Supremacy Logo

Unit List (Yes another one because why not!)

Oh, look! Another unit list!

In my adventures of Call of War and the Call of War forums, I have learned quite a bit of things that should be fixed/added into the game. This is a list that might actually be helpful for the developers. Please, feel free to tell me what I have messed up on or if I missed anything. The List will also be color coded, Red is Ground Forces, Blue is Naval Units, Green is Air Units, Orange is Special Units.

Marines: An old suggestion, but a good one. Marines where the spearheads of invasions during WW2, thanks to them many battles were won. The Marines would provide good Attack Power on beach front territories. Detailed List:

  • Marines would have 50% more Attack Power on beach areas.
  • Marines would have a 50% faster embarking time per rank.
Sappers: A suggestion that I have not heard of yet, but is a fairly good one. Sappers are an important addition to any military that want to win a war. Detailed List:

  • Sappers could place Landmines (40 minutes per field)
  • Sappers could remove Landmines (1 Hour per field)
  • Sappers render enemy fortifications 50% less effective (per level of sapper)
  • Sappers could build small fortifications for your army, giving them 40% more defense power.
  • Sappers could give your fortifications a 50% boost
Airborne: A popular suggestion among the Call of War forums that almost everyone agrees with. Airborne units were used widely during WW2. Detailed List:

  • Paratroopers would have an hour to get ready once landed
  • Paratroopers would also take an hour to load into an aircraft (time goes down per level)
  • Paratroopers would be unlocked after level 3 Infantry and Level 2 Strat. Bombers
  • Paratroopers would be 20% faster once landed.
Patrol Boats: Used in several wars, provided a good source of attack power and recon. They also served in the Pacific Theater of WW2. Detailed List:

  • PT Boats would be able to attack Submarines with a 50% bonus against them. (They had torpedoes and depth charges)
  • PT Boats couldn't attack land units, but could attack Marine Units landing.
  • PT Boats could carry 3 Commando/Marine units but would lose Attack Power.
Nuclear Submarines (edits): Not used in WW2, but if we are going to have them, I would like to make a few suggestions to them. Submarines were used in WW2 EXTENSIVELY in several campaigns. Detailed List:

  • Nuclear Submarines could carry Level 2 Rockets and or 1 Nuclear missile.
  • Nuclear Submarines be more of the attack variant (Used in the 60s-Modern day)
  • Nuclear Submarines would actually be terrifying to come across while you are fighting.
  • Okay, less detail time and time for me to explain, the Attack Submarines didn’t carry many offensive weapons, they had about 12 Torpedos total. Since they were attack subs, they had nuclear missiles, so the Nuclear Submarines would have about 50% less Attack Power.
Transport Plane: Used mainly as a troop transport and to transport goods, these planes really helped make WW2 a mobile war. This idea was suggested by many, and I mean many people in the CoW community. Detailed List:

  • These planes would have a range similar to a Strategic Bomber.
  • Transport Planes (lvl 1) could carry 2 Infantry Units, 1 Motorized, 1 Armored car, 1 Light tank, 4 Paratroopers (if added), and several commando units. These would increase by 1 per level of plane.
  • Transport Planes would have no attack power and would have a decrease in speed when flying over mountain provinces.
  • Loading into Transport Planes would take 1 hour (except for paratroopers). Level of plane decreases time needed.
Reconnaissance Plane: These planes were used somewhat during WW2, instead of using interceptors or other aircraft, these planes would be used instead, and would have a wide range. Detailed List:

  • Recon Planes would have the range of Strategic Bombers.
  • Recon Planes would have very low health.
  • Low Attack Power.
  • Extremely Fast.
  • Recon Planes would have a HUGE spotting range based on a province. Exp; If a Recon Plane is flying over a mountain province, it will have a shorter spot range (same with city and hills about 50% less ranger) If flying over a plains province, it can see its entire range.
Mountain Divisions: These units specialize in mountain provinces, much like the commandos, but they have +100% Attack Power in Mountains due to their training in mountains and hills. In other provinces, they have a -50% Attack Power. Detailed List:

  • Would need lvl 2 Infantry researched.
  • Move speed +50% while in Mountains.
  • Low HP (to not make them OP, and because they had light gear, but knew how to use it)
  • Any other province that doesn’t have roads, they will move 50% slower.
Not much else I would like to see added in, but please, talk about this stuff, it is fun to fantasize about all these new units.

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

18 Replies

9 Mar 2017, 19:09

JCS Darragh wrote:

Oh, look! Another unit list!

