Dropping paratroopers

[Leandros]

While there are few sides of the game I react negatively to - most things even out over time,
one item I react to is that planes, unlike vessels, cannot return to a different place than
where they left from. But, I do not feel this is a big deal. "Staging points" were used
during the war.

However, what I think is awkward, and definitely wrong, I just experienced it, is that
paratroopers cannot be dropped in a "terrain" hex that is inhabited by own troops, or contested by the two
parties. They cannot be set down in an "empty" hex, either. That is, in a way, acceptable, as
I suppose the game's "justification" for this is that a drop is dependent on some sort of
reception committee. That said, they can be dropped in a "green point" unmanned zone or a
contested city.

If a reception committee is a pre-requisite the fact that there are own forces there, should be
good enough. Just my opinion. The idea that paratroopers cannot be set down anywhere is
illogical and very much outside the historical experience.

Fred

[btd64]

All good points Fred. I agree. Troops were dropped behind enemy lines and had to march to get to the enemy troops or a town/air base, etc....GP

[GetAssista]

This stems from the necessity of map being basically empty - devoid of garrisons and militia - to not make you drown in a bazillion of LCUs. In exchange you do not have the ability to drop paras anywhere other than enemy bases. Otherwise those would be major SLOC hassles and will be houseruled into oblivion just like sub commando recons or landings in a non-base hexes are now.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

This stems from the necessity of map being basically empty - devoid of garrisons and militia - to not make you drown in a bazillion of LCUs. In exchange you do not have the ability to drop paras anywhere other than enemy bases. Otherwise those would be major SLOC hassles and will be houseruled into oblivion just like sub commando recons or landings in a non-base hexes are now.

But this does not conform with the fact that they cannot be dropped into a hex where there already are BOTH own and enemy units. Or, for that matter, only enemy units.

Fred

P.S.: Just to clarify, this concerns "terrain" hexes.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
This stems from the necessity of map being basically empty - devoid of garrisons and militia - to not make you drown in a bazillion of LCUs. In exchange you do not have the ability to drop paras anywhere other than enemy bases. Otherwise those would be major SLOC hassles and will be houseruled into oblivion just like sub commando recons or landings in a non-base hexes are now

But this does not conform with the fact that they cannot be dropped into a hex where there already are BOTH own and enemy units. Or, for that matter, only enemy units.
Fred

You can drop them into enemy bases no matter unit presence as far as I remember. As for non-base hexes why would engine differentiate and use different rules for the drop depending on presense, would be illogical, units can move in/out

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
This stems from the necessity of map being basically empty - devoid of garrisons and militia - to not make you drown in a bazillion of LCUs. In exchange you do not have the ability to drop paras anywhere other than enemy bases. Otherwise those would be major SLOC hassles and will be houseruled into oblivion just like sub commando recons or landings in a non-base hexes are now

But this does not conform with the fact that they cannot be dropped into a hex where there already are BOTH own and enemy units. Or, for that matter, only enemy units.
Fred

You can drop them into enemy bases no matter unit presence as far as I remember. As for non-base hexes why would engine differentiate and use different rules for the drop depending on presense, would be illogical, units can move in/out

Please see my initial, and previous, posting. This concerns "terrain" hexes. I know they can
drop on enemy bases - and "red points", but not on "terrain" hexes, manned or unmanned by
any party. It just says: "This is not a base".

I'm not totally sure about this, but if I remember correctly they can also not drop on own
"green point" - unless it is manned.

Fred

[dr.hal]

Could it be related to the fact that the hex is 40 NM across and that normally paras are not expected to travel too much due to lack of supplies or at least the difficulty of keeping them IN supplies?

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Could it be related to the fact that the hex is 40 NM across and that normally paras are not
expected to travel too much due to lack of supplies or at least the difficulty of keeping them
IN supplies?

I surely do not know but, as with bombing raids and naval bombardments into a contested "terrain"
hex, it ought to be possible to "imagine" (plan) a drop in the friendly part of that hex, too.
After all, that is the beauty of parachuting, you're not supposed to have to walk so far.

That said, me and my para comrade-in-arms would have been very happy to hear that we were not
supposed to walk 60 clicks a day.....[:)]....

Fred

[chemkid]

.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Could it be related to the fact that the hex is 40 NM across and that normally paras are not
expected to travel too much due to lack of supplies or at least the difficulty of keeping them
IN supplies?

I surely do not know but, as with bombing raids and naval bombardments into a contested "terrain"
hex, it ought to be possible to "imagine" (plan) a drop in the friendly part of that hex, too.
After all, that is the beauty of parachuting, you're not supposed to have to walk so far.

That said, me and my para comrade-in-arms would have been very happy to hear that we were not
supposed to walk 60 clicks a day.....[:)]....

Fred

In Burma, the Allies used several para groups (including the Chindits) to drop behind enemy lines and march through tough jungle terrain to attack his supply lines and rail junctions like Myitkynya. These groups had some help from native groups but were also supplied from the air at times.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

In Burma, the Allies used several para groups (including the Chindits) to drop behind enemy lines and march through tough jungle terrain to attack his supply lines and rail junctions like Myitkynya. These groups had some help from native groups but were also supplied from the air at times.

The question actually came up when trying to drop paras into a contested "terrain" hex - that is
with the hex held by the enemy but under attack from own forces. IOW, They could jump into the
"own" part of the hex - and receive support from own forces already there.

This was not allowed - the game stating: "This is not a base". Dropping into a contested base,
or city, held by the enemy, is not a problem.

Fred

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

In Burma, the Allies used several para groups (including the Chindits) to drop behind enemy lines and march through tough jungle terrain to attack his supply lines and rail junctions like Myitkynya. These groups had some help from native groups but were also supplied from the air at times.

The question actually came up when trying to drop paras into a contested "terrain" hex - that is
with the hex held by the enemy but under attack from own forces. IOW, They could jump into the
"own" part of the hex - and receive support from own forces already there.

This was not allowed - the game stating: "This is not a base". Dropping into a contested base,
or city, held by the enemy, is not a problem.

Fred

Yes, I understood how the thread started - I was just musing about what could have been considered for coding into the game (based on RL) if there had been the time and money available. Parachute dreams ....[:D]

[JeffroK]

It should be treated like an Amphib assault, which is possible into a non-base hex.

I think, (sometimes) that we are pushing the game engine far beyond what GG imagined some 20 years ago, like using a (real) Mini Cooper S in Formula 1.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

It should be treated like an Amphib assault, which is possible into a non-base hex.

I think, (sometimes) that we are pushing the game engine far beyond what GG imagined some 20 years ago, like using a (real) Mini Cooper S in Formula 1.

You're probably right and, like you say yourself, there are solutions in the game for similar
problems. Like the lack of possibility for flights to return to another base than the one it
departed from. Ships can do it. Carrier planes also divert to land bases if there is a problem
with their mother ship.

Hmm...do they divert to a friendly carrier if land bases are too far away? I cannot remember
to have seen it.

Fred

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

In Burma, the Allies used several para groups (including the Chindits) to drop behind enemy lines and march through tough jungle terrain to attack his supply lines and rail junctions like Myitkynya. These groups had some help from native groups but were also supplied from the air at times.

The question actually came up when trying to drop paras into a contested "terrain" hex - that is
with the hex held by the enemy but under attack from own forces. IOW, They could jump into the
"own" part of the hex - and receive support from own forces already there.

This was not allowed - the game stating: "This is not a base". Dropping into a contested base,
or city, held by the enemy, is not a problem.

Fred

Yes, I understood how the thread started - I was just musing about what could have been considered for coding into the game (based on RL) if there had been the time and money available. Parachute dreams ....[:D]

The problem with the scenario in question is that the hex is obviously in extremely "bad"
terrain as estimated movement speed for LCU's is quite slow. Which is why an insertion of Paras
would have been feasible.

Fred

[Skyros]

It may have been done to restrict the use of paras to cut of units or supplies by droping fragments into non base hexes. We see similar issues where some playes have house rule about amphib invasions in non base hexes. The size of te hex and the actual capability to control the hex may have been the issue.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

It may have been done to restrict the use of paras to cut of units or supplies by droping fragments into non base hexes. We see similar issues where some playes have house rule about amphib invasions in non base hexes. The size of te hex and the actual capability to control the hex may have been the issue.

I don't see why there should be such restrictions. Would only have made it more realistic, the
enemy would then have to use resources to dislodge them. The para units could be given a more
pronounced need for air-delivered supplies. IOW, if not supplied they would "fade" away faster.

That said, not much supplies flow through hexes without roads or railways - do they? In my scenario
there were already friendly and enemy forces in the no-base hex. It was a question of reinforcement.

Fred

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Hmm...do they divert to a friendly carrier if land bases are too far away? I cannot remember
to have seen it.

Fred

Yes, carrier aircraft can divert to another carrier ... if it has room (# of aircraft aboard already). It can probably go up to the 15% over-capacity for the carrier that still allows some ops to take place. Another problem is the limit of five units or unit fragments on a carrier for it to be able to operate. I am not clear on whether having six or more unit portions causes complete cessation of ops or just interferes with coordination of a large strike (slowing down deck handling).

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Leandros
The problem with the scenario in question is that the hex is obviously in extremely "bad"
terrain as estimated movement speed for LCU's is quite slow. Which is why an insertion of Paras
would have been feasible.

Fred

Feasible? Dropping paratroops into bad terrain would be asking for very high disablements. I did some para-drops (from the Air Force side of things) and some DZ prep (from the Army side of things). Trees and rough ground are anathema. Only the Russians dropped paratroops on purpose with no regard to casualties.

Fortunately, even jungle-rough terrain can have a clear patch that is relatively flat and might be big enough to drop troops and equipment in. The game developers could have coded some hexes as para capable and others as totally un-feasible.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Could it be related to the fact that the hex is 40 NM across and that normally paras are not
expected to travel too much due to lack of supplies or at least the difficulty of keeping them
IN supplies?

I surely do not know but, as with bombing raids and naval bombardments into a contested "terrain"
hex, it ought to be possible to "imagine" (plan) a drop in the friendly part of that hex, too.
After all, that is the beauty of parachuting, you're not supposed to have to walk so far.

That said, me and my para comrade-in-arms would have been very happy to hear that we were not
supposed to walk 60 clicks a day.....[:)]....

Fred

In Burma, the Allies used several para groups (including the Chindits) to drop behind enemy lines and march through tough jungle terrain to attack his supply lines and rail junctions like Myitkynya. These groups had some help from native groups but were also supplied from the air at times.

For the most part, the Chindits were landed by Glider, maybe the "pathfinders jumped but I'm not sure.
Only Errol Flynn was involved in a Para drop of any size.