Paratroopers

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

    • Baroness Kinnick wrote:

      Can you provide an example of a significant territory gain that was accomplished with Paratroopers?
      * During the German invasion of Norway, the German seaborne element of the invasion was stymied by shore-based coastal artillery until German paratroops seized the Oslo airport, thus enabling the Luftwaffe to transport decisive reinforcements into battle and outflank the defenders. The Norwegians quickly abandoned their defensive positions.

      * 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.

    • 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.

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

    • Iron Guard24 wrote:

      This idea was already brought up during the game Beta, but sadly it never amounted to anything.
      Yes, it is the most frequently requested new unit, and it will continue to be the most requested new unit until the developers finally create it. Airborne troops were a tactical/technological innovation specific to World War II, and the absence of paratroops is the most obvious and glaring omission among all World War II-era unit types. It is ridiculous to have a World War II strategy game that has "nuclear battleships" (a fantasy unit that did not exist, ever) and nuclear warhead rockets (which did not exist in any form for almost another decade), and not have some form of airborne troops.

    • 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.
      just to do some nitpicking, it was the 1st British airborne division, not the 6th, which was still recovering from Normandy losses.

      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).
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • 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!
      just a little point, CoN is not Bytro, is Dorado Games
      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

    • WayneBo wrote:

      bytro labs announcement:

      "In close cooperation with Dorado Games “Conflict of Nations: Modern War” is launched into open beta."
      translation = we gave our codes to Dorado Games so they can develop a game like ours

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



      stillfront.com/site/stillfront…-of-nations-modern-wartm/

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

    • 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
      "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

    • 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!
      Airborns was not able to capture provinces in CoN, untill some hyperactive forumuser cryed cause "useless unit. Now they changed it. airborns can capture cities in CoN. And im almoast agree, with mordern wars it is ok. But in CoW it would be devastatingto allow airborns capture provinces. And like i said airborn fanboys wanna only unit to jumping around the map. They disagree that, if airborns came - it would be very weak unit: may be 3 att but 1 def vs inf., may be even with only 10 hp. without capturing skill and with not really wide range. But no, fanboys wanna airborn-*terminatorlike*- unit.

      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 has similar physik, also it would be possible to make some similar units. CoN developers seem had read a CoW forum of suggestions: they have missilecarriered vehicles/ships and planes. they have marines and airborns.
      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.