Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Axis Empires: Totaler Krieg!» Forums » Rules

Subject: air landing , rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Greig Goodfellow
Canada
Allanburg
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


Question arises from make-up for the infantry step allowed after in supply air landing. Are the allies allowed to use a colonial step here? In this case an Indian 1-2-2. Hard to see them being the airborne remains from the allied paras.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carlos Márquez Linares
Spain
Granada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see nothing in the rules as written against it. Unless you split hairs with the glossary's definition of colonial troops as "foreign", British colonial units are British and therefore they fulfil the requirement to replace the Western airdrop marker. If you find it ahistorical, you can create a home rule stating only non-colonial units may conduct airdrop landings.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Prowell
United States
Tacoma
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Yes, you may select a colonial infantry step to place on the map during Airdrop Landing.

There weren't many "colonial" airborne troops, but there were some during the war. The Indian Chindit forces or the Poles during Market-Garden come to mind.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greig Goodfellow
Canada
Allanburg
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


Thanks for quick replies
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Hanna
United States
Eastbourne, England (Yankee go home!)
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thomasprowell wrote:
Yes, you may select a colonial infantry step to place on the map during Airdrop Landing.

There weren't many "colonial" airborne troops, but there were some during the war. The Indian Chindit forces or the Poles during Market-Garden come to mind.
This new ruling seemingly contradicts the written rules that specify British airborne units are composed of the British nationality steps and that the air landing units are of the same nationality as the parent airborne unit:

'To conduct an Airdrop Landing, take a one-step infantry unit of the same nationality from its Force Pool, place it in the hex containing the Airdrop marker, and place the Airdrop marker in the Delay Box.'

Does this now mean that British nationality includes Indian, Australian, Poles etc and we are to ignore the following rule as it pertains to nationality?

"Nationality ID (located to the left of the unit-type symbol box) indicates which Minor Country or Faction the counter belongs to"

It's true that some airborne units had very elite minor country elements but by no means were entire colonial/minor corps of airborne units running around out there in WW2!

The argument has been advanced: 'there could have been such corps' and I think it's a stretch to think that any or all of these colonial nations could have done so. But this ruling allows any or all colonial units to have participated as if crucial to the airborne capacity of a faction, and this wasn't the case.





 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Casper
msg tools
Honosbinda wrote:

Does this now mean that British nationality includes Indian, Australian, Poles etc and we are to ignore the following rule as it pertains to nationality? [...]
I was just reading some of the relevant rules today. I don't think you're supposed to ignore anything, but the answer to your question is "yes".

Dependents are not minor countries (and none of the colonial dependents like India, Australia, Canada, etc are listed as such in 13.2.2), and 13.3 says, in part:

Quote:
A Dependent or Region can never independently be considered to be the “Home Country” of any unit.
They are British units with some extra restrictions.

Also note that the colonial dependent name ("Aus", "Ind", etc) does not appear where the nationality indicator does (to the left of the unit symbol) but rather where the Historical ID does (to the right of the unit symbol). So there is no contradiction with the rule on Nationality ID.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Hanna
United States
Eastbourne, England (Yankee go home!)
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dwcasper wrote:
Honosbinda wrote:

Does this now mean that British nationality includes Indian, Australian, Poles etc and we are to ignore the following rule as it pertains to nationality? [...]
I was just reading some of the relevant rules today. I don't think you're supposed to ignore anything, but the answer to your question is "yes".

Dependents are not minor countries (and none of the colonial dependents like India, Australia, Canada, etc are listed as such in 13.2.2), and 13.3 says, in part:

Quote:
A Dependent or Region can never independently be considered to be the “Home Country” of any unit.
They are British units with some extra restrictions.

Also note that the colonial dependent name ("Aus", "Ind", etc) does not appear where the nationality indicator does (to the left of the unit symbol) but rather where the Historical ID does (to the right of the unit symbol). So there is no contradiction with the rule on Nationality ID.
You are right about the designation not showing up on the same portion of the counter for these colonials. So it's good to know that the game is internally consistent with this ruling, which was my major concern.

However, if we are to maintain this consistency, this means that the Philippine colonial could also be used for a western airborne unit (it's a USA national!) , and the German colonials (By and Uk infantry units) be used for the German airborne unit. This because they are also considered to be 'German.' The Japanese colonial units, which were in the main non-Japanese asians, we are now supposed to consider to be Japanese for the purposes of this rule.

Does anybody think that such Colonials would have been be part of Göring's Airborne and moreover to have been considered German? That the Japanese airborne corps had major elements of Koreans embodied within?

In fact, does anybody really think the Polish colonial corps really are colonials in the same vein as Australians might be considered as such?

As it stands, the only country whose airborne drops are NOT going to be diluted by other nationalities in this way is Italy if they are ever partnered by the Germans

Perhaps calling these units Colonials was a misnomer in the first place, come to think of it.

But the fact remains that these airborne corps were always run, equipped, manned and managed structurally by major nations, with some minor support by crack volunteer regiments/brigades of other nations.

I still think it's a mistake to allow this kind of substitution, but in fact the rules are consistent with Thomas' ruling so will probably be left at that -- so be it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls