It has been really frustrating for me that you can transport troops automatically by sea, but why not by air also? So I got out with this idea: Add paratroopers, and transport planes. Paratroopers would be an very efficient troop in attack, if used from an transport plane. Transport planes could also transport normal troops, but not armored ones (Only Commandos,Militia, Infantry). Hope this idea gets true sometime in next updates, as I think it will be gamechanging! (Also, these units should be in the research tree, more exactly the transport plane should start as a normal lvl 1 troop at the air tech tree, and paratroopers an ''evolution'' from infantry,as a better trained troop).
I'd honestly rather they revive old treads, instead of making hundreds of new ones.
It seems, in the first week of playing, everybody wants paratroopers. Because it would be so easy to win with them.
Then, they stop and realize.. It's going to cause people to have to defend everything more tightly, not just border provinces. The game becomes everybody trying to turtle to protect from air invasion, and matches take four times longer.
Moving comment to other active "paratroops" thread, where most of the current discussion is located.
Well, I disagree, you should have to defend from air attacks. Airborne invasions used to be a very real threat. So, why would a WW2 Game have nuclear missiles, subs, Battleships, and Carriers. But not have Airborne?
Yes, why indeed would you have a World War II game with nuclear missiles? Or nuclear aircraft carriers?JCS Darragh wrote:
So, why would a WW2 Game have nuclear missiles . . . .
JCS, if you want to read a substantive response regarding how a new in-game airborne infantry unit could be designed, one that answer most if not all of the naysayers' complaints, please join the other active paratroops thread.
Cheers.
Not really. In fact, not at all.WiseOdin wrote:
It seems, in the first week of playing, everybody wants paratroopers. Because it would be so easy to win with them.Then, they stop and realize.. It's going to cause people to have to defend everything more tightly, not just border provinces. The game becomes everybody trying to turtle to protect from air invasion, and matches take four times longer.
Please read my proposal at the other active paratroops thread. It's time to quit saying "no," and figure out how to add paratroops in a way that is consistent with historical reality -- and which, not coincidentally, answers most if not all of the parade of horribles trotted out to pour cold water on adding airborne units.
I love how you keep bringing that up Montana, bust rest assured, those units won't be removed in the future, so the question will always remain just hypotheticalMontanaBB wrote:
Yes, why indeed would you have a World War II game with nuclear missiles? Or nuclear aircraft carriers?
Players just love 'em.
*chan chan chan*freezy wrote:
I love how you keep bringing that up Montana, bust rest assured, those units won't be removed in the future, so the question will always remain just hypothetical :pMontanaBB wrote:
Yes, why indeed would you have a World War II game with nuclear missiles? Or nuclear aircraft carriers?
sorry, i needed to do it
@freezy, I don't know if English is your first language or not, but my questions above are not "hypothetical," they are "rhetorical." The Oxford English Dictionary is our friend.freezy wrote:
I love how you keep bringing that up Montana, bust rest assured, those units won't be removed in the future, so the question will always remain just hypothetical
And my rather obvious rhetorical point is this: Call of War already has several ridiculously unrealistic, even fantastical types of combat units that had not role whatsoever in World War II, but the Bytro Labs brain trust can't conceive of an in-game airborne unit -- a type of combat unit that actually existed during WWII and played a critical role at several key points -- in a way that that does not completely wreck the game? Seriously? Perhaps we should get rid of boring old anti-aircraft regiments and add genetically engineered N-zi super dragons that could wipe out entire squadrons of tactical and strategic bombers? I am quite certain that once introduced, many players would also love the N-zi super dragons and would hate to see them removed from the game.
By the way, rumor would have it that the new Bytro-Dorado-partnered Cold War game, Conflict of Nations, includes an airborne unit. I wonder if the addition of an airborne unit to Conflict of Nations has made that game "completely unbalanced" and destroyed its "game play"?
Please understand that the timeframe of the game starts before WW2 and then goes some years beyond WW2 into the early stages of the Cold War. It was designed that way and it will be kept that way. I guess I have to say that 10 times because you bring that point up in nearly every thread you post in.
Of course we can conceive paratroopers. I just said we have to be careful here and that it is a bit harder than implementing other types of units, indeed because it can wreck the game. Wrecking not from a historical standpoint, but from a gameplay standpoint.
I even gave your post in the paratroopers thread a like because you came up with good suggestions how it could be implemented from a gameplay perspective.
The airborne unit in CoN has to be looked at in the context of the game. In that game you can move nearly all troops via airtransport, so intercepting an airborne unit behind your frontlines is not as hard as in CoW. Also in CoN you cannot build new units/buildings in non-urban provinces, meaning the airborne units need to conquer those provinces that you can reach by your own airtransports faster. While as in CoW, if some paratroopers would jump from province to province and you don't have units nearby you are pretty doomed, especially if your oponent uses Gold to speed up units in the conquered provinces behind your frontline (as in CoW you can build everywhere) or builds new airports there to immediately start flying to your next province. So if we don't balance it carefully you could lose your whole country within just 1 day.
