air transports for paratroopers. There are advantages to both systems.
A bomber version system makes bombers very valuable, and a good investment. A triple threat if you will: strategic bombing, tactical bombing, and para-drops. Plus these units have a range of 6 making defending against paratroopers more problematic. Personally I disagree with imperious leader allowing bombers to also attack during the first cycle of combat. Again, my opinion.
An air transport version makes para-dropping an investment for players. Lets be realistic, one paratrooper isn’t going to be much more than annoying. To pose a real threat with paratroopers, players would have to make a considerable investment buying enough air transports. I think a cost of 12 IPCs is reasonable. Too much more makes them too expensive and not worth the reward. I’ve found using a range of 4 for these units makes it easier to defend against. I also feel if players want to use air transports they should evaluate changing their starting set-up to include them.
As for regular troops never getting into a plane, as I understand it, I believe they did.
Example: operation Flax where Allied forces shut down the air bridge from Africa to Italy. Germany was evacuating troops from Africa via air transports.
Personally I disagree with imperious leader allowing bombers to also attack during the first cycle of combat. Again, my opinion.
That is only because im going with no new piece and using the Bomber for double duty.
Of course with HBG, we got the transport plane for USA and a few others.
If using a dedicated unit, 0-0-6-12 and treated as naval transport ( cant be used to take hits-no fodder).
Again, compare the numbers of men transported by axis aircraft from Africa to what was actually there.
In realistic terms, perhaps 6 Infantry were in Africa, and you evacuated maybe 1.
Is it really even worth allowing for this sort of movement? Considering how very few men it actually effects, balanced with the fact that odd attacks might happen because of plentiful paratroopers.
Really, it would be 1000x more simple to just allow all powers start with paratroopers, but each paratrooper launched from an air base adds 1 damage to it.
And if you REALLY wanted air transit. Allow one infantry to teleport to any other friendly air base within 6 spaces (again, adding 1 damage to the base)
IL,
@Imperious:
Well in 6 month turns, moving 2 infantry units by air should be possible.
But the option adds alot to the game because you can still reinforce areas separated by sea zones.
––This seems very logical.
I prefer that units are like in a “tool box” and each have some unique value to solve a game problem.
––This allows the player the option to make his own command decisions.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/I/AAF-I-9.html
It seems we almost always agree on things. Although I prefer having an on-board
Air Transport unit while it seems you prefer either a Bomber OR an Air Transport.
@Imperious:
Personally I disagree with imperious leader allowing bombers to also attack during the first cycle of combat. Again, my opinion.
That is only because im going with no new piece and using the Bomber for double duty.
Of course with HBG, we got the transport plane for USA and a few others.
If using a dedicated unit, 0-0-6-12 and treated as naval transport ( cant be used to take hits-no fodder).
“Tall Paul”
Maofactor,
@Maofator:
An air transport version makes para-dropping an investment for players. Lets be realistic, one paratrooper isn’t going to be much more than annoying. To pose a real threat with paratroopers, players would have to make a considerable investment buying enough air transports.
––I couldn’t agree more.
I think a cost of 12 IPCs is reasonable. Too much more makes them too expensive and not worth the reward. I’ve found using a range of 4 for these units makes it easier to defend against.
––Our ideas are very close, only differing in “details”.
I also feel if players want to use air transports they should evaluate changing their starting set-up to include them.
**I politely disagree with you here. I believe this would alter the 1st combat/NC moves without the defense being able to prepare/react. Don’t you?**�
As for regular troops never getting into a plane, as I understand it, I believe they did.
––Yep.
Example: operation Flax where Allied forces shut down the air bridge from Africa to Italy. Germany was evacuating troops from Africa via air transports.
––Numerous examples available.
We think quite a bit alike on this.
“Tall Paul”
IL,
@Imperious:
AS for nations not having the notion of air transport, you might look at a number of rules that allow all nations the same ability though they never had this ability…
––Such as Anzac allowed to buy battleships.
and remember it is a game
––Yes, a Game.
, and giving options for players is part of the fun factor.
––Options are FUN.
“Tall Paul”
Id rather have player options than strict Historical accuracy. And usually, im the one who forwards the more Historical based rules.
You can’t go wrong with the rules i posted, except perhaps you might try 3 attack in first round only, rather than 2.
IL,
I bow to your keen insight & vast knowledge about A&A gaming. I still have slightly differing preferences than you concerning Paratroopers & Air Transports, but it’s in the details only.
Thanks for your input.
I can’t wait until I have 'Troopers painted for all nations(except China, of course). ––“Geronimo”
“Tall Paul”
To be realistic, the piece would have to look like this.
Move - 6, Attack - 0, Defense - 0, Cost - 9
Special Rules:
Transport - Air transports can carry two infantry, which act as paratroopers during combat, or may exit in friendly territory during non-combat.
With this rule, air transportation will be cheaper than using ships, and that is in fact blatant ahistorical.
I think Air Transport Plane should cost 15 IPC and carry one infantry. Then this unit will see normal action for WWII, and not turn the game into a 1973 Cold War simulation.
Razor,
@Imperious:
Of course with HBG, we got the transport plane for USA and a few others**(Italy & now Germany)**.
If using a dedicated unit, 0-0-6-12 and treated as naval transport ( cant be used to take hits-no fodder).
––These are the A/D/C/M rules I prefer.
––Along with paradropping ONE Paratrooper.
––or n/c air transporting TWO regular Infantry.
––Both would require STARTING their turns at an AirBase.
––What do you think about these?
“Tall Paul”
