Paratroopers

[Jollyguy]

IMO Mr. Cater should be careful about trying to satisfy all whims for everybody. If I remember correctly, the Allies only fielded one airborne army the entire war, and that was toward the end. The Russians maybe the same, the Germans probably never more than a corps, and then only at the beginning of the war. And at 50 miles to a hex paratroops may not fit in. As confused as the D-Day airdrops were, I don't think many of our soldiers landed 50 miles off. Twenty miles, yes. But fifty miles? Not many is my guess.

The beauty of this game is that it's manageable, yet wide open with variables and what if's. I wouldn't mind a bigger board and a few more unit types. The entire world would be nice if there's an SC II, but modifications should be made within historical production parameters, and within the experience and training and leadership levels of the combatants at the time.

On balance, so far this game feels good, and very, very, well thought out. The reason the Germans sliced through France was because of better training, strategy, and leadership. The French should always get an ass whooping in 1940, because they hid behind the Maginot line, dispersed their tanks, and didn't understand the theory of Blitzkrieg. The French were ready to fight WW I, the Germans WW II.

The major German what ifs we get to tackle are: 1) Hitler stopping at Dunkirk 2) Luftwaffe shifting from bombing English airfields to cities 3) Germany giving jet fighter research secondary status in favor of standard ME 109s and FW 190s 4) Wasting time in Yugoslavia and Greece 5) Not committing more troops to Africa; just a few more divisions may have rolled the Brits east of the Suez 6) Splitting the invasion of Russia from a planned double thrust to an overly ambitious three prong attack 7) Hitler not allowing retreats in the East.

There may be more. In this game we get to allocate our resources and direct our forces to shoot for different outcomes -- but within historical production constraints, with appropriate experience and leadership factors. You can't do it all. If one overweights the war in the Atlantic by producing subs, then they'll probably suffer on the Eastern Front, etc.

Good human opponents aren't going to sit idly by like the AI will.

Good Luck

[husky65]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

IMO Mr. Cater should be careful about trying to satisfy all whims for everybody. If I remember correctly, the Allies only fielded one airborne army the entire war, and that was toward the end. The Russians maybe the same, the Germans probably never more than a corps, and then only at the beginning of the war. And at 50 miles to a hex paratroops may not fit in. As confused as the D-Day airdrops were, I don't think many of our soldiers landed 50 miles off. Twenty miles, yes. But fifty miles? Not many is my guess.

The above is basically correct, but there are a few other factors, the first is brought on by the turn length - basically after a para drop the unit cannot be attacked for a week to a month, historically reactions to paradrops were measured in hours at most.

Its also worth noting that Paratroopers are used to sieze critical ground (bridges, GTI, airfields etc) not 50 mile areas - you can actually assume the existence of small Para operations in major (Army/Multi Army) operations if you like.

The second issue is the transport issue, whilst the allies had an airborne army, they lacked the ability to transport it in one lift and the length of the game turns prevents the enemy from redeploying air assets to interdict the ongoing reinforcement/supply lifts, in essence the attacker gets a way easier ride than they should.

[ July 23, 2002, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

[pzgndr]

I just don't see the big deal about adding airborne corps-size units to the mix. They should be expensive relative to other corps and armies, perhaps much more expensive to simulate the additional transport aircraft required. Being only corps size, they would have limited effectiveness against any entrenched units, so their employment would also be relatively limited - unless you wanted to waste MPPs on some spurious adventure. You make the strategic decision whether they're worth it.

One can argue that they aren't "realistic" at this scale, but frankly there's already a lot of unrealistic aspects to SC to make it the "game" it is and not a mind-numbingly detailed simulation of WWII that locks you into historical limitations. Airborne capability would simply provide an opportunity to seize key terrain or resources behind enemy lines as part of an offensive operation. The time scale and hex scale aren't as important as the effect. It would force the defender to consider defense in depth and to be prepared for possible airdrops.

