Paratroopers

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • 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.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
    • Peter Mat wrote:

      ... supplies were an issue when not releaved within several days.
      The time line of COW is rather nebulous but I am pretty sure that "several days" would have to be an hour or so in game time.

      A paratrooper unit that "dies" if not resupplied with in 3 hours of dropping would be about right.

      Or it could be a one time use unit. That is pretty historical since every time paratroopers were used as such, the units had to be brought back for extensive replenishment.

      So, it can only be built in the Capitol city. It is on the Commando tech tree. It can only air drop from an air base with Strat bombers at the base. It can't control a province. After use it needs to be rebuilt (one time use). If defending with no other friendly non-airborne units, it takes double damage (minimal supplies carried).
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      just to do some nitpicking, it was the 1st British airborne division, not the 6th
      Yup. I didn't realize I flipped the 1st and 6th -- one was recuperating and refitting from Normandy, and so the other was used for the Operation Market-Garden drops at Arnhem.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      You also missed . . . .
      The Baroness requested examples, so I did not attempt to provide a comprehensive list. There were many, many more smaller drops in the European theater and several more in the Pacific. I intentionally omitted Operation Varsity because, by all accounts, it really did not make much difference one way or the other. Admittedly, I was unaware of the use of Soviet paratroops at Kursk, and had wondered why the Russkies never used their airborne units after pioneering the technology and tactics during the 1930s -- I will do some more homework on this point for my own edification.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      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.
      Yes, I know. I believe my comments pointed that out in each instance where applicable And even in the case of Crete, the decisive turning point in the larger battle was when the fallschirmjaegers captured one of the key airfields and then the Luftwaffe was able fly in heavier infantry reinforcements that effectively overwhelmed the defenders. In most of these cases, the airborne troops were used to great effect because they circumvented stronger opposition and permitted heavier, more mobile ground units to advance more quickly. As one of the characters in Band of Brothers said: "We're paratroops. We're supposed to be surrounded."
    • 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.
      A better solution would be to simply limit the flight range of airborne units to something approximating the range of the C-47 (and its Soviet knock-off) for combat air drops. There's a reason why the Allies dropped their airborne troops 5 to 10 miles behind the Normandy beaches, and not in Paris or Berlin. LOL

      BTW, I am really tired of hearing all the whining (not from you, WayneBo) about how "unfair" it would be for airborne units to capture interior provinces. Well, duh. That was their whole purpose: to pave the way for other ground units. And if the whingers cannot be bothered to maintain some form of reserves in their interior provinces, I have very little sympathy for them. Failing to maintain reserves is a major failure of strategy, and if a handful of airborne regiments (limited in number, as I have repeatedly said in these discussions) can gut your most important provinces you don't deserve to win. I have little doubt that my usual tactical bomber wing in combination with my reserves could eviscerate any air drop of 4 or 5 regiments.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • nemuritor98 wrote:

      just a little point, CoN is not Bytro, is Dorado Games
      When I found out about the new Conflict of Nations game set in the Cold War era, I did a little homework. Bytro and Dorado are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same parent company, and function as sister companies located in different countries. There are German, American and Swedish interests involved, if memory serves.

      As I am sure you know, the common denominator among Supremacy 1914, Call of War, and Conflict of Nations is that they all employ the same software engine that was originally developed for Supremacy.

      Now that I have learned that Conflict of Nations has paratroop units, I may play a CoN round just to get a look at what they did with airborne troops in that game. It may be that some of these issues have already been resolved, and CoW could simply borrow the airborne software update from CoN.
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Admittedly, I was unaware of the use of Soviet paratroops at Kursk, and had wondered why the Russkies never used their airborne units after pioneering the technology and tactics during the 1930s -- I will do some more homework on this point for my own edification.
      The Russki's pioneered many doctrines in the 1930's... for example, the "deep operation" which was essentially a Soviet version of the German Blitzkrieg-style operation. Then Stalin decided to purge the officer corps, all the knowledge was lost, and the officers that weren't purged were afraid to make decisions that could GET them purged.

      When Barbarossa came, the Soviet army was unprepared, disorganized, and was decimated in a few month despite being three times the size of the Germans... actually it is a surprise that they managed to "re-learn" those doctrines again in about a year and a half (Stalingrad pocket). My namesake played an important role in this amazing turnaround.

      Oh and I'm very sorry for cluttering a thread on paratroopers... but hey we won't get them anyway)))
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      The Russki's pioneered many doctrines in the 1930's... for example, the "deep operation" which was essentially a Soviet version of the German Blitzkrieg-style operation. Then Stalin decided to purge the officer corps, all the knowledge was lost, and the officers that weren't purged were afraid to make decisions that could GET them purged.
      I was a government major with a specialization in East European Studies (i.e., communist political and economic theory) at the University of Virginia in the 1980s, so I was, of course, very much aware of the several purges of the Red Army officer corps leading up to World War II. I was also aware that the Soviets pioneered much of the airborne technology and tactics that would be used by the Germans, and later the Americans and British, during World War II. I was unaware of the purges' impact on the Soviet airborne formations, although now that you have pointed it out, it seems rather obvious that the airborne units would be no less affected than the rest of the Red Army.
    • Reading earlier replies, it wouldn't make sense to have an airborne unit that DIDN'T use air transport. It would be more terrifying to see Airborne units taking over a huge part of a country. I believe that if you want to prevent these invasions, you will, these units shouldn't be OP, such as a few militia units could kill a few units of Airborne troopers. I have posted multiple threads about this topic.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • Just to clear up some confusion, CoN was co-developed by Dorado and Bytro, so developers from both companies worked on the game. Now after the launch the whole project was handed over to Dorado, which will take care of the further development and support.

