My Apologies if this was already covered but did not find anything in a forum search.
Being that paratroopers were an integral piece in WW2 I was wondering if there are plans to include them and if so when? I know the Germans, Americans, British and Russians all used paratroopers in the war.
Perhaps they can be added in the secret category since they were more like a specialized unit.
Thoughts?
Paras are something between the do. It is not and unneeded luexury, but you can live without it. It's just having them (and better commandos), would make the game so much better. However, there are still some skeptics who don't see the great strategic value in this unit.
These some skeptics are the people who run and make the game, pretty sure they know what is best.Pablo22510 wrote:
some skeptics
Considering that they get most of their ideas from the community, maybe they also have to consult us.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
These some skeptics are the people who run and make the game, pretty sure they know what is best.
What ideas that are ours have they put? You can't say carriers, there was a challenge for them from the very start.
freezy wrote:
- Animations for nuclear explosions were implemented- Explosion animations for artillery, planes and missiles implemented.
- New smoke animations over revolting cities added.
- A new marker now shows you where exactly your army is stationed.
freezy wrote:
- The Canadian flag has been corrected.
freezy wrote:
- The behavior of the AI has been improved: AI now builds more diverse units instead of mainly missiles, and AI has less problems when attacking.
Those weren't units though, I should have clarified. I meant changed/added a unit rather changing aesthetics and the AI. The AI isn't much better anyway, they tend to build LT and AA.
Well, it's still better than rockets. Let's get back on topic, we'd be jacking another thread if notButter Ball Bill wrote:
AI isn't much better anyway, they tend to build LT and AA.
. BTW, good night. 
Just a subtle fact, did you know early on in the war Soviet paratroopers didn't actually go INSIDE the plane, they hung onto the outside fuselage.
Thats very wrong, a lot of troops went inside. As you can see from that pic, the fuselage is too narrow for troops and they were in a pinch and needed aircraft at that time. That picture does not represent every drop the Russians made, it probably didn't happen very often.
What about instead of adding paratroopers, you just give commandos the option to airdrop from behind enemy lines? Rambo is a good example of this (not completely). He was deep behind enemy lines and wrecked havoc against inexperienced troops.
Early on I.E 1941 blitzkrieg time, therefore the Russians probably didn't have a lot of the specialist aircraft they already had the choose from. They did have proper paratrooper airplanes such as the AN-7 or the G-11
Sounds good, drop them from strat bombers and they have half range? Strat bombers don't have much use at the moment.IISpikeII wrote:
What about instead of adding paratroopers, you just give commandos the option to airdrop from behind enemy lines? Rambo is a good example of this (not completely). He was deep behind enemy lines and wrecked havoc against inexperienced troops.
BothButter Ball Bill wrote:
I have put this idea down twice before, think I should start keeping a tally?We do not need a debate, it is just taking it too far. We have one type of militia, we don't need another type that falls to their doom. Which would you prefer, flying militia or aircraft carriers?
One or the other, it is a small team.
Thanks for the link did a search for this and didn't find it, I found the poll attached very informative 32 total yes votes, 5 nay....hmm sounds like a small minority doesn't want them, but I guess it matters who is in that group, And yes I understand its just a poll, but it is telling.Pablo22510 wrote:
Armatus, here's the thread: Paratroopers.
It does not need to be absolute, in time both can be added. which would I prefer first? Aircraft carriers, then paratroopers, but both can be included.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
One or the other, it is a small team.
I say we scrap the strat bombers and re-purpose them for air drops. They're not much of use, since tac bombers can destroy cities too.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
Sounds good, drop them from strat bombers and they have half range? Strat bombers don't have much use at the moment.IISpikeII wrote:
What about instead of adding paratroopers, you just give commandos the option to airdrop from behind enemy lines? Rambo is a good example of this (not completely). He was deep behind enemy lines and wrecked havoc against inexperienced troops.
So you want to make a game more realistic by removing a very historically important unit. Makes sense.
I never said I wanted to add realism, simply just add purpose to unused units.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
So you want to make a game more realistic by removing a very historically important unit. Makes sense.
Mods dont see a strategic value for paratroopers?
Well do they see it on in Armored cars , I never came across anyone who built even one of it in 99% of my games
A unit that can jump in your backyard while you are sleep/unprepared has great strategic value and encourages players to not send 99% of their armies to the front lines blindly , but to also prepare some defences in their backyard
To me paratroopers have more strategic value and usefuleness than many units currently in the game, if the mods hate it let them put out their reasons for i havenot found any logical one yet 
