Market Garden

[Marshall Thomas]

I had "A Bridge too Far" on in the backround while I was reading the manual last night. I know that WW2:ToW has paratroopers in game. Is something like Operation Market Garden a realistic option in WW2:ToW? Thanks in advance

[cpdeyoung]

Yes, within reason, it actually can happen.  In Soviet campaigns in Turkey, which is nightmarish terrain, you can achieve important leapfrogs with para units.  There are no bridges as such in the game, but against a weaker Axis airborn assaults can play a roll.
 
Chuck

[Texashorns]

I regularly build a Airborne Army group consisting of 3-5 airborne divisions and then use them to capture vacant cities, surround enemy units, and/or finish off encirclement of large bodies of enemy units. For instance in my current game, I paradropped a german airborne division into an undefended Metz on the Western front. Then used them to get behind the french and british lines to cut them out of supply. Italian airborne was used to capture Malta in the Med., a german airborne army of 4 divisions was used to capture Cyprus. The german airborne army was then moved to the eastern front and used in conjunction with Army Group North to isolate Russian units blocking the way to Lenningrad. Bottom line, airborne divisions are very useful.

[vonpaul]

Sounds a bit too useful:p

[Texashorns]

How can something be TOO useful........?

[AH4Ever]

Well, let's see if the porridge can be too hot or too cold, I guess as a matter of opinion something could be considered too useful.

Personally, I feel that airborne is too effective and too easy to create. I think they should cost much more to purchase thereby simulating the aircraft required to deliver them to their target. Not to mention the extra training required and small percentage of qualified personnel available. They were elite troops don't forget.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

Personally, I feel that airborne is too effective and too easy to create. I think they should cost much more to purchase thereby simulating the aircraft required to deliver them to their target. Not to mention the extra training required and small percentage of qualified personnel available. They were elite troops don't forget.

I agree with you, when purchasing para units it should take a long time before being able to deploy them.

[Texashorns]

How is building and deploying an airborne division any slower than an armored division or corps? The aspect of production and deployment is squeezed in this game for all units except naval, and even then 3 turns to turn out subs is pretty short. One turn for entire Corps or for that matter any of the aircraft?

Instead of delaying deployment, airborne divisions should A) as AH said be more expensive to produce and B) have a cap on how many can be built. I would also like them to have an effectiveness bonus to represent their elite status.

Though they are easy to build and deploy, you do have the delay of 3 turns of inactivity before they can be dropped. This could represent training and cobbeling together air transport. Once dropped if they don't get into supply quickly they are easily eliminated. They are effective if used correctly, but I don't see them as unbalanced vs the rest of the game's units.

As an aside, anyone ever seen the AI conduct an airborne drop? The Russians build tons of airborne units, then they just feed them into the meat grinder that is the Eastern front.

[Maximeba]

How can something be TOO useful........?


In the game Dave and I are playing the paratroopers got out of hand. The Germans took Hugh losses when approaching a city, because of a zero combat unit dropping behind them and then being attacked. Whole Armour corps where wiped out on 3-1 attacks because of no retreat route. The paratroopers caused such high pp losses that the Axis will never gain the initiative in Russia again.
We decided to come up with a house rule that all nations could buy one paratroop unit on the first turn of a month.
I haven’t decided, but I think I should give Dave some of those lost pp’s back again. This way he could buy back some of the units lost. I did the moves, but afterwards it felt dirty.
I had 19 paratroop drops in 1 turn. If this wasn't dirty what is?

[Chocolino]

In the game Dave and I are playing the paratroopers got out of hand. The Germans took Hugh losses when approaching a city, because of a zero combat unit dropping behind them and then being attacked. Whole Armour corps where wiped out on 3-1 attacks because of no retreat route.

Cutting off retreat with paratroopers and then killing of strong units more reliably via the retreat rule is somewhat annoying. I agree. But that is more the fault of the current retreat rules, and not so much the fault of the paratroopers. They are meant to leap behind units after all.

I recommend instead to mod the retreat rules so that retreats can only happen when a unit is below a certain low strength. Then the tank corps would have survived a 3-1 or more and the paratrooper would look somewhat vulnerable the next turn. (We use 20% retreat strength in our games, but the exact number is a question of taste of course).

change "consts.csv" to
291 #basic chance of land unit retreat;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
292 20;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

[Maximeba]

[/quote]
[quote]change "consts.csv" to
291 #basic chance of land unit retreat;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
292 20;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Does the 20 mean the unit must take a 20% loss before they retreat? Or does it mean that the unit must lose 80% loss before it will retreat.

[Chocolino]

ORIGINAL: Maximeba

change "consts.csv" to
291 #basic chance of land unit retreat;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
292 20;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Does the 20 mean the unit must take a 20% loss before they retreat? Or does it mean that the unit must lose 80% loss before it will retreat.

the latter, a unit only retreats if it is at 20% or less strength. So retreats won't happen quickly and a single 3-1 won't cause a unit to expire because of a lack of retreat hexes. The optimum value for this parameter is of course debatable.

[Bleck]

Just in case someone wants to know details.
First condition to even check if unit will retreat is units base strength. If it is lower than 50% of maximum strength then there is possibility of retreat. Chance of retreat is then calculated like this:

chanceOfRetreat[/b] (in %) = ( [basic chance of land unit retreat (in %) from consts.csv] - [units base strength (in % of max strength)] ) * [retreatChanceModifierPerColumn from consts.csv] * [retreatChanceModifierPerTerrain from consts.csv]

Then random number in range 1-100 is picked and if this number < chanceOfRetreat then unit retreats.

[Harbinger]

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

Personally, I feel that airborne is too effective and too easy to create. I think they should cost much more to purchase thereby simulating the aircraft required to deliver them to their target. Not to mention the extra training required and small percentage of qualified personnel available. They were elite troops don't forget.

I somewhat agree. That the Para is "too effective" is somewhat debatable. However, I agree that the Para is too easily created.
Airborne cost = 24pp. Hmm.....Elite unit, needs aircraft to use Special Ability, but only costs 24pp?
Compared with a Strat Bomber or Tac Bomber, approximately the same sized aircraft needed as transport for Para;
SB cost = 360pp(?).
TB cost = 240pp(?).

I think maybe splitting the difference in cost of these two air units and adding the base cost for the Para might arrive at a reasonable price for a single Airborne. IE;
Airborne cost = 324pp.

Plus the Airborne must still wait 3 turns before opening thier 'chutes.

Just a thought.....

[AH4Ever]

Interesting approach but wouldn't the # of aircraft needed to support a division of Airborne be less than forming a complete Air Army/Division.

I read in another thread that each strength point/ factor of air equals 100 aircraft, if I remember correctly.