Posts made by Black Fox

Out of curiosity.  If there were an air transport aircraft what do you think the value and stats should be?

Here is my idea.

IPC  10
Att  0
Def  0
Range 4 (maybe 6?)

Can carry 1 infantry or 1 artillery.

Can deliver 1 infantry for airborne assault.

Unfortunately I’ve been too busy to reply to this thread recently.

For the most part I am about 95% in agreement with IL.

Paratrooper were shock troops and not commando.  I agreed with a 2 or 3 attack value for the first round only to represent suprise/shock value and possibly reduce those units before a counter attack like a sub.  After that they operate as standard infantry.

Sorry ET, an attack value of “0” is simply a non-starter with me.  I appreciate your passionate argument but I feel it simply would not make the unit playable in A&A.  I think IL has made several excellent arguments as to why this won’t work.

One idea that I might entertain is that when AB units operate on their own, they have a defense value of 1 against armor.  But when operating with standard infantry unit, they operate as normal infantry.  However, this means creating a way to be able to identify AB units through out the game, such as a marker or a special AB piece.

I also like Lucky Days idea of reducing the enemy’s ability to counter attack (for the first round only)

I do not agree with paratroopers being able to selectively eliminate any particular unit.  This would disrupt the balance of play in AA.

I strongly disagree with using any aircraft pieces to transport AB unit.  In my opinion, the extra cost for AB units is so that they use an airborne attack without using other aircraft.  Ideally, if we had a transport aircraft that could be purchase.  This would solve all movement issue and prevent over buying of such unit.

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.

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.

Quotes are from Emperor Takai from the previous thread but my replies adresses his comments above.

Black Fox

the main porblem with those rules is that you have made transports obsolete

id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war and airbourne units are very differently equiped from infatry units.

I now think airbourne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once. airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.

Emperor_Taiki

I understand your concerns and you do have some validity to your points.  However I don’t feel that this rule will make Transports obsolete.  Although it is cheaper in the short run, it is very expensive in the long run.  With a transport, you spend 7 IPC for something that be used over and over and can be very cost effective in the long run (as long as it isn’t sunk).  Plus you can transport armor.  With the exception of the Pacific islands, no assault is going to survive in the long run unless you have armor.  So transports will always be needed.

Also for clarification, the Airborne marker under my rule is a one time use.  Once the unit has been moved by air, the marker is removed.

I now think airborne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once.
I think 3 IPC to move Airborne Inf. is too expensive.  At this cost I would never use it.
Personally I think 3 IPC for 2 Airborne Inf. is better but what do you charge for 1 Air. Inf.?  The purpose of charging to move Inf by air is to prevent it from being over used and abused.  You want to make cost effective enough so that you can use that option once in a while but make it too expensive to use it frequently

they also cannot capture territory

I disagree with this.  If you have boots on the ground and you’re in control.  You own it.

airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.

This is a game play issue and not a historical one.  One issue that I always had with the AA map is that some zone in the Atlantic and Europe makes movement to easy. (I always felt that the Atlantic should have extra sea zones so that transport would have to sit a sea for at least one turn, to make them more vulnerable like they really were)  Where in the Pacific everything is so far apart.  If you limit Air. Inf. to a range of two, it will make this option useless in the Pacific.  You’ll never be able to go from one island to the next unless you consider islands as part of the sea zone for movement purposes.

I also defend the airbourne units having a defence of 1, airbourne units are lightly equiped and can only take and hold terriotry if supported by other units.

I think their defense should be kept at 2 for two reason.  One is for game simplicity.  The other reason is that Airborne guys were tough.  These guys were considered the cream of the crop and had a very long training time compared to your average soldiers.  So even though they were not as heavily armed compared to your standard infantry unit.  They made up for this with their extra training and toughness.  So in my opinion I think it balances everything out.

i would also get rid of the limit, although IL’s are symetrical i have yet to hear the historical reasoning behind them.  a good game limits units by their utility not by some artificial cap.

I agree with you on this.  If the cost issue can be worked out right, then caps would not be needed.  The cost alone will pretty much dictate how many can be built.  That said though.  There is still the potential for abuse.  I remember the day where guys would build a factory in South Africa then pump out 6+ armor from it.  The Germany would do the same in Libya.  So I think a cap still may be necessary but it should be set the same for all nations, such as a max of 3, and not according to historical use.  A&A has always been exploring about how things would have turned out if things were done differently (within reason of course).

also, if dont c how tanks keep airborne soldiers from getting to the rear and executing their first strike ability.

I think what IL is thinking here is that because they were lightly equipt that they were not as adept to take on armor.  But I agree with you on the account of game playability.  In Europe there is almost always least one in Germany, Western & Southern Europe where the highest chance of airborne will be used.  If that rule is used, then most likely airborne will rarely get to use the first strike option.  However, I think this one will need a little game testing to see how it will work.

id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war.

