Airborne Units in CoW

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

    • King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

      being costly doesn't mean that people wont spam them, for example, the planes in COW are costly to mass produce, but people still mass produce them, because their quality, once people start to steamroll in one map,
      As I have said on other occasions, airborne infantry were elite specialized units, and while they had certain advantages (like the ability to be dropped behind enemy lines), they also had certain disadvantages too (no real armor, not motorized on the ground, light AT capabilities, vulnerability in the air). No airborne infantry were motorized or mechanized (see above), which meant they were not as mobile on the ground as most other infantry -- most western infantry was motorized by the end of the war. And as elite units, they could not be "spammed" because they were expensive and time-consuming to be trained and maintained, and they could not fully replace faster-moving motorized or mechanized infantry (again, see above).

      So, how do we create an "elite" airborne infantry unit that cannot be spammed in the game? Well, for starters, they should require at least twice as long to produce as regular infantry units, they should cost two to three times as much (more money, plus oil for training and transport and rare materials for silk) as regular infantry, they should have fewer hit points than regular infantry (say 12 or 13 instead of 15), and they should be slightly weaker against armored units (but not against other infantry). In-game unit production should require a level 2 or level 3 barracks (specialized training facilities) and a level 1 air base (duh, obvious), together with a level 1 industrial complex, in the same province.

      Moreover, the number of airborne units in any given should be capped in some fashion. Even the United States, with all of its vast resources and available manpower, only had four operational airborne divisions (12 to 16 regiments), and could not deliver more than two airborne divisions (6 to 8 regiments) at any given time because of the vast number of transport aircraft required to deliver them. Hell, the U.S. Army had one airborne division that never saw combat for that reason.

      Bottom line: airborne infantry were "elite" formations and the number of in-game airborne infantry regiments needs to be capped as (a) percentage of total infantry units in a given army (say, 10 or 15%) or (b) a maximum number of 6 yo 8 regiments. I NEVER want to see a game where someone is able to gold-spam 30 or 40 airborne infantry regiments, because I KNOW that will be outrageously DISRUPTIVE to COW game play and balance -- just as previous detractors have suggested.

      For those of you who are newbies to these discussions of proposed new airborne units, I urge you to review the many older threads on point. There is a lot of wisdom in those older discussions, where most of the pros and cons have ben previously discussed in the context of COW's existing game dynamics.

      Yes, I want airborne units added to the game, but just as importantly I want them to work in the context of the game.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

      being costly doesn't mean that people wont spam them, for example, the planes in COW are costly to mass produce, but people still mass produce them, because their quality, once people start to steamroll in one map,
      As I have said on other occasions, airborne infantry were elite specialized units, and while they had certain advantages (like the ability to be dropped behind enemy lines), they also had certain disadvantages too (no real armor, not motorized on the ground, light AT capabilities, vulnerability in the air). No airborne infantry were motorized or mechanized (see above), which meant they were not as mobile on the ground as most other infantry -- most western infantry was motorized by the end of the war. And as elite units, they could not be "spammed" because they were expensive and time-consuming to be trained and maintained, and they could not fully replace faster-moving motorized or mechanized infantry (again, see above).
      So, how do we create an "elite" airborne infantry unit that cannot be spammed in the game? Well, for starters, they should require at least twice as long to produce as regular infantry units, they should cost two to three times as much (more money, plus oil for training and transport and rare materials for silk) as regular infantry, they should have fewer hit points than regular infantry (say 12 or 13 instead of 15), and they should be slightly weaker against armored units (but not against other infantry). In-game unit production should require a level 2 or level 3 barracks (specialized training facilities) and a level 1 air base (duh, obvious), together with a level 1 industrial complex, in the same province.

      Moreover, the number of airborne units in any given should be capped in some fashion. Even the United States, with all of its vast resources and available manpower, only had four operational airborne divisions (12 to 16 regiments), and could not deliver more than two airborne divisions (6 to 8 regiments) at any given time because of the vast number of transport aircraft required to deliver them. Hell, the U.S. Army had one airborne division that never saw combat for that reason.

      Bottom line: airborne infantry were "elite" formations and the number of in-game airborne infantry regiments needs to be capped as (a) percentage of total infantry units in a given army (say, 10 or 15%) or (b) a maximum number of 6 yo 8 regiments. I NEVER want to see a game where someone is able to gold-spam 30 or 40 airborne infantry regiments, because I KNOW that will be outrageously DISRUPTIVE to COW game play and balance -- just as previous detractors have suggested.

      For those of you who are newbies to these discussions of proposed new airborne units, I urge you to review the many older threads on point. There is a lot of wisdom in those older discussions, where most of the pros and cons have ben previously discussed in the context of COW's existing game dynamics.