Could airborne be abused, say by building 3-4 times the amount seen during WWII? Maybe, but that would be very expensive and probably not worth it. You might be able to seize several cities and resources in a single turn and create short-term confusion, but shouldn't be able to hold much unless you had ground units to followup. Overall, I don't see it as a mjor issue. It would be nice to eventually have some airborne capability for historical flavor and be able to play some what-ifs. If you don't like airborne, don't use it.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

One can argue that they aren't "realistic" at this scale,

The fact is that airborne units don't work on this scale (as seperate units), I think it is safe to assume that they are considered already factored in with army level attacks.

Airborne units don't secure areas, they secure objectives and those sorts of objective are not in the game.

[Aloid]

Originally posted by husky65:

I totally agree with Husky here...

This is not the game for that level of unit. I know it's hard not to want to get into more detail, but it just doesn't fit.

I go back to some early posts on this... just shut your eyes and imagine the panzer assaults, paratroop drops, etc., with each move...

Enjoy, that's what it's for!

Aloid

[Bruce70]

I also agree, no paratroops at this scale.

I wouldn't mind seeing SC2 at a slightly smaller scale though, just for variety, not because I think the scale of SC is too large. Actually I did originally think the scale was too large but it really grows on you.

[ July 23, 2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

[rleete]

But I want paras. And field kitchens. And horses. Why are there no horses? What about bren tripods? Are there going to be....Oh. Sorry, wrong forum. My mistake.

[pzgndr]

The fact is that airborne units don't work on this scale

The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant. This is a game. Airborne units at this scale have worked just fine in Third Reich for over 25 years of gameplay. It's an abstraction. It's an effect. It provides historical flavor. Whatever. The "fact" is that the capability to vertically insert combat forces behind enemy lines is a reality that is missing from SC and should be considered as a future enhancement. Make it an option if necessary so players who can't handle it don't have to. Let's just agree to disagree while Hubert considers what he wants to do about this later.

[You can always tell an airborne-ranger; you just can't tell him much!]

[husky65]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

It isn't a reality on this scale, this has been pointed out repeatedly, give examples where airborne forces have been dropped and held 50 mile areas from WW2, and I have already pointed out that on a 1 week plus turn scale, the defenders fighter attacks on Tpt/Supply a/c cannot be modelled - they dont get a chance to redeploy.

It didn't work in reality and it won't work in this game system.

[Lars]

Originally posted by husky65:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bill Macon:

It isn't a reality on this scale, this has been pointed out repeatedly, give examples where airborne forces have been dropped and held 50 mile areas from WW2, and I have already pointed out that on a 1 week plus turn scale, the defenders fighter attacks on Tpt/Supply a/c cannot be modelled - they dont get a chance to redeploy.

It didn't work in reality and it won't work in this game system.</font>

Actually, to have a paratroop unit be worthwhile you would need to drop him two hexes away which is 100 miles.

I don’t think we really need one in order to be able to drop it in the hex adjacent your front line.

Other than possibly Malta, what’s the point?

[pzgndr]

what’s the point?

It's just an abstraction fellas. In a game. For fun. If the primary argument against airborne corps units in SC is historical accuracy, detail of game scale, realistic constraints and limitations to preclude what-ifs, well then we can dump that whole can of worms onto the table and have a real debate about WWII. My comments are only intended to influence future enhancements which may include advanced game features and other options for those of us that want them. If you don't want to use them if and when they are included, then don't.

This can eventually be a win-win for everyone if the game progresses to the point where there is in fact a basic game, advanced game, and optional rules to select from. Let players pick and choose the level of detail they want and let them have fun. Haven't you guys played other games where you get to do this? This isn't worth butting heads over.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

My comments are intended to influence future enhancements as well - at this scale Paras don't work and I have given a heap of reasons why they don't work (and will continue to provide them as neccessary).

If SC2 or 3 is smaller scale then Paras may fit and I will drop my objections, but as long as the current scale is maintained adding them detracts from the game and also takes time away from Hubert either-

1. bug hunting,

2. adding real enhancements, or

3. rolling about in his new found wealth cackling insanely.

all of which are more productive than him wasting time trying to hammer the square 'para peg' into the SC round hole...