You have a very good point.  Perhaps a way avoid this is that when a player purchases an airborne marker, it starts from the factory with an infantry unit and remains with that unit until it engages in combat.  Up until that point it can move as an aircraft.

Ultimately, the best way to resolve this would be to have some aircraft transport unit for both parachute drops and non-combat movement.  Air transports were used heavily by all side to move troops around.

For those of you who are just joining this thread.  Here is the original comment below that started this conversation.  If you want to go to the original thread you can go here
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13894.135

The only real specialty infantry I would use is paratroopers since they have big strategic value and I would make it available to all.  I have created a rule for the use of paratroopers that uses existing pieces. Let me know what you think.

Paratrooper Rules Version 1
Each nation may choose to deploy airborne infantry.  To activate, players must purchases an airborne marker for 1 IPC for each infantry unit that will be deployed by air.
A maximum of 3 Airborne markers may be available for use at any one time.
An Airborne unit may be deployed up to a range of 3 space (One way) from a friendly territory.
Airborne units are deployed in the attack phase.
Airborne units may be engaged by anti-aircraft guns as if they were aircraft.
An Airborne unit attacks on a 2 the first round.  After first round.  Airborne units operate as normal infantry.
If supply line rules are used, Airborne Inf. is not affected.  Keep airborne marker with infantry to identify unit.
Airborne Markers start from factory like all other units (added)

My thought here is that paratroopers were not used very often.  One reason was that they were expensive.  Two, they were not heavily equipt and designed for prolonged engagements.

The purpose for paying to use them is to essentially to pay for the use of the aircraft.  Also, it is to prevent them from being abused.  People will think twice about using them if you have to pay for it.

Let me know what you think.

Posted by: bongaroo

Any chance you guys could spin off this rules discussion into another thread?  I keep seeing replies to this thread and come in hoping to see something new about the plastics and getting stuck with paratrooper discussion.

Just a friendly request!  Cheesy

Okay Gents, IL has created a new thread to continue the conversation on Paratroopers.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14208.0

Bangaroo’s request is a valid one.

I think Imperious Leader is the appropriate persone to direct this conversation to the proper section.

Airborne units should be dropped from bombers. One bomber could carry one infantry at a cost of 1IPC. (Airborne Marker)

supermestizo

I’m not fond of this idea.  I have thought about this and have concluded that I would never use airborne under this rule.  The reason is that a bomber is simply too powerful to use it to transport infantry and is a terrible waste of resources.  Generally an attack last several turns.  If I had a choice to use my bomber to fly an infantry in so it can attack at 1 per turn or use my bomber so I can pound at 4 per turn.  Its pretty obvious which one I’m going to choose.  The only way I would do this is if I pay 1 IPC to fly the Airborne unit in on the first turn, then allow my bomber to attack as normal on the following turn.  But then that would be like flying in as a transport then turning into a bomber in mid flight to start pounding away.  Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

If Paratroopers win, they defend on a 1, until they get supply, either through other friendly ground forces come to that area or through Airborne Supply (Airborne Supply Marker) dropped by bombers in the non-combat movement at the cost of 1IPC.

I think using supply line rules creates unnecessary complexity into the game.  And again, any use of a bomber to drop off supplies would be a waste of good resources.

the main porblem with those rules is that you have made transports obsolete

id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war and airbourne units are very differently equiped from infatry units.

I now think airbourne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once. airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.

Emperor_Taiki

I understand your concerns and you do have some validity to your points.  However I don’t feel that this rule will make Transports obsolete.  Although it is cheaper in the short run, it is very expensive in the long run.  With a transport, you spend 7 IPC for something that be used over and over and can be very cost effective in the long run (as long as it isn’t sunk).  Plus you can transport armor.  With the exception of the Pacific islands, no assault is going to survive in the long run unless you have armor.  So transports will always be needed.

Also for clarification, the Airborne marker under my rule is a one time use.  Once the unit has been moved by air, the marker is removed.

I now think airborne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once.

I think 3 IPC to move Airborne Inf. is too expensive.  At this cost I would never use it.
Personally I think 3 IPC for 2 Airborne Inf. is better but what do you charge for 1 Air. Inf.?  The purpose of charging to move Inf by air is to prevent it from being over used and abused.  You want to make cost effective enough so that you can use that option once in a while but make it too expensive to use it frequently

they also cannot capture territory

I disagree with this.  If you have boots on the ground and you’re in control.  You own it.

airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.

