AAR Paratrooper

[Orage]

I don't know if they are any topics about this subjet.

But me and my AA friends are trying to developpe paratrooper.

We use bomber to transport 2 inf.

We have play 3 games with differents para. rules. We are trying to consider:

1. Mouvement of the Bomber with 2 para. (4,5 or 6)
2. keep the bomber price or make differents prices for bomber and air transport
3. how to use anti-aircraft, one shot on air transport or 3 shots = 2 for the para and 1 on the air-trans.

The real interest of the paratrooper is to japan, they can easely advance on the russian territories and the US too

Tell me what you think about this and if you have try something like that before (and the result)

[Lt M Cotten]

We played with the following rules (borrowed from PC A&A:Iron Blitz) A bomber unit can be used to transport one infantry unit into combat or as NCM. This counts as the bombers full turn, and it can not be used for anything else on that turn.

I find that carrying one unit I rarely use this technique as the bomber can be used much more effectively as a combat piece. However it does give you the option to occupy an empty territory from a long distance, thus making people guard more territories even further from the front.

Increasing the capasity to two could surely make them more useful.

[Nuclear]

I like the two idea. Though I was woundering if it should be two inf or one art. Just my two cents.

[Lt M Cotten]

I think it should be left to infantry as it is a generally used as a combat drop.

[DocD]

I like what you said LT. One inf-only. Not overpowering but can be used to threaten some weak areas.

Two inf is too much and too overpowering.

Nice avatar Orage.

[Nuclear]

Paratroopers were droped behind enemy lines by the allies, and for the most part they failed in their temps. Operation Market Gardan, a disaster for the Allies. That was the biggest use of paratroopers and it failed greatly. Therefore maybe the person who is being invaded should be able to roll one die for each unit being paratrooped, and if they roll a 2 or less, that paratrooper dies.

[pagan]

if you want rules for paratroopers, then look at Shrapnel Games.

it is the only FEASABLE method of use in a map size/type of A&A.

[luke swensen]

We always let the bombers carry one man. If a tran. can carry two and it is three times bigger or morethan a bomber than a bomber should only be able to carry one, no more.

[Beast1313131]

yeah, two infantry units would be too much, one is good, and not for A&A revised. perhaps for Europe, Pacifac and DDay. And yes orage nice picture!

[General Norde]

Para can be fun... one inf per bomber. Although I prefer such units while playing smaller area maps.

[vishuzznizz]

Me and a couple of players have also tried this on A&A:revised edition. The way we've played was that the paratroopers (at a cost of 4 IPC's, attacking at a 2 during the first cycle of combat, and transported 2 at a time), could be used on the bombers; but the bombers used could only travel at a flight path of 5, (figuring because of the heavier payload),and could not attack or conduct bombing raids on that turn. We also variated on one game that bombers could transport 1 tank or 1 artillery instead of 2 para's. Also try this: using "Navy S.E.A.L.S."; which is, (U.S., Japanese, and U.K. inf. units costing 6 IPC's) could be launched one adjacent sea zone away ONLY FROM AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER; for example: U.S. A.C. carrying 2 S.E.A.L.S. ending up in sea zone 44 could "swim" to the Solomon Islands for an amphibious assault, engage in "opening fire" and attack at a 3, (2 during the first cycle of combat only); and mus conduct "mandatory non- combat movement", (in the same fashion as "Panzerblitz" option rule that the Germans use for their tanks. Finally adding, both Para's and S.E.A.L.S. can also follow the rules of the U.S. "Mechanized Infantry" option if any of these type of units begin their combat movements beginning on land. Paratrooper, and S.E.A.L. weapons can be devealoped by paying 6 IPC's and rolling a 5 (for Para's), and 6 (for S.E.A.L.S.). Try these, (if you have the revised edition A&A) and tell me what you think. vishuzznizz@aol.com

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

paratroopers have no business being in a grand strategy game such as axis and allies. maybe in a game of tactics, but not axis and allies

[Lt M Cotten]

paratroopers have no business being in a grand strategy game such as axis and allies. maybe in a game of tactics, but not axis and allies

I don't see any reason why not as long as they are used within scale and context. A bomber carrring one para will not have a huge impact on gameplay.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

I don't see any reason why not as long as they are used within scale and context. A bomber carrring one para will not have a huge impact on gameplay.
how many bombers do you think one bomber game piece repersents?
how many infantry would it take to subdue and control one entire game space?
how many infantry do you think one infantry game piece repersents?

if you are to add paratroopers maybe one infantry unit can be carried by 10bombers. remember that all it takes to contol an area is one infantry game piece. so one paratrooper unit can land in eastern usa and control the area and the american people. this does not sound right to me.

