Paratroopers

Can you provide an example of a significant territory gain that was accomplished with Paratroopers?

Baroness Kinnick wrote:

Can you provide an example of a significant territory gain that was accomplished with Paratroopers?

* During the German invasion of the Netherlands in May 1940, German paratroops seized key bridges to permit the rapid advance of armor columns, and in Belgium, German glider troops captured several key defensive fortresses, again permitting ground forces to advance more rapidly than they otherwise would have been able.

* In May 1941, German paratroops circumvented coastal defenses and the Royal Navy and captured Crete, albeit with heavy casualties. The Royal Navy had been confident in its ability to stop any seaborne invasion. Once the German paratroops had captured key airfields, the Luftwaffe was again able to transport reinforcements and British defenders were overwhelmed despite strong resistance.

* During the Allied invasion of Normandy, a British airborne division seized several key bridges and other defensive points that blocked the Germans from reinforcing their troops defending the amphibious landings by British and Canadian troops. Likewise, two American airborne divisions served as a vanguard force that denied the Germans the ability to quickly and easily reinforce their coastal defense units be capturing several key causeways and bridges during the crucial first 48 hours, as well as destroying several artillery positions that were shelling the American beachheads.

* A similar airborne blocking force was employed during the American-led invasion of southern France in August 1940, and the two days worth of air drops were widely viewed as 100% effective in achieving their mission goals.

* During Operation Market-Garden, the American 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions successfully seized key bridges, but the ground-based British armored thrust was unable to reinforce the British 6th Airborne which was charged with capturing the final key bridge at Arnhem, and the 6th got mauled by a reinforced German panzer division over the course of a battle that lasted several days.

* During the American recapture of the Philippines, elements of the American 11th Airborne were employed with great effect in capturing several islands within the archipelago and also in rescuing American POWs and captured Allied civilians.

bb knows his stuff!

And for the benefit of anyone who has not read my previous comments regarding the proposed inclusion of new airborne infantry regiments in the game, I reiterate two key points:

1. for purposes of World War II era realism, I strongly support the inclusion airborne infantry units as one of the key WW II tactical/technological innovations of the war;

2. however, I explicitly condition my support for the inclusion of airborne infantry regiments on the requirement that the number of airborne units be strictly limited, not to exceed a set percentage of a country's total infantry units, or a fixed number of total airborne regiments, and/or limited based on the size of the country's air force.

I never want to see airborne units become a ridiculously spammed unit, like our in-game light tanks or rockets too often become. Airborne units were elite troops that were both more expensive and more time-consuming to train and maintain, and by definition an entire army cannot be "elite." And ultimately, the biggest limitation on airborne troops was the number of transport aircraft required to carry them to their air drops; even a large, wealthy country like the United States, with the largest air force in the world, could not muster enough transport aircraft to drop more than two airborne divisions at any given time -- the equivalent of 6 to 8 paratroop or glider regiments. Those numbers should be considered the absolute maximum number of airborne regiments that any in-game country may maintain at one time.

This idea was already brought up during the game Beta, but sadly it never amounted to anything.

Say us true wish of paratrooper user: picking only "good" provinces, and let "bad" provinces for KI/enemie.

Just say no.

even if this is at least 20. tread about paratroopers.

Iron Guard24 wrote:

This idea was already brought up during the game Beta, but sadly it never amounted to anything.

f118 wrote:

Just say no.

even if this is at least 20. tread about paratroopers.

They will add paratroopers when they buff Anti-Aircraft guns

which is never

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

They will add paratroopers when they buff Anti-Aircraft guns . . . which is never

Sad.

MontanaBB wrote:

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

They will add paratroopers when they buff Anti-Aircraft guns . . . which is never

Sad.

MontanaBB wrote:

Baroness Kinnick wrote:

Can you provide an example of a significant territory gain that was accomplished with Paratroopers?

* During Operation Market-Garden, the American 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions successfully seized key bridges, but the ground-based British armored thrust was unable to reinforce the British 6th Airborne which was charged with capturing the final key bridge at Arnhem, and the 6th got mauled by a reinforced German panzer division over the course of a battle that lasted several days.

