Gamey use of paratroops?

Post advice on tactics and strategies here; share your experience on how to become a better wargamer.

Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM

User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Gamey use of paratroops?

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That was just luck, not because the Panzer Corps had been detected, though. And what constitutes "dropped on top of" is scale dependent in TOAW. At 10km/hex, most drops are "on top of" something - meaning they are almost immediately engaged. Probably not uncommon to drop within 2.5km of something, especially in a close drop like D-Day.

Well this is just it. In TOAW, this can make airdrops extremely difficult and costly. It seems reasonable for the airborne units to drop around the forces in the LZ rather than all being annihilated on landing. If the forces in the area are so powerful then the paratroopers are doomed anyway.
Once you've made the paradym shift to handling paradrops as combat instead of movement, then it isn't necessary to RBC any enemy forces that are dropped on - just have regular combat instead (with an appropriate paradrop penalty of course).

I am almost certain that this is what happens anyway; units involved in either attack or defence in an air assault invariably take losses in the process. If you fail with an initial air assault you can try another, as the defender will have taken losses.
Overwhelming force necessary to RBC is no longer needed, and all units landing in the hex under combat can combine in the attack.

Well that would be an advantage for the attacker. How realistic this is due to the disruption and dispersal of an airdrop would be another matter.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Gamey use of paratroops?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That was just luck, not because the Panzer Corps had been detected, though. And what constitutes "dropped on top of" is scale dependent in TOAW. At 10km/hex, most drops are "on top of" something - meaning they are almost immediately engaged. Probably not uncommon to drop within 2.5km of something, especially in a close drop like D-Day.

Well this is just it. In TOAW, this can make airdrops extremely difficult and costly. It seems reasonable for the airborne units to drop around the forces in the LZ rather than all being annihilated on landing. If the forces in the area are so powerful then the paratroopers are doomed anyway.

See the third item below.
Once you've made the paradym shift to handling paradrops as combat instead of movement, then it isn't necessary to RBC any enemy forces that are dropped on - just have regular combat instead (with an appropriate paradrop penalty of course).

I am almost certain that this is what happens anyway; units involved in either attack or defence in an air assault invariably take losses in the process. If you fail with an initial air assault you can try another, as the defender will have taken losses.

Just one unit at a time, though, and it requires a RBC to succeed. Very severe penalty.
Overwhelming force necessary to RBC is no longer needed, and all units landing in the hex under combat can combine in the attack.

Well that would be an advantage for the attacker. How realistic this is due to the disruption and dispersal of an airdrop would be another matter.

See the first item above. This would blunt the (too) severe penalty that currently exists. Some level of combat penalty for the paradrop could be settled on as realistic.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Gamey use of paratroops?

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Just one unit at a time, though, and it requires a RBC to succeed.

It doesn't- there's an actual combat. It requires that the defender retreat, but not an RBC.

You're probably right that your approach would be an improvement, but I don't think it's all that major a leap from using the house rule I suggested.

As a side note, presumably you'd want airborne units to split up and spread out before the execution of the combat rather than after they've landed.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Gamey use of paratroops?

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Just one unit at a time, though, and it requires a RBC to succeed.

It doesn't- there's an actual combat. It requires that the defender retreat, but not an RBC.

The manual says RBC and there's no combat report. But, of course, the manual can be wrong.
You're probably right that your approach would be an improvement, but I don't think it's all that major a leap from using the house rule I suggested.

It would allow a close drop like D-Day to be realistically performed at 10km/hex - where you're certain to drop on something.
As a side note, presumably you'd want airborne units to split up and spread out before the execution of the combat rather than after they've landed.
If you mean from scattering, then of course. I never intended otherwise.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”