Also the CoN airborne unit is working a bit differently than I think our players would expect paratroopers to function. So further adjustments would be needed. And adjustments are not always easy because the engine is limited and additions can have all sorts of side effects.
How it works in CoN: Provinces with airport have a range to them, and inside that range the airborne unit can fly from any point to any point, so it does not need to be stationed in a province with airport to fly, it just needs to be in range of a province with airport.
How I think users imagine paratroopers to work in CoW: You have an infantry unit that can move to a destination either on the ground or by flying, but the latter only if it started from a province with airport. Once landed it needs to get into a province with airport to start flying again.
I do bring it up, Freezy, because there are certain in-game combat unit types that clearly fall outside even the extremely permissive 1932-54 timeline you have suggested (e.g., nuclear aircraft carriers, first commissioned example, c. 1961). That's not my timeline, but yours.freezy wrote:
Please understand that the timeframe of the game starts before WW2 and then goes some years beyond WW2 into the early stages of the Cold War. It was designed that way and it will be kept that way.
And I will continue to do so whenever someone proposes adding another wildly anachronistic type of combat unit, such as nuclear-powered submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles (first commissioned and deployed example, c. 1960) or helicopter-deployed air mobile infantry regiments (first deployed units, c. 1965). If someone wants to play a war game that includes those unit types, they should try Conflict of Nations.freezy wrote:
I guess I have to say that 10 times because you bring that point up in nearly every thread you post in.
By the way, please don't feel the need to repeat yourself. Very often my comments are not addressed at you, or even a member of the forum staff, but at someone who is suggesting another ridiculously anachronistic change to the game.
That's good to hear. Every previous response I have ever read from a member of the forum staff (the closest thing we have to Bytro Labs authorized spokesmen) has done nothing but rain derisive comments on the whole idea of adding a new airborne infantry regiment to the game, citing a list of purportedly awful consequences ("Unbalanced!" "Unfriendly gameplay!" "Lions, and tigers, and bears!" "Oh, my!"). Clearly, this is NOT the impossible task some have suggested or implied.freezy wrote:
Of course we can conceive paratroopers.
Thank you.freezy wrote:
I even gave your post in the paratroopers thread a like because you came up with good suggestions how it could be implemented from a gameplay perspective.
I've actually been thinking about it for some time, because most of the objections would seem to be answered by the actual historical record. In fact, most of these answers to in-game unit design issues seem rather obvious to me. A little knowledge of World War II history provides most if not all of the solutions to the various objections raised.
Of course, it does. I fully recognize that.freezy wrote:
The airborne unit in CoN has to be looked at in the context of the game.
That's probably because the CoN "airborne" units were conceived as "air mobile" units -- that is, helicopter-carried infantry units that could be picked up and delivered anywhere within range of their transport copters, and not paratroops delivered by air drops from fixed-wing transport aircraft.freezy wrote:
How it works in CoN: Provinces with airport have a range to them, and inside that range the airborne unit can fly from any point to any point, so it does not need to be stationed in a province with airport to fly, it just needs to be in range of a province with airport.
Exactly right. And that is completely consistent with WWII-era technology. Moreover, just like our existing aircraft units require an L1 air base from which to fly and return, I would expect that any new airborne unit would have to start an air drop mission from an air base and could only be air-dropped to an enemy province within the unit's defined air transport range. Once it was air-dropped, it would have to move on the ground unless and until it had access to another friendly air base. Without access to an air base, the new airborne unit would simply be slightly slower-moving conventional infantry unit.freezy wrote:
How I think users imagine paratroopers to work in CoW: You have an infantry unit that can move to a destination either on the ground or by flying, but the latter only if it started from a province with airport. Once landed it needs to get into a province with airport to start flying again.
The first problem has been answered above. If you're raising the additional problem of unlimited gold-spammed units as an objection to adding paratroops, well, shucks, Freezy, that's already a problem, and it's got nothing to do with paratroops. In fact, it's not substantially different than what can happen during an unopposed amphibious invasion. If a player successfully lands a single unit in an empty coastal province, captures it, and immediately begins to use ridiculously large quantities of gold to build a new industrial center, barracks and infrastructure, then they can gold-spam an entire invasion force out of thin air in a matter of minutes. Thankfully, I have only encountered one player to date who was willing to engage in gold-spamming on that scale.freezy wrote:
While as in CoW, if some paratroopers would jump from province to province and you don't have units nearby you are pretty doomed, especially if your oponent uses Gold to speed up units in the conquered provinces behind your frontline (as in CoW you can build everywhere) or builds new airports there to immediately start flying to your next province. So if we don't balance it carefully you could lose your whole country within just 1 day.
Let's also keep in mind that if we impose a historically accurate air transport speed on the new airborne unit, then it will be moving through the air at one quarter to one third of the speed of our fighter units. The C-47 air transport, the work horse of Allied air transports, flew at a maximum speed of 225 mph, typically cruised at 160 mph when fully loaded, and had to slow down to 110 mph for air drops. That would mean our existing interceptor units would have a significant speed advantage in intercepting and attacking them in the air, and they would be highly vulnerable to air attack -- especially if they were unescorted.
IMHO, it is way past time to quit raising red-herring excuses, and start spending some serious time, effort and thought on how we can make this work. As you said above, "Of course we can conceive paratroopers." Well, it's time to prove the veracity of that statement.
I would never challenge bb to a debate. about anything. He hangs on like a bulldog on a pork chop. And, he is right.
Only if they're properly cooked. My mother over-cooked pork chops until they had the consistency of crispy shoe leather. Waste of good meat.Dixie wrote:
He hangs on like a bulldog on a pork chop.
Of course, she was also a nurse who was proud that none of her children died of trichinosis.
lol bb. that would indeed be unpleasant. i still cook em good and done. And to stay on topic, (@ Devs
Add transport planes to the game! And while youre at it, revamp the rebellion programming, nerf rockets, and fix all the plane bugs.
I realize I am dreaming in technicolor.
Then you would probably love my dear mother's holiday turkey too. Family story is that one of my older brothers only learned to eat cranberry sauce because it served to lubricate mom's turkey.Dixie wrote:
i still cook em good and done.
But I have clearly veered off topic.
Dixie wrote:
And while you're at it, revamp the rebellion programming, nerf rockets, and fix all the plane bugs. . . . I realize I am dreaming in technicolor.
Dream big, Don Quixote.
Can MontanaBB also defend my idea of separating ASM/Patrol craft from Naval bombers. I'd like him as an attorney.
@Chimere: Conceptually, your comment at the other thread is spot-on. When the Bytro software developers were designing Call of War, they effectively combined two very different classes of aircraft: (1) naval patrol bombers, such as the PBY Catalina and the navalized version of the B-24, which were multi-engine, long-range patrol craft and wickedly effective ASW weapons, and (2) naval dive bombers that were single-engine aircraft that could be used for attacking ships or land-based targets and had a much lower range than the multi-engine naval patrol bombers. As conceived by the game developers, the existing in-game naval bomber combines some of the worst characteristics of both -- it is slow, it has shorter range, and it is only moderately effective against enemy submarines, but it does have a very large search horizon and the ability to track subs. So, yes, the existing naval bomber unit probably should be separated into two different types of naval aircraft units at some point, but I would rate it as a lower priority than adding a properly designed airborne infantry unit.Chimere wrote:
my idea of separating ASM/Patrol craft from Naval bombers
FYI, if you search the old discussion threads for it, you will find that I have already commented on the conceptual flaws of the existing in-game naval bomber at some length in at least two previous threads.
That's good to hear.freezy wrote:
...Of course we can conceive paratroopers.
...
Even if there are no situations in the existing gameplay of CoW where you would need them, for some people it obviously will be pretty chic to have them - just like Rocket Fighters... 
You lack imagination, my friend. The "gameplay of CoW" will change.Restrisiko wrote:
Even if there are no situations in the existing gameplay of CoW where you would need them
One of the most obvious changes will be that invasions of ungarrisoned coastal island provinces, such as those found in the Mediterranean Sea of the European maps, will more often be conducted as airborne invasions rather than amphibious operations, and they will require far less time as a result.
Thanks for the discussion guys. To sum it up, there are certain problems that make including Paratroopers to the game a harder challenge, but it is also true that there are solutions for that. We also have to take costs of opportunity into account, under which each possible feature consistently gets evaluated (including factors like expected revenue, development time, fun for the players and overall risk). Some time in the future there may be the right time to implement it. When that time is I cannot say though.
Keep the ideas flowing, always interesting to read 
Let's hope that the "right time" comes sooner, rather than later, to add a new airborne infantry unit to Call of War. I think any honest, representative survey of Call of War's existing players would put an airborne unit at the top of players' wish list of new units to be added to the game.freezy wrote:
To sum it up, there are certain problems that make including Paratroopers to the game a harder challenge, but it is also true that there are solutions for that. . . . Some time in the future there may be the right time to implement it.
We can do this if we want to do this, and we can do it in a meaningful way that does not "wreck" the game. The solutions to the perceived "problems" melt away under an analysis and careful consideration of unit design elements in light of the historic World War II reality.
