You can vote twice in the poll if you like, and you can change your vote too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone was going to suggest it eventually, and I think iv'e seen it mentioned in the 'commando unit' thread but I feel it deserves its own topic. Firstly I completely agree with anyone who says the game should be tested to the max in its current state before new units are spammed at it, so as to properly gauge the need or possible impacts of these additions and ensure balance and a strong basic footing for the additions to build on.
That being said, I think paratroopers are an obvious and exciting future option and I see no harm in throwing a few ideas around.
The basic is an infantry unit that can deploy via air assault. (Though I'll mention gliders for a possible mechanized nod, the jeep one.) I think giving ALL infantry this ability would just result in constant para spam attacks, or the costs would drive down the number on infantry units in armies, which while I'm expecting late tech, big countries to have many mech infantry I think infantry should remain a constant part of armies. I think having transport planes to move units is possible, but too different to the current mechanics or to complicated to bother with when the individual unit is a better option, if you disagree post below 
Ideally it will be a unit used to compliment your regular armies or give you a greater range of strategic options, not change the game entirely.
The selling feature will be the deployment method.
They can only parachute deploy when on an airfield, otherwise and after the drop they act as a regular ground unit.
They will most likely be more expensive than regular infantry but with a weaker strength vs armour to represent a lack of heavier weapons, that being said you could argue that is represented by not being able to parachute anti-tanks.etc. in with them, also they tended to be an elite unit so again you could try and boost their stats but balancing might push the costs up to very high levels.
As they are deployed via transport plane they will also be very susceptible to interceptors during transport, perhaps even more so than bombers which would have carried more defensive armament.
In addition I believe that paratroopers should have a 'disembark' period, representing them dropping in and then assembling back into organised units in which they could mount a cohesive defense/attack.
This means that catching paratroopers either in transport or during the drop will give the defender favorable results, making it more risky.
That being said if the range is too great paratroopers can be dropped miles from the fighting and be incredibly frustrating to prevent/contain. Again this can be balanced against flight speed, giving an active defender more time to intercept via air or ground, meaning longer trips would be more of a gamble. but I still think a short distance is better, perhaps if we go historically the distance between the southern British provinces and northern French ones etc.
Its interesting to note this deployment method could be used to move troops faster over Friendly ground from airfield to airfield, or across waterways without having to risk sub attacks. It could even be used for evacuations in the face of the enemy if you use paratroopers like border guards or decoys.
The deployment method itself I'm assuming would allow you to land your paras anywhere on a road, not sure about whether landing directly on/into combat with a province capitol would be good or not, but i see no reason to prevent it, after all your opponent could GM a tank brigade as you drop!
An important question might be whether or not you are allowed to recall, constant feinting could make paras even harder and annoying to defend against, but then these things are suppose to be planned out for days ahead of schedule so accidentally dropping miles away or when you didn't want to drop at all would be really painful.
Could you drop into the sea? gameplay wise I'm nodding vigorously (I like having max options,) the rest of me is face palming.
Tech wise it should be an infantry lvl and a plane level, strategic bomber perhaps? day 12/16? or maybe mid twenties. Does it need an airfield in the province to be produced though? Id guess so for training jumps etc. and a high level barracks, maybe even a level 2 industrial complex to represent the planes required.
What are your thoughts? where have I gone badly wrong? (hopefully not everywhere) Any historical examples you know? Thanks for reading this brain dump!
You still used it as a source. I haven't seen it so I can't actually see how realistic it is. Anyway, I will never take a movie as a reliable source since they are made to entertain, not to teach people things.
Trust me, that movie is not to entertain, it is to teach. Only people dedicated to learning about the paratroopers and how they sacrificed everyting for us watch it. To prove my pont, I called it a movie when it is actually a mini series of 10 chapters. It is 10 hours. No one will dream of watching that if they don't like it. And trust me, it is to teach.
Oh, so it is a documentary? I stand corrected. Well, I read a book by Peter Harcelrode and every operation launched that included paratroopers usually screwed up and always came with heavy casualties. It only really worked well for the Brits and Americans. Even for them they had really heavy casualties. Just look at Market Garden, which also concerns your idea on the side roads.
Band of Brothers goes through the story of a company, from their training in Camp Toccoa in 1942 and 1943, to the capture of Hitler's private summer residence in Berchetsgaden, passing thorugh D-Day, Market Garden and Bastogne (they were part of the 101st Airborne). Along the war, their casualty rate was of 150%. However, they did amazing in D-Day, eliminating enemy guns firing on Utah beach (look up Brecourt Manor). They then took Carentan and other towns. In Arnhem, they did OK, but one the Germans appeared with their tanks, they had nothing to do, as the British tanks had been elminated. At Bastogne, they took many casualties because of the constant barrage of German artillery. They then crossed the Rhine, and from then on it was plain sailing, with the exception of the capture of Berchetsgaden, which was defended by Waffen SS troops.
