Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.
-
@Panther Ok. Since you can easily test that, instead, in TripleA AA Guns alone (or with factory only) are captured by paratroopers without any AA fire, would you mind opening a bug report in GitHub about this? I never did, despite having always being dubious about this behaviour, because I never managed to find any official answers or clarifications in which the matter was specifically addressed, so I didn't feel to raise the matter (as I always doubted any developers would have been sure either; so no point if nobody is sure).
Do you have any, beside the one that you just gave here?
Also, I wonder if I invade a territory having only 1 aa gun, with any number of attacking land units only, am I supposed to roll for all of my attackers, despite having nothing to actually hit, since this step happens before the one in which I capture the territory (and the aa gun returned to it, already, from the battle board)?
-
@Cernel A bomber flying into a hostile territory is still attacking this territory, regardless of transporting a paratrooper or not. A bunch of Infantry units moving into an AAA containing enemy territory attacks this territory, regardless of its defenders.
I think the trouble is caused solely because of the engine's (known) behaviour to change ownership of the territory (and the AAA) incorrectly at the time when walking in there - already during Combat Move Phase. If TripleA would correctly change ownership at the end of the combat sequence instead, all of this likely would not occur. -
@simon33 said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
Honestly, I feel this is a bit of a show stopper. Apparently the makers of TWW view it differently to me because they tolerated the present functionality and even gave the air transport an attack.
I also don't really like that they can retreat.We used the functionality that existed within the engine. Not that it was ideal or how we wanted to design it. The Air Transport was given an attack because it was the only way to give the Paratrooper a combat bonus as its special ability when conducting an air born attack.
It is also why it is also part of the few player enforced rules within the game.
-
In my opinion, all aircrafts should be infrastructures, that can be hit only by AA attacks (it is possible to target infrastructures with AA; so all good here), as it really doesn't make sense that you can pick either an infantry or a fighter for the same normal hit. However, for this to really work, we need a developer that adds a property for attacking air infrastructures not to be automatically captured/destroyed, when all non-infrastructure units in attack are removed, but just ending the battle hovering the territory, like when retreating air. This would also be realistic the most for an attacking flying infrastructure, as, since it flies over the territory, I don't see how it can be possibly captured, that way.
I'm having hopes that @simon33 might add such a property to the engine, since that is what is needed for his paratrooper designs.
-
@Panther said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
@Cernel A bomber flying into a hostile territory is still attacking this territory, regardless of transporting a paratrooper or not. A bunch of Infantry units moving into an AAA containing enemy territory attacks this territory, regardless of its defenders.
I think the trouble is caused solely because of the engine's (known) behaviour to change ownership of the territory (and the AAA) incorrectly at the time when walking in there - already during Combat Move Phase. If TripleA would correctly change ownership at the end of the combat sequence instead, all of this likely would not occur.Ok, but I still wonder, theorically if I attack an empty territory or a territory with only 1 aa gun in it with 10 infantries only, should I roll 10 dice at 1, hitting nothing regardless of results, because this step happens before the one in which I capture the territory? As I said, I'm not contesting anything, and just always said that I'm not sure, but I was wondering if the battle was supposed to just end anytime at least one side has no units beside aa guns and factories (thus not even starting, if the territory is empty), as that is what would feel most sensible to me.
Actually, in this case, if you test it, this is not a matter of capturing empty territories during Combat Move. The territory is taken during Conduct Combat, but the AA gun fails to fire. So, since there is not a specific case for this in the official FAQ, I was hoping you could open a bug report about it (but, at this point, I guess I could do it, linking this thread).
-
Looks like in v3 it works incorrectly in the case where there is only an aa gun defending and a paratroop attacking. In all other cases, I believe it does work correctly.
@Hepps said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
@simon33 said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
Honestly, I feel this is a bit of a show stopper. Apparently the makers of TWW view it differently to me because they tolerated the present functionality and even gave the air transport an attack.
I also don't really like that they can retreat.We used the functionality that existed within the engine. Not that it was ideal or how we wanted to design it. The Air Transport was given an attack because it was the only way to give the Paratrooper a combat bonus as its special ability when conducting an air born attack.
It is also why it is also part of the few player enforced rules within the game.
Ah right. Didn't notice the note about this. Given that low luck is the default, so long as that is left on there's no downside to this. Could you use a support attachment for cases where you aren't using low luck, such as the way artillery works? Does Cernel's isInfrastructure+destroyedWhenCapturedBy idea appeal? I guess if you're using that idea you then probably can't use the support attachment because the units aren't in combat - or perhaps are near enough?
@Cernel said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
all aircrafts should be infrastructures
I think you're changing game mechanics a lot in this suggestion. Seems a big move. I don't feel this is likely.
@Cernel said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
I'm having hopes that @simon33 might add such a property to the engine, since that is what is needed for his paratrooper designs.
Hmm, given that everyone still uses 1.9 and it might be difficult to even get such a change a merged, it's something I might have to think about.
It isn't perfect the way it is but use of edit mode should be rare. I think it's workable as is. EDIT: Ok, maybe not as rare as I thought. It seems the air_transport units are destroyed even in a retreat. Not ideal but still workable IMO.
-
@simon33 To be honest I have not revisited this for more than 4 years as it was never a priority. As with many things in TWW we bent many of the basic engine functions to suit our will, and since many of the desired behaviors conflicted with "Larry's Laws" we never really pushed for any mechanics changes that would conflict with his gospels. Instead, formulating ideals around mechanics that could extend engine functionality but at the same time not cause conflict with the "Old Testament".
