I believe the complexity of handling a new infantry type would not be worth the effort of keeping up with them. To make them effective enough, you are likely to make them “balance busters” (units that upset the balance in the game).
Another problem is the balance in the purchase system. There is a delicate balance between an infantry purchase of 3 IPC, an artillery purchase of 4 IPC and an armor purchase of 5 IPC. I don’t think you can create an infantry piece that costs 4 IPC and maintain play balance because to give it additional capabilities you will almost certainly make it worth clearly more than an artillery piece rendering the artillery useless.
I agree. And if Mech Infantry is included. It would further make special infantry obsolete.
Each nation is only allowed to purchase one airborne infantryman each turn. The cost is 3 IPC. It attacks and defends on a 2, but provides no bonus to other units in the way artillery helps infantry, but may be helped by artillery as other infantry are for a +1 on their attack. An airborne infantry unit may move two spaces if it starts its turn in a territory with any type of aircraft piece (either fighter or bomber). The aircraft piece does not have to attack the same territory and in fact is not even moved with the airborne infantry piece unless the player wants to add the aircraft to the attack. The reason for this is that an aircraft piece represents a group of aircraft, not just the single aircraft type. Also note the player may move airborne infantry two spaces from one friendly territory to another without attacking. One down side is that the airborne infantry are subject to AA fire if they fly through or to an enemy territory with AA. The aircraft piece is not subject to this unless it is also flying to the same battle.
I don’t think tying airborne units is the best way to control the potential abuse or limit the use of airborne units. I think the best way to do this to charge an additional 1 or 2 IPC per airborne infantry. The additional expense will prevent excessive use and abuse but still allow players to explore the “What if” option. The additional expense though, is also essentially paying for temporary use of Transport aircraft until the Airborne unit reaches a combat zone. For example (Infanrty 3-IPC + Airborne Marker 1-IPC)
By the way, I think an Airborne Marker the best way to identify Airborne. This marker would essentially represents a group of transport aircraft. So there is no need, nor should it be required, to use other aircraft to move the airborne unit. If the player wishes to send in the paratroopers in unescorted, well that’s his choice.
I think the best way to make an Airborne Marker would be to use a chip and paint it sky blue. When you place an infantry on a skyblue chip then it designates that infantry as Airborne. After it make it’s first attack. The chip is removed and it operates as normal infantry.
I also think that an Airborne unit should be given a first round attack value of 2. After the first round it operates as normal infantry.
I have been considering giving a “preemptive” surprise attack value of 2 against any infantry or artillery units on the first round but I am not sure if this would give it too much power.
Another option to control abuse is to simply place a general cap of 4 max at any one time.
a cap on paratoopers is a horrible way to limit their use.
Black Fox, you still have not explained how allowing infantry to paradrop for the cost of 1 ipc does not make transports irrevelvant
paratoopers should be used only in certain situations and along with a large amount of conventionally deployed troops. your rules would make airborne drops the primary way to attack long distances or over water. This is historically inaccurate as i am sure you are aware.
also openeing fire attacks are used to represent suprise or long range fire capability. Paratoopers are unique becasue they can land anywere the enemy is, so for this reason along with an opneing fire attack of 2, airborne unit should be able to pick the enemy casaulties if they hit.
It is also unrealistc for units to switch between being paratoopers and infantry, besides it making for bad startagy( what if every peice could switch to any other piece), paratooper divisions from both sides retained their characteristic of having limited heavy support once they were not being used as paratoopers and regularly trained infantry obviously could not go through the intence training overnight. Imagine the whole red army flying over poland to capture Berlin.
ok more reflection:
These cost 5 IPC each and are new units. You can glue a few infantry on chips and write AB on the chip with marker or paint the chip green or grey
they are 2-2 units that move 1 and attack at 3 preemptively in the first round ( shock value) unless the defending territory has armor, then they are at 2.
Only one per bomber and it must start in same territory with bomber and the bomber can perform other duties.
Drop cannot be in capitals and the flight path cannot exceed 3 spaces from start to target.
No, all 2-2 units should be 4 IPCs.
I dont think airborne should have as much combat power as mechnized infantry and artilery, they should have a special attack where they can pick the enemy casaulty. That makes this peice a truly unique unit.
agains i do not like the idea of bombers transporting units, i think paratoopers should be able to move themselves on their own.
Well, in my opinion all infantry should defend on a two. It seems the attack will have to be either a one or a two. If you give them a 1, they are only a slightly more mobile infantry with no other benefit. If you set them at 3 IPCs, who is going to buy grunt infantry? If you set them up with an attack of 2 and charge 4 IPC, I think folks are going to buy artillery. This is why I thought giving them a little more punch would have to be offset by limiting their numbers, setting the purchase at one per turn. I think it will be very hard to prevent a balance buster without an artificial limit.
