• @SEP:

    I’ve ordered tac bombers (and mech inf) from HBG last night.  And I’ll use the classic bombers in the ATP role.  This way I’ll have a specific unit for each and no confusion.

    Alternately – or as a supplement – you could pick one or two copies of the A&A 1941 game and use its variant bombers as transport planes.  The down side, however, is that only the five main powers would get such planes in their colours, and that only two of them (the British and German bombers) would be correct design matches for their countries.

  • '17 '16

    @CWO:

    @Baron:

    From an historical POV, air transport wasn’t as develop in WWII.
    Think about the fact that Goering wasn’t able to just provide enough supply (food, ammunition and first aid kit) to Stalingrad Von Paulus’ 6th Army.

    The failure of the Luftwaffe to supply the 6th Army at Stalingrad had nothing to do with the state of development of air transportation in WWII.  The problems were that: 1) Germany didn’t have enough transport planes, 2) the range was too great, and kept getting greater as the Russians surrounding Stalingrad pushed westward, 3) the winter weather was atrocious, 4) the Russians had lots of AAA waiting for the German planes, and 5) there were too few –and eventually no – suitable landing areas under German control within the city.

    Do you know if air transport were really able to have enough cargo hold for heavy load such as Artillery pieces?


  • @Baron:

    Do you know if air transport were really able to have enough cargo hold for heavy load such as Artillery pieces?

    For practical gaming purposes, I think the best overall answer would be: no, artillery should not be considered air-transportable.  Some small field guns like the Japanese Type 92 Battalion Gun could probably be carried by plane, but my guess is that medium artillery and heavy artillery (speaking in very general terms) would be too heavy and too large for most (if not all) transport planes.  To be carried by a plane, a gun would have to be able to fit though its cargo doors, and would have to have smaller dimensions (in all three directions) than the internal dimensions of the plane’s cargo hold, and would have to be lighter than the plane’s maximum weight-carrying capacity (including lighter than what the floor of the fuselage can bear without collapsing).  Also note that artillery has a voracious appetite for ammunition, so carrying a gun somewhere by itself is only half the problem.


  • I recently added airborne to our game as a regular unit. (not a tech)

    The planes are actual transport plane molds from HBG, painted each country’s color. They cost 6 IPCs, move 4 and have no attack or defense. My pricing this way is because the TP has no attack or defense, so is basically useless unless moving troops around. TPs can take hits on defense but not fire back. Capacity is 1 troop per plane. This means that to use them, you are investing in a 6 IPC plane and a 4 IPC airborne troop, so it is 10 IPC per pop to get your airborne drops going.

    These rules limit the airborne threat to shorter range targets like Crete and such, which is the historic way they were used. If you get Long Range Aircraft tech they can then go 6.

    Our TPs can also non-combat regular infantry (1 per plane) around if they are not being used otherwise.  One mission total per TP per turn.


  • @CWO:

    @SEP:

    I’ve ordered tac bombers (and mech inf) from HBG last night.  And I’ll use the classic bombers in the ATP role.  This way I’ll have a specific unit for each and no confusion.

    Alternately – or as a supplement – you could pick one or two copies of the A&A 1941 game and use its variant bombers as transport planes.  The down side, however, is that only the five main powers would get such planes in their colours, and that only two of them (the British and German bombers) would be correct design matches for their countries.

    The classic bombers should do nicely and it will give me the opportunity to give them some use.  Thinking about it, if I need extra infantry I could use the classic units as well.  Although the colors aren’t spot on, it’s close enough so that they don’t get confused for the wrong army.  And since we’re adding several of the 1940 elements/units/rules to the 1942.2 game I can use the Classic Japanese fighters for the kamakaszi fighters.


  • @Der:

    I recently added airborne to our game as a regular unit. (not a tech)

    The planes are actual transport plane molds from HBG, painted each country’s color. They cost 6 IPCs, move 4 and have no attack or defense. My pricing this way is because the TP has no attack or defense, so is basically useless unless moving troops around. TPs can take hits on defense but not fire back. Capacity is 1 troop per plane. This means that to use them, you are investing in a 6 IPC plane and a 4 IPC airborne troop, so it is 10 IPC per pop to get your airborne drops going.

    These rules limit the airborne threat to shorter range targets like Crete and such, which is the historic way they were used. If you get Long Range Aircraft tech they can then go 6.

    Our TPs can also non-combat regular infantry (1 per plane) around if they are not being used otherwise.  One mission total per TP per turn.

    How’s this working out for your games?  What are your thoughts on the C9 and M5 we’re discussing?


  • In regards to a TP being able to carry an artillery, while tempting is probably not a good idea.  A consideration would be that a TP could drop the paratroops into a hostile zone and fly back during NCM whereas they wouldn’t be able to land in that same hostile zone to drop off the artillery.  Just my initial thoughts…


  • @SEP:

    How’s this working out for your games?  What are your thoughts on the C9 and M5 we’re discussing?