In my adventures of Call of War and the Call of War forums, I have learned quite a bit of things that should be fixed/added into the game. This is a list that might actually be helpful for the developers. Please, feel free to tell me what I have messed up on or if I missed anything. The List will also be color coded, Red is Ground Forces, Blue is Naval Units, Green is Air Units, Orange is Special Units.

Marines:

Sappers:

Airborne:

Patrol Boats:

Nuclear Submarines

Transport Plane

Reconnaissance Plane:

Mountain Divisions:

Marines- basically infantry which are ONLY suited to fight on coastal provinces, not really needed.

Sappers- overpowered stats, and the unit itself would not really fit into the game

Airborne- they have been requested loads of times, i agree that they should get added, but under these stats:

-a bit slower than regular infantry

-has low defense damage

-has high attack damage

side note: they should only be added if the anti-air receive a buff, because an anti-aircraft gun could easily kill a slow target like the paratroopers

patrol boats- basically destroyers, not needed

Nuclear submarines- they would be terrifyingly overpowered if they get to carry rockets and nuclear missiles, they already have 2 times bigger damage than the level 6 normal subs

Transport planes- i quite like that idea, but they will (and should) be destroyed by interceptors really quick, so the transport planes don't be spammed by every player

Reconnaissance plane: not really needed...i mean, the interceptors are a cheap way of getting intel

Mountain divisions: not needed at all, the commandos are suited for the mountains

This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
9 Mar 2017, 19:15

Eh, True, but PT Boats would cost less to make, and the Mountain Divisions would cost a lot less than regular infantry units.

9 Mar 2017, 20:06

JCS Darragh wrote:

Eh, True, but PT Boats would cost less to make, and the Mountain Divisions would cost a lot less than regular infantry units.
Patrol Boats and the mountain divisions would be just a worse counterpart to the already existing destroyers/commandos......
This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
10 Mar 2017, 03:17 (edited)

Marines - Agree with King Draza. If we're going to have Marine regiments, they need to be better differentiated from conventional infantry regiments in order to justify adding them.

Sappers (combat engineers) - Agree with King Draza.

Airborne - King Draza's and my thinking are converging on this topic, but I will comment at the other open Paratroops thread rather than here.

Patrol boats - Agree with King Draza's basic point. They would be redundant with existing destroyer squadrons.

Nuclear missile submarines - Absolutely not. It is preposterous that we already have nuclear powered attack submarines in a World War II-based game, when in reality only one nation had one of them in 1954 and it was more of an experimental prototype. Having nuclear ballistic missile submarines is even more anachronistic, and none were available for actual deployment until 1960.

Transport planes - Mostly agree with King Draza. Transports are unneeded if new airborne units are handled in the same manner as ocean-going convoys for other ground units.

Reconnaissance plane - Agree with King Draza.

Mountain troops - Agree with King Draza's basic point. Our existing "commando" units are already essentially mountain troops. If we add a new airborne unit, we should convert the existing commando battalion into a mountain troops regiment and do away with the the "produced in capital" requirement, which never made any sense in the first instance. Other than U.S. Rangers, I cannot think of another commandos unit that fought as an entire regimental-size unit in World War II anyway; commandos usually fought as small, often ad hoc units.

10 Mar 2017, 12:47

MontanaBB wrote:

we should convert the existing commando battalion into a mountain troops regiment and do away with the the "produced in capital" requirement, which never made any sense in the first instance.
the "produced in capital" requirement is probably there for balance reasons, the commandos have the power of level 5 regular infantry, and they have lower upkeep than the militia, and their power is increased in mountains and cities too....
This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
10 Mar 2017, 14:41

I agree, Commandos shouldn't be produced in capitals, they should require like, a Level 3 Barracks (or something else) mainly, my capital is never close to the front lines, and my commandos can't do any good in the fight.

10 Mar 2017, 23:20

JCS Darragh wrote:

my commandos can't do any good in the fight.
maybe because you shouldn't produce them for offensive purposes.....
This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
10 Mar 2017, 23:32

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

maybe because you shouldn't produce them for offensive purposes.....
Commando battalions are one of those in-game specialty units that you really need to understand their specs -- strengths and weaknesses -- and the best circumstances under which to use them. And as King Draza already alluded to above, they are really no better than higher level conventional infantry regiments in most circumstances, their superior fighting abilities in mountain environments being the most notable exception.
5 Mar 2018, 17:53

So I saw something that was asking about differences between Marines and Infantry, I wanted to comment on this thread again.

Infantry shouldn't have the ability to embark/disembark anywhere. However, They can Embark/Disembark at Naval Ports.

Marines can embark/disembark anywhere, They would have very good stats in Urban Environments due to intense training. Increased Stats in all environments basically, they'd be above regular infantry, but less than commandos.

