How good are Commandos?

However, there is something factually incorrect in the statement:

"American and British airborne divisions were intended to take and hold vast stretches of ground of over 10,000 square kilometers."

Which is what your in-game version of paratroopers would be doing.

A single militia regiment can take and hold the same 'vast stretches of ground'.

Why use a flawed game design 'feature' as an argument against airborne infantry?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

However, there is something factually incorrect in the statement:

"American and British airborne divisions were intended to take and hold vast stretches of ground of over 10,000 square kilometers."

Which is what your in-game version of paratroopers would be doing.

WayneBo wrote:

A single militia regiment can take and hold the same 'vast stretches of ground'.

Why use a flawed game design 'feature' as an argument against airborne infantry?

An airborne infantry regiment of 1,500 men can hold the same ground as any conventional infantry regiment of the same number of men, and arguably do a far better job of holding of the same area than a commando battalion of 800 men, or an artillery or anti-aircraft regiment of 1,000 men, or an unsupported tank brigade of 800 men.

Roko, I love you dearly, my friend, but your logic on this particular subject is horribly flawed and betrays an overwhelming personal bias against the inclusion of "paratroops" in Call of War, even to the point of muddling the actual facts about the purposes, capabilities and successes of American, British and German airborne infantry during WW2.

Montana, I must say that arguing with you on this subject usually becomes rather unpleasant, Montana. This is the second or third time that you mix personal attacks on my character into a contentual discussion. There really is no flaw in my logic; no paratrooper operation was executed except to support ground or seaborne attack (that's even in your own statement above). You are suggesting that paratroopers could independently conquer provinces in CoW. In my opinion, that is undesirable, both for historic and for game balancing reasons which I have outlined many times. You may disagree with me on that, but there really is no ground for any personal namecalling.

MontanaBB wrote:

Roko, I love you dearly, my friend, but your logic on this particular subject is horribly flawed and betrays an overwhelming personal bias against the inclusion of "paratroops" in Call of War, even to the point of muddling the actual facts about the purposes, capabilities and successes of American, British and German airborne infantry during WW2.

1. American, British and German airborne troops did capture and hold ground on multiple occasions during WW2;

2. once on the ground, airborne infantry were and are no less effective than conventional infantry units of comparable size in holding ground against enemy counter-attack; and

3. your argument about a single unit capturing a province of 100,000 square km is specious because no comparably-sized, single real world unit of 800 to 1,500 men could do that, either, so you are attempting to hold a new airborne infantry regiment to a different standard than any other existing in-game unit.

If you want to argue that including a new airborne infantry regiment in the game will somehow upset "game balance," fine. That's a subjective opinion, and it is the proper place of an articulately expressed opinion. But let's not try to buttress that argument with historically inaccurate information.

Moreover, it may seem "unpleasant" to be corrected and to have the flaws in your logic pointed out, but that does not constitute a "personal attack." If you want to argue and defend an opinion that is based on factually inaccurate information, or on an entirely different standard for one type of unit than all others, then you probably should expect some pushback from other forum participants who hold a different opinion.

Jeez man. I argued against all those points about ten times now. By infallible logic, which you somehow continue to ignore time and time again. Yes, then still calling it "flawed logic" and "bias" and all those other stuff in the other threads DOES constitute a personal attack. Repeating the same argument despite repeated refute doesn't make it more true, you know.

Edit - nor is telling someone who doesn't agree with you to shut up, like you did in the other thread. The common term for societies where people are told to shut up is "dictatorships".

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Yes, then still calling it "flawed logic" and "bias" and all those other stuff in the other threads DOES constitute a personal attack.

"Montana, you are unable to make sound arguments."

Not a personal attack?

Not really. Marginally personal at best. And that's not what I said, either. What I have repeatedly said is that you are so emotionally invested in your opposition to adding an airborne infantry unit that your usually sound judgment, logic and argument skills are muddled.

If you want to have a serious argument with the big girls, I suggest you pull up your big girl panties and be a little less sensitive.

-------------------- JEST BELOW --------------------

Montana, since you are a slow thinker that doesn't comprehend complicated things easily (not a personal attack, right?), I will once more try to explain the issue of paratroopers to you in a way that you may be able to understand (not an insinuated personal attack, right?). I understand that it will be hard for you to follow my wise insights into the historical use of paratroopers, but maybe, if you try very hard, you might be able to drink from my flawless source of wisdom. (not a personal attack, right?)

-------------------- END JEST --------------------

1. American, British and German airborne troops did capture and hold ground on multiple occasions during WW2;

Agreed. But the maximum size captured was incomparably small to a CoW-sized province. Plus, there was always a relief plan, they would never launch an unsupported attack. The "we're always surrounded" phrase says it all.

2. once on the ground, airborne infantry were and are no less effective than conventional infantry units of comparable size in holding ground against enemy counter-attack; and

Agreed, they would hold those little stamps of territory they captured on the first day. They would never attack from those small bridgeheads though.

3. your argument about a single unit capturing a province of 100,000 square km is specious because no comparably-sized, single real world unit of 800 to 1,500 men could do that, either, so you are attempting to hold a new airborne infantry regiment to a different standard than any other existing in-game unit.

None of the units in CoW is accurately represented. For example, a mega-succesful empire on the 100p map, which has conquered a continent or even more, usually has (a lot?) less than 200 units. Lets say half of those are land army, so no more than 100 land units. If we would calculate 5 regiments per division (for an infantry division, 3x infantry rgt, 1x artillery rgt, 1x all kinds of support units), that's less than 20 divisions to hold a continent. For comparison, that is about 40% of the size of Army Group Center during Barbarossa ALONE. I don't have figures handy for the entire German army at that time (they roughly held "one continent"), but I remember a figure between 200 and 300 divisions. So: our CoW "regiment of infantry" is actually the equivalent of more than two divisions. And yes, forces of that size did launch independent offensives for territory.

But that's not even the main point. We shouldn't think of "a regiment of infantry" or even of "two division of infantry", we should think of "a unit of infantry". And "a unit of infantry" DID take 10,000 sq.kilometer of ground on countless occasions in WW2, while "a unit of paratroopers" NEVER did. Which is why I think that "a unit of paratroopers" shouldn't be able to take provinces in the game that we all love so much.

To me, there is not a single line of bias, flawed logic, or inaccurate historical fact in the above. In fact, if you fail to see my line of reasoning, I would doubt your mental health (not a personal attack, right?). But of course, I may be wrong. Please tell me where, but please DON'T fall back to those same three arguments above, because they're obviously invalid. Don't be a broken record, try something new.

And just for the record, I am NOT against paratroopers in CoW, I'm just against CONQUERING paratroopers! They would be a support unit, reducing the movement penalty of moving through enemy territory - for REGULAR troops accompanying them.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

-------------------- JEST BELOW --------------------

Montana, since you are a slow thinker that doesn't comprehend complicated things easily (not a personal attack, right?), I will once more try to explain the issue of paratroopers to you in a way that you may be able to understand (not an insinuated personal attack, right?). I understand that it will be hard for you to follow my wise insights into the historical use of paratroopers, but maybe, if you try very hard, you might be able to drink from my flawless source of wisdom. (not a personal attack, right?)

-------------------- END JEST --------------------

Mein Gott. I like to talk about Paratroopres, it was going well then we started to get off topic, Paratroopers are good, Lets just say that. Militia eh, its a game, but again that would be used against me so idk what to say. OH, CoW on steam is legit btw!

JCS Darragh wrote:

So what I am thinking is that the Commandos would be a little stronger than standard Airborne Regiments and Infantry. I don't really know what the Commandos should do.

MontanaBB wrote:

So, in some ways, paratroops and commandos were similar (e.g., parachute insertion), but their operational objectives and capabilities were very different. Commandos typically fought small-unit actions in squads, platoons and companies, and only rarely in battalion-size units (e.g., the British/Canadian Dieppe Raid, U.S. Rangers at Pointe du Hoc), with objectives of sabotage, disruption and even assassination. The "commando" mission rarely included taking and holding ground, and certainly not for more than a few hours without reinforcements.

