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).
Let's cut the bulls**t, KR. Some of us know our our WW2 history very well, and we don't need anything "obvious" explained to us. I understand that you don't want airborne units in the game. That's fine. But please don't expect those of us who know better to accept bulls**t statements, however adamantly made, as historical fact.
Please let me know if you need anything "obvious" explained to you.
Montana, OK, let me still make the obvious statements yet again, and tell me which one(s) you disagree with, so we may be able to focus the discussion.
1) With the possible exception of Crete, no single regiment-up airborne operation was launched in the entirety of WW2 where no regular ground troops of AT LEAST equal size were also deployed (and usually larger);
2) No area of more than say 200 square miles (20x10 miles or similar) was ever occupied by airborne troops alone (for Market Garden where three airborne divisions were deployed, about 40x5 miles);
3) 200 square miles is MUCH, MUCH smaller than the average CoW province.
CoW could have paratroopers easely, (coding could be gifted from CoN) but with that stats, which does not ruin gamebalance it would be only another nice toy. And I bet most players who demand paratroopers dont want a toy, they want *el caramba uberwaffe cyborgs*
I mean how many players would accept paratroopers with inverted def/att stats of common infantry with many province based maluses, and 33% less hp, helpless while "landing" and more expensive in production?
Most people suggesting paratroopers think: "It would be cool if I could take enemy provinces with an air jump!"
Very few think: "It would really suck if the enemy could take my provinces with an airdrop!"
How many successful operations to capture and hold ground, in the face of serious enemy opposition, were launched by anti-aircraft regiments? Anti-tank regiments? Armored car brigades? Commandos? Artillery regiments? Militia (LOL)? So, are we going to say that in-game AA, AT, armored car, commandos and arty units cannot take and hold ground, too?K.Rokossovski wrote:
1) With the possible exception of Crete, no single regiment-up airborne operation was launched in the entirety of WW2 where no regular ground troops of AT LEAST equal size were also deployed (and usually larger);
Your point also ignores the "obvious" elephant in the room: even a heavy tank brigade, the monster of the the WW2 battlefield, could not hold ground unless it was supported by infantry and anti-air units. Shall we also ignore the fact that airborne infantry, once they were on the ground and their subunits were marshaled, were simply conventional infantry ---- and infantry was the ideal unit to occupy, pacify and defend ground?
For the sake of the present argument, I will accept your numbers above. How many times was a conventional infantry regiment deployed, alone, and then occupied a similarly sized area as you have described above in the face of serious enemy opposition? Damn few, if any, and there were a hell of a lot more conventional infantry units than airborne infantry units employed in the war.K.Rokossovski wrote:
2) No area of more than say 200 square miles (20x10 miles or similar) was ever occupied by airborne troops alone (for Market Garden where three airborne divisions were deployed, about 40x5 miles);
You are creating a straw men, sir. If you don't understand the English language metaphor, google it.
True. But it's also irrelevant. How many times was a Brittany, a Kiev, a Stalingrad, a metro Paris, or a Munich occupied by a single, unsupported unit of 600 to 1,500 men -- of any kind -- in the face of serious enemy opposition? Answer: Rarely, and perhaps never. All combat arms in major armies worked as a team. Even Allied airborne divisions incorporated artillery, anti-tank and motorized scout subunits.K.Rokossovski wrote:
3) 200 square miles is MUCH, MUCH smaller than the average CoW province.
Your thinking is very confused and illogical on these points, and your bias against adding an airborne infantry regiment to the game is clearly clouding your thinking on point. Frankly, Roko, for an obviously smart guy, your thinking on paratroops has gone so far down the rabbit hole that you should just stop responding. You don't seem to understand that you have created this standard for airborne infantry units that NO battalion, brigade or regiment-size unit could satisfy in WW2, or, for that matter could satisfy in the present day, because NO unsupported unit of 600 to 1,500 men could successfully occupy an area of the size you described in the face of serious enemy opposition, or even a hostile civilian population.
IMO, the biggest potential "imbalance" problem would be created by having unlimited numbers of them. In real life, the biggest limitation on the use of paratroops -- then and now -- is having the available air transport capacity to deliver them and their equipment in one or two waves. The two biggest Allied air drops of the war involved most of three divisions -- roughly 9 to 12 regiments of airborne infantry. That represented two American divisions and one British, and required most of the available air transport of both countries in theater. The Americans actually created and fully trained two more airborne divisions that never saw action in the war, primarily because they lacked the available air transport capacity to effectively use them.Last Warrior wrote:
CoW could have paratroopers easely, (coding could be gifted from CoN) but with that stats, which does not ruin gamebalance it would be only another nice toy . . .
Bottom line: permitting COW players to spam 15, 20, 30 or even more airborne regiments would not only be unrealistic, but it undoubtedly would lead to odd game imbalances. The simple solution would be to limit the number of airborne units any player could possess at any time to roughly 6 to 9 regiments ---- the equivalent of two or three divisions ---- and then make the units costly and time-consuming to produce, with high manpower and oil upkeep requirements.
You just proved my point.
But before I explain why, you seem to concede the obvious three points above, right?
And I'm very sorry, Sir, since you aim to be impolite and insulting (my thinkinig is down the rabbit hole, confused and illogical, clearly clouded, I don't understand anything and I should shut up when people who know what they're talking about speak), here is one for you:
I don't accept a guy to tell me all that, who may have some idea about tactical operations (maybe up to corps level), but apparently has no idea about strategic warfare, which is simply proven by the fact that he thinks you can drop some paratroopers from Britain across the Channel and liberate Belgium.
I concede nothing, KR. NO UNIT OF ANY KIND could satisfy the standard you have created above. None. Zero. Nada. And I don't see you suggesting we should eliminate commandos, AA, AT, artillery, light tanks, etc., because a small unit of 600 to 1,500 men could not be expected to occupy a large province by themselves.K.Rokossovski wrote:
But before I explain why, you seem to concede the obvious three points above, right?
And if my responses sound "insulting" or "impolite," then that's only because you have taken a similar tone in paratroops discussions, while also using your position as an administrator to shut down discussions about paratroops whenever you can. Stop it, and I and others will respond in kind.
Look, there's little point in discussing something if you can't make up your mind if you do or do not agree with three simple statements. Make up your mind, true or false without immediatly clouding the discussion by comparing to different troops, and let me know when you do.
There's little point in discussing a new unit with you, if you are going to insist on a different standard for that unit ---- a standard which most ---- if not all ---- existing units cannot satisfy.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Look, there's little point in discussing something if you can't make up your mind if you do or do not agree with three simple statements. Make up your mind, true or false without immediatly clouding the discussion by comparing to different troops, and let me know when you do.
I might also add that it might be time for you to withdraw from attempting to moderate paratrooper discussions because your bias is so extensive that you can longer be objective.
Montana is correct, in all his above points.
When did Montana say this? If what I've been reading is over the last few posts is the same as you, I think you need to get your head checked.K.Rokossovski wrote:
which is simply proven by the fact that he thinks you can drop some paratroopers from Britain across the Channel and liberate Belgium.
I am sorry guys, but I will be so free and close this thread. There are already many opinions about paratroopers in this forum and I am pretty sure many more will come 
I do not like where this discussion is going, mainly I see a lot of misunderstandings. Maybe I will reopen it again after some time, but for now I feel like we all need to enjoy our weekend 