This is a game play issue and not a historical one.  One issue that I always had with the AA map is that some zone in the Atlantic and Europe makes movement to easy. (I always felt that the Atlantic should have extra sea zones so that transport would have to sit a sea for at least one turn, to make them more vulnerable like they really were)  Where in the Pacific everything is so far apart.  If you limit Air. Inf. to a range of two, it will make this option useless in the Pacific.  You’ll never be able to go from one island to the next unless you consider islands as part of the sea zone for movement purposes.

I also defend the airbourne units having a defence of 1, airbourne units are lightly equiped and can only take and hold terriotry if supported by other units.

I think their defense should be kept at 2 for two reason.  One is for game simplicity.  The other reason is that Airborne guys were tough.  These guys were considered the cream of the crop and had a very long training time compared to your average soldiers.  So even though they were not as heavily armed compared to your standard infantry unit.  They made up for this with their extra training and toughness.  So in my opinion I think it balances everything out.

i would also get rid of the limit, although IL’s are symetrical i have yet to hear the historical reasoning behind them.  a good game limits units by their utility not by some artificial cap.

I agree with you on this.  If the cost issue can be worked out right, then caps would not be needed.  The cost alone will pretty much dictate how many can be built.  That said though.  There is still the potential for abuse.  I remember the day where guys would build a factory in South Africa then pump out 6+ armor from it.  The Germany would do the same in Libya.  So I think a cap still may be necessary but it should be set the same for all nations, such as a max of 3, and not according to historical use.  A&A has always been exploring about how things would have turned out if things were done differently (within reason of course).

also, if dont c how tanks keep airborne soldiers from getting to the rear and executing their first strike ability.

I think what IL is thinking here is that because they were lightly equipt that they were not as adept to take on armor.  But I agree with you on the account of game playability.  In Europe there is almost always least one in Germany, Western & Southern Europe where the highest chance of airborne will be used.  If that rule is used, then most likely airborne will rarely get to use the first strike option.  However, I think this one will need a little game testing to see how it will work.

id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war.

You have a very good point.  Perhaps a way avoid this is that when a player purchases an airborne marker, it starts from the factory with an infantry unit and remains with that unit until it engages in combat.  Up until that point it can move as an aircraft.

Ultimately, the best way to resolve this would be to have some aircraft transport unit for both parachute drops and non-combat movement.  Air transports were used heavily by all side to move troops around.

Emperor Taiki don’t work because they give the special infantry a defense of 1.

I totally spaced that one.  I agree with Dino that all infantry should have at least 2 in defense.

The only real specialty infantry I would use is paratroopers since they have big strategic value and I would make it available to all.  I have created a rule for the use of paratroopers that uses existing pieces. Let me know what you think.

Paratrooper Rules Version 1
Each nation may choose to deploy airborne infantry.  To activate, players must purchases an airborne marker for 1 IPC for each infantry unit that will be deployed by air. 
A maximum of 3 Airborne markers may be available for use at any one time. 
An Airborne unit may be deployed up to a range of 3 space (One way) from a friendly territory.
Airborne units are deployed in the attack phase.
Airborne units may be engaged by anti-aircraft guns as if they were aircraft. 
An Airborne unit attacks on a 2 the first round.  After first round.  Airborne units operate as normal infantry.
If supply line rules are used, Airborne Inf. is not affected.  Keep airborne marker with infantry to identify unit.

My thought here is that paratroopers were not used very often.  One reason was that they were expensive.  Two, they were not heavily equipt and designed for prolonged engagements.

The purpose for paying to use them is to essentially to pay for the use of the aircraft.  Also, it is to prevent them from being abused.  People will think twice about using them if you have to pay for it.

Let me know what you think.

Emperor Taiki

That’s not a bad system you’ve created and I kind of like it but I see two draw backs.

The first is your stats for your Mech/Motor Infantry.  Mechanized and Motorized Infantry are two different things.  Motorized Inf. is essentially infantry that is moved by a large number of trucks.  Mechanized Infantry is infantry that moves in armored transports and supported by light armor vehicles and tanks.  The stats you created I think are well suited for Motorized Inf. but not Mech Inf. I would give Mech Inf, the following.

C M A D
Mech Inf.  4  2 2 2

But here lies the problem.  As I mentioned earlier, if you do this, you pretty much make all the other units worthless.  The only way to really solve this issue is to essentially create a new cost system.  For example make standard Infantry 2 IPC, Specialized Inf 3 IPC and Mech Inf 4 IPC.

The other drawback is that it adds a lot more complexity to the game.  One nice thing about A&A is it’s simplicity.  If you go that route with Infantry, you can easily do the same with armor, heavy, medium, light, tank-killers and aircraft too.  Where would it stop?  The biggest problem though is where would you find all the units to represent them?

