Some thoughts about Partisans/Resistence?

[Night]

I think that partisans in the game should be weakend or totally replaced with a Resistence element in occupied countries or cities. For example a randow, prehaps 2-5% chance, of resistence damaging occupied cities MPP or Mines, Oil, etc. etc. Taking 1 or 2 MPP off each time. Not enough to badly effect your economy but prehaps just a little bothersome and more challenging. Also, the presence of troops in the city should reduce the chance of this happening by a % or two. This way keeping troops in captured cites that are in no danger of being taken by the enemy is more of a must.

Additionaly, why are there no paratroopers or some option to load corps prehaps into air transports? As most of you know paratroopers where used in important battles by both sides in the war, Crete, D-day, Market garden etc. etc. I think it would make invasions such as England or France much easier if you are agaisnt a player who blocks the coast with troops preventing landings. Just some thoughts i had.

[Lucky Strike]

Yes, the partisans appear too strong. In one case I attacked one Russian partisan with three regiments and air power and took more losses than the partisan- the air unit lost 2 points!

If you allow for rules changes in the options, this will allow you to turn partisans off and on. The level of activity can then be matched to either historic levels or varied with the level of success the Germans are experiencing on the Russian front. Alternately, when playing a live opponent, there could be some garrison requirement.

[KDG]

Partisans can be turned on and off. The allies need all the help they can get.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Within the context of SC, the Partisan effect works out fine in an abstract way. Just remember that if they are left alone too long, they will convert to conventional infantry units.

As far as a new game system is concerned (ie SC2), you are correct, that there should be a different approach taken. Either an abstract representation (as you suggessted) or different units.

Personally, I think the abstract method works since Partisan units would never be large enough to be represented on this scale. The problem though is that the occupying nation has to have units that represent occupation troops or some other method of spending MPPs to oppose the partisans.

And don't forget Commando's. An abstract method should also be capable of representing the effects that commandos have.

Paratroopers... At the scale SC represents, America, Britan, Russia, Germany, and possibly Italy would have no more than one (1) Corp. And that would be including the glider units that were integrated within the Airborne Divisions. Assuming this unit existed, and it would have to be expensive, it couldn't "airdrop" no more than a couple of hexes, if that. And to make it realistic, you would have to limit the hexes it could airdrop onto, as well as program it so that it could not create its own line of supply. Lot of special work for one unit.

Based on the way SC is currently designed, I think Hubert decided to roll the effect of paratroopers into the aircraft unit.

I am not saying I wouldn't like to see paratroopers, but other than suggesting what other game systems have done (ie 3R, Clash of Steel, High Command, etc), no one has suggested a workable solution, in my opinion.

Unless SC2 is going to use "divisions" as the combat element, instead of "corps", there is going to have to be alot of work required to properly represent them.

And if you put paratroopers in, then I am going to want to see amphibious assaults. And please don't say Marines, since only the US had Marines and they were all in the Pacific Theater.

Thanks,

Barry

[Night]

One thing this is really lacking is some sort of engineers... What happened to the atlantic wall? Or any numer of other german or even allied Defensive lines? You should be able to build limited defensive structures to ethier add slightly to your defence in that spot or slow movent like Dragon's Teeth or Mines would have done in WW2.

Also, i don't see what's so hard about paratroopers? You load them in a city... and then decide where in thier area of operation, you want to drop them. You can have a larger chance of landing losses then say amphib. assults do now to simulate scattering and planes being shot down. Even have enemy fighters defend against them if they haven't been delt with or used that turn in another defence. Make them more expensive then regualar corps of course and along with higher causalty rate they would be used sparingly, but I think they would be key in say invading england or nazi france, not that it can't be done now, but it would make it more interesting.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Night

Engineers: Combat Engineers are already part of the subunits (ie divisions) that make up the combat units (Corps and Armies). Speciality engineers, which were not considered combat engineers (even though the US one's are the exception to that rule), were expensive to raise (mainly the special construction equipment) and almost never operated in a Corp sized unit. Defensive structures, mines, etc are already represented as the "entrenchment" ability the combat units already posses. So even if you allowed a "Engineer" Corp, that could not fight, and was expensive, about the only thing it could do would be to build fortifications (like one's on Malta, Russia, etc) and it would take them at least a couple of turns, if not longer. Assuming they cost something like a Battleship group and there other abilities (port construction, railroads, etc) are not represented in SC, I don't believe many people would purchase them.

