Your most Desired Feature

Oh shoot... I make infantry... All the time... (well so far anyway)

TankBuster wrote:

Just make paras regular infantry.

Btw, the new Bytro game has a civvie unit to turn non-cores into cores. It's called an administrator and he gradually turns non-cores into cores. However, for every non-core you want to 'corize', you need to build one of the admins, which are quite expensive, meaning only the essential non-cores are chosen to be 'corized'. So maybe we could do the same over here in CoW? @Sir McSquiggles @wildL SPQR @Dr. Leprechan

Pablo22510 wrote:

Make them slightly better than infantry.

Btw, the new Bytro game has a civvie unit to turn non-cores into cores. It's called an administrator and he gradually turns non-cores into cores. However, for every non-core you want to 'corize', you need to build one of the admins, which are quite expensive, meaning only the essential non-cores are chosen to be 'corized'. So maybe we could do the same over here in CoW? @Sir McSquiggles @wildL SPQR @Dr. Leprechan

Pablo22510 wrote:

Nah, I don't like it. It wasn't really used

Still don't like it. Not really WW2.

The standard American Paratrooper was essentially a light infantryman, He was equipped with his rifle, BAR, or Thompson SMG,ammunition, multiple grenades including fragmentation, thermite, and smoke, specific gear according to his specialization code, and enough rations to last him maybe two days of combat ( he was expected to live off the land if still cut off from the group after that point). So in a way yes, the Paratrooper when compared to standard combat infantry was less well equipped to deal with some forms of armor and were sitting ducks for air power, but each company did have two assigned bazooka teams to handle light stuff ( up to approximately the Panzer Mk. II or III). However, their months of extra training means that they were very good at their mission which was interdiction and sabotage; not assault. They were designed to be mobile therefore instead of combat bonuses I would suggest a speed bonus across all terrain except mountains. Their armament was primarily anti-infantry so they should have a slight bonus for that but their health points should not be very high due to their few numbers.

Primarily the reason behind high casualties was the method of delivery, Paratroopers by their nature are very susceptible to unit diffusion during landings. Site of the landing is important as well. Many of the casualties caused by the British at Crete were because Germany landed its forces in concentrated masses in and around the key defensive positions where their troops did not have time to reform before being forced to attack, a mistake remedied by the Allies in the Normandy invasion. As for artillery, they did have special field pieces but most were destroyed on impact due to a faulty method of delivery and therefore should not be counted in any strength ratings.

Sorry for the length.

Marines are cool although historically their role as a boarding party had been minimalized by World War Two as the brass focused on a specialized mobile assault force. But it is certainly an interesting dynamic to be used against small craft.

Battle planner and the ability for rocket fighters to intercept rockets, both would be amazing.

Jordan823 wrote:

Battle planner and the ability for rocket fighters to intercept rockets, both would be amazing.

Rockets intercepting other rockets can be done now, but it would've been all but impossible in ww2.

MULTI player positions...

I am new to the game design and very very disappointed by the massive drop out rate in the games.

What I would like to see is the ability to arrange for a team of players to play a single position ... say 4 players... this would allow the position to be run 24/7 but would also allow for back ups on the game position.

The two games I am in are totally determined by the drop outs around you. In one game that started with 19 players we are at 5 in 7 days of play... in another with a start of 10 we are 4 after 3 days,

The fundamental aspect of play has to be addressed to keep players in and positions active, that is far more important than adding units or features.

Deal with the basics of having players play.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Jordan823 wrote:

Battle planner and the ability for rocket fighters to intercept rockets, both would be amazing.

Battle planner? Sounds interesting. What exactly would it do?

Rockets intercepting other rockets can be done now, but it would've been all but impossible in ww2.

Stats for the rocket fighter ingame put it at 900km/h and the level four rocket also goes 900km/h, it'd actually add more use to the rocket fighter instead of everybody skipping it over because of its poor range. My thoughts are that if the allies had the technology and employed rocket fighters in the mid-40s that they very well could have downed V-2's.

Edit: never mind on that part, 975km/h for the Gloster Meteor would have a tough time downing a V-2 going 3500km/h... Although I doubt it's impossible, just unlikely.

Jordan823 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Jordan823 wrote:

Battle planner and the ability for rocket fighters to intercept rockets, both would be amazing.

Battle planner? Sounds interesting. What exactly would it do?Rockets intercepting other rockets can be done now, but it would've been all but impossible in ww2.

I made my own thread on it awhile back, if you want to know more about what I mean, please do check it out!

Stats for the rocket fighter ingame put it at 900km/h and the level four rocket also goes 900km/h, it'd actually add more use to the rocket fighter instead of everybody skipping it over because of its poor range. My thoughts are that if the allies had the technology and employed rocket fighters in the mid-40s that they very well could have downed V-2's.

Edit: never mind on that part, 975km/h for the Gloster Meteor would have a tough time downing a V-2 going 3500km/h... Although I doubt it's impossible, just unlikely.

How about computers that accept trade offers of share map and peace after war? Unless this is a thing and I don't know about it

TankBuster wrote:

I would also like economic boosts, and removing that 25% resource gain from conquered land

1. Paratroopers would be able to go beyond enemy lines, making defense more important. Also, they could get shot down by AA batteries, making it more realistic.

2. PoW camps and surrender would make the game more realistic. You could make a PoW camp, and get enemies to march to it after surrender. Also, 0% Morale should be surrender, while 0% Strength (another unit value) should make the unit disappear.

3. Milita is a stealth unit on home territory (not colonies i.e. Nassau, Africa).

4. Commandos are a stealth unit

5. If you discover a spy, you can turn him to your side or kill him.

6. Dive bombers can only hit tanks and armored cars, but lower morale and strength a lot more.

NYCSBoy13 wrote:

. Dive bombers can only hit tanks and armored cars, but lower morale and strength a lot more.

Nice suggestion, it adds to my topic I made in Suggestions, and would be a great solution to the tac/LT problem.

Basically, make them much stronger vs tanks, and much weaker vs infantry (because tacs only had 1 or 2 bombs, its more realistic as well)

Quasi-duck wrote:

NYCSBoy13 wrote:

. Dive bombers can only hit tanks and armored cars, but lower morale and strength a lot more.

This makes no sense. If it can hit a tank, it can definitely hit a trench. Besides, dive-bombers are already within tactical bombers.

NYCSBoy13 wrote:

I looked in German bombers, and did not see a single Stuka.

NYCSBoy13 wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

NYCSBoy13 wrote:

. Dive bombers can only hit tanks and armored cars, but lower morale and strength a lot more.

This makes no sense. If it can hit a tank, it can definitely hit a trench. Besides, dive-bombers are already within tactical bombers.

I looked in German bombers, and did not see a single Stuka.