Air Transport:
attack 0
defend 0
Move 4 in combat, 6 in NCM
cost 10
These are just like sea transports, except they only bring one unit in combat or two in NCM and only infantry
If used in combat they are just like OOB paratroopers for AAG40
In NCM they can move farther and have twice the capacity.
They can never fly over enemy areas that contain fighters, including sea zones ( think enemy carriers). The only way to avoid this is to escort them with fighters. If they still want to do this, then one round of combat will occur using SBR rules ( interceptors at 2, escorts at 1)
In combat transports can not be taken as loses and are always the last plane to get removed. Look at them just like sea transports in terms of how they interact in combat.
@Imperious:
Air Transport:
attack 0
defend 0
Move 4 in combat, 6 in NCM
cost 10These are just like sea transports, except they only bring one unit in combat or two in NCM and only infantry
If used in combat they are just like OOB paratroopers for AAG40
In NCM they can move farther and have twice the capacity.
They can never fly over enemy areas that contain fighters, including sea zones ( think enemy carriers). The only way to avoid this is to escort them with fighters. If they still want to do this, then one round of combat will occur using SBR rules ( interceptors at 2, escorts at 1)
In combat transports can not be taken as loses and are always the last plane to get removed. Look at them just like sea transports in terms of how they interact in combat.
I am in agreement with IL on most of this but do you think that the fighter intercept is complicating the issue and will slow the game down? The land and sea zones are after all huge areas and planes should be able to fly through without attracting attention. We do not have the always active AA guns anymore. The only AA fire or interception is when a specific target is attacked. It also seems that we have a wide variety of ideas for cost. A compromise is needed.
Well its more chrome admittedly, but to allow a non- defending unit the ability to fly over an enemy air base or enemy air units and not have some interception seems to leave a sour taste.
I guess we can just not allow this to occur and remove the single combat round options. This makes is simple. The OOB does not allow you to paratroop units more than 2 spaces from your last controlled and occupied land space, so lets keep that and for NCM make the mission 4 spaces range?
Remember, Italy will benefit from this rule because they no longer need a navy to shuck to Africa. The cost of this unit must be reasonable, but equitable based on its value to move units, or players will start buying huge fleets of air transports and just ignore the sea transports.
In our house rules bombers act as air transports and can carry two Paratroopers to and beyond the front line. These brings up a couple problems for both attackers and defenders. For attackers you have to choose wether you would rather use your bombers on SBR, as attackers or air transports. And for the defender you have to keep troops in strategic places so paratroopers cant land behind your lines. Air transports are targeted everytime they fly over a territory containing AA guns and can be intercepted by fighters if they fly over airfields containg fighters. Fighters are capable of escorting air transports. Follow SBR rules for interceptor and escort attacks, air transports do not get an attack.
Lets keep things simple people.
On the first round of combat, hits by defending fighters can be allocated to an air transport plus all its cargo if the defender so wishes. Otherwise allocate hits as normal.
If you think this might overpower ftrs, just don’t attack said territory with said paratroops. The enemy’s air force can’t be everywhere, after all (without being vulnerable to other tactics).
I have used paratroopers with great and perceived balance with these stats:
Cost: 7
Attack: -
Defense: -
Move: 5Special Abilities
Paratroopers
Air transports may transport one infantry (or elite infantry) aboard either for combat or noncombat purposes. This infantry (a.k.a. paratrooper) may be picked up or dropped off anywhere along the air transport’s flight path. Paratroopers attack and defend in exactly the same manner and at the same values as standard units. When attacking with paratroopers, any AA gun hit on an air transport also destroy the paratrooper unit aboard.Return Home After Dropping off Paratroopers
Air transports do not have an attack value because their role is to deliver troops to the battlefield. Therefore they do not participate in attacking land (or sea) battles after defending AA guns fire. After dropping paratroopers into the battlefield it is understood that they have disengaged from the battle and are returning home. As a result, they can never be chosen as causalities in battle, although the infantry they carried into battle could.Chosen Last as Causalities.
Like transports in a defending land battle air transports are chosen last as causalities. Meaning if a territory with air transports are captured by an enemy all air transports in that territory are immediately destroyed.A Note on Technology:
the current AAG40 tech chart will need to be changed. Paratroopers may be replaced with giving air transports the ability to carry two infantry (or elite infantry). Just a thought.A note to those advocating 2 infantry per air transport:
I have found this to be a bad idea since it encouraged players to fight battles with a few paratroopers some fighters and no supporting land units. Limiting to one infantry means that players will usually bring in additional supporting land units giving the unit a more historical feel.Once again Thank you FMGs.
