Possible American Airborne unit line

I just got another idea: the transport planes I mentioned earlier could be used to transport rockets to airfields.

aphGermany wrote:

I just got another idea: the transport planes I mentioned earlier could be used to transport rockets to airfields.

I was just annoyed at lugging a V2 from launchpad A to launchpad B to attack target C

BTW, the Japanese Level 1 rocket is a kamikaze/rocket plane launched by G4Ms.

aphGermany wrote:

BTW, the Japanese Level 1 rocket is a kamikaze/rocket plane launched by G4Ms.

Quasi-duck wrote:

aphGermany wrote:

BTW, the Japanese Level 1 rocket is a kamikaze/rocket plane launched by G4Ms.

WTF? Why!? That is stupid.

aphGermany wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

aphGermany wrote:

BTW, the Japanese Level 1 rocket is a kamikaze/rocket plane launched by G4Ms.

WTF? Why!? That is stupid.

Which one? The information, or the dev team's decision to use that.

Well, if you guys have any thing else to say, please say it!

The transport planes I mentioned a while ago can drop commandos (2-3 per plane).

I am wondering about how often an airborne unit can be deployed by air.

Historically, there were extensive work ups before a deployment.

This might make it more reasonable to view an Airborne unit as a "one time" use unit that converts to an infantry unit upon deployment. A LIGHT infantry unit. Not a heavy one. Definitely not an armor unit.

Yes, there were instances of heavy equipment and even tanks being deployed by air but definitely not in the quantities or qualities that a real armor unit had. Even the regimental artillery found in a normal infantry unit was a struggle for the airborne guys to bring with them. Forget motorized infantry.

So, I would suggest an Airborne unit is a one time use special Infantry build that takes twice as long, costs twice as much and converts to one tech level lower Infantry when deployed. I would make it a special development branch off of L3 Infantry and L1 Strat Bombers. On deployment it is a L2 Infantry, at best.

Remember, this is an operational level game, not Squad Leader. Airborne costs a lot more for less delivered to the field. The _only_ value was to bypass the front line and seize territory in the rear until relieved by regular ground troops.

All this is very interesting, and I hope folks are still interested in the topic since it's been a month since the last post.

That being said, I have a problem with the complicated solutions involving tanks and transport aircraft and upgradeable units being suggested by everyone here on the subject. To me, a very simple way to implement this would be to make a lvl2 commando unit available after say, day 15, prerequisites being commando and tac bomber lvl2 (or strat bomber, but most planes used to deploy para's in ww2 were twin engine transports more equivalent to tac bombers than strat bombers, and transport ranges for para's is more in line with a tac bomber). The unit would be a normal ground unit equivalent to commando's in all respects except for an added oil upkeep cost UNLESS selecting an attack function from an airfield.

When selecting said attack function, their transport to target would be equivalent to a lvl1 rocket attack (able to be intercepted, not possible to recall) and upon arrival they would engage their target in combat with a 0 attack value the first hour, and normal attack values from then on. THE UNIT WOULD THEN CEASE TO EXIST after 24 hrs (think operation market garden... units are not able to be resupplied until they link up with another unit, and even when they ARE relieved, the average casualty rate for an airdrop was well over 50% and therefore the units were not able to stay in the line.) The air assault on Crete by the fallschirmjaeger actually exceeded 80% casualties, so this disbanding of the unit would be quite realistic for a large scale operation.

I use a 24 hr timer instead of the 3-5 day period that history shows because the timeframe of the game is somewhat accelerated anyway, and anything longer would allow airdropped troops out of supply to be able to conquer whole nations, which would not be realistic.

Sooo... looking at this description, it seems more complicated than I originally thought to explain... but implementation wise, it would be much simpler because all of the code to create such a unit is cut and paste from existing units in the game except for the timer and the inital attack value of 0, each of which is one line of code if done correctly. Also, the unit created would be equivalent to a normal commando, so these units would not unbalance things only being made in small numbers at your capital for special operations.

Let me know what you guys think of the idea.

Personally I would love the idea and a soulution to this could be have AT guns be the anti armor compliment for airborn units for most of the game while having Airborne Tanks being somthing you could research on like day 45 (AKA late in the game towards the end).

I love airborn units (As most Rpers know from S1914) and they were extremly important during WWII. If you want specific examples PM me and I can show you how BA the Fallschirmjager, British, & American Airborne where

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!

Why are we re-opening multiple old threads regarding the same subjects? Please focus on a single thread, and stop jumping from thread to thread on the same topic -- it does not facilitate coherent discussions.

Thats why I created the new thread, I forgot to check the date this thread was replied to last before posting. I would not be against a mod closing this thread as I admit I made a mistake.

WarCityDriver wrote:

I would not be against a mod closing this thread as I admit I made a mistake.

Carry on.

MontanaBB wrote:

Never apologize, mister. It's a sign of weakness.

True. Let us away from the dead thread we have resurrected

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

sometimes, forgiving can lead to great alliances, turning the weakness into a strength