Transport planes

[SEP]

I’ve been playing the 1984 MB version for almost 30 years.  We’ve done some interesting HR’s here and there.  One thing we use to do was have a transport plane.  Instead of a bomber being used as a bomber, we would allow it to be used to transport 2 infantry as paratroops to be dropped into a territory within R6.  The player would make the choice of whether the bomber was to be used as a bomber or as a transport, it couldn’t do both.  It made for many interesting tactical choices in these games.

Now we’re playing the 1942 second edition as per the rules.  But I still have all my 1984 pieces (and the whole game actually).  So it would be easy to differentiate between actual bombers and those used as transports only. I’d just have to figure a reasonable cost in IPC’s.  In the classic game, a bomber was 15 IPC so we kept it at that for buying transports.  In the 1942 2E version the bomber is 12 IPC.  Perhaps 10 IPC for the transport-only?

Just tossing this out there.  Curious if anyone ever did this as well?

[Witt]

I think range needs to be reduced to 4, otherwise sounds like a good idea. Perhaps restrict the number allowed per nation too.

[SEP]

I think reducing the range on a transport-only plane to R4 is reasonable.  How many transport-only planes would you suggest per nation?  Do you feel that a cost of 10 IPC’s is reasonable, or should it cost the same as an actual bomber?

Given that I have all the 1984 version bombers, which differ from the 1942.2 bombers, it would be easy to know which was which.

We really like this in the classic games as you really had to pay close attention to how you reinforced your countries, particularly crucial countries and capitals.

[Witt]

Keep the same price, I think.
I have been thinking since I posted, how dropping two Inf might be a touch too powerful. Should it be just the one?
I suppose one Transport per nation. You could allow the US two.

[SEP]

Same price as a normal bomber is reasonable.  I should add the caveat that this should be a purchased unit and not part of the starting OOB.  Having a transport-only plane from the git-go would be pretty tough on G.B.

[baron Münchhausen]

@wittmann:

Keep the same price, I think.
I have been thinking since I posted, how dropping two Inf might be a touch too powerful. Should it be just the one?
I suppose one Transport per nation. You could allow the US two.

I agree.
That’s the same capacity of transport without the risk of being a sitting duck and a lot of moving points.

[SEP]

Okay, I’ll toss this out for consideration;  if we’re to limit the number of infantry the transport-only plane can carry to one, could it be one unit as opposed to one infantry?  Would it be reasonable to allow it to carry one artillery or one tank (with the caveat that where it is dropped is where it stays until the next turn)?

Thoughts…

[baron Münchhausen]

@SEP:

Okay, I’ll toss this out for consideration;  if we’re to limit the number of infantry the transport-only plane can carry to one, could it be one unit as opposed to one infantry?  Would it be reasonable to allow it to carry one artillery or one tank (with the caveat that where it is dropped is where it stays until the next turn)?

Thoughts…

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.

But from a game perspective, it could probably be balance with cost and some risk of flying above enemy’s AAA unit.

The danger is to change the game from a main naval transport ones to a mainly Air Transport ones.
The central territories are the main stakes. Being able to reach it faster, is a game changer against Axis.

In my game, for instance, Air Transport (A0 D0 M5 C8, can be destroyed by AAA but not the Infantry unit, which always land safely) can only move 1 Infantry from departure TT to another, then AT can come back or stay there, if it is a friendly territory.

[SEP]

@Baron:

In my game, for instance, Air Transport (A0 D0 M5 C8, can be destroyed by AAA but not the Infantry unit, which always land safely) can only move 1 Infantry from departure TT to another, then AT can come back or stay there, if it is a friendly territory.

So your Air Transport only costs 8, is there a limit to how many you can buy in your game?  What made you choose M5 rather than 4 or 6?  How is all that working for you?  Really thinking of adding this to the 1942.2 but want it to be a balance HR as well as a viable one.

And I appreciate everyone’s input  :-)

[barney]

The para tech wouldn’t be a bad way to go. Bomber, in this case transport, can carry 1 inf into battle. 2 with heavy bmbr tech. Must stop upon 1st enemy TT.

NCM could move 4. I think I’d let them drop off and fly back in ncm. 2 there, drop off, fly back. Price is kinda hard. Maybe start with 12 and see how it goes. Agree with limit per country. 84 board is a lot smaller than global so yea maybe 1 and 2 for US as per wittman’s suggestion.

Definitely liven the game up a little. : )

[baron Münchhausen]

@SEP:

@Baron:

In my game, for instance, Air Transport (A0 D0 M5 C8, can be destroyed by AAA but not the Infantry unit, which always land safely) can only move 1 Infantry from departure TT to another, then AT can come back or stay there, if it is a friendly territory.

So your Air Transport only costs 8, is there a limit to how many you can buy in your game?  What made you choose M5 rather than 4 or 6?  How is all that working for you?  Really thinking of adding this to the 1942.2 but want it to be a balance HR as well as a viable one.

And I appreciate everyone’s input  :-)

I have not enough play-test with it to give a warranty ATP at 8 IPCs is not too cheap.
5 move provides more long range Non-combat move while still restrict the long distance back and forth to only 2 TTs away (as any Fgs).
The 5 moves allows more mobility to change from 1 starting TT to another for the next turn, without getting the powerful 3 TTs back and forth of bombers.