Airborne - Airborne units would function like they do in Conflict of Nations. However, Each country would be limited on producing them. You'd have a little thing by your Manpower indicating how many Airborne units you have. So, You'd be able to make around 20 Airborne Regiments, if one dies another one is able to be produced. Now, You can only launch them from an airfield, they'd take 1 Hour to embark on their plane, then one hour to disembark and regroup. When disembark they'd be extremely vulnerable to enemy AA/Aircraft fire.

Recon Planes - Yeah, Now they have zero value to me, I would just use interceptors.

PT Boats - I'd agree with King and Montana on my suggestions, its crap and doesn't need to exist.

Nuclear Missile Subs - That idea I had is just bad.

Sappers (Combat Engineers) - I'd agree that idea is also bad.

Mountain Troops - Eh, I still like that idea I have. They'd be dedicated mountain troops, just defend/attack on hills and Mountain Provinces. They'd be weak in everything else, almost like regular infantry in non hills and mountains. They'd outperform commandos in Mountains. They would also be cheaper than Commandos and Infantry due to the fact they don't need much.

Transport Planes - Also a bad idea, and thanks to Montana from more modern threads, I learned that the allies didn't have large fleets of transport aircraft. So, All in all a bad idea, also Airborne would come with their own aircraft, not needing another unit to board.

5 Mar 2018, 18:15

Naming paratroopers "Airborne" is not going to distinguish this from the other paratrooper suggestions. However, Airborne is a better name. :D

Forum Gang Mascot
Girls game too


dxcalc.com/cow
5 Mar 2018, 18:30

Well, this is an old thread and paratroopers and airborne are the same thing. I just wanted to clarify some old things on this list.

5 Mar 2018, 20:59

injinji wrote:

Naming paratroopers "Airborne" is not going to distinguish this from the other paratrooper suggestions. However, Airborne is a better name.
"Airborne" is not only a better name, it's what all of the American and British airborne divisions were actually called, and it's more accurate because not all airborne troops were actually "paratroopers," i.e., jump-qualified parachutists. During WW2, up to a third of American and British airborne infantry were actually delivered by gliders towed by C-47s or heavy bombers, not parachute, and most if not all of the scout jeeps and artillery of airborne units were also delivered by gliders. They also experimented with airborne light tanks delivered by glider, but these were not particularly successful.
5 Mar 2018, 21:21

The US Marines also experimented with Parachute troops, The Paramarines where small battalions of about 800 men who never actually got to jump and got assigned to Raider Battalions. The Paramarines are very interesting and you can learn more about them in the book Silk Chutes and Hard Fighting.

5 Mar 2018, 22:40

JCS Darragh wrote:

The US Marines also experimented with Parachute troops . . . .
Ira Hayes, one of the Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima and a Pima Indian, was a fully qualified Paramarine before he was re-assigned to a line regiment.
6 Mar 2018, 14:55

Huh, Didn't know that, I read that most of the Paramarine units were assigned to Marine Raiders due to the fact the Paramarines were so small.

6 Mar 2018, 17:19

JCS Darragh wrote:

Airborne: A popular suggestion among the Call of War forums that almost everyone agrees with. Airborne units were used widely during WW2. Detailed List:

Paratroopers would have an hour to get ready once landed

Paratroopers would also take an hour to load into an aircraft (time goes down per level)

Paratroopers would be unlocked after level 3 Infantry and Level 2 Strat. Bombers

Paratroopers would be 20% faster once landed.

Please stop suggesting paratroopers. That is why there is this thing:

https://forum.callofwar.com/index.php?thread/16614-on-suggesting-paratroopers/

thank you

"White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
Jack London, White Fang
My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
6 Mar 2018, 17:25

NukeRaider33 wrote:

JCS Darragh wrote:

Airborne: A popular suggestion among the Call of War forums that almost everyone agrees with. Airborne units were used widely during WW2. Detailed List:

Paratroopers would have an hour to get ready once landed

Paratroopers would also take an hour to load into an aircraft (time goes down per level)

Paratroopers would be unlocked after level 3 Infantry and Level 2 Strat. Bombers

Paratroopers would be 20% faster once landed.

Please stop suggesting paratroopers. That is why there is this thing:https://forum.callofwar.com/index.php?thread/16614-on-suggesting-paratroopers/

thank you

This thread was started on March 9 2017 (almost a year ago) and the other thread was started on Aug 19 2017 (much less than a year ago).
Forum Gang Mascot
Girls game too


dxcalc.com/cow

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions
Quick Launch