[Orage]

Thanks vishuzznizz

i will try this. You know, after 27 games with the revised edition, with the sames friends, the game is to easy for the allies and we would try anything to broke the safes strategies.

Your answer it's appreciate

[Orage]

how many bombers do you think one bomber game piece repersents?
how many infantry would it take to subdue and control one entire game space?
how many infantry do you think one infantry game piece repersents?

if you are to add paratroopers maybe one infantry unit can be carried by 10bombers. remember that all it takes to contol an area is one infantry game piece. so one paratrooper unit can land in eastern usa and control the area and the american people. this does not sound right to me.


Do you let alway the eastern usa alone?

All the rules with para is hard to define.
We don't want to disadvantage one nation.
But, with a couple of try out games, we surely found a way to use para

The idea with para is only to complicate the game

[General Norde]

Orage, as-tu déjà essayé le porte-avions allemand? Si non, tu devrais mon gars. ;)

[TomJag3]

Allweneed is correct, there's no logical reason for paratroopers in a game this scale. They are used in a tactical manner to seize a nearby objective. There were used to seize an objective and hold it till they could be relieved. If not relieved, they died on the vine. They lacked heavy weapons and supply for a deep thrust. It's also a very inefficient manner to convey troops to battle, most of the casualties come from the drop, not contact with the enemy. They might look glamorous, but when most of your losses come before your troops meet the enemy, it's a waste of manpower.

[Doctor Strategy]

remember that all it takes to contol an area is one infantry game piece. so one paratrooper unit can land in eastern usa and control the area and the american people. this does not sound right to me.
Yeah, but I bet nobody complains when Germany takes Moscow with one INF or tank or art left and loots the whole capital of all its IPCs.

Such a rule about occupying army strength being stronger than the invaded territories population or leaving occupation forces behind to control conquered territories would be more realistic. However, it might make the game too strategical.

I can think of a simple rule off hand. If the territory is not originally your's, IE: the same color as your starting territories, you need a surviving army worth at least the IPC total of the territory in base attacking unit strength added together. For example to take Russia's capital worth 8 IPCs, it would require the attacking units to have at total attack strength of 8 left after combat to capture the territory. This can be any combination of land units sucks as 8 INF at 1 Attack each, 3 tanks at 9 total or two tanks and an artillery, and so on. The occupation force must remain their to control the occupied territories' population. If at any time, the occupation force total attack strength drops below the territory's IPC value, they lose the territory and control reverts to the original owner if possible.

I haven't decided if the occupation force should be destroyed or allow them to move out to one friendly territory. Planes can be brought in to support occupation in non-combat but may only account for half of the territories IPC value.

On the plus side, This kind of rule may limit the luck factor of taking a territory with one tank left and stop a single blitzing tank from taking of Africa in a few turns.

[newaxis]

I prefer one infantry per bomber & the bomber can't drop the infantry into a combat zone. I don't like the Southern Europe grab... We also stipulate that the infantry and bomber must start in the same territory. With this set of limited rules you can keep paratroopers from having an undue influence on the game. Being able to reinforce a territory you just conquered during noncombat with a paratrooper is not a bad option.

[Nuclear]

First off, I do not like the idea of having to use an existing inf and bomber unit to create a paratrooper unit. Instead, a new piece should just be created. Maybe such a unit could cost 8 IPCs, have a range of 5, attack at a 2 on round one and defend at 1. The this seems reasonable to me because paratroops used a lot of gliders and and planes that were not as heavy duty as a regular bomber. And yes this piece needs to be included due to fact that Russia before the Germans invaded, to my knowledge had a huge paratrooper force. Paratroopers were used quite a bit by all sides. Even the British used paratroopers on D-Day. They also used them in Operation Market Garden. That is just my idea and take on it.

[Hey dude]

Paratroopers were droped behind enemy lines by the allies, and for the most part they failed in their temps. Operation Market Gardan, a disaster for the Allies. That was the biggest use of paratroopers and it failed greatly. Therefore maybe the person who is being invaded should be able to roll one die for each unit being paratrooped, and if they roll a 2 or less, that paratrooper dies.
Actually, I thought that the German invasion of Crete was the largest drop of WWII...and it succeeded.

[Kaufschtick]

Actually, I thought that the German invasion of Crete was the largest drop of WWII...and it succeeded.