I also don’t think a 3 IPC unit should be a 1-1 unit. Why bother buying them at all?
i agree infantry should defened at two,
however airborne is different from infantry.
infantry have trucks, anti-tanks guns, anti-tank rockets, feild artillery, mortars, heavy machine guns, armored vehicles, entrenching equipment and the supplies for it.
airbourne, have recoiless rifles and maybe mountain guns
naturally infantry are going to be much stronger on the defence
in fact airborne probalby should have no attack value at all. This is due to the fact that i have no knowledge of airborne units being effective at any conventional attack.
the only attack airborne should have is a 3 or less attack at the begining of a combat where they are deployed by air and of course they get to choose the causaulty, i do not understand why no one else agrees that having airborne units choose their target is extremly realistic.
of course they should still defend at one, cost 3 to build and 3 to do an airborne attack. also they should have range of two since no airborne attack was done at a range longer than that.
If you set them at 3 IPCs, who is going to buy grunt infantry?
yes but these are costing 5 IPC and the 3 is first round, after which its 2
I also don’t think a 3 IPC unit should be a 1-1 unit. Why bother buying them at all?
you dont want to pay 3 ipcs to have a 50% chance of taking out an enemy fighter before combat begins
I think IL’s airborne are more like super soldiers than light infantry
i agree with IL, except for the IPC cost. I’ll post a full argument later.
i dont understand, why do airborne units have the same combat stats as mechnaized infantry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_forces
I consider them having a large first punch, but lacking any ability to sustain themselves w/o more support. To make them a 2-2 and cost 4, players would be inclined to buy a larger number of these.
To make them a 3-2 on first round and 2-2 and cost 5, players will not throw them under the bus. IN fact i feel players will protect them and only use them sparingly as they were used.
You also have to look at them as commandos as well as airborne infantry , which lends itself to the idea of a nice first punch. But then again they could be a 3, then fell back to 1-2 infantry starting on second round. that could work too.
I likewise do not understand why folks can’t buy into the idea that being limited to purchasing one. I consider these the elite men in the countries infantry service. These are the men in better physical shape, with the better mental toughness, and the better leaders handling missions similar to the grunt infantry, but I am willing to add on an airborne capability because it all seems to fit together well. Nations had units that were known to be stronger than average, and the elite infantry having a +1 attack capability is quite understandable. Limiting the production of elite units is also understandable because a nation isn’t going to produce high quantities of exceptional warriors.
If we are ever going to have mechanized infantry units while maintaining play balance, I can’t see paying more than 3 IPCs for airborne infantry. If we’re going to pay 3 IPCs for airborne, we have to limit them or there will be no grunt infantry. The other scenarios are not giving the airborne a big enough punch to make them worth it in the long run. And if you make the punch any bigger, then you have something crazy going on.
well if you agree that airborne units are light infantry and that they can not withstand prolonged combat and except for their initail shock value do not have much combat power, dont you think my rules are a lot better.
i think we can agree airbourne infatry should not regularly attack at 2, but i dont know of any evidence that suggests they should attack at even 1.
certainly you dont beleive that airborne units have the firepower to defend as well as infatry and artillery so why give them a defence of 2, then their just like every other land unit anyways
also as an armument agaisnt limits. fighter pilots were also rare to come by, but fighter production is not limited in the game
I guess there are some things we will have to just agree to disagree.
I wouldn’t have a problem limiting fighters either, for just the reason you give. If there were two fighters, I wouldn’t have a problem assigning all the fighters after the second purchased each turn to a lower class, say attacking and defending at -1 due to scarcity of the best pilots. Look what happened to Japan as the war went on.
We just disagree.
the problem i c with having a new resource such as quality manpower is that i consider it an econmic factor in a very uneconamic game. I think if you wanted more resources things like oil, steel and overall manpower would have to be introduced before we started putting limits on different units based on the jobs physical and technical difficulty. For that matter you would also have to but a pretty significant limits on research too.
another way my paratoopers are better is that after the opening fire they attack at zero and so will natuarally be the first caulaites (not being able to retreat or kill any units) this is accurate of course becasue it represents the high casaulties airborne units resceivied in airborne assaults.
If ariborne attacked at two or one then causalties would not be simulated accuratly at all.
So you have to do a few things with them to make them work.
They need a punch and attack at 2 is not really a punch
They need to ‘wither away’ after the first round to simulate lack of supplies
They need to not be expendable, so people wont throw them in battles every turn because they are worthless compared to other units.
They need to have some counter to thwart them as a defense and limitations of where they can land.
So how bout first round 3, all other rounds its attack at 1. In defense they are at 2
They cost 5 because at 4 they will become expendable and artillery will suffer.
They cant be dropped in capitals and not dropped too far away say 2-3 spaces ( prob say 2 like OOB rules)
also i guess you should limit quantity to 3 or 6 of these…
