I think add this unit, the paratrooper it will be complex and new strategy especially in Landing to UK by France or vice versa, etc....
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/paratroopers_and_world_war_two.htm
A photo for people who don't know what I are saying..
##Please stop insulting other users###
When implementing something into their source of income, the devs will look at all the negatives. The negatives heavily outweigh the positives.
I believe that~there should exist a troop carrier plane, where we could embark troops, and set a place to drop them...
Different from what you thought...
Paratroopers took a huge impact on WW2 history... For instance, in capturing towns behing the lines of the enemy...
right.. a lot of players agree and your the only one that seems to disagree, the negatives do not outweigh the positives.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
When implementing something into their source of income, the devs will look at all the negatives. The negatives heavily outweigh the positives.
Umm... I disagree with the paratroop idea as well. They'd have to be given wildly unrealistic superpowers, dropping all over the map, capturing entire cities and so on (which I think would spoil the play) or else there'd be no point to them on the scale of the game.
paratroopers have been useful on many occasions, i dont understand why you cant understand or see that.
Stop thats insults on ppl who aren't agree with u.
This is cyberbullying!
your examples do not show paratroopers as being unsuccessful, and even when paratroopers are unsuccessful, this does not mean they shouldn't be a unit in the game, they have uses and would be used in game to do the same as they did in WW2, the reason I don't have examples is because I'm not wasting time on this stupid argument because you refuse to realise that paratroopers should be a unit.
Okay Chaltan, I will be the bigger man and stop throwing insults.
Luke, the reason you do not have any examples is either because there are none, you have searched and found that I am right or are afraid of finding out that you are wrong. If you are not wasting your time on this argument, why do you keep posting replies? What you want is a really unrealistic unit that is way stronger than its real life counterpart.
yes it would have to be way stronger than in real life, but it was still a unit, it still has a reason to be used in game, and i was never insulting you, just proving your insults wrong because clearly you have to start using insults as you know you are wrong anyway, i am not going to waste time looking up examples but i know that paratroopers have been successful just as many times as they have been unsuccessful.. i do not need to search to find this answer, and you are not right.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
Okay Chaltan, I will be the bigger man and stop throwing insults.Luke, the reason you do not have any examples is either because there are none, you have searched and found that I am right or are afraid of finding out that you are wrong. If you are not wasting your time on this argument, why do you keep posting replies? What you want is a really unrealistic unit that is way stronger than its real life counterpart.
My God, you cannot prove you are right until you bring some examples(which you won't be able to find) to the table! There is much better units to add. Going by your logic, I will post some common "truths" below:
The moon is a hologram.
We are ruled by 10ft lizard people
Hitler is still alive
Nazi's live in the Antartic
I have 5 arms and 7 legs
If you are tall enough, you can touch the moon
Thousands of Americans have been abducted by aliens
I can fly if I fart hard enough
These are all true because I said so. I do not need solid evidence because....REASONS!
just paratroopers being used in WW2 gives them a reason to be in game, to provide a variety of units to allow different strategies, what they were supposed to do is what they would do in game, i dont need an example to know what they were supposed to do, if they were successful or not.
Alright, let us put them in game like you want them to be and view the results if they are made realistic.
They are pieces of crap that no one will build because they are basically like burning resources.
Now the OP version that you want.
A unit that everyone will spam and just remove all fun and strategy from the game.
Apparently, you don't watch any decent history documentaries either because they is stuff a lot better than paratroopers e.g. bat bombs, fleas, kamikaze units, heavy fighters, flamethrowers, gas, mine layers and e-boats.
I am pretty sure this is getting way out of hand. If you want to continue this PM and we will post the results of that but you will need valid points and examples to defeat me, not your opinion, which no one cares for.
because they would obviously be any better than paratroopers.
at least I´m not liking my own posts...
and im not but for some reason you have disliked mine, why have you not disliked the player who went through all my posts disliking them? all i have done is made it 0.rastermannMB wrote:
at least I´m not liking my own posts...
+1 - To Paratroopers.
I'd like to clarify some point:
1) Paratroopers was never, never, never (have I said never?) relocated to a different location using airplanes except during airdrops.
Doing so would have been just a waste of resources and Planning
Relocating by Planes require huge ammount of oil, a lot of logistic planning (you need to mass troops at specific starting point and have the ability to move them away from destination airfield in an fair amount of time, you need to have the structures to feed the unit... because unless units are fighting at the front they demand some sort of comfort to get rested and be ready to go to fight), most likely do not pass unobserved by enemy spies, is risky for planes that could have accidents or can be shot down.
