On Suggesting Paratroopers

Quasi-duck wrote:

Thanks for the info, hope you had a fun time showing those Iraqi's why they shouldn't pick on smaller nations.

He killed over 300,000 of his own people with siren gas that year.

In the war called the 1991 Iraqi Uprising. Same time Desert Storm war was going on.

How was coordination with the French ? I read that the French, while covering a flank efficiently, were basically doing the job on their own with little horizontal unit coordination, though of course Command was integrated.

Chimere wrote:

How was coordination with the French ? I read that the French, while covering a flank efficiently, were basically doing the job on their own with little horizontal unit coordination, though of course Command was integrated.

They drove armored personnel tracks (think it was like a m577) They would stop before the tanks get out the back, set up a mortar, and blow the tank up .

One time I was about to shoot one with a L.A.W. and right before I pulled the trigger. A French attack helicopter com over a hill and shot a rocket at it, blowing the top off of it. He was aimed at my gun at the time.

Here is a picture found on wiki, where my gun section and one french guy checking out one of the tanks.:

French Guy is the one with his helmet off. I am the one on left walking away with my new Iraqi entrenching tool.

I used to dig more fox holes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Iraqi_Type_69_destroyed_by_the_French_6th_Light_Armored_Division_during_the_Gulf_War.JPEG/1024px-Iraqi_Type_69_destroyed_by_the_French_6th_Light_Armored_Division_during_the_Gulf_War.JPEG

And lets back on the paratroops im up for that they must be created from city and cost high resource (i like and Nash idea for air bron school) but i think they must cap the zones and must be strong more than infatry units ... if they are weak that make them unusable

If there are paratroopers, they should be weak. They would not have the weaponry or logistical support of other types of units. They would have to carry everything on themselvesfood, ammo, etc.). They had a limited amount of ammo. They usually didn't have reinforcements for their unit. They usually had to be reinforced by other types of units. They normally wouldn't have had machine guns, grenade launchers, trucks, etc. Often supplies for paratroopers didn't drop near the paratroopers. Often the supplies wound up in enemy controlled areas.

Lawrence Czl wrote:

If there are paratroopers, they should be weak. They would not have the weaponry or logistical support of other types of units. They would have to carry everything on themselvesfood, ammo, etc.). They had a limited amount of ammo. They usually didn't have reinforcements for their unit. They usually had to be reinforced by other types of units. They normally wouldn't have had machine guns, grenade launchers, trucks, etc. Often supplies for paratroopers didn't drop near the paratroopers. Often the supplies wound up in enemy controlled areas.

God damn how do none of you para-fanboys understand logistics? You can't support paratroopers with heavy weaponry because that stuff can't be air dropped, so no matter how good their training is paratroopers are going to eat lead and get pinned down when an infantry division comes along with large howitzers, mortars, support vehicles and proper supply lines.

Quasi-duck wrote:

infantry division comes along with large howitzers, mortars, support vehicles

American and British airborne divisions also included Jeep or Land Rover scout vehicles delivered by glider. The scout vehicles could be used to tow airborne arty. The airborne arty was delivered by a combination of parachute drops and gliders.

The biggest problems Allied airborne units had were lack of quick maneuverability once they were on the ground (no heavy trucks), and they had to be resupplied by air drops if they were surrounded, as they often were by design. U.S. Army doctrine called for airborne troops to be relieved within 3 to 4 days by conventional ground troops.

As previously noted, American and British airborne troops were trained to a higher standard than conventional line infantry units, and were typically on par with American Ranger units in the hierarchy of elite troops. You don't have to be a "fan boy" to acknowledge that Allied airborne were as good or better than any other division-sized infantry units. Their key weakness was directly tied to their key strength: their ability to be air-dropped into tactical situations where they were completely surrounded by the enemy until they were relieved.

MontanaBB wrote:

The biggest problems Allied airborne units had were lack of quick maneuverability once they were on the ground (no heavy trucks), and they had to be resupplied by air drops if they were surrounded, as they often were by design. U.S. Army doctrine called for airborne troops to be relieved within 3 to 4 days by conventional ground troops.

MontanaBB wrote:

As previously noted, American and British airborne troops were trained to a higher standard than conventional line infantry units, and were typically on par with American Ranger units in the hierarchy of elite troops. You don't have to be a "fan boy" to acknowledge that Allied airborne were as good or better than any other division-sized infantry units. Their key weakness was directly tied to their key strength: their ability to be air-dropped into tactical situations where they were completely surrounded by the enemy until they were relieved.

As well as this, troops in this game have no levels of training, it is all standard. So while paratroopers may be very well trained, it's not like they will be landing on poorly trained conscripts either, they will be landing on a bog standard infantry division who will definitely give them a hard time.

I just logged on to this forum to specifically request paratroopers!

(There seems to be a great deal of digression in this thread that should just be deleted.)