Paratroopers: Your comment about how to employ them, while from a gamey point of view (ala Civilization) is correct, would be picked apart by the realism purists. For example, technically every hex should be able to launch paratroopers, not just the "cities", since every hex has or could have a airfield capable of launching the transports (assuming it was properly supplied). Then there would be the range allowed (some of the much older posts regarding paratroopers covered this), not to mention the fact that if any enemy aircraft caught the transports in the air, there would be no transports left. And so on. Thats why they were left out.

[Night]

That doesn't make much sense to me really... They used them in real life and the Enemy has Fighters in real life... Of course you should, as i said, ethier destroy or use up your enemies aircraft before launching your paratroopers, it's the same concept of distracting or destroying your enemies navy before loading or sending your transports to his coast, we all know that battleships and carriers dessimate sea transport's, but they were added? I honestly don't see any major problems with having them in the game. Sure they could have draw backs that would keep them from being to powerful, but leave them out all together?

And as for engineers, if you ever played D-Day the beginning of the end, you know that they can be used effectivly to do a lot of things, and of course things do take a lot of turns but they take a lot of time in real life too, it doesn't take away from the fact that they can be effective when used right. Maybe there could be a limit to how many can be added in a certain area to prevent capital cities or entire coast lines from being surronded by them and very hard to break without a lot of airpower or a good HQ. I can see some drawbacks to engineers and i can go 50 50 on having them in the game, but with the paratroopers i honestly think it was a mistake to leave them out.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Night

Paratroopers were used, but never on the scale that SC is. They lacked the heavy weapons (heavy machine guns, antitank guns and artillery) that would enable them to survive in combat against a Corp or Army sized unit.

So if you put them in, they would have to be much weaker than a normal Corp. And just like the naval transports getting wacked by enemy ships, so would the enemy air wack the paratrooper. Unlike the naval transports, where you could put out quite a few, you would only have the one Paratrooper Corp. So this Paratrooper Corp, which cost you 400 MPP's, even if it survives, would be on the ground as no more than a 1 or 2 strength unit. And it is out of supply. Still want one?

So when paratroopers were effectively used, they ended up being used more like commandos dropped from the sky. Otherwise, to be effective in conventional combat, they had to be given the heavy weapons more normal units used, which took away there airdrop ability. Even today, those problems have not been totally solved, which is why the American airborne in Kuwait/Iraq consider themselves speedbumbs.

=================================================

How many paratroopers (and glider infantry) where there in WWII?

US eventually had five divisions plus several independent battalions. OK, enough manpower for a "Corp". But they had very few heavy weapons and little or no transport, hence not alot of ammunition. Biggest allied operation was Arnhem, with three divisions and a brigade. Lightly armed troops against convential units, no contest. Allies tried again with a large operation in 1945, but this time they did it with total air supremacy, and within range of thousands of artillery pieces.

Russia had around 30,000 in 1939, which grew to 55,000 in 1941. Unlike the US which were organized as Divisions, the Russians were organized as Brigades, around '41 started to be organized as Divisions. Even so, still enough men for another Corp. But due to the lack of air superority, and the need for troops against the Germans, they were constantly used as conventional infantry.

Germany had around 22,000 by 1941, which they used for Crete. After Crete, there were no longer capable of functioning as a unit. German paratroopers during the time of D-Day (three divisions), had no airborne training or capability, and were armed more like conventional infantry.

British had about a division, there was a Polish Brigrade and I think the Italians had about 18,000 men trained as paratroopers. Japan had some in the initial stages of the war, but didn't rebuild them and the Marine Corp had a couple of battalions. If SC ever does a Pacific Front, with a smaller unit scale, the paratroopers as a potential "what if" would come into its own.

Thanks,

Barry

[Night]

"So this Paratrooper Corp, which cost you 400 MPP's, even if it survives, would be on the ground as no more than a 1 or 2 strength unit. And it is out of supply. Still want one? "

Uhh you don't have to make it like that... Honestly it's not like in real like only 10% even made it to the ground or the target... You can't honestly say you want it programed so that 1 or 2 strength makes it. 5 at the max would be fine i think.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka -- Night, Good points back and forth.