Relocating by trucks/legs require quite less oil, a fair logistic planning, can pass unobserved (unless the spy is along the road), and is quite safe
2) Relocating a Paratrooper division is technically possible... like a normal infantry
Assuming someone is foolish enought to decide so, Paratroopers could be relocated using airplanes... exactly like a normal infantry division, provided that it leaves all its heavy weapons that wouldn't fit in a plane or is just too heavy to be transported.
That is just a bad idea... why leave heavy equipment behind when you can bring them with you using a standard transfer by train/trucks?
3) Under no circumstance the Paratroopers changed the outcome of an operation.
As far as i Know, not a single time in WWII using paratroopers in airdrops changed the outcome of an operation. We can argue a lot about their role in the D-Day and how they performed is that operation, but even considering it a total success (and it was not, expecially on US side) that does not suggest that they are someway decisive in the outcome of a war on either side.
4) Paratroopers were a weak unit on airborne mission
Given the absence of heavy equipment, Paratroopers can't stand against a regular enemy, so their role in airborne operations was limited in capturing important key areas and hold them while advancing land units catch up.
Every time they had to challenge a organized defence they failed in achieving their objectives and/or got heavy loses (i.e. Market-Garden or airborne invasion of Crete)
5) Paratroopers can be solid if dug in... if supported by heavy weapons
Given the fact that Paratroopers were elite units they were more determined in combat, and given an appropriate support of heavy weapons they can successfully defend if dug in. Probably the same result could be achieved with a normal infantry unit, but we can't know as we can't fight the same historical battle twice changing the defending unit.
It is important to note that one of most famous episode of WWII, the battle of Bastogne, saw the 101th US airborne division defending the city togheter with some other units disrupted by German offensive. US were lucky enought that the 101th commander was an artillery general and he was really good in using the few guns he had to defend the city, so the main difference was made by the general itself and the guns and not by the paratroopers... without the artillery all the 101th would have been killed.
Said so i'd like to say that paratroopers would add a flavor to the game, but they should be so ineffective (as history proves) that no one would really use them. And if noone uses them then there is no reason to waste devs time.
Lukebnm, think twice before dislike someone's posts and don't be tempted into starting a dislike war.
Dislike someone post just because he said something you don't agree, or worse, because someone you argued liked it, is just babyish and against the rules of netiquette (BTW Butter Ball Bill also repeating the same message over and over is against netiquette and a simple "please read the post day/time" would be sufficent)
I will not talk about the flame you two started as it is not my duty (administrator should do it, and eventually remove offensive or inapropriate posts), but both of you are invited to think that there are other people in this forum that can be not interested in your flames so be polite eachother, and avoid to comment this post just to say that you are right and the other was a (insert any bad word here) guy 
?? what?? im not the one who started this disliking/liking thing, im just trying to return the value to 0 after the other 2 players disliked all my posts, unfortunately as im only 1 person and there are (last time i checked) 2 players who went through all my posts disliking them for no reason, so when i go through trying to make them 0 again by disliking his and liking mine this 2nd player comes and dislikes all of mine again.. really?Tremendus wrote:
Lukebnm, think twice before dislike someone's posts and don't be tempted into starting a dislike war.Dislike someone post just because he said something you don't agree, or worse, because someone you argued liked it, is just babyish and against the rules of netiquette (BTW Butter Ball Bill also repeating the same message over and over is against netiquette and a simple "please read the post day/time" would be sufficent)
I will not talk about the flame you two started as it is not my duty (administrator should do it, and eventually remove offensive or inapropriate posts), but both of you are invited to think that there are other people in this forum that can be not interested in your flames so be polite eachother, and avoid to comment this post just to say that you are right and the other was a (insert any bad word here) guy
I really don't want to engage in such argue, but i'd like to point out that you disliked one of my post only because it was liked by BBB.
1) I think he liked it because he thought that I made a good post, with solid reasons to say i'm against the paratroopers
2) You disliked only to make the count 0 because you engaged a dislike war over your post, but you are involving someone else and this is not polite, and clearly against the netiquette (also a dislike war over yourself post is against the rules on both sides, but involving someone else is much worse)
3) Are you sure you want to have me involved in the dislike war as well? because it can end only in two ways: either you'll find yourself with another dislike on your posts or I require the administrator of the forum to evalutate the situation and get appropriate punishments
I'm not in the mode of going to the referee to get justice as i hope you are mature enought to understand that you did something wrong.
Said that, I will not post anything else over this subject as it is really OT, so please avoid to reply here (i would have PM you but you set your account to forbid it)