I really like this with a small modification. Cost 10 IPC. Reason being that they would be used rather than sea transports if they had the same cost.
Also I would add: Can transport 2 INF NCM or 1 ELITE INF CM
Air Transport:
attack 0
defend 0
Move 4 in combat, 6 in NCM
cost 10These are just like sea transports, except they only bring one unit in combat or two in NCM and only infantry
so they move 5 spaces??? or 4/6 as in my idea?
What territories would start off with air transports in them? :?
@spartan:
What territories would start off with air transports in them? :?
None, you would have to purchase them. This would give you more tactical options during the game.
so they move 5 spaces??? or 4/6 as in my idea?
4 spaces not more.
Cost = 5. 10 IPC is too much!
so they move 5 spaces??? or 4/6 as in my idea?
4 spaces not more.
Cost = 5. 10 IPC is too much!
I completely disagree. There’s a reason transports cost 7 despite having no attack or defense. An air transport, that can potentially drop a unit BEHIND enemy lines, and is rarely left vulnerable (because it continues to move during non combat, unlike a naval transport) NEEDS to reflect that value in its purchase cost. Otherwise Germany can airdrop a sealion while never needing a surface navy. ugh.
10 IPC for air transport that moves 4 or 6 spaces is fine.
AP costs 7 and moves 2 and can bring 2 infantry
AT costing 10 and moving 4 in combat or 6 in NCM is a spend of 3 more IPC for an average of 3 more movement spaces, which needs to cost more or if it was 7 IPC i would never ever buy AP again.
1 infantry can move as airborne and 2 in NCM and movement at 4 in combat or 6 in NCM. This gives players really two new options: Either for airborne or air transport and enough juice in both ideas to make people consider them equal value.
If you just made it 4 spaces and carry 1 infantry and cost 7, you may have something, but i think it will turn into a fleet of air glitches due to it being 7 IPC and having players buy like 7 of these and landing the same in Africa each turn once the Italian navy is sunk.
I do see the issue of having two different movement points under my system, so to make it consistent just make them fly at 6 spaces, but carry only one infantry no matter what and cost 10 IPC
Why not have them cost 7 IPC but allow fighters and tactical bombers to intercept them as they do strategic bombers? This would cause people to protect them with more expensive fighter units (similar to protecting transports with a surface navy). Or how about tying the use of air transports to functional air bases? Say, infantry can only be loaded onto an air transport from a functional air base?
Why not have them cost 7 IPC but allow fighters and tactical bombers to intercept them as they do strategic bombers? This would cause people to protect them with more expensive fighter units (similar to protecting transports with a surface navy). Or how about tying the use of air transports to functional air bases? Say, infantry can only be loaded onto an air transport from a functional air base?
A: Tactical Bomber cannot intercept strategic bombers under current rules. They can scramble, which is different. I mention that just so it’s clear that you’re suggesting a rule change as well.
B: Chances are if your territory is being attacked and you have fighters available, they’re likely to be far more useful to defend the territory (defend at 4) than they are to intercept (at 2). So interception would probably NEVER be helpful, unless you’re talking even overflying a territory with planes (similar to the old AA rules), in which case it’ll never happen.
C: I’d argue, if they’re going to be as cheap as a naval transport, then they can only end a turn in a territory with an airbase. It wouldn’t matter if the airbase was functional (that would just give a bonus to movement).
Otherwise they absolutely should cost 10, because they’re FAR more flexible than a naval transport, even if it’s only one infantry (and especially if it’s 2 infantry NCM). Aircraft movement flexibility and transport space should cost quite a bit. Compared to a tank, it basically 3 ipcs more valuable for that movement OVER the ability to blitz (if you assume 1 ipc for the additional defense as a seperate line item). If it moves more than 4 and can drop a unit in an empty enemy space (or 2 in NCM) they should absolutely cost 10.
Why not have them cost 7 IPC but allow fighters and tactical bombers to intercept them as they do strategic bombers? This would cause people to protect them with more expensive fighter units (similar to protecting transports with a surface navy). Or how about tying the use of air transports to functional air bases? Say, infantry can only be loaded onto an air transport from a functional air base?
A: Tactical Bomber cannot intercept strategic bombers under current rules. They can scramble, which is different. I mention that just so it’s clear that you’re suggesting a rule change as well.
B: Chances are if your territory is being attacked and you have fighters available, they’re likely to be far more useful to defend the territory (defend at 4) than they are to intercept (at 2). So interception would probably NEVER be helpful, unless you’re talking even overflying a territory with planes (similar to the old AA rules), in which case it’ll never happen.