It would be a nice touch to have some sort of paratroop unit for operations like Malta or to help in Sea Lion. But I tend to agree with X Night, on this scale it would be difficult to incorporate and probably not worth the added complexity it would cause. Still, it's one of those ideas that ought to be kept in mind. Maybe paratroopers could be incorporated in the game somehow, it's a good option to keep open.

Agreed on that earlier point about combat engineers being incorporated within the units. All the major powers had some aspect of engineering that they were outstanding in.

The Russians were great at fortifying positions, even open fields, without much time or special materials. The Americans were repaired roads, bridges, tunnels and railroads in record time. German engineers were fine all around. British engineers created outstanding officer's clubs. French engineers were great at adapting palaces into Generals HQs without including those annoying telephones and Italian engineers could always muster great mess hall facilities.

The only way to incorporate this aspect in a game of this scale, that I could see, is make it a separate facet of each ground unit: exp & engineer capacity, reflecting that units stock of pontoon bridges, explosives, # of combat engineers etc., perhaps affecting it's ability to traverse rivers and rough terrain and it's fortification ability, but that seems an extravagant proceedure with little real return for the effort.

All in all a couple of good ideas and an interesting thread. I particularly enjoyed the paratrooper figures. In a what if vein I've always wondered whether Germany could have paved the way for a successful Sea Lion with, say, 60,000 paratroppers dropped in Southern England right after the fall of France. They probably could have seized Dover or some other major harbor along with local airfields, enabling easier reinforcement and expansion of the perimeter. As was significantly mentioned earlier the Luftwaffe would have needed to established local air superioity before the drop, but they did that historically along the Channel coast during the summer of 1940; once British airstrips had been seized it would have been a simple matter to fly fighters across from the continent, extending the air umbrella to protect their landing force.

They carried out a similar operation a year later at Crete, but in 1940 I don't think paratroopers were seen as making large drops.

Lucky Strike

A lot of people think the partisans are too weak! I think they're a good idea. The specifics are interesting as to the number of troops needed in rear areas to keep them under control. Considering Germany's abundance of charm and consideration for the locals in Russia, I think it's about right. I've found generally between three and five corps behind the lines while Germany is fighting along the Lenningrad-Smolensk-Rostov line does the trick. That isn't overly excessive if you figure it, abstractly, as representing both, garrison and badly depleted divisions pulled back for rebuilding.

As KDG points out, you can always turn the partisan function off in either Yugo or Russia or both, but this takes a lot of realism out of the game.

[ January 26, 2003, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Night

Assumming the combat strength of a Infantry Corp is 10, my statement regarding the Paratrooper Corp strength being 1 or 2 was meant as a reflection of its full combat power (even being generous it should be no more than 3). The majority of the combat power in a Infantry Corp is in the artillery and the tanks. And since the Para's don't have them, there combat power should be reflective of that fact. That is the problem with Paratroopers in Third Reich, Clash of Steel and High Command. They have the same relative combat power of an equivlent infantry unit.

Jersey John

It would be nice to do a "what if" with Para's in SC. The sad thing about the whole use of airborne troops, is that the Germans were the only power that had any idea on how to properly employ them. At a squad to company level, it wasn't until the 1960's that American paratroopers were equipped with the equivalent firepower that the German para's had in 1942. It was much easier for the militaries of WWII to treat paratroopers as elite conventional infantry (which they where), than to determine the proper doctrine for thier speciality use. Would have been interesting if Airborne forces had evolved as a seperate service (like the USMC), what they would have evolved into today.

Thanks,

Barry

[ January 27, 2003, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Interesting comparisson of airborne to marines and both of them usually used to minimum effect as regular infantry! During the '30s both Russia and Italy kept making propaganda footage of their paratroopers, the Soviets with pictures of their guys sliding off transport wings! But, as you mention, only the Germans had any idea of how they should really have been used. There's usually an arm or weapon in every war that isn't understood till a war or two later, and in this case it was the paratroopers. Case in point, the way France wasted theirs at Diem Bien Phu a decade later.

[DeGaule]

Hi!

Mind if I put in my two cents worth.....no...good!

This whole paratroops/Airborne debate is moot as long as the game scale stay as it is. Only the Allied 18th Airborne (British-American) would be represented under the actual scale.

