Supply cost for Axis paras - Possible issue for GS 2.2?

[zechi]

In my current game with JoeRock I'm currently battling the British 8th Army in Egypt in 1941. I noticed that German paras can be transported and used in NA without any supply costs, i.e. they make a good addition to the Axis forces in NA if the Axis players intends to battle the British. We both wondered if this is intended?

From my point of view (and I think JoeRock has the same opinion) a para unit should be more difficult to supply in NA then a GAR. I know that a para unit is only a division, but still I think that paras needed much more supply then "normal" units or I'm wrong?

Cheers Zechi

[Kragdob]

Para unit is just a division on which you paid extra for elite training (+15 PPs). The additional cost is for the drop and on here you are right this should be much more expensive in NA as preparing such operation would require much more organization than on 'regular' terrain in Europe.

Actually Germans had a parachute unit in NA: Ramcke Parachute Brigade which was one of the most elite units under Rommel's command. The bravest story was when they were cut off from retreating Axis forces after second battle of El-Alamein - they hijacked supply convoy for entire UK division and motorized in this way rejoined DAK.

[joerock22]

I initially thought that German paras should cost NA supply points, but now I'm not so sure. German corps cost 1, while garrisons cost 0. I think we need to ask ourselves whether the supply needs for a para would be more similar to a garrison or a corps. I just don't know.

[Cybvep]

When PARAs are simply fighting on land in the same manner that standard divs do, they aren't really putting a big strain on the supply network. However, when you want to perform an air-drop, then logistical problems quickly become apparent - you need planes, supplies, fuel and you need to have the means to continue supplying PARAs when they land, because the game assumes that they always have some supplies (supply 1), while IRL in most cases paratroopers lost most of their stuff when they landed and either had to be supplied by air or had to steal enemy's supplies.

[rkr1958]

I initially thought that German paras should cost NA supply points, but now I'm not so sure. German corps cost 1, while garrisons cost 0. I think we need to ask ourselves whether the supply needs for a para would be more similar to a garrison or a corps. I just don't know.

Airborne divisions didn't have heavy artillery or heavy anti-tank units like regular army divisions had. Airborne divisions were intended to be use to capture critical objectives (e.g., bridges or cities) by surprise and hold them only until the regular army units arrived. As we saw in Operation Market Garden, though consisting of elite troops, they just didn't have the heavy weapons to hold out for more than a few days. So, I'd say an airborne division would require less supply than a garrison. In terms of "costing" more supply when they drop; axis air units in North Africa consume supply whether or not they "fly" on a given turn. So I personally feel the current system is working. Otherwise; we add in a lot of complication (e.g., 5-step air unit versus a 10-step one, or one on sentry versus not) for very little gain.

[zechi]

I initially thought that German paras should cost NA supply points, but now I'm not so sure. German corps cost 1, while garrisons cost 0. I think we need to ask ourselves whether the supply needs for a para would be more similar to a garrison or a corps. I just don't know.

Airborne divisions didn't have heavy artillery or heavy anti-tank units like regular army divisions had. Airborne divisions were intended to be use to capture critical objectives (e.g., bridges or cities) by surprise and hold them only until the regular army units arrived. As we saw in Operation Market Garden, though consisting of elite troops, they just didn't have the heavy weapons to hold out for more than a few days. So, I'd say an airborne division would require less supply than a garrison. In terms of "costing" more supply when they drop; axis air units in North Africa consume supply whether or not they "fly" on a given turn. So I personally feel the current system is working. Otherwise; we add in a lot of complication (e.g., 5-step air unit versus a 10-step one, or one on sentry versus not) for very little gain.

Yes, that makes sense and the Axis player can nicely boost his Army in NA with paras if chooses so. As the number of para units is limited, I think this is OK.