C: I’d argue, if they’re going to be as cheap as a naval transport, then they can only end a turn in a territory with an airbase. It wouldn’t matter if the airbase was functional (that would just give a bonus to movement).
Otherwise they absolutely should cost 10, because they’re FAR more flexible than a naval transport, even if it’s only one infantry (and especially if it’s 2 infantry NCM). Aircraft movement flexibility and transport space should cost quite a bit. Compared to a tank, it basically 3 ipcs more valuable for that movement OVER the ability to blitz (if you assume 1 ipc for the additional defense as a seperate line item). If it moves more than 4 and can drop a unit in an empty enemy space (or 2 in NCM) they should absolutely cost 10.
Good points kcdzim, so how about this…
Let me begin by saying these ideas would apply to an 7 or 8 IPC 0/0/4 air transport which can carry 1 infantry
A & B. Air transports are defenseless, so if a fighter intercepts it without an escort it is immediately destroyed. Also any air units that can scramble to defend can also scramble against an air transport/airborne assault (tac bomber and fighter) which would initiate an air battle similar to scrambling to defend against an amphibious assault. The infantry on board would not be “dropped” until the air battle is resolved. This way since an air transport is defenseless if it is not escorted it is automatically destroyed. Maybe this would work because air transports would require escort fighters to be used effectively. What do you think?
C. My idea of tying air transports to air bases was to restrict their movement. I like the idea of only being able to load an air transport in an air base because it restricts the movement of air transports to territories surrounding an air base. But ending a turn in an air base is a good idea as well. Maybe combining them is a good solution? Air bases are required to load troops onto an air transport and all air transports must end their turn at an air base. I like the idea of the air base being functional because that gives a way for an opponent to counter an air transport fleet with strategic bombardment. Ideas?
Air bases are required to load troops onto an air transport and all air transports must end their turn at an air base.
This definatly must be the rule for NCM of infantry. Airborne uses the OOB rules.
@Imperious:
Air bases are required to load troops onto an air transport and all air transports must end their turn at an air base.
This definatly must be the rule for NCM of infantry. Airborne uses the OOB rules.
Interesting. I like that limitation. Thoughts?
completely disagree. There’s a reason transports cost 7 despite having no attack or defense. An air transport, that can potentially drop a unit BEHIND enemy lines, and is rarely left vulnerable (because it continues to move during non combat, unlike a naval transport) NEEDS to reflect that value in its purchase cost. Otherwise Germany can airdrop a sealion while never needing a surface navy. ugh.
I totaly disagree!. you give too much importance to a secondary piece.
7 IPC or more is way too much.
Make a sealion operation with only airdrop is completly ridiculous.
You’ll never be able to do that except against a 3 years old child.
5 IPC
1 paratropper per plane. (two paratropper is too much)
Move = 4
Airplane must land on a friendly territory after the drop.
air transport cant be cheaper than 10 IPC or people will just buy them and ignore naval transports.
Your point makes no sence if you claim the German player will buy them to invade England, while at the same time advocate a LOWER PRICED AIR TRANSPORT. Under that scenario Germany will invade UK with 7 IPC Air Transports, but if they cost 10 IPC and just carry one unit in combat, that plan is foiled.
But at the same time players will buy them like Italy when they lose their fleet they can still reinforce Lybia with 2 infantry in NCM, or 1 in combat.
Also, these are 4 engine planes so the range must be longer than fighters. The OOB paratrooper rules can still apply ( not farther than 2 spaces from friendly controlled area)
air transport cant be cheaper than 10 IPC or people will just buy them and ignore naval transports.
Your point make no sense here because Italian player didn’t have enough money to buid infantry and air Transport at the same time.
I tested both ways ( lower or higer air transport price) and there was no problem with 1 5 IPC air transport.
In fact, if you are the Italian player and choose to build a lot air transport and ignore naval ships.
Good…the end is near my friend.
As UK player, I’ll be happy top invade Italy defended by your air transport fleet!
But at the same time players will buy them like Italy when they lose their fleet they can still reinforce Lybia with 2 infantry in NCM, or 1 in combat.
That’s why only 1 infantry per planes is enough. It will be hard for the Italian player to reinforce a lot.
And by the way, Italian/Germany used planes to reinforce their position during the Tunisia campain! (And they lose a lot of air transport)
Your point makes no sence if you claim the German player will buy them to invade England,
I wrote that german player cannot only used air transport to invade england even with a 5 IPC air transport because he will need more than that to invade England.
I thought my point was clear.