      Regarding paratroopers: We know it is a often requested unit and we will evaluate their inclusion in the future. This is no promise though. Also including them is tricky since they can be gamebreaking if not done right, so its not just adding another unit with some slightly different stats.
    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      I might be wrong but it seems that a WW1 game is better at WW2 than a WW2 Game.
      The big differences between S1914 and CoW are the research tab(CoW), the terrains(CoW), the customization(S1914), the little details(S1914), unit details(CoW), different games, even if they are similar that have a different costumer and a different point of view for market.


      JCS Darragh wrote:

      Huh, okay then, I guess I was mistaken. Sorry then...*JCS Darragh then fell into a deep depression, sadly he never recovered, he now lives his life as a Microwave repair man*
      even the blueprints doesn't come like an air-drop but with a roulette
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
    • @WiseOdin

      It's a lack of imagination at work when people say that the addition of airborne units would wreck the game. First, the addition of paratroops would make the game more closely resemble the real war in western and southern Europe, where the Germans, British, Americans and British-supported Poles all made significant drops of airborne infantry (not to mention a multiplicity of airborne drops of small commando units). Second, as to the "parade of horribles" presented as excuses not to add a new airborne unit, the actual WWII history provides the answers:

      1. Airborne troops were ELITE troops, and their NUMBERS WERE LIMITED because (a) they were expensive to train and maintain; (b) they were time-consuming to produce; (c) even the United States, with the largest air force and the largest fleet of air transports in the world, could not air-drop more than than two airborne divisions (6 to 8 airborne infantry regiments) at any time.

      COW SOLUTION No. 1: The number of airborne regiments that any one player may possess at any given time must be strictly limited, either as a percentage of total infantry units (e.g., 15 or 20% of all infantry regiments a country has) and/or by a set-number limit not to be exceeded regardless of the size of the country or its army (e.g., 8 total airborne infantry regiments).

      COW SOLUTION No. 2: Airborne infantry regiments should cost two to three times as much to produce as conventional infantry regiments because they are more expensive to train (including an oil/fuel resource requirement like motorized infantry), they should require three or four times longer to produce than conventional infantry units, and they should have a higher manpower maintenance/replacement requirement because of their inherently higher injury rates. Resource production costs should specifically include an oil requirement, as well as rare materials (i.e., silk/nylon).

      COW SOLUTION No. 3: In-game prerequisites for production of airborne units should include completion of L2 or L3 infantry research, L2 tactical bomber and/or L2 strategic bomber research, plus L1 airborne infantry research, as well as an L2 barracks and an L1 air base.

      2. Properly used, World War II-era airborne troops could break tactical deadlocks by circumventing coastal defenses or other natural defensive lines (e.g., rivers) or man-made fixed defenses (e.g., border defenses and fortresses). That said, there was nothing miraculous about paratroops, and they had significant real-world limitations, including their extreme vulnerability to interception by enemy fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft fire while they were being transported and during their descent, they lacked the ability to sustain themselves for more than several days without being reinforced by ground units and/or resupplied by air drops, and their air transport range was also limited by the return-trip range of their transports as well as the practical consideration that they could not be dropped more than 15 to 20 miles behind enemy lines. These limitations suggest several more in-game solutions:

      COW SOLUTION No. 4: To better represent their real-world vulnerability to fighter interception and AA fire, the hit points while being transported by air should be reduced to no more than 5.

      COW SOLUTION No. 5: To better represent the fact that airborne regiments were lightly supplied in the real world, their hit points should not exceed 12 (compared to 15 for conventional infantry).

      COW SOLUTION No. 6: To better represent the limitations and vulnerability of their air transport, their in-air range should not exceed the ability to penetrate more than two enemy provinces or 50 to 60 miles into enemy territory (however defined).

      3. Because airborne troops were forced to carry all of their equipment by air transport, they also faced significant limitations in anti-tank capability and had minimal motorized transport once they were dropped, suggesting several additional in-game solutions:

      COW SOLUTION No. 7: To better represent airborne units' status as light infantry, they should have reduced offensive and defensive strength against enemy armor units relative to conventional infantry.

      COW SOLUTION No. 8: To better represent their lack of significant motorized transport once they were dropped in enemy territory, they should be somewhat slower than conventional infantry when moving on the ground through enemy provinces.

      In summary, I envision an airborne infantry regiment with 12 hit points on the ground, 5 hit points in the air (with no inherent defense against air attacks) or in ocean-going convoys, that is expensive and time-consuming to produce, that is more expensive to maintain than conventional infantry, that is strictly limited in number, that has practical limitations in its air transport range, is weaker against armor (but equally strong against other infantry), and moves somewhat slower on the ground through enemy territory.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      In summary, I envision an airborne infantry regiment with 12 hit points on the ground, 5 hit points in the air (with no inherent defense against air attacks) or in ocean-going convoys, that is expensive and time-consuming to produce, that is more expensive to maintain than conventional infantry, that is strictly limited in number, that has practical limitations in its air transport range, is weaker against armor (but equally strong against other infantry), and moves somewhat slower on the ground through enemy territory.
      Then why even bother lol