Matrix Games Forums

Can anyone explain the rationale for why paratroopers get through when their bombers are shot down?

The bombers are assumed shot down in their missions to support the airborne units. It's assumed the paratroopers are dropped by transports before this happens.

Ok then, why are the transports assumed immune to AA fire? Also, it seems there is a bit of a bias towards the aggressor in amphibious assaults; e.g., aircraft always seem to hit artillerty regardless of whether they are hit by flak. If flak and fighters can neither stop the paratroopers nor protect the artillery, then what is their purpose? Is there anything you can do to stop your artillery from being hit by the first bomb dropped?

Air units that are hit by flak or fighters will not bomb. Air units do target artillery first if they are not hit. Artillery can be protected if you have enough flak/fighters and it's good enough to hit the attacking aircraft. We decided to make it so transports will not be hit in their destination area (we didn't want the para units blown out of the skies before the drop).

Ah, ok. I thought I saw damaged aircraft dropping bombs but I guess I was mistaken.

Does anyone else think para's cost too much? Or should have slightly better stats than stadard infantry to start?

I believe Paras are represented correctly, albeit abstractly. I usually queu some up at the beginning and let them traverse the production spiral, subject to my intermittent delays, depending on the opposition. As they get close to completion or later I usually start the tech advances, takes minimum investment to get them to 7 attack and evasion. Perhaps extend Hvy Bomber range and you have a good commando force for espionage, ie. destruction of infrastructure and cutting retreat paths. With 5 Hvys teched for ground attack and 5 Paras teched for evasion, produces a rapid deployment force, great for Axis exploitation of Black Sea bordering areas.

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

I believe Paras are represented correctly, albeit abstractly. I usually queu some up at the beginning and let them traverse the production spiral, subject to my intermittent delays, depending on the opposition. As they get close to completion or later I usually start the tech advances, takes minimum investment to get them to 7 attack and evasion. Perhaps extend Hvy Bomber range and you have a good commando force for espionage, ie. destruction of infrastructure and cutting retreat paths. With 5 Hvys teched for ground attack and 5 Paras teched for evasion, produces a rapid deployment force, great for Axis exploitation of Black Sea bordering areas.

i like ur idea to develop such a rapid deployment force ("RDF").
apart from Axis exploitation, im exploring the use of RDF for the WA as well ... imagine a surprise attack by WA RDF (say from Norway) at the lightly defended W. Germany of a careless player. a success will effectively paralysis Axis's production power for a couple of turns ... lets try tonight to see whether it works ...

AN

Yes, I'm quickly becoming convinced that the game will eventually play much better with no Fog of War on. The potential for silly 'gotcha' surprise attacks is just too great.

Yes, I'm quickly becoming convinced that the game will eventually play much better with no Fog of War on. The potential for silly 'gotcha' surprise attacks is just too great.

without fog of war, axis has little chance of winning. all the allies have to do is watch what the axis is planning to produce and counter it.

as a matter of fact I even do this to an extent as axis. if I don't see the USA putting research or production into subs, then the japs don't need to waste points in antisub.

however this is even more extreme as allies. the allies can watch what the germans are planning in their production and simply produce the counter. if germany doesn't queque up a single tank and put a point into tank research, why should the allies even bother teching up theirs?

in the long run, the axis can't out-produce the allies, so they have to focus into one area. tanks, air or subs. try and research them all and you get nothing effective by the end oof the game. focus in on one and the allies can clearly see the planning from turn one with no FOW! so you see the germans queue up bombers, simply have the allies queue up lots of AA. see the germans queue up subs, then pour research into antisub (destroyers, bombers and CAG).

its an allies game with no FOW.

I've played well over 90% of my games with no FoW (due to the need to watch the AIs for testing as well as because I play a lot of hotseat games with a friend).

Honestly, I've seen nothing to make me think that it favors one side or the other. I understand what you are saying with research, but the lack of FoW makes for worse games in many cases IMO. All it takes is to be behind slightly in an area and you can be hosed. And I dont like those areas being a surprise (for either side).

No FoW also prevents the many of the cheesy attacks as listed above. Sure, Russia has to grin and bear it, but at least she can take some countermeasures based on what Germany is observed doing.

At any rate, from what I've seen so far, the game plays just fine with no FoW. There are things that help and hurt both sides.

Do I understand correctly that a hvy bomber that transports a para also gets to attack in the same turn. If so I think this is a major problem, but maybe I have it wrong.

yes it does Harrybanana, assuming it survives any AA attack.

As joel explained its not really the b-17 bombers carrying the paratroopers, but rather the inherent transport planes within the paratroop/bomber combo unit itself.

I think its fine as is, one extra bomber attack can in theory make up for why paras are kinda on the weaker side for their cost.

The potential for silly 'gotcha' surprise attacks is just too great.

Hmmm,.... I'm wondering if Pearl Harbor had never taken place, if this would be considered as an unrealistic action?

What was that I learned in the Boy Scouts,....."Be Prepared".

Is this a game or a WW2 abstracted simulation, or both?

The level of perception dictates the same degree of opinion.

Well, an air raid on Pearl Harbor was something that was definately thought possible at the time and in fact, was carried out in training. The raid on on the Italian Fleet at harbor proved it could be done as well. It wasnt so much thought to be physically difficult so much as that it was something the Japanese would not do.

