Hello everyone, and welcome to the Call of War unofficial Comprehensive Suggestion List.
The goal of this thread is to list everything that has been suggested on the forums, and categorize them based on what players want. For now, there will be a simple 3 category system, but in the future I may rank some items depending on how important they are, or the frequency of discussion.
Items in the "Positives" section have a general support from most players, and some are very likely to be added in the future. Items in the "Negatives" section have been discussed and have been found to be a feature that should not be added to Call of War. Items in the "Undecided" category have mixed reviews and probably need more discussion to determine whether the majority of players want them or not. So, without further ado...
List of Suggestions for Call of War:
Positive Reviews:
I'm sure there's plenty of things that I've missed here, so feel free to include any suggestions I may have missed.
No, the commanders were.Pablo22510 wrote:
Many of the Brit paras were drawn from the Commandos, elite of the elite.
That doesn't matter, normally infantry has heavy guns. Para's have to make with around twelve to support thousands of men in one operation. Often some of these guns break during landing, so they end up with about 10 artillery guns. No AT weaponry.Pablo22510 wrote:
There is no doubt that both American and British paras were better trained than their infantry counterparts.
No, also some of the NCOs and even the soldiers too.Quasi-duck wrote:
No, the commanders were.
No AT weaponry? Heard of PIATs, which successfully stopped many German tanks at Pegasus Bridge? Bazookas, which US Paras trained with, and took into battle? Heard of the dozens of AT guns that Brit paras used to attack Arnhem? And about support weapons: they are a fast, dynamic unit, and they catch the enemy by surprise: they don't need support until they start acting like a normal infantry division, and by then they have the support of other divisions' guns.Quasi-duck wrote:
That doesn't matter, normally infantry has heavy guns. Para's have to make with around twelve to support thousands of men in one operation. Often some of these guns break during landing, so they end up with about 10 artillery guns. No AT weaponry.
Typo, I meant decent, heavy AT guns with a good supply of ammoPablo22510 wrote:
No AT weaponry? Heard of PIATs, which successfully stopped many German tanks at Pegasus Bridge? Bazookas, which US Paras trained with, and took into battle? Heard of the dozens of AT guns that Brit paras used to attack Arnhem? And about support weapons: they are a fast, dynamic unit, and they catch the enemy by surprise: they don't need support until they start acting like a normal infantry division, and by then they have the support of other divisions' guns.
Didn't do them much good at Arnhem anyways, we all know how that went.From what I read, what you said is bull. They were pulled from standard units, given fitness tests, and the best of those guys went to jump school.Pablo22510 wrote:
No, also some of the NCOs and even the soldiers too.
They had decent AT guns, and enough ammo. And it's stupid Monty's fault that they failed. Bloody incompetent bastard.Quasi-duck wrote:
Typo, I meant decent, heavy AT guns with a good supply of ammo Didn't do them much good at Arnhem anyways, we all know how that went.
And from what I read, what you said is bull. As Commando raids got less and less frequent, many of the Commandos were transferred to the Paras.Quasi-duck wrote:
From what I read, what you said is bull. They were pulled from standard units, given fitness tests, and the best of those guys went to jump school.
Bull, a punch of Panzers turned up and the whole thing fell to pieces.Pablo22510 wrote:
They had decent AT guns, and enough ammo.
You can't blame the fighting of the troops on a guy who couldn't even properly send them orders at the time.Pablo22510 wrote:
And it's stupid Monty's fault that they failed. Bloody incompetent bastard.
Look, the majority of British para were not commandos.Pablo22510 wrote:
And from what I read, what you said is bull. As Commando raids got less and less frequent, many of the Commandos were transferred to the Paras.
Actually, according to what I read the AT resisted on until the bitter end.Quasi-duck wrote:
Bull, a punch of Panzers turned up and the whole thing fell to pieces.
You can blame it on a guy who planned the whole thing poorly, and was dumb enough to not crush the Panzer division when he could have, and then was dumb enough to not even notice it had escaped!Quasi-duck wrote:
You can't blame the fighting of the troops on a guy who couldn't even properly send them orders at the time.
No, but a lot of them were.Quasi-duck wrote:
Look, the majority of British para were not commandos.
So, using that, the AT guns did fine, they just didn't have enough to take out all the tanks? Lol, that is called "poorly supplied".Pablo22510 wrote:
Actually, according to what I read the AT resisted on until the bitter end.
Their AT guns should've been able to handle it, if they are as good as you say they were.Pablo22510 wrote:
You can blame it on a guy who planned the whole thing poorly, and was dumb enough to not crush the Panzer division when he could have, and then was dumb enough to not even notice it had escaped!
Doesn't mean they knew how to jump from a plane.Pablo22510 wrote:
No, but a lot of them were.
Quasi-duck wrote:
So, using that, the AT guns did fine, they just didn't have enough to take out all the tanks? Lol, that is called "poorly supplied".
Or maybe there were too many tanks?Quasi-duck wrote:
Their AT guns should've been able to handle it, if they are as good as you say they were.
No, but they were taught how to, and they were elite combat troops, so they weren't 'noobs'.Quasi-duck wrote:
Doesn't mean they knew how to jump from a plane.
Proper Soviet ground forces seemed to do alright at Kursk, and Stalingrad.Pablo22510 wrote:
Or maybe there were too many tanks?
Look, it is fact that men in WWII commonly jumped out of planes with no idea how on all sides.Pablo22510 wrote:
No, but they were taught how to, and they were elite combat troops, so they weren't 'noobs'.
Kursk was pretty even in tank numbers. Stalingrad not so much, but they constantly were reinforced.Quasi-duck wrote:
Proper Soviet ground forces seemed to do alright at Kursk, and Stalingrad.
Exactly. Proper ground forces doing things para can't.Pablo22510 wrote:
Kursk was pretty even in tank numbers. Stalingrad not so much, but they constantly were reinforced.
That's not true. American Paras were trained a lot, and knew how to jump. They actually performed 5 jumps before achieving their paratrooper wings. The Brits too.Quasi-duck wrote:
Look, it is fact that men in WWII commonly jumped out of planes with no idea how on all sides.
Err, Paras did what ground forces couldn't do during Normandy and Market Garden.Quasi-duck wrote:
Exactly. Proper ground forces doing things para can't.
Lol, drown in a marsh and retreat?Pablo22510 wrote:
Err, Paras did what ground forces couldn't do during Normandy and Market Garden.
No, take key positions and hold them, sabotage enemy communication lines and stop enemy counterattacks until infantry reinforced them, and connect with them.Quasi-duck wrote:
Lol, drown in a marsh and retreat?
You do know that every thing except for the sabotage is what armed forces do in general, right?Pablo22510 wrote:
No, take key positions and hold them, sabotage enemy communication lines and stop enemy counterattacks until infantry reinforced them, and connect with them.
Quasi-duck wrote:
At the Bulge, literally every single German paratrooper was doing their first jump with no prior training. They did well enough, all reached the ground. Then ran away.
But I heard that only 93% reached the ground. The other 7% sprouted wings during mid-fall and flew away...never to be heard from again.
Haven't you heard the legends of the Nazi Bird Troops who drop lots of poops?
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Errr, yeah, but the paras stopped Panzer counterattacks which could've destroyed the disembarking men.Quasi-duck wrote:
You do know that every thing except for the sabotage is what armed forces do in general, right?
Different regiments, however officers were transferred etc. Eitherway the British Forces had experience in combat drops..Quasi-duck wrote:
Those were different men......oceanhawk wrote:
Also, the Brits did a parachute jump in operation torch, battalion sized if I am correct, but still..And they also jumped into Sicily, and Italy. Although none of them were as big compared to D-Day(in terms of importance and numbers), they were still jumps
You seemed to think that only American troops jumped, the way I read it.oceanhawk wrote:
Did you not see the "American" part?
Even still the Paratroopers were a better fighting force, and Superior to standard infantry