The German Paratroopers( a misleading appelation since many of their specialized units were glider-borne ) performed well in some very difficult missions but to say that only the German knew how to employ paratroops during WW2 is more than a little strech

Granted that the Attack on poor little Netherland was a spectacular success for them, still, attacking the Dutch army was not exactly like trying to seize London. The quality of the opposing force must be taken into account . The Pyrhic Victory in crete showed that some months later. Yes the forced the Brit to evacuate and thus secured the Aegan sea from furhet allied interference but the cost in troops, planes and pilots also brought to light how vulnerable these units really could be .

On the Allied side

Russian airborne units were actually used with some measure of success for seizing and protecting important river crossings during counter-offensive operations on the Eastern Front. That the operations were not full success should not detract from the Good strategic planning that went into their uses.

In the west , airborne operations inthe Med(silicy-Italy) were if not outright disaster, at the very least less than success) But the d-day landings, were useful even as messed-up and confused as they ended-up to be.

The Market_Garden fiasco is another thing entirely. The idea of a "Grand ,Strategic" Airborne operation to open the door of Germany was

not in itself a bad idea. The plan itself was !!

That it had been drawn up by the Overblown Monty ( who apparently could no longer read a map after all these month lost fighting in the desert) should have been reason enough to stop the operation. :mad: Unfortunatly, politics got in the way too and the Airbones were sent into an impossible situasion , into wich they actually performed well.

As for the comment about Dien Bien Phu in the later years. In Indochina, the french used their Paras as an elite unit , composed of professionnal career soldiers,they were sent to every difficult area, to secure and pacify( the peace of the machine-pistol, I know!! ).

The basic idea was again a good one,it had been used in other area and worked well , 1st penetrate deep into ennemy controlled area, then establish a Firebase then useyour good mobility to patrol and interdict ennemy supply route and force them to either vacate the area or be forced into a battle and destroyed( it would still be in use years later by the US SpecForces and Marines by the way) the geographic emplacement of the Firebase( too far from most french Tactical Airbases) , the low number of heavy weapons brought in( especially artillery) and the insufficient air support that prevented the Paras from being able to clear the oulying ridges and hills doomed the Garnison. ( And they didnt even need Monty to draw this bad plan ! Of course they had french general, professionnal war-losers, that helped)

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Assumming the combat strength of a Infantry Corp is 10, my statement regarding the Paratrooper Corp strength being 1 or 2 was meant as a reflection of its full combat power (even being generous it should be no more than 3).

You could still keep the face-value of the unit as 10 (... that way it wouldn't be so easily destroyed in an immediate counter-attack) BUT you could reduce the combat values of attack & defense so that it would not pack quite so much punch.

However, allow it have a "surpise" bonus, as with any invading units, and it would yet retain the SHOCK value, more fairly representing the actual impact of these elite units. :cool:

The Para would still be vulnerable, since the player or AI would likely target it for fast retaliation (... since, presumbaby it would - and should cost more MPPS to construct).

I am very much in favor of including the Airborne unit in any future game, if for no other reason than military romance . It is surely debatable whether the unit itself should be so powerful, but you cannot quibble over its essential value in attacking fortresses (... as in Belgium) and island redoubts (... as Crete, possibly Malta).

If someone wants to try and use it merely as a glorified recon unit, "zone-controller" or behind the lines HQ/Air Fleet buster, then they will have to risk the consequences - annihilation of a very expensive unit.

[JerseyJohn]

DeGaule

Good points, I was too vague in the meaning of my statements. My reference to the French use of paratroopers in Indochina was in the context of their ultimately relying on them, as you put it, in the elite infantry context. Ultimately they simply dropped them to their doom in a hopeless situation because they counted too much on their elite abilities to triumph in impossible situations.

Crete was a pyhric victory, but many of the German losses were incurred by troops being brought over in naval transports that were simply sunk by British warships; can't blame that on the airdrops!

True, the Russians did make good use of paratroopers when they chose to use them. Of course, they were utilizing the amount of open space available and sometimes the aid of nearby partisans as well. All of which is fine and a legitimate way to use such troops. What I meant was they use them ahead of offensives to secure bridges and other vital links. If they had I don't know about it and I appologize for my incorrect statement, if it is incorrect. -- Sounds like a legal statement, some sort of escape clause!

