Greetings,
So... After I forgot to check an old forums date and I am getting Pms all over the place to talk about adding paratroopers as a new unit in CoW I thought I would pop over here to discuss them(Please note I am not a CoW Dev). All factions during the war had and used them, Dday might have ended very differently if a fight went a little different for some British Airborne lads, Germany used the Fallschirmjager to great effect against Norway in the war, Russia's VDV were extremely successful in Poland, and dont forget the brave men of the 101st at Dday and Bastogne.
Proposed units:
Airborne Infantry
Airborne AT guns
Airborne Motorized
Airborne Mechanized
Airborne Light tanks (late game)
All these units will require an airbase to take off, once airborne they can land in any province that is not a city (City drops for Paratroopers is a bad idea). In addition they can be intercepted by Fighters in route as well as having a 50% combat strength when they first land and regroup (2-3 Hours). Thats the gist of it, tell me what you think and I look forward to answering questions if needed.
Please log in to post a reply.
I would love to see Airborne units in CoW. However, I would also recommend adding a 2 hour deployment time at there destination where they are at 50% fighting strength to make sure less active players are not completely destroyed by active players
I personally agree with the Infantry and maybe some form of light tanks and mechanized but the AT is a big no no for me. That being said i like the idea, as long as for me a few terms apply.
-There is a a small range for deployment (not transport but only for the actual drop)
-While they are in the air they must be target able by planes and anti aircraft (this makes it more about air control then just hoping they will get through)
-There must be a timer where they are 'collecting' their forces, meaning limited strength etc sort of like disembarking but less long
-For the love of god please don't make them as strong as actual infantry
Anyway look forward to possibly seeing it in the future 
I think its a great idea.
Yes! This is what is missing from Call of War! The ability to drop units on the enemy, and soften the front for the deployment of the regulars! Even if its resource-expensive to drop units, people will probably be using it anyways, because the benefit of that drop outweighs the risks and the costs! Even if there are 2 different types of research, unarmored transport, and armored transport, that must be done in order to unlock the aerial deployment, I am 100% in!
It would benefit players in normal matches, and the roleplayers who have no way of simulating drops on the enemy. I love the idea all the way!
RPU Website ManagerLove the idea cause who doesn't want to drop troops by plane behind the enemy front lines
I have made my strong support known for the addition of a new airborne infantry regiment, repeatedly and vociferously. Call of War is simply incomplete without an airborne infantry unit.
That said, I am very skeptical of adding other separate specialized airborne units such as artillery and anti-tank regiments because these were airborne support units and did not exist independently of the parent airborne infantry formation, and certainly did not fight separately as independent regiments.
As for airborne light tanks, yes, they existed, mostly on an experimental level, and the few times they were used, they experienced ridiculously high casualty counts during their glider-borne insertions. Moreover, if any airborne motorized or mechanized infantry formations existed, I am unaware of such. As a practical matter, I have no idea -- given the limitations of WWII air transport -- how any country could have delivered sufficient motorized vehicles, let alone armored fighting vehicles to support an "airborne mechanized infantry regiment."
Jeeps were dropped with American Paratroopers regularly, but to keep balance in the game the paratroopers would need some kind of system to handle tanks otherwise they will be useless. Historically that would be AT guns and the experimental tanks that were used on occasion.
As for mechanized that was just something that popped up in the conversation that started all this and I will admit it would be closer to 1950 tech where the research runs out here on CoW.
I say bring them, paratroopers/airborne units would be a nice addition, All the other games get the most requested units *points to cavelry on S1914* 
okay, i can get that people want airborne infantry, but airborne tanks, motorized infantry and mechanized infantry? that is a bit too much.
hell, anti-air guns (i'm looking at you, SP AA) would just shred them apart
Yes, they were, but a glider landing with even a vehicle as light as a one-ton Willys Jeep was a very dangerous proposition -- as Brig. Gen. Don Pratt learned the hard way.WarCityDriver wrote:
Jeeps were dropped with American Paratroopers regularly . . .
Glider-landed jeeps were used by American and British airborne infantry as battalion, regimental and divisional scout vehicles. There was simply no practical way to deliver enough jeeps to fully motorize an entire airborne regiment let alone a division. Do the math: a Jeep was designed to carry four soldiers and their equipment; an airborne infantry regiment of 1,500 men would have required almost 400 jeeps; an airborne division would have required eight to ten times that number of jeeps to be fully motorized.
Now imagine a WWII-era mechanized infantry division of 15,000 soldiers, transported in jeeps and M3 halftracks, and supported by M4 Sherman medium tanks. I have no idea how you could perform an airborne insertion of the required number of jeeps, let alone halftracks and Shermans.
Mechanized I personally agree with, however for this unit to have a purpose they need to have a unit you can drop with them to serve as an anti tank unit so AT guns or late game (Day 45+) light tanks as they become more viable in the early 1950s (AKA where CoWs tech tree ends.)
Motorized is not far off as American, German, and British airborne units all had light vehicles they could and did airdrop with the troops to help move them around and for recon purposes. Additionally Airborne tanks did exist in WWII but they were not widely used due to the limited trans-portability of them as people have said earlier in the thread.
and Like we have said multiple times now. THIS IS A STRATEGY GAME so yes it will have counters and we sat around last night arguing for 4 hours on how to balance them and that is why we have the deployment time and that they can be intercepted in route.
we do agree that mechanized, Tanks, and motorized should be late game end of research tree if implemented, I am speaking for several people and their ideas keep in mind.
i only heard that the soviets had 1 "FLYING TANK", 1 during the entire war! what do you expect? to mass spam those things? they would be heavily impracticalWarCityDriver wrote:
Additionally Airborne tanks did exist in WWII
Well honestly id like to see air convoys that let you transport troops over long distances over paratroopers just my preferance.Other than that good idea.
