Mike Dubost
Posts: 273
Joined: 8/24/2008
From: Sacramento, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Plain Ian
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost
quote:
ORIGINAL: mickrocks
The basic thought I had was in keeping an otherwise manageable front from collapsing after 5 or six turns of airborne/armor assaulting. This is especially true when the defender has little reserves to go after the para, or contain the constant breakthrus as is the case with Russia early and Germany later. The flow of the game in human v human is in other respects very well paced, but using these combined arms para attacks turn after turn after turn will ruin any ability to form a consistent defense very quickly. Plus with the para being able to drop many hexs away from its current position and of armor to be able to move also many hexes.. it is very difficult to stem the leaks once the wall starts to crumble. I feel that this is only because of the flexibilty of using an airborne unit each turn - not only does the para get you to a 7-1 more cheaply than using air, but it makes trying to form a defense around the breakthru more difficult.
Perhaps a good method would be not to allow an airborne unit to jump again untill it has been stragegically moved. That will make the process of jumping more in line with reality not only do you have to move it close to a city but you must use a SM to activate its ability to jump again (maybe that would be a way to abstract the air transport needed as well as preparation and planning).
In general, I subscribe to the theory that it is better to present the player with the widest possible array of choices. I would prefer to allow the player to have the option of doing paradrops more frequently while making it expensive to do so. In that spirit, I suggest a 3-point plan to allow multi-turn paradrops while "disincentivizing" the practice:
1. Require the paratroop unit to be in or adjacent to a city in order to drop.
2. Increase the loss on landing slightly, even with air supperiority.
3. Give a unit which paradrops an efficiency penalty (cumnulative for each paradrop), which only goes away if the unit does not paradrop for a turn.
The idea behind item 1 is to simulate the need to concentrate the division and load it aboard air transports at secure air bases. This could use the logic which identifies a legal hex for stategic movement destination, for ease of coding.
Item 2 is to better simluate the historical experience of the Western Allies. For example, the US/CW had total air superiority over Normandy during the D-Day drop, yet the paratroops experienced noticeable loss on landing.
Item 3 is to simulate the scattering of paratroops which occurred during all drops in the course of the war. If the division had immediately left on another paradrop, many of these men would have been left behind.
I feel that the combined effect of these 3 points would be to place the player in a position similar to an actual commander attempting to do his own cost/benefit analysis on the use of paratroops. Yes, you could use them over and over again, but at a price. A more cautious player like me would be reluctant to continuously paradrop units. A more desperate or "risk tolerant" player would still be able to use his paratroops multiple turns, but after a few turns, he would find few troopers remaining available for the drop.
What do you think?
Of the 3 ideas above I like idea 1....but I'd modify it so that the Para unit had to be adjacent to an Air unit at start of a turn. Represents the build of logistics required for drops and long term planning required for the drop.
I'd also like to see Divisions that drop only have 2 action points when they land.
I think the game engine caters for Item 2 and possibly 3 in that units will go low in supply and thus drop strength.
I'm also eager to see what the moddable parameters that Doomtrader hinted at will be.
I agree with your suggestion for Item 1, they should indeed have to start the turn there.
As far as the game engine having Item 2, yes there is some loss on landing based upon enemy air activity, but even with zero enemy air activity, there should be some loss (based upon the actual events of June 5/6, 1944), so my suggestion is to tweek this paramenter.
Item 3 is not taken into account in the supply rules at present. The objection to paratroops as currently constituted is that they can be used to crack any line and drop every turn, if the drop zone is right behind the line and can be reached immediately by friendly troops. In this case, they would not have low supply at the start of the next turn, unless the line is far from a city. This is what another poster above implicitly thinks of as a "tactical" drop instead of the strategic drops (Market-Garden).
I like your idea of a smaller number of action points after a drop. I am not sure what the ideal amount is, I think we would have to try it out to see.
I think the moddable parameter would be a "hardcoded" can't drop within X turns of a previous drop. I agree this would stop the more gamey strategies, but I would rather have the player free to make a choice, with costs and benefits on each side.
I would emphasize that this is my opinion, and no matter how this is resolved, I do enjoy the game.
|
Printable Version
Paratroopers - 
They can jump every turn and cause extreme havoc by allowing breakthrough after breakthrough. Consider not allowing them to jump the turn following a jump and/or that they need to be adjacent to a city prior to jumping. No question that airborne needs to have its place, but not every turn of an offensive.
.
.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread