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.
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!
Then we should just make everything cheaper than 10 IPC …so Italy can buy them? You make the point that Italy can’t afford them at 10 IPC, but at the same time by making this same claim to any plane or most naval units they cant buy them either. The solution is NOT to imbalance the game.
At 5 IPC US player can buy 10 and land 10 infantry each turn by staging infantry in UK and don’t need to buy any fleet to protect them. That is ridiculous! It would be cheaper to just buy Air Transports and not even have fleets. Heck on G1 Germany can buy enough to invade uk even easier than before. Sorry but 5 IPC is laughable.
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)
Yes they did, but at 5 IPC they would be able to send alot more this way. Under the new setup Italy along with other nations start with one air transport, they really should not have any greater capability than that.
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.
So at 5 IPC invading England will be easier than invading UK with 10 IPC air transports. So i guess your real point is you like that idea. You also prefer buying air transports to naval transports because at 5 IPC you ruined the balance of that piece because you got a double ranged unit for 2 IPC less.
Your 5 IPC idea brings nothing less than Starship Troopers to the game with each nation buying them in bulk and ignoring naval transport.
Naval transport 7 IPC moves 2, carries 2 infantry
Starship Trooper transport 5 IPC moves 4 carries 1 infantry
Gee which would you prefer?
for 15 IPC you can bring 3 infantry 4 spaces, or spend 14 IPC and bring 4 Infantry 2 spaces.
I guess you now see what the problem is with 5 IPC Air transports?
At 5 IPC US player can buy 10 and land 10 infantry each turn by staging infantry in UK and don’t need to buy any fleet to protect them. That is ridiculous! It would be cheaper to just buy Air Transports and not even have fleets. Heck on G1 Germany can buy enough to invade uk even easier than before. Sorry but 5 IPC is laughable.
Air transport can only drop paratrooper during combat move no infantry.
Air transport can transport infantry and paratroppers during non combat move.
Also there a a limit of 5 paratroopers (special unit) per country (Germany,USSR, Uk, USA and Japan)
2 for Italy.
So this way it’s not ridiculous and not laughable.
Your 5 IPC idea brings nothing less than Starship Troopers to the game with each nation buying them in bulk and ignoring naval transport.
Long time ago, I understood the control of the sea importance.
So no, I don’t ignore naval transport because anyway you can’t transport tank with air transport!!!
If you used the reinforcement by air startegy it’s because you lose the control of the sea and for Italian player it’s not a bad news!!!
I guess you now see what the problem is with 5 IPC Air transports?
So now I guess you understand that 5 IPC air transport is not a problem?
Air transport can only drop paratrooper during combat move no infantry.
Air transport can transport infantry and paratroopers during non combat move.
Also there a a limit of 5 paratroopers (special unit) per country (Germany,USSR, Uk, USA and Japan)
2 for Italy.
So this way it’s not ridiculous and not laughable.
Oh i see you invent new rules as we go along in this. Arbitrary rules where you limit the number of units you can drop are not AA. The price alone should justify the number of builds because no other unit is limited in any manner. To limit builds because you made the cost too cheap is not Axis and Allies. It is silly Xeno style rules.
Your 5 IPC idea brings nothing less than Starship Troopers to the game with each nation buying them in bulk and ignoring naval transport.
Long time ago, I understood the control of the sea importance.
So no, I don’t ignore naval transport because anyway you can’t transport tank with air transport!!!
If you used the reinforcement by air startegy it’s because you lose the control of the sea and for Italian player it’s not a bad news!!!
Most people just transport infantry BTW. A German sealion will contain mostly infantry and all her planes. Italy cant really afford tanks and will shuck infantry to Africa. The Japanese will take Russia with dropping 5 of these each turn behind Soviet lines. THey will also due to the 4 space reach constantly invade Alaska, Australia and other spaces just because they now got cheap air planes that bring infantry 4 spaces for 5 IPC each. Your often cited example of Italy and Germany would have them using Air transports to invade UK, and use a few naval transports for the armor. Italy also usually buys infantry so your point is moot. The US player will max out air transport every turn and land the maximum each turn, which is ahistorical. Japan will do the same against Russia and quickly block out the Russians from the border, while taking the interior.
I guess you now see what the problem is with 5 IPC Air transports?
So now I guess you understand that 5 IPC air transport is not a problem?
Now you see that artificially inventing a number of 5 out of thin air as an upper build limit is not axis and allies? It reflects nothing in terms of capabilities of the nations involved. Its just an invented rule you just made up to cover the fact that you made air transport ridiculously cheap.
If they are 10 IPC the nations will buy them sparingly, each player will start with one in the setup. Thats all you need.
The price alone should justify the number of builds because no other unit is limited in any manner. To limit builds because you made the cost too cheap is not Axis and Allies. It is silly Xeno style rules.
Oh I see…so you can build 12 paratroopers and so for you is historical?
