AARHE: Phase 2: Units

[Micoom]

What about;

PARATROOPERS
Description: Paratroopers are your nations airborne troops and could be dropped in the country you want to attack, “behind enemy lines”.

Cost: 3
Attack:1* on 2 before First round combat
Defend:2
Move: 1 * Paratroopers ability only applies when dropped by transport plane. Otherwise like normal infantry movement.
Special Ability; preemptive attack for the first round of combat (for the surprise factor)

TRANSPORT PLANE
Description: Transport planes are your trannies in the sky, but have a far larger reach.
Cost: 10
Attack:0
Defend:1 (or 0)
Move 8 or 6 like bomber
Special Ability; able to carry and drop 2 para’s in the combact move or transport 2 infantry or 1 artillery or 1 armor in the non combat move. (from one friendly territory to the other)

You could use the MB game bombers for these, or just use a bomber with a marker below.

[Imperious Leader]

This is good. I think paratroopers are a great idea. However a transport plane could also be incorporated with the regular bomber piece ( using it twice 1) in combat 2) in non-combat as transport)

[Guerrilla Guy]

I think Paratroopers should be considered “one” with their respective planes and/or gliders… Transport Planes were used as supply carriers to non-hostile areas or transported Paras and if you aren’t going to make Airdropped Lend-Lease, then that element shouldn’t be necessary. If these paras survive combat then they should be allocated back to their home territory, i.e. Britain automatically (if Desired)…

Paratroopers
Description: Glider and Aircraft deployed Infantry that can preform devestating attacks against an enemies military infrastructure.
Cost: 5
Attack: 1 (2 on first round of combat)
Defense: 2
Move: 1(special deployment move; see below)
Special Ability: Preemptive fire in the first round of Combat.
Deployment: Paratroopers are considered the Paratroopers themselves as well as the Transport planes that Carry them. After a successful Battle the player has the option of re-deploying them to the Territory they were deployed from. They may not make this move at any other time. Note that they are considered “planes” so they are included in the “AA Fire” Cycle.

GG

[Imperious Leader]

Ok that looks like a “cut” in movie talk. I like that very much anybody has anything else to add to paratroopers? Air transport plane again can be incorporated into the bomber functions. I think a necessary unit for air would be a naval fighter which is only carrier based plane ideas?

[Guerrilla Guy]

thankyou… I aim to please… I forgot to add that Airborne may be deployed up to 3 Spaces away…

[tekkyy]

Paratroops preemptive strike?

I think of it the other way around.
Many are dead before they land.

I reckon they can’t attack in the first round.
But thats gonna be weird.

[Imperious Leader]

I dont mind that because they have limited value because their are no supply rules or terrain  modifiers and a unit with an attack value of one being dropped by a bomber is basically nothing so it has to have some hidden value to buy. Surprise is a key factor in this and a +1 represents this well. I dont like the idea of dropped 3 spaces away. At most is should be dropped 2 spaces from any friendly ground unit. Dropping these units as a paratrooper the full range of a bomber is not too historical.

[tekkyy]

If we were to model small scale paradrops it would be a cost not a whole unit (division/corp).
These small scale drops are not battles but missions like reinforcement or economic attacks.

How about paartroops inflitrating and attacking ICs so production capacity is reduced next turn lol…

And I am patiently waiting for comments on my earlier post.  :-)

I think its weird for destroyers to attack stronger when enemy forces consists of one or more submarines.

I think AA should hit on a 1 followed by 4. Thats 11.1%. Actually the 10% figure has been said a lot, do we have any references?

[Guerrilla Guy]

That is interesting but since we cannot represent their true scale of operation I don’t think it is a wise idea to try to add something that never was achieved… I have never heard of Airborne attacking IC installations… I think that an more interesting ability (since they did disable AA guns) would be:

Demolition Team: Paratroopers may attack AA Guns before they roll in the pre-battle phase. AA Guns roll as normal against the Paratroopers before they land. If the paratroopers land they can choose to forfeit their preemptive fire ability and can instead attempt to disable the AA Gun. roll one dice per Paratrooper involved. if a 2 or less is rolled, the AA Gun is disabled and may not attack Aircraft involved in the Battle.

thoughts?