    Well if you look at the historic range of say, a German TP plane in WWII, it was less than half that of a four engine bomber. Making it a range of four is already 2/3 that of a bomber, so I personally wouldn’t make it any more than that. To me 9 is too expensive for a unit that only gets used in special situations, and has no fire value.

    Even with the cheap 6 IPC TPs, no one has bought any the last two of our games. It seems there is always something more urgent to buy than paratroops in a really close game, but the option is there anyway.

  • '17 '16 '15

    Yea I was thinking ncm only for the arty drop. Have to control TT at beginning of turn. Be able to reinforce the guys with something bigger than mortars and bazookas, or panzerfausts if your German. Fly some guns to China or wherever. Just to give it a bigger role.

    But as others have pointed out game wise, It would probably be overpowered. Especially since the game doesn’t differentiate between German 88s and US 37 pea shooters.

  • Customizer

    The only transport plane I know of that could haul heavy equipment was the Me323 Gigant. That monster could even carry a tank. However, I don’t think the Germans had very many of them and I haven’t heard of any similar plane for the Allies.
    As for transport planes in the game, I use the HBG sculpts too. They haven’t made one for UK yet, but they can use the US C-46 in tan. Here are the abilities in Global 1940:

    Attack 0, Defense 0, Move 6, Cost 8
    Subject to AA fire
    Can move 1 paratrooper in combat move to enemy territory and land in any friendly territory. MUST load at an air base.
    Can move 2 infantry in non-combat move to any friendly territory with an air base. MUST load at an air base.
    Can move 1 infantry in non-combat move from any friendly territory to any other friendly territory. Does NOT need an air base.
    If transport planes are in a territory that is attacked and all friendly combat units are destroyed and there are enemy combat units(s) remaining, transport planes are automatically destroyed. (same as sea transports)

    Very few have been purchased in any of our games so I am tempted to lower the price. However, the few times we have used them, they worked out pretty good.


  • @knp7765:

    Attack 0, Defense 0, Move 6, Cost 8
    Subject to AA fire
    Can move 1 paratrooper in combat move to enemy territory and land in any friendly territory. MUST load at an air base.
    Can move 2 infantry in non-combat move to any friendly territory with an air base. MUST load at an air base.
    Can move 1 infantry in non-combat move from any friendly territory to any other friendly territory. Does NOT need an air base.
    If transport planes are in a territory that is attacked and all friendly combat units are destroyed and there are enemy combat units(s) remaining, transport planes are automatically destroyed. (same as sea transports)

    Very few have been purchased in any of our games so I am tempted to lower the price. However, the few times we have used them, they worked out pretty good.

    I like the airbase rule.  I’m going to be incorporating the air/naval base rule into our 1942.2 game as I find it an interesting addition.  So doing what you’ve proposed would be doable.  Having the ability to take that one extra infrantry (from airbase to airbase) offers an interesting twist.  We were talking about C9 but I can see C8 as reasonable considering a sea transport is C7.  Perhaps even C7 to match the transport?  Something to toss around.

    Tempted to split the range difference to R5 like we’ve been talking about though…

  • Customizer

    Yeah, I was figuring that if they were allowed to double their capacity, then they would need the logistical support of a working air base. If they just take one infantry, then they can drop him off in a dusty field.
    Same thing with paratroopers. Since it is a combat move, I think they would need to start off at an air base but once they dropped the paratroops, they could land in any friendly territory. Of course, if they want to do another paratroop drop, it would have to wait until they got back to an air base unless you happened to buy an air base that round and place it in the territory that the transport plane landed in.
    We also allow paratroops to be dropped in enemy controlled unoccupied territories. A “behind the front lines” sort of thing. This kind of makes for a sort of infantry blitz tactic. This would be a good way of preventing enemy retreats but if your attack on the front line territory fails, then that paratroop will probably be wiped out on your enemy’s next turn.
    We also use the HBG Airborne units to represent paratroops.
    Attack 1 (2 on first combat round), Defense 2, Move 1, Cost 4

    I’ve been wondering if we should make capital territories exempt from paratroop drops.
    Say Germany has a bunch of stuff in W. Germany but Berlin is empty. The Allies control Holland/Belgium and France. It seems kind of wrong to fly a transport plane over W. Germany and take Germany’s capital with 1 paratroop. On the other hand, say the Allies also control Denmark. England could take a transport with 1 infantry through the Danish straight and land on Germany which is well within the rules. So I guess it really isn’t much different. Plus, the transport plane has to suffer AA fire. The sea transport doesn’t.

    By the way, I think that is a good idea to cut the range to 5. However, they still get the extra movement boost from an air base.

    About incorporating air and naval bases into 1942.2, I think in that case you should remove the extra movement bonus for both of them. That map is quite a bit smaller than Global and has less territories and sea zones. Giving any unit an extra movement point would be overpowering.
    Air bases could still have the scramble capability and allow transports to carry paratroops on combat moves or increase their capacity on non combat moves.
    Naval bases could still repair capital ships (you might consider making carriers capital ships as well in 1942.2). I can’t think of what naval bases do besides the movement bonus and repairing capital ships. Some people like to use naval bases in conjunction with an industrial complex and say that capital ships can only be launched from a naval base, and perhaps cruisers as well. Destroyers, Submarines and Transport ships can be launched from any territory with an industrial complex and don’t need a naval base. Just an idea.
    I’ve also heard an idea of naval bases giving that sea zone some sort of extra defensive power.