I would agree with everything you just said about Commandos. I suggested earlier that they should be able to move into enemy land without causing a war, unless you attack. I think that would be a good idea because they are commandos. If that isn't possible then I agree with the Commandos being able to embark/disembark and improved terrain modifiers.

MontanaBB wrote:

Contrary to some of the factually inaccurate posts you may read in the forum, American and British airborne divisions were intended to take and hold ground at high-value strategic points on the map (river crossings, cross-roads towns) in advance of larger amphibious invasions and/or ground offensives. Unlike commandos, airborne troops were organized and fought as full-size divisions, with divisional headquarters, artillery, engineers, intelligence and jeep reconnaissance subunits, in addition to their three core infantry regiments. An airborne division was supposed to overwhelm local enemy opposition with surprise, capture their strategic objectives and then hold them for 2 to 3 days against enemy counter-attack until they were relieved by larger follow-on ground forces. As the Dick Winters character famously said in Band of Brothers: "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded."

While additional units would be nice, there's Conflict of Nations for that kind of gaming variety. Adding the ability to fly might be nice, but adding more units does complicate things beyond the intended game design....as would adding new abilities (be beyond the intended game design).

Lawrence Czl wrote:

JCS Darragh wrote:

So, in one of my recent matches I have been producing lots of Commando Regiments to deploy. I saw their stats and I was like Wow! Those are some awesome stats! So, I made lots of Commandos, Most of them died in their first engagement against L1 Infantry and L1 Militia. The Light Tanks supporting them survived, but escaped at VERY low health. Does anyone know why this is? They have 10 Attack and 8 Defend, So why did they die almost instantly in an engagement? Oh, Yes Montana I understand they are commandos and that's not their job to do large offensives.

I produce a lot of commandos too. It important to know on what terrain the battle took place. Militia get a bonus on hills. If the playhr controls and is defending a core province, the enemy gets a 15% home defense bonus. It also makes a difference whether the L1 infantry and L1 militia are defending. They get better stats when defending.I mix commandos in with other types of units. A mixed stack tends to get better results than a single unit stack.

Lastly, isn't it possible you might not be noticing air raids that are hitting your Commandos while you aren't paying attention? That could make it seem like an insignificant enemy is doing far better than it should.

VorlonFCW wrote:

Someday I will read this whole mess, but what I see so far:

MontanaBB wrote:

I still don't understand why a single commando battalion doesn't just massacre any infantry-class unit,

It might have something to do with one of the combat mechanics that works with the X factor.

The magic number is a 20:1 advantage. If that is exceeded you get a normal combat with the x factor. If you don't have the 20:1 advantage you will never completely destroy the enemy in the first blow.

MontanaBB wrote:

Roko, I love you dearly, my friend, but your logic on this particular subject is horribly flawed and betrays an overwhelming personal bias against the inclusion of "paratroops" in Call of War, even to the point of muddling the actual facts about the purposes, capabilities and successes of American, British and German airborne infantry during WW2.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

There really is no flaw in my logic; no paratrooper operation was executed except to support ground or seaborne attack

It's all in how you look at it. And, frankly, if the airborne forces are strong enough, they could be seen as no different than any other unit(s) of Infantry in moving forward and securing a region. The airborne units simply arrive at their destination "faster".

MontanaBB wrote:

Moreover, it may seem "unpleasant" to be corrected and to have the flaws in your logic pointed out, but that does not constitute a "personal attack." If you want to argue and defend an opinion that is based on factually inaccurate information, or on an entirely different standard for one type of unit than all others, then you probably should expect some pushback from other forum participants who hold a different opinion.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

I argued against all those points about ten times now. By infallible logic, which you somehow continue to ignore time and time again. Yes, then still calling it "flawed logic" and "bias" and all those other stuff in the other threads DOES constitute a personal attack. Repeating the same argument despite repeated refute doesn't make it more true, you know.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Agreed. But the maximum size captured was incomparably small to a CoW-sized province.

