Let's see what the devs thinks...if they decided they make it.
26 Jul 2015, 02:34
"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
-imperium thought of the day
-imperium thought of the day
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
26 Jul 2015, 02:36
And another thing, paras were deployed in large numbers, not so subtle than spec ops is it.
"Victory needs no explenation, defeat allows none"
-imperium thought of the day
-imperium thought of the day
26 Jul 2015, 08:03 (edited)
No offense, but why does that matter for you, the guy had a point and that Rocket Fighters -a useless unit that YOU said it yourself to be so in the Naval bomber vs Tac bomber thread- was added despite that it contributed less compared to para in WW 2Butter Ball Bill wrote:
I don't like the idea of paratroopers because I would have to think my strategy, that is not the case. The reason isThey waste the devs time when they could be doing something more worthwhile.
Keep that in mind.
the real issue is your hate for the unit (paratroopers) , many people like the unit and will not complain when its out , the crushing majority wants to see para in the game , If you keep oppressing the will and desire of this majority soon there might be no call of war BBB , you know what that means , no nukes , no b29, no banking
para will encourage people to not just drag all their armies into the frontline , but to keep some defences behind the front to protect their provinces
I see that you and czar are only quite scared of the idea that you will invest more in placing more units in provinces behind front
That said para will not be op , as placing a few anti air , tank units behind front will be sufficient to protect you from them, just looks you are very reluctant to do this task.
26 Jul 2015, 08:22
Yes in fact ww2 was the begin of many special task units, before in history elite troop was like pretorian guard in Rome or imperial guard of Napoleon. Because they use the terms of special force for commando like Navy Seal, it why maybe they dont call them special unit.I think they use elite terms for units with unconventionl task and different training,even sometimes political like NKVD, Waffen-SS or Blackshirt. Paratroop was used alot in Normandy but of my knowing of WW2 history they was not so much massively used compare to regular infantry.
On how the dev could add them, I dont know, In game hearth of iron, they was a branch of infantry, specialized in paradrop. Marine and mountaineer was other specialized units. Elite troop was like Waffen-SS and Ranger, one different by country.
But like Bill said bug are prority for sure.
26 Jul 2015, 08:34
Bug solving -----) Helps keep existing players
Adding pharatroopers ---) Helps keep existing players and attract new players
26 Jul 2015, 11:40
But you see, those were already here when I came and I have used naval bombers once or twice(albeit they were stolen from someone else). Naval bombers would be better if they had bigger range, the AC would be better if it got better AT capabilities as the game went on(just look at the size of the gun on the Puma and such) and for militia, well, if moved faster I could send it off to die quicker.GeneralPhara wrote:
No offense, but why does that matter for you, the guy had a point and that Rocket Fighters -a useless unit that YOU said it yourself to be so in the Naval bomber vs Tac bomber thread- was added despite that it contributed less compared to para in WW 2
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
27 Jul 2015, 09:38
Armored car are not really good against armor they more like mobile militia like I said earlier, even ligth tank like Sherman have big difficulty in ww2 against german tank. AC are good behind the line as peace keeper and fast respond force or to go secure key point and engage ennemy 1st as recon scout. Their armor are good against normal rifle and there gun better against thin armor.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
But you see, those were already here when I came and I have used naval bombers once or twice(albeit they were stolen from someone else). Naval bombers would be better if they had bigger range, the AC would be better if it got better AT capabilities as the game went on(just look at the size of the gun on the Puma and such) and for militia, well, if moved faster I could send it off to die quicker.GeneralPhara wrote:
No offense, but why does that matter for you, the guy had a point and that Rocket Fighters -a useless unit that YOU said it yourself to be so in the Naval bomber vs Tac bomber thread- was added despite that it contributed less compared to para in WW 2
For naval bomber I agree with you why they have lesser range than normal fighter I wonder, I think they suppose to have no big difference from tactical bomber.
27 Jul 2015, 09:52
The Puma(which is ingame) had a long barreled 75mm main gun. The Sherman also had a 75mm main gun(which is ingame). As long as the Puma kept moving, it could probably hold it's own.
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
27 Jul 2015, 12:01
You would be surprised then by what Armored Cars can do on plains.
Now, let us discuss paratroopers, and stop going to other things. If not, then this thread has served it's purpose.
27 Jul 2015, 12:09
I am pretty sure this thread will only continue to go OT, as para threads always do.
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
27 Jul 2015, 13:35
Agree.
The past is a foreign country.
13 Aug 2015, 14:01
I suppose the easiest way to add paratroopers is by adding a second level to the Commandos inorder to allow them to attaque behind the front, no need to add the glider, it will be included, but you need to research the tactical bomber. Also you will need infantry level 3 and an air field, also the speed will be reduced by 75% in mountains and 25% in forests but +50% in plains and +50% against troops.