Overall, they did pretty well during the war. Paratroopers are essentialfor capturing key targets (like bridges) before the enemy blows hem up, slowing your advance. In WW2, the only task they failed was Market Garden. Look up Operation Deadstick. THAT is exactly what paratroopers are supposed to do. Hats off...
Have you read about Crete and Russian paratroopers in general? Crete stopped Germans ever using paratroopers for a major offensive again and every time the Russians used them in an offensive as a large force, they were nearly wiped out nearly every time, casualties numbering in the thousands with the force having to be rebuilt completely after every mission.
Well, what you say proves my point. Russia did not used paras for what the were supposed to, resulting in their wiping out. Germanyused them how it was supposed to, but because in Crete it was only paras, no actual Wehrmacht troops, they were wiped out, although not completely. In my understanding about why Crete fell, it was because a batallion of ANZAC forces in an airfield, after wiping out an initial wave, misinterpreted orders and abandoned the air field. The air field was captured by germans shortly after, bringing in reinforcements.
Market Garden did not fail because the paratroopers were bad. Market Garden failed because of poor decisions made by the high command, in particular, Montgomery. The Germans had exceptionally prepared for an allied attack, and reinforced with the II SS Panzer Korps. (Yes, no infantry does super well against tanks.) As well as bridge defenses. The original plan counted on there not being Panzers there... montgomery didn't listen to the new intel, and so they dropped paratroopers against a superior element. The troopers simply couldn't take the bridges, and hold them long enough for the XXX corps to cross over, and make real progress.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
Oh, so it is a documentary? I stand corrected. Well, I read a book by Peter Harcelrode and every operation launched that included paratroopers usually screwed up and always came with heavy casualties. It only really worked well for the Brits and Americans. Even for them they had really heavy casualties. Just look at Market Garden, which also concerns your idea on the side roads.
The operational failure wasn't a flaw in the concept of paratroopers, it was a failure of command to use soldiers properly; and it got a lot of those men killed. They weren't supposed to attack tanks, they were supposed to drop in and tank the bridges before the Germans could blow them up. Quick infantry have a better shot of taking a bridge at night than a column of noisy tanks, which are much more obvious.
I would just like to point out that the paratroopers failed. They had heavy weaponry and still failed.
Bill, be serious. Even if you're armed with bazookas, (one per platoon(30 men)) you stand no chance against amazing German tanks supported by infantry.
In Market Garden they had AT guns, artillery and by the end of it tanks. They still failed. I am very serious.
I know they did! But the thing is paras only had rifles and some bazookas, the rest of the lot fell under Monty's command, who in my opinion was overrated, just because he won at El Alamein. He didn't handle Market Graden well, and it was a complete fail. In my opinion, the crossing over into Germany should've been done by Patton via Rhine.
Digging this thread, because of a re-route from the new one.
I personally, deeply, dis-like paratroopers as a game unit.
However, I also am for realism.
Here's what I propose:
- Add them as more expensive then inf., weaker then militia.
- Do not let their res. tree go fast (keep them weak)
- Avail. from Day 1 (however, aircraft dependent?...so... 
)
- Easy to shoot down
- 3 hour embarkment/disembarkment
Paratroopers were weak, easy to kill units that were heavily recon and espionage reliant.
So make that the case in game - you drop in the wrong place? Surprise, dead.
You go near a patrolled, or anti-aircraft region? Surprise, dead.
The only two major things this will effectively do -
1.) Allow support of already successful advances (speedup losers deaths)
2.) Force individuals to more accurate-to-history have internal defenses setup in their regions in the odd chance of a para-drop
I like the sound of that itsDeems. Ot would be super effective.... Very nice.
Shh...Butter Ball Bill wrote:
I like the sound of that itsDeems. Only an idiot would use a unit like that. Very nice.
C'mon you can't say pras were weaker than militia! Paras were the WW2 equivalent of today's SEALs. They had intensive training and had the best weapons and equipment.
I'm pretty sure SEAL's don't get riddled with bullets while scrabbling around for their weapons. Or get torn to pieces by an AA while coming down. Probably aren't dropped like bombs. I bet they have a better time of it when a tank rolls up and starts firing on them(although tanks are hard for any foot soldier to knock out).
Well, OK, not as well prepared as SEALs, but my point is paras were the WW2 special forces, and they had great successes, e.g. SAS, Normandy, Carentan
ItsDeems, just one thing, basically I like your ideas to put the effectiveness of paras down (sorry for bad english 
), but why 3 hours of disembarkment? I understand why they would take long to embark, but to drop from a plane should usually not take 3 hours.
Eh, he he, Pablo, WWII had proper special forces e.g. SAS.
Paras are ordinary soldiers that recieve parachute training the only special trait paras have is there the first people to die. Special forces? I'm pretty sure special forces work in squads of 10 not an entire battalion, SAS?, SEALS? Special mission units...paras...cannon fodder that glides. Can we stop talking about paras and start talking about how they have a use to the game please? Unit stats and cost?