One other thing I would change with your stats is the Marines.  I would only give them a 2-attack for the first round of a beach assault.  A 3 attack is simply too strong in my opinion.

Also, what of the two kinds of infantry?

Personally, the way A&A is set-up, having two or more infantry is not practical.

Commando units for example did not operate in Division size units.  At the most they were no bigger than than several brigades in size.  Also, commando units in WWII were created to perform a specific task.  These special tasks are harder to integrate such units on a large Strategic game like A&A.  However, these unit might find some use in games like D-Day and Guadalcanal which are much closer to a tactical game.

Now there were specialized infantry divisions such as Airborne, SS, Russian shock Troops and to a lesser extent Marines (But I personally wouldn’t classify them as such.  They are simply a naval infantry).  So if such unit were created then they should have some limited specialized ability.  Airborne can be transported by plane, SS have a special attack or defense against armor, Russian shock troops get a +1 attack on the first assault, Marine get a +1 attack on the first wave of a beach attack and so on.

Now, if you create such units they should obviously cost more.  However, now you run into another problem, cost.  If infantry is 3 IPCs, Mech Infantry-4 and Armor-5.  Where does that leave special infantry?  The most logical choice would be 4 IPC but in most cases the mech infantry will be superior to these special infantry divisions.  With this in mind, the only unit I see of any value under these condition would be Airborne divisions if they are allowed to move underspecial conditions without using aircraft unit (I would assume that airborne divisions would included aircraft for transportation).

Yeah, I figured if Mech could carry infantry, I’d have to beef up tanks and artillery, too: Artillery bombard in opening fire, tanks carry 1 infantry (riding on top) and support infantry +1 attack.

Upside-down Turtle

Keep in mind that units are general representations of Divisions, Airwings and fleets.  In this case the Halftrack is representing Mechanized Infantry.  As IL pointed out, most Mech Infantry divisions included, halftrack, armored wheel vehicles, light tanks AND infantry.  So to allow a Mech Infantry unit to carry infantry would be distorting the power of that unit.

We are aiming at 200 pre-orders to do the entire project.

That’s a tall order.  I hope we can do it.

By the way, out of curiosity, have you decided on the units fro each country?  I think all of us would like to know. :-D

Thanks

kittyhawk was a pacific fighter wasn’t it?

The Kittyhawk, Warhawk and Tomohawk were all P-40 but different variation.  The Tomohawk was basically the export version and was the main type that served with the Flying Tigers.  All versions served in the pacific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40

but for $20 they will make more money because some people want more units for a specific nation and wont buy the whole set. Plus your now catering to all sorts of wargamers who will use these for other games and they may only want a few nations rather than 6.

I actually suggested something similar to this on the Harris forum.  I completely agree with IL on this.  People are likely to buy more at $20 than $60.  But I think both should be offered.  One large basic set and then a bunch of specialized set and the basic set broken down into sections.

It (88mm) was used in an anti-tank role, not a convention artillery “Shell them till the go deaf, then shell them some more” kind of way. A pak 40 is also an anti tank gun and not an artillery piece.

The 88mm was also used in the artillery role as well even though it was not designed for it.  Personally I think the 88mm is just fine as an artillery piece.  It was best all around gun the Germans had.

I do agree with tin snip that the Hummel and Wespe would be more accurate. However, I think they would create confusion because they are mounted on tank bodies.  What ever artillery pieces are chosen, it should be a nonmotorized version.

I’m sorry, but there is no way I could ever accept a set that cut historical appearances that badly, even if it was for the sake of identification convenience. I’d prefer to deal with BB-CA differences through size distinctions;

I agree with Shakespeare.  Another way to help distinguish ships are by the number of barrels per turret.  BB - 3 barrels, CA - 2 barrels, DD 1 barrel.

Submarines - Fat like the original subs.

the pictures of the sculpts are at page 3 of this thread

I see it now.  I think the first time I looked at it the pictures didn’t load.  Those are very nice samples indeed.

Id make all the naval units the same size by type, so the battleships are exactly the same, cruisers have their own size, etc.  just keep the scale just like AA so both types of sets are compatible with each other. Thats where you will make alot of sales because people will just replace entire sets with your set, much like Chess players have different sets depending on what type of game ( tournament, home study,friends house, etc) is being played.

Except the submarine needs to not look like a toothpick, but more like the old MB AA sub, so it can stand up easily. The German subs are horrible looking IMO.

I’m with IL on this!  Ship classes should have their own distinct size and not made to exact scale for ease of identification.

AG124 -  Nice find!  I like carrier on the top.

wow, those sculpts look impressive, how many fighters does the carrier hold,

D142 - Where are the pictures of the sculpts?  I didn’t see any.