You also missed:

- Soviet paradrops in 1943 (in the exploit after winning the Kursk battle) to attempt forcing the Dniepr river before the retreating Germans could install a defensive line

- the British Rhine crossing in early 1945 which saw extensive use of airborne troops.

You should also realize that ALL those examples (except Crete) were situations where airborne troops AIDED an "ordinary" (or seaborne) offensive, NOT where they conquered huge pieces of land themselves. Without thinking properly, the CoW airborne unit would be a unit that could take (remote) land, which would be highly irrealistic. Instead, if ever implemented, airborne units should be more something like "enhance the speed of their entire stack by 20% in enemy territory"; NOT actually dropping in empty provs to take them (as a reminder, occupied is land is FAR MORE rare in CoW than unoccupied land).

There does seem to be a potential exploit with airborne/airmoble being used to capture high value provinces deep in enemy countries. A simple solution is to not allow paratroopers to capture provinces. Bytro has already implemented this; in CoN, armor units cannot capture provinces.

Enhancing the speed of the entire stack by 20% in enemy territory would be exploitable: imagine putting a single battalion of paratroops on a stack of 100 arty, tanks, inf., to gain 20% speed for all!

WayneBo wrote:

There does seem to be a potential exploit with airborne/airmoble being used to capture high value provinces deep in enemy countries. A simple solution is to not allow paratroopers to capture provinces. Bytro has already implemented this; in CoN, armor units cannot capture provinces.

Enhancing the speed of the entire stack by 20% in enemy territory would be exploitable: imagine putting a single battalion of paratroops on a stack of 100 arty, tanks, inf., to gain 20% speed for all!

bytro labs announcement:

"In close cooperation with Dorado Games “Conflict of Nations: Modern War” is launched into open beta."

WayneBo wrote:

bytro labs announcement:

"In close cooperation with Dorado Games “Conflict of Nations: Modern War” is launched into open beta."

i wonder what "things" in CoN are from Bytro's develop team

http://www.stillfront.com/site/stillfront-launches-open-beta-release-of-strategy-game-conflict-of-nations-modern-wartm/

note that the Head Producer and Managing Director is from Dorado Games

WayneBo wrote:

bytro labs announcement:

"In close cooperation with Dorado Games “Conflict of Nations: Modern War” is launched into open beta."

There are several areas of the tech tree that are often ignored. So why not tie up some loose ends. make paratroopers and Marines (another requested unit type) a build out of Commandos, levels 2 and 3. The "only build in capital" of commandos will limit their production. To quell BB's concern of over production Strategic Bombers could be a requirement before research could be done on Paratroopers, and perhaps destroyer or cruiser capability for marines.

These added requirements before research can be done, represent having the technology to use such units. After all medium and heavy bombers were used to tow gliders.

Marines 50% reduction in embarkation time

Paratroopers Drop distance X at 250 mph

WayneBo wrote:

There does seem to be a potential exploit with airborne/airmoble being used to capture high value provinces deep in enemy countries. A simple solution is to not allow paratroopers to capture provinces. Bytro has already implemented this; in CoN, armor units cannot capture provinces.

Enhancing the speed of the entire stack by 20% in enemy territory would be exploitable: imagine putting a single battalion of paratroops on a stack of 100 arty, tanks, inf., to gain 20% speed for all!

Also just say no.

WayneBo wrote:

bytro labs announcement:

"In close cooperation with Dorado Games “Conflict of Nations: Modern War” is launched into open beta."

CoN nerfed AI 5 updates in row, (each week after start of beta). middle february they made AI 1st time more aggressive. You see: player who laud cry can ruin gameplay for true strategieplayers.

I really wanna "Rambo unit 1 hp, +1 att +2 def vs all. cost 100 menpower, 1000 dollar, +10 dollar/day. can fly with airforces, and swim with subs. cant be stacked with other troops.

And a terminator unit: 100 hp +25 att/def vs all. can capture capitals immediatly.

and i want a big red button unit: press x3 in row = won the game.

I would agree that a WWII era paratroop unit would be weak against all units with possible exception of opposing infantry. There AT capability tended to be limited and supplies were an issue when not releaved within several days.