      Yes, I want airborne units added to the game, but just as importantly I want them to work in the context of the game.
      In addition to those initial training costs, it could cost a lot of Oil and RM to drop a Paratrooper. If you want to cause an issue for economy, just make it somewhere close to how expensive nuclear weapons are, and you will cut spamming down by a large degree. People can't maintain that kind of RM in the beginning, and if they try to get around it, they aren't building and repairing IC, meaning that they are really killing themselves in the long run.

      Also make a Oil and RM upkeep, as that often makes a unit more valuable in some scenarios.
      PhantomNiqht
      RPU Website Manager
    • Ditch the tanks/AT and Artillery and simply give the paratroopers better than infantry ability versus Armor. Keeps it simple. The bumped stats would represent the limited AT type weapons the airborne would normally carry that was historically embedded in the unit (bazookas, panzerfausts, some light mortars, etc.). Remember a typical dropped airborne unit could only survive in the field for a few days before it needed to be relieved.

      For COW purposes a land based unit should make contact within 24 game hours or the paratrooper ceases to exist. This would prevent abuse and maintain game balance.
      "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:

      For COW purposes a land based unit should make contact within 24 game hours or the paratrooper ceases to exist.
      Peter, please consider this suggestion. Rather than introducing some new and unique condition to the new airborne unit, would it not make more sense for that unit to have slightly fewer hit points than conventional infantry -- say 12 or 13 hit points instead of 15 -- representing the fact that airborne needed to be re-supplied because of their inability to carry as much in a combat drop as their ground-pounder comrades could carry in their own supply train?
    • Interesting the different paths we sometimes take. Lowering the hit points work so long as 1 the invaded player does not time his attacks to hit in the same time frame to kill the paratrooper as 2 a spammer being hit ad-hoc can boost the morale after each battle (assuming it survives a hit), hence the paratrooper could survive indefinitely behind enemy lines despite the lack of food, ammo and sleep. Killing the unit after 24 hours if not relieved is finite, you either relieve the unit or it dies. Of course the spammer would likely build a factory, a barracks and an Inf and circumvent this measure as well.

      Bottom line I think we are of the same thought, the paratrooper needs to have a limiting factor so it does not become another OP unit that is abused. We just are not in agreement on how that limitation should be implemented.

      I believe one of the paratrooper threads also discussed this unit being unable to capture a province, though I have no idea where that conversation left off or is located anymore.
      "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
    • I'd like it, but I feel people will find some way to abuse it. I think the paratroopers should have a moral cut every time they are in enemy territory. However if they are in a unit with ground troops it wont apply. This means that Paratroops could be used in normal attacks, but if they are isolated in enemy territory (so no supply line at all or anything) their moral drops a certain percentage. I know that this will mean they'll have to produce a lot of paratroops to compensate but hopefully the devs will make them expensive.
    • WarCityDriver wrote:

      Greetings,

      So... After I forgot to check an old forums date and I am getting Pms all over the place to talk about adding paratroopers as a new unit in CoW I thought I would pop over here to discuss them(Please note I am not a CoW Dev). All factions during the war had and used them, Dday might have ended very differently if a fight went a little different for some British Airborne lads, Germany used the Fallschirmjager to great effect against Norway in the war, Russia's VDV were extremely successful in Poland, and dont forget the brave men of the 101st at Dday and Bastogne.

      Proposed units:
      Airborne Infantry
      Airborne AT guns
      Airborne Motorized
      Airborne Mechanized
      Airborne Light tanks (late game)

      All these units will require an airbase to take off, once airborne they can land in any province that is not a city (City drops for Paratroopers is a bad idea). In addition they can be intercepted by Fighters in route as well as having a 50% combat strength when they first land and regroup (2-3 Hours). Thats the gist of it, tell me what you think and I look forward to answering questions if needed.
      I like those features and i think it could be a nice idea.
      Thumbs Up :thumbup:
    • Well, I would agree that it should cost resources, perhaps oil or goods, something like that. But, I think the airborne function should act like it does in Conflict of Nations, where they act as normal infantry, but they would have an option that you could click on that says like, 'Airdrop', like I said in another thread about Airborne, you could mix them with Commandos (which would have the same feature) and you could air drop them that way. I'll make a list so you can better understand what I am saying and not have a giant wall of text.

      - You have to have Airfield L2, Barracks L2, and Factory L1 just to produce them.
      - You need to have researched Infantry, and Interceptors.
      - To launch the units, they have to be at an airfield.
      - They would act much like a convoy, except flying.
      - They would have a range that would increase per level.