[pzgndr]

at this scale Paras don't work and I have given a heap of reasons why they don't work

By your reasoning, paras should not work in Third Reich (with 3-month seasonal turns) or in World in Flames (with 2-month turns) or other similar games at the SC scale with 50-mile hexes; however (surprise!), they seem to have worked very well in those games for many years with no uproar for their complete removal from gameplay. I appreciate your technical reasons for why they shouldn't work in SC; however, you guys don't seem to appreciate the abstraction nor willing to consider even a compromise solution to offer paras and other specialized units as options. It's your way or the highway apparently.

As for making it happen in the game, that's simply a design decision and relatively trivial to implement. Define an airborne corps unit type, edit the existing sea transport routine to permit air transport for airborne units located in or adjacent to cities, and it's basically done. No sweat. The cost of building an airborne corps and performing an airdrop should be high enough to make this risky, as it was historically. As it is in 3R and WiF and others. As it could be in SC someday. For those of us that want it as an advanced game feature or an option.

That's about as polite as I can make this reasonable request without going ballistic about uncompromising attitudes. There's so much potential for the SC game engine to expand and accommodate a variety of options to satisfy a very diverse group of players interested in a WWII grand strategy game. Let it happen. Try new strategies and techniques. If you don't like some option, just turn the darn thing off like you can with Free French or random Russian entry. But don't stand there blocking the way like the Black Knight mindlessly repeating "None shall pass!"

[Mexicano]

I have to agree strongly here with what Bill says, make these things as an option. So people who like it can play with it and people who dont like it can play without it.

Mexicano

[J Wagner]

If you are going to spend much time concerned with "historical accuracy" in the game, then consider that no game on such a grand strategic level as SC, 3R, or WIF can truly be such an animal. The purpose of these and all games is to entertain. Bring on the paratroops even if only as an option. As mentioned in other posts, if the unit is expensive, and the drop zones limited (perhaps within 2 hexes of a friendly units ZOC) then perhaps their use wont be abused....

[husky65]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

"By your reasoning, paras should not work in Third Reich (with 3-month seasonal turns) or in World in Flames (with 2-month turns) or other similar games at the SC scale with 50-mile hexes; however (surprise!), they seem to have worked very well in those games for many years with no uproar for their complete removal from gameplay. "

The fact that they have been unrealistically implemented for years is no reason to continue the practice.

They haven't worked well, its just airborne enthusiasts have been unwilling to admit that they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I'm still waiting for any historical examples that justify their inclusion.

Bueller... Bueller...

[Jollyguy]

After reading pro's and con's (and being one initially not in favor of airborne), IMO it should be allowed as a mouseclick option prior to setting up the game, just like fog of war, etc. The fact that we've had some pretty good back-and-forth discussion indicates there's a sizeable group of people much interested in the option.

I liked the two hex drop zone within a friendly zone of control idea, as no country in WW II had the ability to land a corps of airborne 500 or 1000 miles back, lets say to sieze Caucaus oil fields at the outset of Barbarossa. Both sides could only mount commando raids of at best brigade or battalion size THAT far behind enemy lines, and it would probably have been a suicide mission.

[dragoon19]

Lets have paratroopers but make them very expensive to buy (around 300MPPS for a corps)as well as to airlift (around 60 MPPS).

Then make them weak when faced with regular troops armed with heavy weapons.

Add to this a risk of lossing strength and supply due to Anti Aircraft Arty (AAA) and fighter interception when being airlifted into action. This risk should depend on how long the flight path over enemy held territory, location of fighters and towns etc.

AAA and fighter interception would then have effects on unit effectivnss and supply when landing. That is the longer the flight the bigger the risk. This would reduce the unit supply and effictivness and strength when landing.

Max range should be around 1-6 hexes after all operational deployment doctrine for paras can easily have them working some 100 miles in front of the lead units for a corps or army atttack. AFAIK

Anybody who still would use paras after these modification - well thats fine with me :cool:

Just my humble oppinion on the mater.