I think you minimize Germany's 1940 use of paratroops in the Low Lands campaign. Aside from securing bridges in advance of motorized columns, they also knocked out the Belgian fortress at Eban Emal [sorry for spelling if wrong], considered the most powerful single fortification on earth at the time. Additionally, it was the first time paratroopers were used in extensive operations. That they were used against the Dutch and Belgians shouldn't detract from their accomplishment.

Allied paratroopers in Sicily, in addition to their other problems, were baptized by receiving anti-aircraft fire from the invasion fleet!

The fiasco of paratroopers in the Normandy operation is too depressing even to be discussed. Yet, they did aid the landing operations by distracting German reinforcements and diverting counter attacks. That it happened in a near sacrificial lamb manner is a tragedy.

Though it resulted in a disasster, I think Market Garden (and Crete) are the two best examples of how WW II paratroopers were intended to be used. In Market Garden the idea of dropping them ahead of an advancing column, as the Germans had done in the same region four years earlier, was the accepted tactic. In this case, as you say, it was screwed up by Monty's inablity to consider inteligence reports that should have either altered or cancelled the entire operation. Even the best resource can do little when used stupidly.

I have to say at this point that I enjoyed your posting very much. If anything I've written here is incorrect, and there's bound to be something, I look forward to having it pointed out.

Immers

Good thread. I was thinking something along the lines of an airborne capacity that can built up and depleted instead of having a specific unit. When a particular army is about to attack, perhaps allow it to add the accumulated airborne capability to it's attack factor. Airborne losses would be stored independantly of the unit it's assisting. This function could help ease the beach storming problem you discussed in the forum, Sands of Iwo SC.

DeGaule

As you appropriatly mention, there would have been only a single unit of paratroops historically that could function on this game scale. But that at least shows paratroopers could have been organized in corps size units during the Second World War. And certainly all the majors, including Italy, could have done it. Perhaps a very expensive paratroop corps with special abilities might be a feasable idea.

[ January 27, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

DeGaule

Agree that within the scale of SC, large numbers of Paratroopers would not be appropriate. But let us not forget that the generic Corp in SC has three (3) divisions. That is only about 30,000 Para's. If I was able to build a Paratrooper Corp, cost of 400 MPP's, with a max strength of 3 (ok, I'll go to 5, but only cause we have the Partisan unit at 5), able to "airdrop" four (?) hexes away, I would be all for it.

Paratroopers ... including more Glider troops, yes, you are correct. True for the US, British and Germans. Not sure about the Soviets, not that it mattered, since they didn't have the aircraft or gliders.

"to say only Germany knew how to employ them is a stretch". Ahhh.... I am actually hearing a debate? Ok, tell me whom you believe where the best operators of the airborne doctrine.

Employment of German para's in Crete was a failure to properly employ airborne doctrine. The quality of the opposing forces while it may effect the outcome of the battle, wasn't the problem in Crete. And btw, they should have did Malta, not Crete.

Russian use of Para's on the Eastern Front was successful, but they used them on a much smaller scale. I tried to limit my comments to the usage that would be relevant to SC. Btw, do you still believe the stories about Russian Para's airdropping into the snow with no parachute? If you say yes, e-mail me, I have something to sell you.

Market Garden fiasco ... curious that you think the idea itself is not a bad idea. Any strategical use of Para's is not cost effective.

Dien Bin Phu ... my my my. We are starting to get into some areas where I am close to personal experience. Regarding the plan, how it was executed, etc... I will keep my mouth closed on this one. Don't forget there were German veterans there also... Waffen SS men if I remember correctly.

Immer Etwas

I'm assuming since you say to keep the strength at 10, that you are saying to reduce the readiness level? Remember, I am trying to propose a unit that would force you to properly employ it. So reducing the readiness level, as SC exists now, would require special programming. Not necessary. Combat power of the unit is reduced, not its personnels ability to engage in combat. Shock value... don't need an artificial bonus. The fact that it is sitting on the enemy supply line, or behind the river, or behind the fortification is the shock value. Elite... again, most people misunderstand what this means. So if I am using a unit that does not have the combat power it normally would, how do I make it up? I make sure I have people who are competently led and can make the most of what they have ... in SC terms ... experience. So... now my Para Corp, with full experience (4 bars), with a strength of 3, but at 100% readiness... guess what... if you are the right target, I am going hurt you, even if you are a 10 strength unit. Then I will sit tight, while I wait for my follow units to "resupply" me (ie rescue my butt, though I would never admit it to the straight legs).