      As for Airborne Tanks and what not, I would have to agree with Montana BB, there were simply too many troops and would require a massive fleet of gliders and C-47s just to get the troops their equipment. So I would disagree with adding in Airborne Mechanized and Motorized. However, instead of there being Airborne AT, how about Airborne Artillery? I know about some very light, but very useful artillery pieces that the Americans utilized, such as the M3 Howitzer. For the Germans, perhaps the lelG 18 Infantry Gun, I have looked it up, and it was NOT an Airborne cannon. I know there was a German artillery piece that was basically an SPG-9 but I can't think of the name and I can't be bothered to go through the internet and find it at the moment. But, I did see somewhere that there was a modified version of the M-4 Sherman that could be dropped from a C-47 or a Glider.

      Correction, the credit for the lelG 18 Infantry Cannon and the following gun goes to Military Factory. The 7.5cm le.GeblG18 'Mountain Gun' (which is basically the same cannon as the lelG 18) could be broken up into six pieces for easier transport. Again, credit goes to Military Factory because I just basically plagiarized them. However, the Mountain Gun could be used as light Airborne artillery.

      And also, I am going to paste in another thread I made quite recently.

      Sorry for the bias towards them in this.

      Pros:
      - Quicker reinforcements
      - The ability to put Commandos/Airborne troops behind enemy lines
      - Easier to invade countries
      - Would expand the playability


      Cons:
      - Players could spam airborne
      - Airborne could be buggy
      - Ideas?


      Limits:
      - Would not be able to travel on carriers
      - Would have to be launched from an airfield
      - Will not be able to be recalled from an attack
      - You will only be able to do 4 Drops every 10 Hours, these could consist of dropping 4 Battalions, or 4 Divisions.


      When Dropping Paratroopers:
      - If dropped on a forest province you would have a 40% chance to lose the unit
      - L1 Paratroopers would have a 2 Hour loading time (decreases by 20 minutes per Level)
      - Would require 120 Oil, and 110 Metal to do a drop.
      - When they are flying, they would act like a convoy with the range of an interceptor.


      Units and Requirements:
      - Airborne Infantry: 1,000 MP, 600 Food, and $760 (L1, excluding Manpower, these would increase by 40 per level.)
      - Airborne Artillery: 1,000 MP, 760 Goods, and $1,600 (L1, excluding Manpower, these would increase by 50 per level.)
      - Airborne Anti-Tank: 1,100 MP, 780 Goods, and $2,100 (L1, excluding Manpower, these would increase by 65 per level.)
      - Airborne Light Tanks: 625 MP, 752 Goods, 740 Oil, 1,645 Metal, and $1,800 (L1, excluding Manpower, these would increase by 70 per level)


      Terrain Weakness:
      - You would have a 40% chance to lose the unit if dropped on a forest province
      - Airborne Artillery, Anti-Tank, and Light Tanks would have a speed decrease when they are traveling through Mountains, Hills, and Urban Environments.
      - Ideas? Since Airborne where relatively light, I see no reason why they should have a movement buff when traveling through hills and mountains. This would apply to infantry units.


      Terrain Strengths:
      - Infantry would have a +50% Defense bonus in Forest, Urban, Hills, and Mountain Environments
      - Infantry would have a much faster speed compared to regular infantry, due to the fact they travel light.
      - Anti-Tank, Artillery, and Tanks would have a defensive bonus in Forest, Urban, Hills, and Mountains.


      Commandos:
      - They would act as mobile spy units, they would have a spot range of Naval Bombers.
      - Would be able to drop with the Airborne units.
      - They should have a medium attack power, and would act as what they are; elite soldiers trained in sabotage and stealth tactics.
      - They should not be able to last a large offensive, they should only be able to go up against one infantry unit, they should have to be mixed in with the Airborne units to be able to last an offensive.


      Clarification:
      - Commandos would count towards the 4 airborne drops per day


      - If you want to airdrop an AIRBORNE unit there would be a button next to 'attack and move' that you would click, then select where you want them to go, within range, and they would be on their way.


      - If you mix Airborne units with Non-Airborne units, the button would go dark, and you could not airdrop them until you move the non-airborne units away.