[Camicie Nere]

I just about completely agree with Jolly - originally I was against due to the scale, but I like the idea of limited range and relatively high MPP cost. Also, perhaps, they could be modelled as a relatively immobile understrength corps with a max strength of 5 or some such thing. Not particlualry useful for attack, but able to physically be somewhere and GET IN THE WAY - make no mistake, there is a value to that. Kind of like in real life.

The main objection seems to be that the use would be ahistorical. Fine, but if every element of SC had to meet an absolute litmus test for grog-friendliness then you would be tossing a lot more than paras out of the game.

Put in the paras in SCII or whatever. The effect would be interesting. I think of the fear in the English countryside in June '40, of the descent upon Crete, of Market-Garden.

Paras influenced grand strategy more due to that effect than to what they could accomplish on the ground.

Make it a selectible option, just like those damned endlessly self-generating Yugo Partisans with their propensity to light out for Munich and Venice at the drop of a hat.

____________________________________________

"We're Airborne troops. We're supposed to be surrounded."

[Desert Dave]

There was also a planned airborne attack to take the airfield near Oslo in April of '40.

However, fog prevented the drop. Nonetheless, it was vital to take that airfield, so several pilots landed their fighter planes and held off the rapidly dwindling resistance (hence, one of the reasons for the subsequent outcry against Vidkun Quisling) with their machine pistols.

This allowed transports to land with reinforcements.

One way of looking at this issue of Paratroops, is to abstract that corps-level unit and assume it could also include the follow-up gliders/transports.

This would ease the concerns of those who say that such a small fighting force could not muster enough strength to justify their inclusion in a future game. Over a week or two, that AB could expand by air-drop to include other reinforcements/supplies.

[Jeff Heidman]

I am going to reverse myself on this.

Prior to the demo I argued *against* paras in both this game and in the upcoming Hearts of Iron game from Paradox.

But after playing the demo a lot, I think paras would be fine.

Are they "realistic" at this scale? Absolutely not. So what. This is not even in the ballpark of a realistic game, and it doens't try to be. What it does try to be, is fun. And paras would be fun. And the game could use some variety in options.

I mean, come on. We are going to argue that paras are inappropriate in a strategic wargame in WW2, but "rockets" are? We ahve aircraft carriers that get sunk without ever getting close to the enemy, and we are going to worry about whether ro not paras fit into the game?

SC is a beer and pretzels level strategic wargame. Nothing wrong with that, I intend to have fun playing it as such. Realism? Can't find much, and certainly not enough that having paras would be anymore unrealistic than any number of other things.

Jeff Heidman

[pzgndr]

Thanks guys. It's nice to see some folks are beginning to understand what I mean by the abstract effect airborne could have in the game without ruining it.

[gunnergoz]

Anybody consider the fact that thousands of paras need hundreds of transport aircraft and the air superiority fighters to go with them? Doesn't this need to be factored in as a loss of resources? And won't this impact how many aircraft (esp. medium bombers) one can go about fielding?

I personally don't see much value in having para units in the game unless these issues can be factored in...

[J Wagner]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Anybody consider the fact that thousands of paras need hundreds of transport aircraft and the air superiority fighters to go with them? Doesn't this need to be factored in as a loss of resources? And won't this impact how many aircraft (esp. medium bombers) one can go about fielding?

I personally don't see much value in having para units in the game unless these issues can be factored in...

Para dropped units can lose a random amount of strength points to reflect this...perhaps 0 - 3 points..but agian you are trying to instill a micro management sense of realism into a game that is in no way geared for it....

[ July 25, 2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: J Wagner ]

[husky65]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Anybody consider the fact that thousands of paras need hundreds of transport aircraft and the air superiority fighters to go with them? ..

Already been mentioned, as has the inability at this scale of simulating supply efforts, the lack of an opportunity for the defender to attack such supply efforts (because of the scale), the limited number of troops who will volunteer for such ops (the allied airborne army involved in Market Garden was only about 35,000 troops, and still the allies lacked enough Tpt a/c to move them in one lift), Paras don't sieze areas - they sieze critical objectives (that are not in the game because of the scale) and no one has given any examples of where they have worked on this scale.

Paras have been ruled out by Hubert with good reason.