  • @knp7765:

    Yeah, I was figuring that if they were allowed to double their capacity, then they would need the logistical support of a working air base. If they just take one infantry, then they can drop him off in a dusty field.
    Same thing with paratroopers. Since it is a combat move, I think they would need to start off at an air base but once they dropped the paratroops, they could land in any friendly territory. Of course, if they want to do another paratroop drop, it would have to wait until they got back to an air base unless you happened to buy an air base that round and place it in the territory that the transport plane landed in.
    We also allow paratroops to be dropped in enemy controlled unoccupied territories. A “behind the front lines” sort of thing. This kind of makes for a sort of infantry blitz tactic. This would be a good way of preventing enemy retreats but if your attack on the front line territory fails, then that paratroop will probably be wiped out on your enemy’s next turn.

    I think allowing them to be dropped into an unoccupied enemy territory as a combat move is one of their main attractions.  This means that the attacker needs to be looking for the possibility as well as defenders making sure it doesn’t happen.  Adds a tactical twist.

    I’ve been wondering if we should make capital territories exempt from paratroop drops.

    Perhaps if the capital is unoccupied it could be exempt.  But if it is occupied I see no reason it couldn’t be allowed.  More than likely it would be part of a larger attack so it allows for an extra inf to be part of the battle.  I suppose one paratroop, by itself, going against one or two units in the capital is also a possibility and it is even a small possibility the dice roll in your favor and you take it with the one paratroop.  That’s really not much of a difference than a transport doing the same thing.

    I think, at least for the first few times, I’d allow it to be used against any unoccupied enemy territory including a capital.  Keeps everyone on their toes!

    Attack 1 (2 on first combat round), Defense 2, Move 1, Cost 4

    I like the idea of having paratroops as separate units from infantry.  I’ve not read all the rules for all the different editions, is this one of the rules/options?  Or is this a HR you guys use?  Either way I like it.  Paratroops are different than mainline infantry so costing 1 IPC more is reasonable.  I like the attack at a 2 on the first round as well.  Gives them a little something unique.  I would suppose that if a paratroop was dropped into a territory that you also had an artillery attacking that they would continue to attack at 2 like infantry?

    By the way, I think that is a good idea to cut the range to 5. However, they still get the extra movement boost from an air base.

    About incorporating air and naval bases into 1942.2, I think in that case you should remove the extra movement bonus for both of them. That map is quite a bit smaller than Global and has less territories and sea zones. Giving any unit an extra movement point would be overpowering.
    Air bases could still have the scramble capability and allow transports to carry paratroops on combat moves or increase their capacity on non combat moves.
    Naval bases could still repair capital ships (you might consider making carriers capital ships as well in 1942.2). I can’t think of what naval bases do besides the movement bonus and repairing capital ships. Some people like to use naval bases in conjunction with an industrial complex and say that capital ships can only be launched from a naval base, and perhaps cruisers as well. Destroyers, Submarines and Transport ships can be launched from any territory with an industrial complex and don’t need a naval base. Just an idea.
    I’ve also heard an idea of naval bases giving that sea zone some sort of extra defensive power.

    The differences between the 1940 and 1942.2 map was not something I had considered, glad you brought it up.  I will need to take a look at where the naval/air bases are on the 1940 map and make a reasonable conversion to the 1942.2 map.  I was looking at the 1940 global board, and if I counted right there are 36 convoy routes as well.  I’ll have to take a look at this along with the naval/air bases.

    I was thinking about it and at some point we may consider printing out a 1940 global map and using it instead. Of course, since I don’t have the 1940 games I don’t have France, China, Italy or the Anaz (sp?).  However, I still have my classic pieces so I could always substitute them for those countries.  Let’s see, Germany is now black so the classic grey could be Italy.  China, I would imagine, doesn’t last all that long so if there is enough contrast between the old and new Japan pieces I could use them perhaps.  Same with G.B. and France, I’ll have to see if there is enough contrast.  For Australia, perhaps if there is enough difference in the Russian pieces?  IDK, it’s a thought that might be workable.  And if I just keep the 1942.2 map as the one we use it shouldn’t be all that difficult to make a reasonable conversion in the number of air/naval/convoy spaces.

    Things to ponder  :-)

  • Customizer

    As usual knp great minds think alike. I allow 1 capacity for airborne assault and 2 capacity for ncm.

    I just skimmed over this topic so I haven’t super analyzed costs. But fwiw, I’m not for limiting special units when I set out my HRs generally I just adjust for cost or abilities.  So let’s say someone wants to attempt a massive airborne assault they’re going to need money.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 7
  • 13
  • 17
  • 4
  • 6
  • 3
  • 12
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

28

Online

17.0k

Users

39.2k

Topics

1.7m

Posts