However...a surprise paratrooper drop from Norway taking over Germany? Not even in the same ballpark. Same applies to some of the 'gotcha' Japanese conquests of the US West Coast (up to the Rockies I might add...). Both of these are just plain silly when viewed with ANY form of realistic context.

Nonetheless, your point is valid and some things that seemed outlandish at the time did occur. I'd prefer to allow for some of the unexpected, but keep the completely silly ones (like those above) to a minimum.

YMMV.

However...a surprise paratrooper drop from Norway taking over Germany? Not even in the same ballpark. Same applies to some of the 'gotcha' Japanese conquests of the US West Coast (up to the Rockies I might add...). Both of these are just plain silly when viewed with ANY form of realistic context.

sure they are silly from what we know today, but a japanese attack on the west coast was considered a possibility back then also. coastal batteries were in place even to defend against this.

but since we're talking about strict possibilties based upon our current knowledge, consider the japanese 'invasion' of the aleutians island up in alaska. what if instead of them duking it out at midway, they indeed had seriously pushed into alaska?

Its still not even on the same scale...Japan would never have 'taken' the West Coast (and up into Nevada where the map shows it). Simply not possible. They didnt have the manpower or logistical support for such an invasion and it was well beyond their capacity to produce in any reasonable amount of time (ie, years). The coastal arty and drills etc are largely seen as having been done to keep people 'aware' of the threat of the Japan to American interest. It was basically a scare tactic for continued war support. Again, Japan might have been able to make a few landings and screw up California or Oregon a little more, but anything beyond that is simply outside the realm of possibility.

A Japanese invasion of Alaska? Very possible in my mind, but to what real gain? It wasnt a state yet, so no 'prestige' or whatnot to be gained there. They could have made a mess up there, but in the end, it would have impacted very little (of course NOT having been at Midway for that nightmare would have had larger ripple effects, but thats another story...).

Of course ANYTHING is technically possible...I mean, Finland COULD conquer Russia and China (if they had powered suits from Starship Troopers...). But I would prefer that the game stick to realms of what would have been realistically achievable, not theoretically possible.

Point taken UJ, and I agree, fantastical occurrences have no place in the WW2 historical criteria. On the other hand, if we're discussing these actions in the context of a human to human conflict(exclude AI), don't you think that it should be up to the players to prevent some of these outlandishly perceived exploits?

I mean, think about it in real life, if someone didn't condition you to the premise that something wasn't possible, does that mean it wasn't? Could you not question its validity and experiment for yourself and possibly overcome the preconceived limitations. Isn't this what innovation and invention is?

I offer you this specific scenario; Say a group of commandos parachuted into Berlin and captured or killed Hitler and a group of his cronies. Would this action not reflect upon the eventual direction the war took? Could it be imaginable that this would throw a wrench into Fascist's determination of the War? Is this such a farfetched abstraction of the conditions that would occur in the game if such an action was prosecuted?

I gotta take issue with you here Sea Monkey. Commandos paratrooping into Berlin to take out Hitler and his cronies is, IMO, one of those "fantastical occurences" that has no place in a serious WWII game. I mean even assuming the WA had the intelligence to know exactly where Hitler was at any given moment their would be at least 2 major difficulties with such a plan. 1st, German flak cover over Berlin was intense. A very heavy toll was taken on Bombers flying at high altitudes. Since paratroopers of this era had to be dropped at a much lower altitude even greater casualties could be expected of them. Of course the way GGWaW is designed it doesn't matter how much flak or air cover you have in an area the paratroopers always get through; in my opinion this is not historically accurate. 2ndly, even assuming the German player you are playing against does not have any AA or ftrs in East Germany, the paratroopers would still have to drop at night to have any hope of having the element of surprise to capture Hitler. Unfortunately, the technology of the time did not allow paratroopers to steer, all they could do was jump, open their chute, and pray. Accordingly, it was always necessary to have a large drop zone over fairly open country. As you are probably aware this was one of the main reasons that Operation Market Garden failed, the British 1st airborne was dropped too far from Arnhem and only a small number of them actually made it into the city. Dropping directly into a major urban center such as Berlin would not have been possible even for a small company sized unit.

No, I'm sorry, I dont think things like the 'Commando Raid' on Berlin have any place at all in a grand strategy game. None. Not one bit!. [:D] It may be fun for a Clint Eastwood and Richard Burton movie, but to have such a possibility in the game completely removes any historical or WW2 feel from the game IMO.

Once that type of thing is allowed to creep into the game, how about the Germans send a team via Uboat to Washington to off FDR and put an anti-war president in office and remove the US from the war? How about a chance that the 'Doolittle Raid' kills the Emperor and Japan falls apart?

Honestly I think all the little 'gotcha' strategies are silly. Surprise attacks are one thing, but they should be carried out by realistic forces in realistic ways. Being hit where you dont expect it is part and parcel of war. Being taken out by a silly rule or an overblown effect (Airpower and Paratroopers in combination) is gamesmanship, not strategy.

Which brings me back to my original conclusion that playing with FoW off returns the game to strategy and counter-strategy rather than...'haha, you didnt see my Paras and Bombers massing one space out of your LOS and now you lost a critical territory that costs you the game'. Some might enjoy that as part of the game, but I find it very unsatisfying to win or lose by such things. And again, thats just my preferred method of play. Luckily, the game supports both. [;)]