I would have to guess that Market Garden was the largest drop in history, even to this date, I 'm pretty sure. Crete was a fantastic use of this branch of the service, but I'm fairly certain that Market Garden involved More than three entire divisions. the U.S 101st, 82nd, British 1st Airborne plus 2/3 battalions of the Polish Airborne Forces. I would guess that the Germans wouldn't have had any more than 2 divisions in action (Airborne, that is) at Crete. Anyone know anything concrete on the action at Crete, no pun intended! :D

I, personally, would leave paratroops to games like Xeno's version of A&A. IMHO, that is.

P.S.- See, I can post a message without peddling Cousin Joe's Enhanced rules...Opps, I guess that just cancelled that thought, shoot! :rolleyes:

[TomJag3]

Kauf is right.

Russia used paratroopers, they jumped off of planes into snowdrifts.

Paratroopers are a tactical, rather than strategic weapon, so should not be included in A&A. If they are included, then they should only be allowed in attacks with other types of ground forces present. The reason is that they lack a supply train to occupy enemy territory. They were used to seize and hold objectives till ground forces could arrive. Examine Market Garden. Look at the German air drops on the Low Countries. While they can cross the English Channel, they wouldn't do it without forces already in Western Europe to link up with them. Paratroops lack the supples, heavy weapons, other parts of infantry divisions to be able to seize a territory and hold it on their own.

Mech/Motor divisions would be a better add on. There were more of them and they'd serve a more realistic purpose.

[TomJag3]

The air assault on Crete cost Germany nearly 50% casualties, 4000 out of 8100 paratroopers.

http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
The Invasion and Battle for Crete (Unterrnehmen Merkur - Operation Mercury)- Original Site
Crete was the scene of the largest German Airborne operation of the war, and the first time in history that an island had been taken by airborne assault. Afterwards, Crete was dubbed the graveyard of the Fallschirmjager (German Parachutists); they suffered nearly 4000 killed and missing in the assault. It was also the first time the Germans had encountered stiff partisan activity, with women and even children getting involved in the battle. The XI Fliegerkorps was responsible for ferrying the paratroops to Crete using 500 JU-52's and 70 DFS-230 light assault gliders, all together 8100 men were dropped on to Crete, 1860 men at Maleme, 2460 men at Hania, 1380 men at Rethymno and 2360 men at Iraclion.

On JULY 1941, two months after the fall of Crete, General Kurt Student, the German Airborne leader, was summoned to Hitler's headquarters at Wolfschanze. Together with a number of senior Paratroop officers who had survived the Crete battle, he was awarded the Knight's Cross The Fuhrer congratulated the Airborne warriors on accomplishing a vital task by the only method possible m the circumstances?Airborne assault. This was encouraging talk for Student. Already his Airborne Corps was nearly back up to strength The many casualties had been replaced, equipment losses made good. He had ambitious plans for further operations In the Mediterranean against Cyprus, Egypt, and Malta. But after lunch, over coffee, Hitler shattered his hopes.

Turning to Student, the Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that after Crete we shall never do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor has now exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".

Market Garden employed 30,000 paratroopers, nearly 4 times the number at Crete. Casualties for the Allies were over 18,000.

When you have to expect 50% casualties, the value of a type of combat wears thin.

[Hey dude]

So, say paras are used and dropped in an empty hostile territory, would it be fair to say the don't capture it (since they don't have the requisite heavy weapons regular units have) but are in fact a nuisance that will defend on a '1' versus enemy units that come to deal with it?

[TomJag3]

I would recommend not including them at all. If you're talking an effort the size of Market Garden, that's 30K men, about 1 inf piece in A&A. That took a tremendous amount of resources and planning to pull off (and fail). If you are using paratroopers, give them a movement of 1. Then you could drop them in an empty territory and control it. What I'm saying is that there's no place for paratroopers in a game with the scale of A&A.

[newaxis]

My group has tried two variants:

1) Paratroopers are transported by bombers, must start in the same territory, one troop per bomber, noncombat only (so you can't assault with them)

and

2) As 1), but in addition you can develop paratroopers as a tech roll. It counts as Minor Tech (we use A&A Enhanced 2.0, that's 4 IPCs per roll for the uninitiated) Development allows 2 troops per bomber and the troops can attack. If a bomber carrying troops is hit by AA, then stratch the troops as well. It works for us. We haven't seen it developed too much.

[pagan]

paratroopers = BAD IDEA

[sherminator1]

i have air transports cost eight they can move 4 and paradrop 1 inf. or air lift 1 inf. oh yeah, and they attack on 2 for the first round of combat after their dropped, also paratroopers cost 4 to make but otherwise act like regular infantry. works fine for me

[sherminator1]

also. the transports defend at 0 and attack at 0