@king darza please read up -_-
The locus and versions of the M4 Sherman were also cut down light enough to be brought in via gliders. and for the 4th time now please for the love of god read this time. THE Light tank would be a late game day 45ish unit IF implemented meaning it would be 1950 standards not 1945 WWII as that is where the tech tree on CoW ends. Once more I am representing several people here, I personally want Airborne AT guns, Infantry, and maybe motorized. WE are trying to discuss this openly and we are sharing facts.
I agree we could use this in COW maybe not the anti tank and i would say their should be a time for landing.
Even if the whole thing is overpowered, there is an easy fix: make the feature cost resources. I agree that it is stupid for someone to spam airborne, so make it a highly specialized unit which is expensive to use the way it is meant to. If you make it a little costly people are not going to spam them. People will see and know the value in them, but they will not use them with wanton. I am all for it, and balancing them can't be too much of an issue.
RPU Website ManagerPlease add airborne units!!! It's a lovely idea, truely smashing!
and i said that it would be impractical to do it, the tanks would literally become glass "cannons" if the armor/ammunition/tank size needs to be reduced in order to make them not fall down like rocks, that would really hurt the combat capacity, and it was never combat-used during WW2......i think....AT LEAST airborne infantry gets to use the same combat capacity as their normal counterpart, well, when they get on the ground ofc. it does not take a genius to figure out that airborne tanks would have too much flaws to work.....even if we take in account early cold war technology...WarCityDriver wrote:
@king darza please read up -_-The locus and versions of the M4 Sherman were also cut down light enough to be brought in via gliders. and for the 4th time now please for the love of god read this time. THE Light tank would be a late game day 45ish unit IF implemented meaning it would be 1950 standards not 1945 WWII as that is where the tech tree on CoW ends. Once more I am representing several people here, I personally want Airborne AT guns, Infantry, and maybe motorized. WE are trying to discuss this openly and we are sharing facts.
i don't say that i don't support the other airborne units idea, but airborne infantry, and maybe motorized infantry would be enough, they were used quite a "lot" in WW2.....but wanting to make an airborne version of a third of the COW units, thats a bit too much, don't you think?
And my name is not Darza! to gulag with you! just kidding
being costly doesn't mean that people wont spam them, for example, the planes in COW are costly to mass produce, but people still mass produce them, because their quality, once people start to steamroll in one map, then the resource output gets insane, Resource consumption is not really an issue at that point.Bluephantom956 wrote:
If you make it a little costly people are not going to spam them. People will see and know the value in them, but they will not use them with wanton. I am all for it, and balancing them can't be too much of an issue.
you should read what i said about the cost of the "flying tanks" in my rant above
There going be need of substantial 'adjustment' should the airborne units introduced. I supports this idea wholly for some new twist in the game, as long as it does not extremely bugged or glitched along the way.
As I have said on other occasions, airborne infantry were elite specialized units, and while they had certain advantages (like the ability to be dropped behind enemy lines), they also had certain disadvantages too (no real armor, not motorized on the ground, light AT capabilities, vulnerability in the air). No airborne infantry were motorized or mechanized (see above), which meant they were not as mobile on the ground as most other infantry -- most western infantry was motorized by the end of the war. And as elite units, they could not be "spammed" because they were expensive and time-consuming to be trained and maintained, and they could not fully replace faster-moving motorized or mechanized infantry (again, see above).King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:
being costly doesn't mean that people wont spam them, for example, the planes in COW are costly to mass produce, but people still mass produce them, because their quality, once people start to steamroll in one map,
So, how do we create an "elite" airborne infantry unit that cannot be spammed in the game? Well, for starters, they should require at least twice as long to produce as regular infantry units, they should cost two to three times as much (more money, plus oil for training and transport and rare materials for silk) as regular infantry, they should have fewer hit points than regular infantry (say 12 or 13 instead of 15), and they should be slightly weaker against armored units (but not against other infantry). In-game unit production should require a level 2 or level 3 barracks (specialized training facilities) and a level 1 air base (duh, obvious), together with a level 1 industrial complex, in the same province.
Moreover, the number of airborne units in any given should be capped in some fashion. Even the United States, with all of its vast resources and available manpower, only had four operational airborne divisions (12 to 16 regiments), and could not deliver more than two airborne divisions (6 to 8 regiments) at any given time because of the vast number of transport aircraft required to deliver them. Hell, the U.S. Army had one airborne division that never saw combat for that reason.
Bottom line: airborne infantry were "elite" formations and the number of in-game airborne infantry regiments needs to be capped as (a) percentage of total infantry units in a given army (say, 10 or 15%) or (b) a maximum number of 6 yo 8 regiments. I NEVER want to see a game where someone is able to gold-spam 30 or 40 airborne infantry regiments, because I KNOW that will be outrageously DISRUPTIVE to COW game play and balance -- just as previous detractors have suggested.
For those of you who are newbies to these discussions of proposed new airborne units, I urge you to review the many older threads on point. There is a lot of wisdom in those older discussions, where most of the pros and cons have ben previously discussed in the context of COW's existing game dynamics.
Yes, I want airborne units added to the game, but just as importantly I want them to work in the context of the game.
Please log in to post a reply.