GG

[Imperious Leader]

LOL your doing what i typically do… bring up rules from your game and entice us! ahh haa i see it! LMFAO.

[Guerrilla Guy]

cool… I rarely cause IL to laugh his… anyways do you like it?

BTW WW2 is starting in my post count :mrgreen:

[Imperious Leader]

I have some commando rules for another game. IN this module the aa guns is going to be abtracted into the value of the IC as part of its defense and the “piece” is going to be a new heavy artillery/ coastal defense gun. So we are recycling the existing piece into something more constructive.

I think those rules are fine for a specific game featuring more battle focus.

[tekkyy]

I don’t understand.
With direction of the project, historic details and accurate modelling…why would you abstract the antiaircraft guns?
We are introducing more than 1 new units anyway so we need not recycle. We need new or specially marked pieces either way.

I think not only production regions had flak guns.
I think Germany deployed more antiaircraft guns in certain areas as Allies performed more bombing runs.
I think it is more dangerous to bomb fortified areas.

If you insist on abstracting on into IC then let put heavy flak (88mm-120mm) into ICs and leave the original piece to represent mobile flak divisions. In which case the heavy flak could hit with (1 on D6) 16.6% while light flak could hit with (1 on D6 followed by 3onD6) 8.3%.

(And then we’ve still got your idea of damaging but not killing planes…)

The light flak could cost 3 IPCs.
The heavy flak should still be purchasable. It is shown as chips under the IC. Cost 5 IPCs. Up to 3.

I just think its overly abstract if antiaircraft density is left out.

[tekkyy]

@Guerrilla:

That is interesting but since we cannot represent their true scale of operation I don’t think it is a wise idea to try to add something that never was achieved… I have never heard of Airborne attacking IC installations…

You’re right. I pulled that out of my ass. Paratroopers attacking factories lacks a little realism.  :lol:

[Imperious Leader]

With direction of the project, historic details and accurate modelling…why would you abstract the antiaircraft guns?
We are introducing more than 1 new units anyway so we need not recycle. We need new or specially marked pieces either way.

++++++++ so your saying to use a new piece for AA guns? or use the same piece with a “mark” on the aa gun so it can be used as something else?

I think not only production regions had flak guns.
I think Germany deployed more antiaircraft guns in certain areas as Allies performed more bombing runs.
I think it is more dangerous to bomb fortified areas.

++++++++ well aa guns can be installed anywhere… i proposed before that in every home territory or in just VC territories their could be an aa gun defense during any flyover of enemy planes. we dont need some unit to represent this do we?

If you insist on abstracting on into IC then let put heavy flak (88mm-120mm) into ICs and leave the original piece to represent mobile flak divisions. In which case the heavy flak could hit with (1 on D6) 16.6% while light flak could hit with (1 on D6 followed by 3onD6) 8.3%.

++++++++I was think along the same lines except this would be the difference in factories vs. VC territories, one being a heavy concentration, while the other being lighter elements of AA flak batteries. I just dont know why these rules regarding aa guns need a damm PIECE, BECAUSE they are largely fixed deployments. the piece to me only represents the idea that the gun can be moved and i dont feel thats enough of a reason to commit to a “piece”

(And then we’ve still got your idea of damaging but not killing planes…)

The light flak could cost 3 IPCs.
The heavy flak should still be purchasable. It is shown as chips under the IC. Cost 5 IPCs. Up to 3.
I just think its overly abstract if antiaircraft density is left out.

++++++++++The trick is whether or not these flak battleries represent a major cost that can be (or should be) brought into the same level as say a “panzer corps” or a major fleet of destroyers… is the cost something that is on the same level as major military expenditures? this will take further reflection… the ideas you have brought up will be appropriate if the answer is YES. lets do some research to get to the truth…

[HMS Onslow]

Where flak batteries a major cost? Yep. In September '43, about a million people (many of them kids and women, though) were mannintg German AA defences, which used 8,876 of the superb “88” anti-tank/ant-aircraft guns, and 24,500 light AA guns and 7,000 searchlights.

Of course, the economic loss on the Allies in using many of their best men and most high-tech weapons to bomb German houses and fields (accuracy was terrible, factories extremely hard to destroy) was arguably higher than the cost to teh Germans, but there WAS a cost to the Axis.

By the way, if we’re searching for realism, allowing bombers to carry paratroops is extremely UN-realistic. Some obsolete bombers were used for paras when there was nothing else, but rarely; and I don’t think useful bombers ever carried paras.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

++++++++ so your saying to use a new piece for AA guns? or use the same piece with a “mark” on the aa gun so it can be used as something else?

No I just hope to use the original AA gun piece.

++++++++ well aa guns can be installed anywhere… i proposed before that in every home territory or in just VC territories their could be an aa gun defense during any flyover of enemy planes. we dont need some unit to represent this do we?

Nope I am sugguesting a little chip placed under the IC to represent this. But thats only necessary if you buy my argument that you should be allowed to beef up defenses at ICs.

++++++++I was think along the same lines except this would be the difference in factories vs. VC territories, one being a heavy concentration, while the other being lighter elements of AA flak batteries. I just dont know why these rules regarding aa guns need a damm PIECE, BECAUSE they are largely fixed deployments. the piece to me only represents the idea that the gun can be moved and i dont feel thats enough of a reason to commit to a “piece”

Oh thats from my funny idea of turning it on the side when first built to show its not deployed yet and can’t fire. You then move it in non-combat to the front line and deploy them by turning upright. I guess alternatively we can use something else to show its movement and deployment from the IC to the frontline.

++++++++++The trick is whether or not these flak battleries represent a major cost that can be (or should be) brought into the same level as say a “panzer corps” or a major fleet of destroyers… is the cost something that is on the same level as major military expenditures?

Yeap I haven’t forgotten your arguement that its not at corps level. I hope its not too bad I mean ICs can’t be moved and we have a piece for it too. I am just thinking that AA can be used as a new piece shouldn’t be part of the arguement as we are gonna need more than one since we are introducing several units.

[tekkyy]

@HMS:

Yep. In September '43, about a million people (many of them kids and women, though) were mannintg German AA defences, which used 8,876 of the superb “88” anti-tank/ant-aircraft guns, and 24,500 light AA guns and 7,000 searchlights.

Quote the article too so I can hope for the AA piece to remain hehe :lol:

Though I doubt much of the 1 millon kids and women were on the frontline. Probably mostly at ICs/cities.

[HMS Onslow]

The figure is from Max Hastings’ book “Bomber Command”. Hastings is a very respected war correspondent, Falklands etc and his research is pretty good. There’s similar info from Speer available in Galbraith etc.

Yep, you’re right, the women and kids (well teenagers) were in the cities. Because the Germans didn’t use women in industry like the allies did, their work in AA wasn’t such as loss to war production. The amount of guns and ammo WAS significant I think.

I think the idea that ICs have their own integral AA is a good one, and it would free the AA guns to be moved around in the role of mobile AA - or even used alongside the IC so they IC has its own AA PLUS the AA gun as well.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok i ask you both this:

Why arent AA guns represented in basically any other strategic wargame? I dont see where they are used in Third Reich or and classic wargame from SPI… so why are they even represented in a game which is soo abtracted in every respect than many games… how does this level of abstraction indicate a need a a specific AA gun piece, where clearly this need wasnt found in far more complicated and empassing games covering the same scope of the war???