[barney]

Solid reasoning on the 5 Baron. Maybe 2 inf carry or 1 arty. Arty can ncm only. IDK if small artillery or AT pieces were air transported or not. It seems like they would’ve been. But once again IDK.

[Argothair]

I’m having trouble imagining how I would make good use of a transport plane – what kinds of situations would they be best in? I could see them being a decent way of getting some infantry from London to Africa if the Nazis control the sea lanes, but it would have to wait until next turn to make the return trip. If the transport planes had a range of 6, I could see them being useful for Pacific island-hopping or for raiding the money islands, but the range of 5 makes island-hopping very challenging unless you let transport planes land on carriers.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

I’m having trouble imagining how I would make good use of a transport plane – what kinds of situations would they be best in? I could see them being a decent way of getting some infantry from London to Africa if the Nazis control the sea lanes, but it would have to wait until next turn to make the return trip. If the transport planes had a range of 6, I could see them being useful for Pacific island-hopping or for raiding the money islands, but the range of 5 makes island-hopping very challenging unless you let transport planes land on carriers.

Probably very game fictional idea to conquer Islands with paratroopers.

On 1942.2 map:
5 moves allows to make 1 single travel from West US to Eastern Australia and from Eastern Australia to India.
Or from UK to Moscow in 1 turn.
Or from Eastern USA to UK in 1 turn.
Or from Eastern Canada to Archangel.
All this is impossible with a 4 moves plane.

For Africa, UK will find that Gibraltar is a mandatory way-point.
Needing 2 turns to get back and forth is not so different than Naval Transport.

[SEP]

@Baron:

ATP at 8 IPCs is not too cheap.
5 move provides more long range Non-combat move while still restrict the long distance back and forth to only 2 TTs away (as any Fgs).
The 5 moves allows more mobility to change from 1 starting TT to another for the next turn, without getting the powerful 3 TTs back and forth of bombers.

What was your reason for choosing C8 as opposed to 10,11 or 12?  I’m assuming you can build more than one in your game?  I like the R5 as well.

[SEP]

@Argothair:

I’m having trouble imagining how I would make good use of a transport plane – what kinds of situations would they be best in? I could see them being a decent way of getting some infantry from London to Africa if the Nazis control the sea lanes, but it would have to wait until next turn to make the return trip. If the transport planes had a range of 6, I could see them being useful for Pacific island-hopping or for raiding the money islands, but the range of 5 makes island-hopping very challenging unless you let transport planes land on carriers.

1.  Makes the opponent take a hard look at how they reinforce.  If they leave a country wide open it provides the opportunity to air drop an infantry into it (behind enemy lines as it were) to capture.  Could be a mere annoyance all the way to causing a real problem.

2.  Allows the opportunity to get a few troops closer to/in the action quicker.

3.  Brings a whole new tactical consideration to Asia and Russia’s back door i.e. it allows Japan an opportunity as well as Russia/G.B. in reinforcing Asia differently.  Could allow the Allies an opportunity to hang on to the China territories just a bit better albiet at a cost in IPC for the Allies.

[SEP]

Also gives everyone another reason to purchase AAA guns and place them in spots you maybe normally wouldn’t before.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SEP:

@Baron:

ATP at 8 IPCs is not too cheap.
5 move provides more long range Non-combat move while still restrict the long distance back and forth to only 2 TTs away (as any Fgs).
The 5 moves allows more mobility to change from 1 starting TT to another for the next turn, without getting the powerful 3 TTs back and forth of bombers.

What was your reason for choosing C8 as opposed to 10,11 or 12? I’m assuming you can build more than one in your game? I like the R5 as well.

It could be as well a 9 IPCs unit, to get a 1 IPC increment:
Air Transport 9 IPCs
Fighter 10 IPCs
Tactical Bomber 11 IPCs
Strategic Bomber 12 IPCs.

It probably cannot be the same price than a Naval Transport at 7 IPCs, hence at least 8 IPCs cost.

If you want it to be able to load and unload Artillery units, it should goes higher than 9 IPCs.
Because with 2 ATP, you can be able to rapidly deploy 1 Inf + 1 Art (a pretty good offensive/defensive match) almost everywhere in the center map.
USA has enough IPCs to provide them where it is needed.
I’m pretty sure that you gain a lot of flexibility.
Example, from Western USA, you can export such units into Soviet Far East on US2 (2*12 IPCs ATPs +7 IPCs Inf+Art= 31 IPCs)
And supply a steady flow of 2 Inf and 2 Art, on US3, going back and forth.

This would drastically change the game pace, IMO.

Think about how much time, it can take to do the same via Naval Transport… (and the need to have enough warships to protect them…)

Giving only 1 Infantry to load and unload for ATP is essentially providing a defensive unit with a lot of limitation when attacking by itself.
Some player input that Infantry paratrooper should get A2 in the first combat round.

[SEP]

@Baron:

It could be as well a 9 IPCs unit, to get a 1 IPC increment:
Air Transport 9 IPCs
Fighter 10 IPCs
Tactical Bomber 11 IPCs
Strategic Bomber 12 IPCs.

I like that line up.

I’m leaning towards the ATP just being able to load/deliver 1 infantry unit.  That way it provides an option w/o making it OP.  And that’s about right considering a transport ship is much larger than a plane, thus it should be able to do two units and the ATP only one.

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.

Good discussion.

[CWO Marc]

@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.