Ok.. gotta run (though I am sure some of you are saying when will he shut up! )

Thanks,

Barry

[Night]

Paratroopers in game should have maybe 1 or 2 bars of exp at creation to reflect thier extra training and special job. Also, i agree with the fact that they won't have the mechinized element but can't the strength just be made up in number of troops? And of course the movement on the ground should be far less then regular corps. Maybe a unit or 5-7 with greatly reduced movement, slightly reduced regular attack, good "shock" or surprise attack, and starting with 1 or 2 bars of exp. at the cost of say about 400 MPP would be useable I think. Atleast for going cross channel or German invasion of USSR to get behind the lines. Of course any of the minor countries would be excellent target's for these since they are realativly weak anyway, and risking transport's against a far better allied fleet early in the game is not always a good idea

I honestly think they could work, although I agree on many of points why they wouldn't, I think it would be a great addition and add more variety to the game and open up a whole new chapter of strategy and gameplay.

[SeaWolf_48]

As far as Paratroops are concerned, I think the tail is wagging the dog. Instead of, is the game able to produce Para's correctly, it should be, the Germans and the Allies used Para's to produced a winable situation during war and how can the game mimic what was done in history.

The last three airborne drops in WW2 were all Corps size operations. Normandy, Market-Garden, and Versity. Sicily, Naples, and Crete were all division size operations, but none the less were all decisive in there conclusions. Germany almost had a drop into Malta, and the Western Allies were thinking about using Airbone troops to take Berlin before the Russians got there. These would be great what-ifs.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Of course we aren't wondering about nor seeking the moment you'll shut up! Speaking for myself, I find your input extremely enlightening.

I'd like to know the full story of Diem Bien Phu , unless it falls under personal info. As I see it was something like the British plan at Isandwana against the Zulus, draw them to you and destroy them while they attack; and it had exactly the same result. If I'm wrong I'd like to know the true facts. It also seemed to me that the paratroopers who were sent in were going to what the French themselves had already begun thinking of as a hopeless fiasco.

After all this discussion what's wrong with simply having Airborne units organized into corps and even armies that are much more expensive than regular infantry and have special attributes? Their effectiveness could be influenced by factors such as airsupport and distance from supporting units, especially armor.

The game is so abstract in so many areas why not stetch things a little in another direction. It would add new tactics and aid in amphipeous operations and attacks against hard positions like Malta (prsumably as German and Italian paratroopers were preparing to drop on it) and Gibraltar.

I would think the good points outweigh the bad. This game stopped going along purist lines when it became possible for the Axis to conquer the United States. Which is not a rap against Hubert, it's just that in it's current form SC takes many liberties, why not one more? By Market Garden the Allies had more than enough paratroopers in France to qualify as a corps and before the casualties at Crete the Germans probably filled the same requirement. I don't think there's a big point in game terms to start distinguishing between paratroopers and infantry who were towed in gliders; they all operated in an airborne concept.

I'd put them at 250% the normal corps and army cost, that way they'd represent a real expenditure. Also, they should have different qualities from corps infantry -- fighting normally when connected to the supply network but more vulnerable to armored units after being paradropped. I'm sure there are programming issues that go against this, but I think it has to be done somewhere along these lines if it's done at all.

They could always operate as in COS where the unit remains in it's original hex but is added to an attack a few hexes off. If the attack fails the paratroopers recieve severe losses, it it succeeds the losses are lighter.

[ January 28, 2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[DeGaule]

This is really getting fun isnt it?

Just a couple of quick points in reply to JJ and all the others.

I truly didnt mean to minimise the german's para contribution in Holland and Belgium. But...while we are on this subject..the fall of the Fortress of Eben Amel was a brilliant little "coup de main" I agree but that Fortress was 1) terribly vulnerable to air approach from lack of sufficient AA turrets and guns. 2) its garrison was understaffed when it was assaulted, wich prevented its commanders from trying any serious "sorties" to repel the german para-engeneers when they had gained acces to the inner perimeter and last but not least 3) like its french big cousins on the Maginot line. Many of the guns and emplacement where dummies. ( a fact that the german troops certainly appreciated a hell of a lot more than the belgian defenders ) .