I hop it will be ood enough
Let's Agree To Disagree! Boris the Animal It's Just Boris! Men In Black III
13 Aug 2015, 14:03
No. You just revived a dead thread when a new one is already up. The argument was lost and the side against them won.mio123 wrote:
I suppose the easiest way to add paratroopers is by adding a second level to the Commandos inorder to allow them to attaque behind the front, no need to add the glider, it will be included, but you need to research the tactical bomber. Also you will need infantry level 3 and an air field, also the speed will be reduced by 75% in mountains and 25% in forests but +50% in plains and +50% against troops.I hop it will be ood enough
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
13 Aug 2015, 14:16
it was to make paras creation possible and useful
Let's Agree To Disagree! Boris the Animal It's Just Boris! Men In Black III
13 Aug 2015, 14:19
They will never be useful. It would've made more sense to post it on the other thread anyway, people don't like old threads being brought up and usually if they are a year or more older the staff just shut them down. You can do whatever you like though.
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
13 Aug 2015, 16:03
Better change your view on para unless you want to keep copy pasting that paragraph ( which proves they were usefully used ) for years to come 
13 Aug 2015, 16:12
It does not prove they were useful. Clearly you do not understand the meaning behind it. I do not care whether they are effective or not in combat, I look at the res cost and how they would effect your economy etc. I will explain(quickly) below.
Everyone says they would be good to drop ahead to halt enemy forces. That is not the problem. They would be pricey since you are training both troops and aircrew. That would require a barracks, indo complex and an airfield. Then you also have to research them and create airstrips to the front. They would be costly and people who wanted them agreed that they would have a very short range. This means that using them in Russia would be very hard and slow and extremely costly everywhere else.
They also stop you from creating decent units in one of your cities. So instead of having 5 tanks, you would have 4 tanks and weak infantry. Then you also have the insane quantities of oil being used by both your airfields and troops. If you also want to have a navy, then you can only build one ship at a time and then only 3 tanks. If you want an air force too then you can only build two tanks and one plane. So, to quickly sum it up:
You would be losing loads of oil daily for an occasional unit.
If you want to use it often as well as build good ground units, a navy and airforce, you are crippling your capabilities to make all of them.
I have more important things to do, reply if you want more.
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
13 Aug 2015, 16:29
1- they wont use oil besause yhey use gliders so non-military aircraft can bring them to the borders and drop the glider
2- you will need some airborn troopers if ennemy bombers are coming, you wait until hey go back to resuply then you drop your paras, this will destroy the bombers so no need to use fighters
3-well they will cost exactly as commandos
commandos for mountains paras for .. well every thing else
4-you will be pleased to use fast troops behind the front to attaque the ennemy's air fields (like the SAS)
5- well if you produce 3 tanks and 1 airborn unit it's because you need them
6- an airborn unit will alow you to attaque 3 cities and force the annemy to move back to kill them, because they are faster well he can try
Let's Agree To Disagree! Boris the Animal It's Just Boris! Men In Black III
13 Aug 2015, 16:36
That is wrong for two reasons.mio123 wrote:
they wont use oil besause yhey use gliders so non-military aircraft can bring them to the borders and drop the glider
1. That is glider-borne infantry, not para.
2. The gliders have to be towed by something before they can be dropped.
There is a bug which throws that idea out the window.mio123 wrote:
you will need some airborn troopers if ennemy bombers are coming, you wait until hey go back to resuply then you drop your paras, this will destroy the bombers so no need to use fighters
SAS tended to use Willy's jeeps and co-ordinate with other units which had trucks to attack airstrips. They were not para, they were commandos(mainly).mio123 wrote:
you will be pleased to use fast troops behind the front to attaque the ennemy's air fields (like the SAS)
Not really. The para have no trucks or jeeps. Even if they did, they wouldn't have enough for everyone. With the time it would take to march your troops to the three cities, your troops would be dead or have an ambush waiting for them.mio123 wrote:
an airborn unit will alow you to attaque 3 cities and force the annemy to move back to kill them, because they are faster well he can try
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
13 Aug 2015, 16:46
details details ... can you see how your fighter's destroy a bomber, can you see a battle in the street of Moscou, can you ... you understand well it's the same for the paras they can use jeeps and stuff to move, they can be dropped with a civil plane a private one who cares about how they fly the importatnis to land in the city and force the enemy to move back or they can destroy enemy's AAs
in the and I suppose it won't convince you before you use them, also your tactic is ot the multiple small operations but one huge attaque, well it's your way to do things and I respect it but think twice about it you will only produce 4 or 5 during all tha game for critical situations
I hope i conviced you
Let's Agree To Disagree! Boris the Animal It's Just Boris! Men In Black III
This thread is locked. No new replies can be posted.