My point in this is that land areas can be controlled by a lot of people or a few, depending on the size of the forces involved. But the obverse is true in a game on a flat map with varying sizes of provinces when all units are the same size such that a single Infantry could capture a tiny island or a massive block of territory in northern Canada or Siberia. And, realistically, the size of a province in real life is also usually population-based, not just land features-based. And, in addition to that, in the real world, determining the size of a controlled area depends in part on the type of unit(s) guarding it.

Still, for purposes of the game, the provinces are usually fairly-well represented for each map (rebalancing may be needed occasionally for some provinces). Yet, a Commando or Airborne units shouldn't necessarily be barred from having the ability to control a region simply because of it's specialized mission abilities.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

None of the units in CoW is accurately represented. For example, a mega-succesful empire on the 100p map, which has conquered a continent or even more, usually has (a lot?) less than 200 units.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

But that's not even the main point. We shouldn't think of "a regiment of infantry" or even of "two division of infantry", we should think of "a unit of infantry". And "a unit of infantry" DID take 10,000 sq.kilometer of ground on countless occasions in WW2, while "a unit of paratroopers" NEVER did. Which is why I think that "a unit of paratroopers" shouldn't be able to take provinces in the game that we all love so much.

JCS Darragh wrote:

I would agree with everything you just said about Commandos. I suggested earlier that they should be able to move into enemy land without causing a war, unless you attack. I think that would be a good idea because they are commandos. If that isn't possible then I agree with the Commandos being able to embark/disembark and improved terrain modifiers.

~O~

With all this talk about specialized infantry units like paratroopers and such, if we are going to add any units to the game, obviously they should be rocket troopers. Clearly, the Nazis should be first to have them if you believe stories told by folks like this unnamed Holocaust denier in the picture below.

[/spoiler]

So basically, History says that Paratroopers never took large provinces, So don't add them? That is a uh, really stupid argument for that. Once paratroopers landed they became just a regular infantry unit, they had the capability to take large provinces. Even now, they have that capability, their main mission (from what I understand) in World War 2 was to land behind enemy units, take land, and link up with the main infantry. It's just every time the Paratroopers jumped, they jumped into an actual army, not some village in Iraq to shoot Malik Muhammed down the street with an AK. If you scatter your forces throughout an area its going to take them a while. If Paratroopers can't take provinces then what is the point in adding them?

JCS Darragh wrote:

If Paratroopers can't take provinces then what is the point in adding them?

That's too complicated, Just add a Paratrooper unit that can jump behind enemy lines and take a province. With the current ideas (Unit cap, very weak while flying/deploying, and an hour of load and unload) they are already difficult to use. Besides, What is the point of keeping this game historic, yes don't add flying M1A1s with super death star killer cannons, but Paratroopers are a fine addition to a World War II game. To me, it seems easier just to add a unit that can be paradropped behind enemy lines and shoot em up. Sure, you could add your idea, but they should be able to be paradropped, then when you combine it with any other units, they get the bonus from the Paratroopers.

JCS Darragh wrote:

yes don't add flying M1A1s with super death star killer cannons

Ironically, adding a paratrooper would ruin the game flow as they'd instantly capture a province without firing a shot, sometimes. Truthfully, the only fair way to implement a paratrooper (if they ever do so) is to give it a "landing zone" or else a "disembarkation time". If you want to capture a province, you must land outside of (but near to) the control point, then foor it the rest of the way, to give the defense a chance to get their you-know-what together. Else, having a disembarkation time at the control point would simulate that necessity.

Think about it this way. An Armored Car can speed through an unoccupied province and capture it and keep going. As fast as that is, it's still not instant. The crews of the AC's have to disembark some soldiers in the local capital offices, capture a few officials, bring the local police under submission, and then leave at least a token command to keep the province loyal until the rebellions start (or until reinforcements arrive). But if a paratrooper can just capture a province at near-instantaneous speed, then the time it takes to capture the local fat cats and wrangle the police and other immediate resisters is no longer being simulated. And apparently some* people want this game to actually simulate WWII

(*@'MontanaBB', I'm looking in your direction. )