Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.
-
@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.
-
@Panther said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
No, you just skip the roll-dice steps and proceed to step 7 "Conclude Combat" where capturing, liberating etc. (changing ownership) takes place.
You're saying this is what should happen? It isn't in fact clear in the rulebook for Anniversary, although I'd be surprised if a ruling has been issued which clarifies it in this way.
-
@simon33 said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
@Panther said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
No, you just skip the roll-dice steps and proceed to step 7 "Conclude Combat" where capturing, liberating etc. (changing ownership) takes place.
You're saying this is what should happen? It isn't in fact clear in the rulebook for Anniversary, although I'd be surprised if a ruling has been issued which clarifies it in this way.
Not sure, what you are having in mind here? You can of course put all the infantry onto the battle board and roll against nothing before if you want. Practically you can skip that:
The rulebook clearly states: "If you moved any land units into unoccupied hostile territories or hostile territories that contain only industrial complexes and/or antiaircraft guns, no actual combat is necessary. Simply skip to step 7 (Conclude combat) for each of these territories." (page 18).
So again - what are you referring to?
-
@Cernel So again ( As @simon33 pointed out earlier) that aircraft was designed in variants... some models being designed as bombers... other as transports. I have yet to see any references saying that the Bomber variants were altered temporarily to be used as transports then converted back after.
The comparison you provide to combat ships being used as transports is not really an apples to apples comparison. And the real issue with this idea being utilized in Triple A (with some consideration to realism) is the limitation of the fact that there is no way (currently) to limit or nullify a combat ship's basic combat abilities when you add the transport ability.
-
@Panther said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
The rulebook clearly states: "If you moved any land units into unoccupied hostile territories or hostile territories that contain only industrial complexes and/or antiaircraft guns, no actual combat is necessary. Simply skip to step 7 (Conclude combat) for each of these territories." (page 18).
That sentence isn't in my download of the anniversary rules. Tried searching. Downloaded again from here: https://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/
Sounds like the present behaviour might be correct.
-
@Hepps I don't understand where's the problem. It is really not hard to convert a bomber to transport other stuff. For the SM 82, aside other minor variations, most were built as transports and some as bombers, and most of those built as bombers were, instead, used as transports, maybe after having been used as bombers initially. It is also known that, after the war, heavy bombers were used for repatriation flight and other duties. You don't usually want to do that, as a bomber costs more than a transport, so it is a waste to use it as such, and that is why you might struggle to find many examples of that, and that usually happens when the aircraft is deemed too weak or obsolete to still perform its bomber role. You don't actually need to find any examples of that at all (but the few ones I mentioned should be enough); it just can be done.
-
@Hepps said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
@Cernel So again ( As @simon33 pointed out earlier) that aircraft was designed in variants... some models being designed as bombers... other as transports. I have yet to see any references saying that the Bomber variants were altered temporarily to be used as transports then converted back after.
For the case of a bomber used as transport then going back being used as a bomber again, I guess one should search if I find any cases of that, but that would be more unlikely, as using a bomber as a transport is substantially a downgrade, either prompted by you feeling not having enough transports or feeling that the bomber is obsoleted for the role, so it would be unlikely that, thereafter, you change your mind. What I initially said is just "it is relatively easy to convert a bomber to transport whatever over stuff".
-
An example of intermittent use (pointing out that I never said you could easily convert a transport to be a bomber, but only a bomber to a "crude" transport) may be found in more atypical scenario, where the scarcity of resources would oblige you to adapt.
Here it is an example in the Spanish Civil War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_history_of_the_Savoia-Marchetti_SM.81
After these exploits, the initial SM.81s were reinforced by aircraft from four other squadrons: 213, 214, 215 and 216 in two Groups (XXXIV and XXXV), and by 251 and 252 squadrons for the XXV ("Pipistrelli") Group. Throughout the war, SM.81s were used as attack aircraft as well as in the transport role and as bombers. Although some missions were flown with Fiat CR.32 fighter escorts, unescorted day missions were only made possible by flying in tight formation with mutual machine gun protection, and by the aircraft's ability to fly on instruments while in cloud. Sorties were increasingly flown at night after the arrival of Polikarpov I-15 and I-16s in Spain, at which point only seven of the original nine aircraft were still serviceable, having released 210 tonnes (230 tons) of bombs and contributed (together with Junkers Ju 52s) to 868 flights transporting Morocco's troops. After thousands of hours flown by 90 to 100 aircraft, at least 64 surviving SM.81s were left behind in Spain in the G-12 Group at the end of 1938. One example was lost near the end of the war in 1939 along with the lives of many senior officers. The precise total number of SM.81 losses during the war in combat and from operational causes is not known.Like almost all Italian bombers, they originated as transport aircrafts, but built as bombers. They can load 2,000 kg of bombs, that is a lot for a heavy bomber in early Spanish Civil War times, so they can definitely perform fully as bombers (though quite obsolete by the start of WW2, of course).
I can understand that, say, the U.S.Americans, with their massive production, would not bother wasting a bomber for transport duties, but would just roll out more dedicated transports if they need more. That is why the mention that you can use a bomber to transport other stuff is not intended to say that games must allow for that as a major necessity (just like using destroyers to transport infantries).
-
@simon33 said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
@Panther said in Can Air Transport be removed from land combat? +other paratrooper Qs.:
The rulebook clearly states: "If you moved any land units into unoccupied hostile territories or hostile territories that contain only industrial complexes and/or antiaircraft guns, no actual combat is necessary. Simply skip to step 7 (Conclude combat) for each of these territories." (page 18).
That sentence isn't in my download of the anniversary rules. Tried searching. Downloaded again from here: https://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/
Sounds like the present behaviour might be correct.
@simon33 See https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/24786/anniversary-edition-rulebook-available-for-download
There you find the link to the 2017 rulebook update that includes this clarification.
It is part of the Europe/Pacific/Global 1940.2 rulebooks as well as of the 1942.2 rulebook, too!
