Jet Pack Infantry…what am I missing?

[kvob]

As the title suggests, I’ve raised some jet pack infantry but don’t see what advantage they give. I thought that perhaps they would have enhanced movement unencumbered by terrain (ie jetting into an area) but they seem to be no better than ordinary foot soldiers. I had visions of them being used something like the USA used air-mobile infantry in the Vietnam conflict.

Am I missing something? It seems a waste of research to develop them if they give no advantage over ordinary infantry.

[Soar_Slitherine]

They have doubled offensive scores compared to normal infantry, but they also can't wear the heaviest armor types, so their combat capabilities aren't really better overall by the time you can get them. They do have a really high recon value, so they can probably be useful in that role, especially if you need something easily air-portable.

[kvob]

Good to know. Thanks for the info.
I still think they should also have some kind of enhanced mobility (them having jet packs and all):)

[KingHalford]

I think giving Jet Pack troops access to Battledress would stop people using standard Battledress Infantry completely, unless there was some other cost to them (like a large fuel or power operating cost, for example).

I also think Jetpack troops are underwhelming as they are. Perhaps Vic can let us know if there are any hidden benefits to using them beyond the lack of attack penalty for infantry.

Maybe if they partially mitigated terrain and fortification bonuses, it might make them a lot more useful?

[zgrssd]

Jetpack in the Manual:

Jetpack Infantry
Jetpacks allow the Infantry to make small jumps, giving them the mobility
to be much more effective in offensive roles.

Jetpacks give better attack
Infantry with Jetpacks gets their Soft Attack doubled and Hard Attack
increased with 50% due to the fact that they are tactically air mobile.

As for them not having heavy armor, that seems fitting:

https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-05-28

[kvob]

I missed that section on jetpacks when I went through the manual but I've learned a valuable lesson. By typing 'Jetpack' into the PDF search window, I managed to find the reference you've posted. I must remember to do that more often.

I agree that it's probably right that airborne troops have lighter armour than regular infantry just as paratroopers were usually lightly armed compared to ground troops in WW2.

[arvcran2]

SKEET?

...


Um ... they certainly would want to have better protection and combat any strong winds whilst 'airborne'. I suspect the pyro techniques would also attract attention, hence their desire to be better shielded. Special training would probably be in order to properly 'pilot' the craft. So should they have a slight defense penalty for being more 'exposed' (assuming you can get hits on the moving target)?

[stevemk1a]

I seem to remember that you can hop them over the ZOC's of enemy troops somehow (I think it was strategic movement) but I'm not sure, since it's been awhile since I have used them.

[KingHalford]

I dunno, I see Assault Marines in Warhammer 40k, and don't see why we couldn't have jump-pack Battledress thematically. I do see the reason not to have them from a games design perspective though.

[Soar_Slitherine]

SKEET?

It's not an acronym - it means a sort of target that gets thrown into the air for target practice.

I think that comic has it right, given that a flying soldier loses the cover and concealment that infantry rely on to survive, while not having the speed or altitude of an actual aircraft, and that future battlefields are likely going to be full of weapons designed to shoot down small, but slow flying targets cost-effectively even if nobody's trying to fly around with jetpacks, given how useful drones have proved in the war in Ukraine.

That doesn't mean tactical air mobility would be entirely useless, but it's worth taking into account factors such as the opportunity cost imposed by the weight and expense of the equipment before getting too excited about it.

[zgrssd]

SKEET?

Skeet Shooting is shooting flying targets.
The Skeet is the target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting

[solops]

I think the main utility of jump infantry would be to hop, not to fly. Hop over the river, the trenches, to the top of the building, into/over the trees, out of a kill box, rapid jump to reinforce, etc cetera. Longer distance flying just provides small, slow, soft targets, as mentioned. Unless you can deploy thousands or tens of thousands and are willing to suffer mass casualties...like a school of fish in a sea of predators. Game-wise the quad MG, especially the mobile variant, should be death to such a mass aerial migration. And there are always airbursts - fuel/air bombs, nukes. Jump infantry should move as normal infantry but fight with some combat bonuses vs terrain.

[LeoMPanther]

Well Quad-MG mechanized or not is lethal to any infantry, so jump infantry isn't that much more vulnerable. I suppose if you were designing some Infantry specific OOB that would be good in difficult terrain like mountains and cloud forest adding some Jetpack infantry might give them a bit more punch.
Something to experiment with.

[arvcran2]

So pheasants are a way to balance in with ease as long as you have the pull from above?

Wow ... Jetpacks are educational!!!

[solops]

So pheasants are a way to balance in with ease as long as you have the pull from above?

Wow ... Jetpacks are educational!!!

Exactly! Turkeys, too!