I think Paratroopers should be on the Research Tree enabled via Commandos. IOW, Commandos need to be researched first, AND, level 3 Heavy Bombers ; BUT, you should be able to build Paratroopers at any Level 3 Air-strip.

Thanks for listening.

Finarfin The Great wrote:

(There seems to be a great deal of digression in this thread that should just be deleted.)

OK, so I understand that paratroopers would be completely game-changing, but here's an Idea I don't know if anybody ever suggested: what if they're incapable of capturing territory, and slower than militia on the ground? Combine that with inability to fight tanks, and high level buildings needed to build, and it doesn't matter if they're game changing because nobody will ever use them anyways.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

OK, so I understand that paratroopers would be completely game-changing, but here's an Idea I don't know if anybody ever suggested: what if they're incapable of capturing territory, and slower than militia on the ground? Combine that with inability to fight tanks, and high level buildings needed to build, and it doesn't matter if they're game changing because nobody will ever use them anyways.

Also, if paratroopers are crap, you and I both know the forum will be flooded with requests to buff them.

Quasi-duck wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

OK, so I understand that paratroopers would be completely game-changing, but here's an Idea I don't know if anybody ever suggested: what if they're incapable of capturing territory, and slower than militia on the ground? Combine that with inability to fight tanks, and high level buildings needed to build, and it doesn't matter if they're game changing because nobody will ever use them anyways.

Then what is the point of implementing them beyond stopping these cancer threads, which are pretty much limited to this one nowadays? The devs have a to-do list as long as my arm and then some, no point in making a crappy unit like paratroopers just for the sake of it.

Also, if paratroopers are crap, you and I both know the forum will be flooded with requests to buff them.

But I would be just happy with slow units that cannot beat an entrenched infantry (but can totally thrash a militia not in hills/forest.

Restrisiko wrote:

Unfortunately, really unfortunately, the real function of paratroopers does not fit the basic / original methodology (the basicly gameplay) of CoW - keywords: province hopping (ability to skip provinces) and conquest speed (because "time brakes" are essential in a (browser-) wargame where players are mostly online at different times).

But taking out these two primary skills of the paratroopers or just adapting them to relations of the game (which will be necessary, as has been so by all other units) will make paratroopers useless from the outset (what they are anyway in this game).

And then they so or so will be nothing more than a fun gimmick for action- and reality freaks, because they couldn't do something really better as what you can do anyhow without them (and even more efficiently / effectively) with already existing units.

Since I joined CoW in 2015, I have never experienced a game situation where I needed or even missed paratroopers. If one do not want to create a completely different game, paras are unnecessary.

Yeah , stay relaxed please, this is as always only Restrisikos personal rational opinion

GreatbigHippo wrote:

and slower than militia on the ground?

Paratroopers would be a researchable unit. Prerequisites of Commandos and level 2 strat bomber

Could be built similar to commandos in capital with L3 barracks AND a L2 airbase.

So what you get would be a single use plane. Think along the lines of an atomic bomber. The attack function of the plane would capture the province when it was undefended, although even a fractional amount of anti air defense in any form would prevent the attack and destroy the plane.

A sucessful attack would consume the plane, and leave a commando unit at the province

Like atomic bombers the plane is lost during the attack, so you only have the one commando unit on the ground and you can't get him back aboard another plane. You can only produce another paratrooper plane unit. No reusability.

You can't stack the planes with any other planes or with multiple paratrooper planes. So you can only deliver ONE commando per province because you can only attack the enemy province once. Once you capture the province you can't land additional paratroopers there.

The range of the paratrooper is up for discussion I guess. It probably should not be 800 kilometers, but perhaps more than a naval bomber range.

Of course we could instead of strat bombers use naval bombers and make them carrier capable, just with a really short range.

I think these conditions would be the closest way to merge the paratrooper idea into the way the game works.

Without ground forces being able to reach the area soon, the paratroop unit is surrounded and easily eliminated. They will rely on friendly airforces to keep the enemies from overrunning their position.

The paratroop unit can begin construction or repairs on an airbase, which can project airpower deeper into the enemy territory. I suppose with good luck and timing the paratroop could capture an enemy city where a unit was already being produced and be able to "comandeer" those units fresh off the assembly line.

Can we have paratroopers?

Captain Hurricane wrote:

Can we have paratroopers?

[spoiler=I ask ..]

.. for what are they be needed in this game (.. additional researched, extra produced, and after use needlessly feeded ..)?

What could be done better with them, as already now and more efficient and effective with already existing units..?

I know, I often asked this question in the same context; but so far I never received any reasonable explanatory answer ..

.. please, help me and explain it to me ..

[/spoiler]

why wouldn't u want paratroopers Restrikio?

An infantry unit that can be deployed a considerable distance in a short period of time that can go over a frontline defence into enemy territory, un impeded by mountains, forests or water obstacles?

does that not add a different dimension to strategy for both attacker and defender? do you want to know more?

Kanaris wrote:

There are sooooooooooo many threads for paratroopers do we really need to rehash it all here?