The search of the chosen idea

also, it would be cool if the winner of a map received 1 blueprint of his/her choice. Only first place would get a blueprint. This would offset the disappointment of the low payout of gold for winning a game, and also ENCOURAGE gold use/purchase, as people would be more into winning the game.

Game Creation: An option to allow mulitple controlled nations from one account with a limit of 2 or 3. This would be next to the same IP address setting.

Maps: USA State War (no teams and some states are unplayable/divided)

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

Bluephantom956 wrote:

Again this appears to be overpriced, but given the conditions that are onset late in the game, people have more resources to spend than they know what to do with

bruh, a nuclear bomb is like 2 times cheaper than your damn airborne troops

Bluephantom956 wrote:

As I have before mentioned, none of these values are remotely accurate, just numbers thrown out there to show the potential for balancing the addition of such a unit. I didn't use the current plane stats as any reference so it's easy to say those are imba stats. I digress.

Army HQ

Land unit

~Price:

5,000 food

5,000 goods

3,000 oil

2,000 rare

Combat:

30 HP

armored defense 2

unarmored defense 2

air defense 1

Movement: ~35 km/h on land, regular convoy speed

When OTHER units are in combat, their combat value is adjusted by distance to nearest army HQ, similar to moral calculation for capitals. As an indication, when fighting one province away, combat value = +50%, 5 provs away = +0%, nowhere near = -50% (max penalty)

One free available to everyone at game start.

Game effects:

- remote regions without much attention from central government (no HQ around) will be easier to clear

- tactical decisions on where to place HQ's balancing vulnerability vs effectiveness

- allow players to invest in command structure (for example, several HQ's on the same front)

Possibly this could be a researchable unit, increasing effectiveness and range by level.

As for procedure, I would like to also have a negative vote, i.e., PLEASE NO PARATROOPERS CONQUERING PROVS

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Army HQ

Land unit

~Price:

5,000 food

5,000 goods

3,000 oil

2,000 rare

Combat:

30 HP

armored defense 2

unarmored defense 2

air defense 1

Movement: ~35 km/h on land, regular convoy speed

When OTHER units are in combat, their combat value is adjusted by distance to nearest army HQ, similar to moral calculation for capitals. As an indication, when fighting one province away, combat value = +50%, 5 provs away = +0%, nowhere near = -50% (max penalty)

One free available to everyone at game start.

Game effects:

- remote regions without much attention from central government (no HQ around) will be easier to clear

- tactical decisions on where to place HQ's balancing vulnerability vs effectiveness

- allow players to invest in command structure (for example, several HQ's on the same front)

Possibly this could be a researchable unit, increasing effectiveness and range by level.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

PLEASE NO PARATROOPERS CONQUERING PROVS

Bring back the high resources on the blitz map. if people are worried about easy economic stats, make it so only military stats count on the map

@Dixie: Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "blitz map?"

I refer to the blitzkrieg 1939 map. When I first started playing, this map started everyone with a superabundance of all resources. It was a lot of fun, because you got to build really large armies, and play strategies of your own liking. It was also fun because there was always something you could be doing.

Unfortunately, about a year ago (more or less) they changed the map and cut the resources way, way down. The reason was given that people were getting crazy economic stats and advancing in rank too easily.

Blitzkreig 1939

when originally released, the starting resources were very generous, allowing full development.

since changed back to the normal restricted values

That's the 25-player "historic" world map?

no, bb. its called blitzkrieg 1939, and it was awesome. You started with six digits in all resources, and millions in cash

Hmmm. Last year, after I had played the 22-player European map three or four times, I played one of the 10-player maps twice. I guess that was the 1932 map, not the 1939 map. The resource values were slightly better than the 22 and 50-player maps, but only slightly.

Now, the blitz map is just like the 22 player map, just slightly higher starting resources, and you start with some stuff already researched. If I remember correctly, you can't get crates the blitz map. Imo they ruined it.

Bring back high resources on the Blitz map! That map has some of my best game memories on it!

MontanaBB wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

PLEASE NO PARATROOPERS CONQUERING PROVS

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but that would make the new unit virtually worthless -- or is that your point?

@K.Rokossovski, the further we depart from historical reality, the more screwed up the various unit types become. Imposing weird conditions, with no historical precedent, on a new airborne infantry unit would be another odd departure from reality that would accomplish nothing. Of course real world paratroopers could capture provinces, sometimes even in intensely contested battles (e.g., Crete).

Paratroopers were elite light infantry, but they were not superhuman, and they had weaknesses that were inherent in their airborne nature: they could only bring a limited artillery and anti-tank capacity into battle with them (meaning they were weaker against enemy armor), they had virtually no motorized transport once they were on the ground (meaning they were slower than other modern infantry units until they were relieved), they had a limited airborne re-supply capacity as long as they were behind enemy lines (meaning they had to be re-supplied or relieved in about a week), and as expensive, highly trained elite units, they could not be easily replicated (meaning their numbers were limited), and given the air transport constraints only so many could fight (meaning that no more than 6 to 8 regiments could be delivered at one time).

That said, they were airborne infantry and their entire strategic value was their ability to be inserted BEHIND enemy lines. As Damian Lewis (portraying the Dick Winters character) says to Jimmy Fallon (portraying a random armor captain) in "Band of Brothers": "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded."

All of the objections raised to a possible new in-game airborne infantry unit can be answered by (a) properly designing the unit to include in-game unit characteristics of offensive and defensive strengths against infantry, armor and aircraft, hit points, and ground speed consistent with their real WWII counterparts, and (b) capping their numbers as I have previously described.

A WWII game without paratroops is like a WWI game without artillery, or a Napoleonic wars game without cavalry. Call of War is effectively incomplete without a properly designed airborne infantry unit. And, yes, that will change the game to some degree, arguably for the better.

We're clogging a general thread with talking about paratroopers again here. See this one for my argument as I made it earlier:

Add transport planes/Paratroopers

To summarize: no, paratroopers never took significant ground, but were a support unit for other troops.

Reply there if you feel like it.