Well executed but still involving a relativly low nimber of troops. It was more of a large airborne commando raid than anything else.

Someone also reply to me that any "strategic" uses of Airborne troops was a mistake because it was not cost effective. This one really has me puzzled....Ok you spend 3 times the normal thime to train and a superior body of troops, you equip them with some of your best weapons, than you train and deploy the assets necessary to be able to transport these "elite" units and now you want to restrain their use to a purely tactical one ? where is the cost effectiveness in that??? Crete wich just about everyone agree was a good operation was a "strategic" target. It was as a matter of fact the only value of Crete . Market_Garden for all its fault in planning and execution was a Strategic Operation too. Yes it failed in a spectacular manner but how much of the blame for that can be laid on the IDEA of Market-garden and how much on MONTY and its staff of sycophant( rivaled only by MacArthur and his famed Batann gang)has been made pretty well clear in the post-war years.

We have to take the game with its limitations. Even talking about a 3div sized Corp, The German could not have fielded, equipped and transport such a force considering the strain already put by the war on their limited air transport assets. The Italians??? come on guys !! lets be serious they would have needed to use Flyingboats and converted airliners to even move one divisions....and how would thet have escorted it to the target they didnt have a single high-performance fighter with enough range to be an escort before the latter stage of the war they couldnt even properly escort their bombers when they tried to help during the battle of Britain . It would have been a slaughter without german help.

Lets face it if we put Airbornes in, it has to be an allied thing, as a rocket replacemnt is probably the best idea Ive read about it.

Now we can all have some fun trying to argue the same points about MARINES. I can hardly wait .

Gee I said I was going to be short didnt I ?? Oups!!

[SeaWolf_48]

These are all good points about airborne. This subject never goes away. Since my Dad was in the 82nd All American Airborne Div. it is a subject dear to me. The US ended up with 5 Airborne Trained Divisions 82,101,17,13,11. British had two 1,6. Italy had one. Russia had three. And Gemany had more than three divisions, although only two had combat jumps, in Belgium and Crete. Several Luftwaffe Divisions were trained to jump but with the war the way it was in 1944, they did not have the planes or air control of the skys to perform jumps.

My point is: The US and Britain had 2 Corps worth of ParaTroopers, Russia 1 Corps, Germany atleast one corps, and Italy had one Division trained, and would have been used with German Paratroops at Malta, Equalling roughly one Corps of Axis Para's.

Would they fit into SC, ofcoarse! Will they? I hope so.

P.S. Wasn't Charles DeGaulle spelled with two L's?

[ January 28, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[Night]

In response to DeGaule talking about how the real countries in WWII couldn't have fielded large numbers of paratroopers,

Let's remember, this game is based around the fact that you are suppost to CHANGE history... I mean the Italian's never had huge numbers or even good tanks but in the game you can research level 5 tanks and build dozens with enough time and good strategy... Should the Italians not have tanks because of what it was like in real life?

Another example, Rockets, How many moble or stationary rocket launchers did the British have in WW2? Unless i'm mistaken they wern't to far ahead in that area. But in the game if you wanted to for some reason you could build a lot and pump into research.

My point here is just because in real life no one had enough paratroopers to say invade England has little to do with the game... all the countries had paratroopers or airborne unit's in some form as SeaWolf pointed out, and all of them should or could be able to use them in the game.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Night

You are correct that they should be created with one or two experience bars. Regarding making up the strength by adding more troopers; if you mean within the division, no. Thats why a generic para division would be around 10,000 men, while a infantry division would be around 15,000. Within the Corp, again no, since I am using the SC "model" that has a Corp with three (3) divisions. And since our SC generic infantry corp is motorized, this Infantry Corp should have one less AP (making it a 3, right?). 400 MPP cost, agree. Special "shock" attack, no agree, for reasons stated in an earlier post. And regarding your use of them against minor nations, congratulations. That is the esscence of WWII airborne doctrine, the guys at Fort Benning will be mailing you your wings shortly.

Lets hash out a few of the other objections being made, arrive at a consensus, then we can make a suggestion to Hubert.

SeaWolf_48

If the Para unit is correctly designed and implemented, then use don't have to artifically create the situation to use them, since you would only use the unit as was historically appropriate. Of course, you could also recreate the same mistakes by using them the wrong way... just like in real life.