Special units like paratroopers must have limits
The Japanese will take Russia with dropping 5 of these each turn behind Soviet lines. THey will also due to the 4 space reach constantly invade Alaska, Australia and other spaces just because they now got cheap air planes that bring infantry 4 spaces for 5 IPC each. Your often cited example of Italy and Germany would have them using Air transports to invade UK, and use a few naval transports for the armor. Italy also usually buys infantry so your point is moot. The US player will max out air transport every turn and land the maximum each turn, which is ahistorical. Japan will do the same against Russia and quickly block out the Russians from the border, while taking the interior.
The limit is 5 paratroopers on the gameboard not each turn!!!
Air transport cannot land in the same territory as paratroopers.
They must return to their base or land on a friendly zone so at least 2 spaces to drop and 2 toeturn.
We play over 15 games like this and no one used air transport as you mentionned.
You know what? because good player will see this poor strategy and is going to laugh.
Build a lot of air transport and paratroopers, no more money to build anything else!!
Wow…I’m amaze!!!
Now you see that artificially inventing a number of 5 out of thin air as an upper build limit is not axis and allies? It reflects nothing in terms of capabilities of the nations involved. Its just an invented rule you just made up to cover the fact that you made air transport ridiculously cheap.
Before to say anythnig in the air…just try it.
You’re jealous because you’re not the only one has to invent ridiculous rules… :evil:
The price alone should justify the number of builds because no other unit is limited in any manner. To limit builds because you made the cost too cheap is not Axis and Allies. It is silly Xeno style rules.
Oh I see…so you can build 12 paratroopers and so for you is historical?
Special units like paratroopers must have limits
If you did that and spent 12 X 10 or 120 IPC to build that nonsense, you would have lost the game. Thats why you make them refect their ability, so the economics will take care of the ‘historical’
If you made 5 IPC battleships, every nation will always have 5 battleships. But this is not AA or historical either. The PRICE justifies the economics of the buy, not the Xeno rules or artificial limits because they invented a game breaker
The Japanese will take Russia with dropping 5 of these each turn behind Soviet lines. THey will also due to the 4 space reach constantly invade Alaska, Australia and other spaces just because they now got cheap air planes that bring infantry 4 spaces for 5 IPC each. Your often cited example of Italy and Germany would have them using Air transports to invade UK, and use a few naval transports for the armor. Italy also usually buys infantry so your point is moot. The US player will max out air transport every turn and land the maximum each turn, which is ahistorical. Japan will do the same against Russia and quickly block out the Russians from the border, while taking the interior.
The limit is 5 paratroopers on the gameboard not each turn!!!
Air transport cannot land in the same territory as paratroopers.
They must return to their base or land on a friendly zone so at least 2 spaces to drop and 2 toeturn.
We play over 15 games like this and no one used air transport as you mentionned.
Thats what i am saying, every turn each player will have 5 of these 5 IPC air transports and attack some NEW PLACE WITH 5 more infantry EACH TURN. 5 different places with one infantry each or just one either way the game is broken. Germany lands 5 in Russia, and Italy does the same, both from Romania into Russia. Also, France is 2 spaces from UK.
Also paratroopers are just infantry, not a new unit. The air transport is supposed to support the OOB rules from the game of which paratroopers are just normal infantry. Because YOU have them as specialized units does not mean FMG has them that way. You must take the OOB rules and build the air transport around that. Because it works in some completely different set of house rules and map does not mean it works for AA maps.
You know what? because good player will see this poor strategy and is going to laugh.
Build a lot of air transport and paratroopers, no more money to build anything else!!
Wow…I’m amaze!!!
Or spend 25 IPC to land another 5 infantry 4 spaces away each turn…. poor mans naval transport. You can’t argue that Italy “cant afford them at 10 IPC” then claim at 5 IPC they will have “no money for anything else”
Now you see that artificially inventing a number of 5 out of thin air as an upper build limit is not axis and allies? It reflects nothing in terms of capabilities of the nations involved. Its just an invented rule you just made up to cover the fact that you made air transport ridiculously cheap.
Before to say anythnig in the air…just try it.
You’re jealous because you’re not the only one has to invent ridiculous rules… evil
I just know it wont work. The unit is too cheap and if you start down the road of limiting units, then make the same rule for all pieces…limits on builds… but thats not AA. People dont like Xeno style rules and if they did Xeno would do much better.
If you made 5 IPC battleships, every nation will always have 5 battleships. But this is not AA or historical either. The PRICE justifies the economics of the buy, not the Xeno rules or artificial limits because they invented a game breaker
LOL…a battleship and air transport it’s not the same at all.
I just lower a bit the price of air planes including fighter and that’s not change dramaticaly the games.
I just know it wont work. The unit is too cheap and if you start down the road of limiting units, then make the same rule for all pieces…limits on builds… but thats not AA. People dont like Xeno style rules and if they did Xeno would do much better.
I’m not a fan of Xeno rules either. But a game without limit for special units like paratroopers has no sense.
It’s not because unit is cheap than player will start to use it.
If the price of air transport and let see…the destroyer is the same, it’s ridiculous.
In fact, price of unit must be different between each country anyway.