Ideally for me... an Air Transport would be present in the first round of combat only. It/they would retreat from the battle immediately following the first turn of AA fire if it/they survived.... similarly it would be ideal if the paratroopers only received a bonus to combat IF paradropped into combat, independent of whether or not the Air Transport is still present in the combat territory.
Sadly none of this conforms to any of the sacred text... and the last time I examined it the discussion ground to a halt because of how these changes would affect old archaic scriptures.
-
@Hepps said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
Ideally for me... an Air Transport would be present in the first round of combat only. It/they would retreat from the battle immediately following the first turn of AA fire if it/they survived....
Sadly none of this conforms to any of the sacred text... and the last time I examined it the discussion ground to a halt because of how these changes would affect old archaic scriptures.
This actually might be how "Classic" paratroopers are supposed to work. Though I'm not sure if either this or them having attack 0, but still eligible casualties.
similarly it would be ideal if the paratroopers only received a bonus to combat IF paradropped into combat, independent of whether or not the Air Transport is still present in the combat territory.
How about making paratroopers movement 0 units, so that they can be sent into battle with air transports only? I know paratroopers fought mostly not as paratroopers, especially for Germany (and 100% for Italy, that never actually got its paratroopers to actually paratroop), but that was actually mostly defensive.
-
@Cernel said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
How about making paratroopers movement 0 units, so that they can be sent into battle with air transports only? I know paratroopers fought mostly not as paratroopers, especially for Germany (and 100% for Italy, that never actually got its paratroopers to actually paratroop), but that was actually mostly defensive.
Doesn't really work for me as a concept since it seems unrealistic that they would be confined to a purely defensive role once dropped.
-
@simon33 said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
@Hepps said in Air Transports:
The Paratrooper attachment no longer does anything. That was depreciated some time ago.
Actually this doesn't appear to be true. Without the paratrooper tech it is impossible to load units onto air transports. Also, it seems that air transports can't be used in NCM. Interesting.
Sorry meant to respond to this earlier...
As @Cernel mentioned I was referring to the "isparatroop" unit attachment. Setting up as a tech is an entirely different matter.
-
Ah makes sense. I guess I've never seen because it's deprecated.
-
@simon33 said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
Ah makes sense. I guess I've never seen because it's deprecated.
It's not deprecated. It's removed. Or at least this is what I believe @LaFayette did (under my suggestion). Feel free to check nothing of it is left in the current program; I've no idea how to do it myself.
-
I would definitely say that adding a "marine" like option for paratroopers would be certainly a very good thing. The other item is that there is not really that much of a distinction between bombers and transport planes, as it is relatively easy to convert a bomber to transport whatever over stuff, comprising paratroopers, instead.
-
But that sounds like quite a hack. Bombers weren't really used for dropping paratroopers. Spies were different of course.
-
@simon33 What I'm saying is that, realistically, you should be able to paratroop or transport stuff both with bombers and with transport planes, but, of course, the bomber option would be relatively inefficient (the bomber would cost more to transport the same amount as a cheaper transport plane). But there is really no reason why I cannot get my men in a bomber, doing some simple modifications and removing the bombs and the "gondola" (don't know how it is called in English), if I want.
-
@Cernel Through all my reading I never really have come across any references to Bomber aircraft being used intermittently as troop transport aircraft.
There are lots of examples of the same type of plane being purpose designed to fill both roles, but haven't ever come across examples of the bombing gear being dismantled in aircraft to use temporarily as transports then being converted back to a bomber after a mission.
-
@Hepps The SM 82 is an example of an airplane used both for bombing and transporting (and meant for the Italian paratroopers, that were never actually paratrooped).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.82
But, in general, there is nothing stopping you from using a bomber to transport stuff or men, aside from the fact that it is inefficient (as you would do something that can be done by something else cheaper and more fitted).
More or less it is the same deal as using warships (usually destroyers), instead of transport ships, to transport stuff (but it should not be free, like the WAW cruisers, that have the same combat ability no matter if being used for transporting).
Anyways, I can agree there's no major need to represent either of this.
-
The bomber would need substantial changes to accommodate a reasonable number of paratroopers. Including but not limited to a new floor. In your example, the planes were purpose made for each purpose, rather than converted as needed. Or at least that's the way I read it.
-
@simon33 So, as I said, you can do it, but it is inefficient (and uncomfortable), so you don't normally want to do it, if you can, instead, use the bomber for its actual role. It is easier to find examples of bombers used as transports either in countries having huge productive limits (Italy) or after the war ended, where you would have a lot of bombers that you don't need bombing anything anymore; for example, repatriation flights returning POWs and troops.
Again, I'm not saying that games must allow heavy bombers to transport land units, as that should be inefficient enough that you rarely want to do it. I think it is really the same deal as shipping land units with destroyers and such (hard to represent and, of course, mostly done by countries in harsh situations, like Japan and Italy (Italy I think only when defending Tunisia)).
-
Ok, but I still wonder, theorically if I attack an empty territory or a territory with only 1 aa gun in it with 10 infantries only, should I roll 10 dice at 1, hitting nothing regardless of results, because this step happens before the one in which I capture the territory?
No, you just skip the roll-dice steps and proceed to step 7 "Conclude Combat" where capturing, liberating etc. (changing ownership) takes place.
Actually, in this case, if you test it, this is not a matter of capturing empty territories during Combat Move. The territory is taken during Conduct Combat, but the AA gun fails to fire. So, since there is not a specific case for this in the official FAQ, I was hoping you could open a bug report about it (but, at this point, I guess I could do it, linking this thread).
Ah ok, I was just wondering whether changing the territory/AAA-owner could be the culprit. Thank you for clarifying this. I will open the issue in case you have not done that in the meantime.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login