Supremacy Logo
Locked

Paratroopers.

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!

122 Replies

25 Jul 2015, 21:13

Czar, close this topic now before it turns into a full-blown insult contest.

The past is a foreign country.
25 Jul 2015, 21:14

I got a fat stack of quotes I could use to close it down :P

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

25 Jul 2015, 21:16

Damn you Bill :P

P.S. See? We're already insulting each other!

The past is a foreign country.
25 Jul 2015, 21:18

Quite, quite. Shall I dip into my bag of insulting quotes?

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

25 Jul 2015, 21:20

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Quite, quite. Shall I dip into my bag of insulting quotes?
What about you obey the Forum rules and stay on topic? : )
25 Jul 2015, 21:22

Five wrote:

What about you obey the Forum rules and stay on topic? : )
Hmm, sounds tempting Five. But you should know how much I hate para. This thread has just become a load of stuff now, could you close it please?
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

25 Jul 2015, 21:25

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Five wrote:

What about you obey the Forum rules and stay on topic? : )
Hmm, sounds tempting Five. But you should know how much I hate para. This thread has just become a load of stuff now, could you close it please?
You don't have to comment if you don't like a topic, and in case you can't resist - keep it polite and obey the forum rules.
25 Jul 2015, 21:41

Hahahaha. I guess we should stop hijacking threads. Good night everybody. :sleeping:

The past is a foreign country.
25 Jul 2015, 21:52

Sleepy time for the forums.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

25 Jul 2015, 22:12

I do also think this thread should be closed. If at some point the game is sufficiently bug-free and has the majority of the more important features of the forum added, we can still restart one if someone feels the urge to battle against Bill :D

25 Jul 2015, 22:14

And they shall fall, just like the rest! Let me make a throne from the fallen dreams of people who want paratroopers!

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

25 Jul 2015, 23:04

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Martinskyboy wrote:

I hope to see paratrooper added on this game for sure. They add rail gun and rocket fighter in the game already who's was not used as much as paratroop in WW2. Those who doubt about there effecacity should watch the tv-series bands of brother. Those who doubt their use on a game should play the game Hearth oF Iron.

I used them alot on that game and I always have 2 or 3 division of 3 paratroop units. Pretty usefull for encirclement and flank attack. Pretty usefull to take down unguarded airbase and destroy plane on the ground.For fast taking ungarded key production region, key ressources region and Island region.

Some people think they just flying milicia, but the only bad thing about milicia on this game are the cost. Milicia are pretty awesone in some terrain, like mountain, jungle and ambushing. In this game it good against openent who all throw all there army on the front in one or two groups. By taking ungarded province they slow ennemy down alot, and force them to split for retake them.

This will add much strategy in this game and force people to guard there key point, forteress, factory, ressource and airbase. And like I say in the beginning if rocket fighter made the cut why not paratroop?

Obviously you did not read the whole thread through as well.
No I didnot read the whole thread and sorry for spelling english are only my second language . My IQ only 125 so sorry for that too. But if it is your only argument to insult other for their spelling and with a name on the limit of reasonable, I just wonder why you still not banned from this forum. I read lot of your post and you almost always respond rude and you dont respect others opinions. You pretty much on a edge of a troll for me. You dont use militia, and you talk of AC? If we follow your thinking, AC are pretty same of militia but with moto and hummer. Submarine are on the useless to ,you need 2 or 3 to sink just 1 cruiser!!! Oh wait why my army of AA got crushed on the front line!!!
25 Jul 2015, 23:09

Subs are for taking out convoys and AA are very useful when fighting bugged aircraft, they get stuck on the ground and are very strong.

As for being on the edge of a troll, I would agree. But, the best of us are. If you insult and annoy people they become angrier and lose focus then the thread gets closed and I(more or less) have won.

Sorry about insulting you for your bad English, I always assume people in the internet are male Americans living with their parents in their basement(and of course I am always wrong).

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

26 Jul 2015, 00:16

Lol! I dont know if I should hate you or like you now. Anyway for militia they have there role too and it a thread for paratroop. Paratroop in fact are elite troop with a real more harder training than regular infantry, so im pretty sure they will beat militia on the field. I think you hate paratroop just because you will have to re-think your strategy.

This game have lot of potential, but I agree with you they should not do like other games, where they add more contents before correct bugs. I hope to see paratroops in the future on a world wide map.

But lot of units can be add to without any big change to the game in the futur after a world map, like light cruiser and marine. On the pacific theatre they was used alot.

26 Jul 2015, 00:32

Para are not elite, they are just made out to be elite. The reason their training took longer was because they had to be taught how to jump from a plane which, unless you're Russian(who learned on the job usually), takes a long time.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

26 Jul 2015, 01:07

Bill I don't quite know why you hate paratroopers so much to the point where you find a reason to insult anyone that even slightly supports the idea. I understand it's probably going to make you rethink your strategy of warmongering and pushing through provinces while leaving them unchecked, but it adds more depth to the game. The Germans had sufficient forces to be able to push through provinces with incredible speed, and still leave behind enough troops to get the job done behind the front.

That's probably why paratroopers weren't so great in the first place, because there were just too many fortified positions and heavy defenses behind the front lines.

26 Jul 2015, 01:12

I don't like the idea of paratroopers because I would have to think my strategy, that is not the case. The reason is

They waste the devs time when they could be doing something more worthwhile.

Keep that in mind.

Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

26 Jul 2015, 01:37

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Para are not elite, they are just made out to be elite. The reason their training took longer was because they had to be taught how to jump from a plane which, unless you're Russian(who learned on the job usually), takes a long time.
Paratrooper are elite just like marine or mountaineers. Not everyone made the cut in the selection programs, not just the training was longer but harder than regular, the pay was better too. Maybe you mistake with special forces.
26 Jul 2015, 01:43

Paras are not elite, give a soldier 2-3 weeks boom a para.

"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
-imperium thought of the day
Back to Suggestions
Quick Launch