JerseyJohn

How could I pass up the opportunity to pontificate? I'll give you my take Diem Bien Phu soon. I guess it should be posted in the General interest section, since I don't see how I could tie it into SC.

Airborne as a Corp unit ok. As an Army, no way.

Ability to invade USA, Canada is a big no no. A true Axis Total Victory would be defeat of UK and Russia. Hmmm... just had a deja vu. Did I or someone else make this exact statement already?

250% cost would make it around 312 MPP's (assume Corp = 125). So how about 350 MPP cost? Wouldn't be unfair, since the major cost would be the transport planes (and gliders) organic to the unit. Reduction of the anti-tank factor would be true, but I don't remember the structure of the SC unit right now.

I think the concept of being able to move the unit reflects there use better, since if there were not properly supported, they are easy prey to the enemy. And since they are now behind the enemy, you don't have to change anything to artifically represent the enemy supply being cut, being attacked with no river bonus or fortification bonus (if I remember right, if you attack the Maginot line from the Fr side, it gets no bonus). Attacking Malta, that fortification in the south of Russia, etc, would require you to eliminate the defender but still allows you a method of capture without fighting your way thru all the troops inbetween you and the land fortifications (obviously not true on Malta).

Strategic use not being cost effective ... I meant that at a strategic level (ie SC), the use of Paratroopers would be limited to a very few special circumstances. They would be employed more at the operational level (Bn, Brigade sized drops). And tell me, how many of us would resist the temptation to use them as infantry, when we need "just one more unit"? The same dilema faced by the Russian staff when the Germans punched thru their lines.

About the Italians... Italy does not have alot of MPP's. So lets say it did scrap together enough to raise a Para Corp. Now they have to scrap together enough MPP's to raise a Air unit... you know what... lets "request" some Air support from our friends the Germans. Let the German Air deal with those pesky Greeks, and after they are totally shattered as a combat unit (ie eliminated in SC), we can airdrop our Para's to seize control of the government. If Para's are allowed, all five of the Majors should be allowed to build them.

Regarding marines... I made a new topic regarding how the amphib operations could be handled in SC, without making alot of changes. I welcome any criticims.

SeaWolf_48

Number of Para's is dependent on the year you are referring to. I believe you are implying that the majors should only have so many (if not, my mistake). Unit limitations is a big design issue, which currently SC does not address. Of course, I have an opinion on how SC could address it, but lets save that for later.

Btw, if you really want to see me ramble, ask me my opinion regarding the US military, post WWII.

Thanks,

Barry

[JerseyJohn]

DeGaule

"If we put airborne in it has to be a purely Allied thing . . ."

Okay, the Germans and Italians didn't have paratroopers. Geez, they sure had me fooled all these years and I guess a few other people too, like Max Schmelling. He thought he was jumping out of transports with some silk thing after losing the World Championship to Joe Louis.

Instead of a physical unit, why not make airborne operations a floating factor that can be added to a given ground attack? There would be an MPP conversion factor, feed in the requisite MPPs and you have X amount of airborne factors to be used when called upon.

Airborne factors would drop with battle losses and rise with additional MPPs expended for their creation. An airfleet should be within range of the operation for obvious reasons but as there would be no way of incorporating it, air superiority should not be a factor. Presumably the airfleet would be able to provide temporary cover for the attacing units and the transports would be considered part of the airfleet.

It would have to be something both sides would have. The main reason Germany didn't use paratroopers after Crete was because Hitler objected to the high casualties they incurred during the battle. He could just as easily have been impressed by it and decided he needed another six divisions of trained paratroopers.

Regarding research, as suggested earlier by several posters, Allies get it in place of rockets and Axis/Soviets get it in place of sonar.

Shaka

No need to pontificate in the General Forum, in the SC what-if forum we had everthing from Attila the Hun to the Inquisition! There's always some way of tying things into SC. At least in what we're talking about they'd be jumping out of aircraft pulling a ripcord. Those other topics went from conquering the Aztecs to building Hadrian's Wall and doubled back to the Spanish Inquisition. In each case there was a connection to SC that was too obvious to point out, so I won't.

[ January 28, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Night]

Shaka, do i detect some sarcasim in your response to me?