Transport planes

[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.

[CWO Marc]

@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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@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?

[CWO Marc]

@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.

[Der Kuenstler]

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.

[SEP]

@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.

[SEP]

@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?

[SEP]

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…

[Der Kuenstler]

@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.

[barney]

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.

[knp7765]

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.

[SEP]

@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…

[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.
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.