      - You would be able to mix Commandos, Infantry, Tanks, Artillery, and Anti-Tank, and they could drop together.
      - Commandos should be able to destroy Infrastructure, and Factories.
      - L1 Airborne Infantry would have a 3.0 attack power against infantry, this would increase by .5 per level
      - L1 Airborne Tanks would have a 4.5 attack power against infantry, this would increase by 1.0 per level
      - L1 AIrborne Anti-Tank would have a 3.5 attack power against infantry, this would increase by 1.5 per level
      - L1 Airborne Artillery would have a 3.0 attack power against infantry, this would increase by 1.5 per level
      "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some ******** in the world that just need to be shot." - General Mattis (USMC)


    • Only Commando units should be "jump" qualified.
      There should be a limit of Commando units, about 10%.
      If there is a decrease in total units resulting in the jump units being in contradiction to the limit the only penalty is that no new airborne units can be produced until the percentage rule is once again in order.
      There should be a range that a unit can be dropped equal to or less than a tactical bomber.
      An air unit should be created for carrying Airborne units.
      The air unit would be subject to intercepts and AA.
      I agree with the 50% effectiveness rule upon dropping, the increase would be the same as the normal rules allow.
      Cannot drop into city provinces.
      The same transport units can carry non-jump units from one controlled airfield to another regardless of city rules for jumping.
      A transport unit can resupply units increasing their effectiveness sooner.
    • Ole Swampy wrote:

      ...
      There should be a range that a unit can be dropped equal to or less than a tactical bomber.
      ...
      Yeah, would be wonderful op then ..




      Restrisiko wrote:

      Unfortunately, really unfortunately, the actual function of paratroopers does not fit the basic / original methodology of CoW - keywords: province hopping (ability to skip provinces) and conquest speed - but take out these two primary skills in the paratroopers or adapt them to the game (which will be necessary), then paratroopers are useless from the outset (which they are anyway) and would be nothing more than a fun gimmick for action- and reality freaks .. (because they could do nothing, what you could not already do [more efficiently / effectively] with existing units)..



      Yeah :D , stay relaxed, this is as always only Restrisikos personal rational opinion :thumbup:
      Since I started with CoW almost three years ago, I have never experienced any constellations in which I needed or even missed paratroopers for strategic, economic or even tactical reasons.
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Browsergames sind eine geniale, mehr oder weniger geschickt als Spielattrappe getarnte Geschäftsidee zum Kohleziehen :!:
      Also Vorsicht, es können überall Fußangeln, Stolperdrähte und Selbstschussanlagen lauern :00000156:
      Achtung!
      Texte oberhalb dieser Signatur können Spuren von Ironie enthalten ;)
    • Paratroopers would have less uses than RINT, and would be built 1000 times more often. Instead of having the forums flooded with demands for paratroopers like the days of old, we'll get spammed with noobs saying that they are "too op" or "not realistic, all they do is drop and then die when I don't reinforce them".

      I can only imagine the amount of 12 year olds that would use Op. Market Garden as an example of how paratroopers can hold their own against tanks and normal infantry without adequate support.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Not huge on Airborne units, but if they exist :

      - Airborne infantry, and that's it. As MontanaBB said, everything else (anti-tank, light artillery, jeeps, even armor) was regimental / divisionary, not independent).

      - They particularly do not need to have armor. If you can drop them behind enemy line then move as fast as with an armor, it will wreck havok to the game.

      - They need to be countered HARD by armor, so giving them the same anti-armor capacity as infantry should do the trick (normal infantry usually had MORE anti-tank capacity as paratroopers irl)

      - They need to lose HP everytime they are dropped, so their purpose does not become "infantry you can air-transport very fast along your front"

      - They need to move on foot slower than infantry so people do not replace infantry by them.

      If you asked me, they would not even capture provinces, to avoid some gold usage abuses (drop in the middle of enemy line, gold-build an airport, bring bombers, kill everything in the back of the line where presumably there are less AA guns) but rather they should be able to delay reinforcement (specially in choke points), take ungarrisoned fortifications or neutralize an enemy airport.

      Also, I would much prefer see strategic transportation (train & planes) than airborne units, but that's for another thread.
    • Chimere wrote:

      Also, I would much prefer see strategic transportation (train & planes)
      May as well end it now. We already have trains, clearly seen by the rails for lvl 3 infra, and heavy lift planes were not used in WWII, nor Korea. While cargo planes were used, they were not capable of lifting entire divisions from A to B, and any attempt would have required most/all of the transport aircraft the Allies had, and no Axis nation would have ever been able to even attempt such a feat.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Chimere wrote:

      For trains I don't feel the railroad look and the small bonus in speed convey enough the strategic importance train transport had. In addition, it looks like the fastest troops benefit the most from trains, when it should be the opposite.
      I also just checked, lvl 3 infra offers the same boost to speed as lvl 2, so the rails do nothing. Perhaps it is railways for resources only, maybe a rail hub could be implemented as a new building? Sets all units that travel through the area to move at, say, 50 km/h? I do not know what speed WWII-era steam locomotives travel at so suggest a better speed if you think there is one.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3