No. Discussed waaaaay too many times. Go look at the old threads before I have to get my paragraph out.

Trust me, it is suggested way too much. Let me get the paragraph.

I've said it before, so I will copy it and say it again.

I have been reading up on the history of paratroopers from 1914-1945 for some reason, I do not know why, and the success of an airborne invasion depended not on the weather, as you would expect, but on who you were fighting against. I have only finished the part on German paratroopers in WWII, Italian and British joint-ops in WWI and some Russian operations in WWII. I will go into detail about these below.

In WWI, paratroopers were mainly Italian spies dropped by the British behind enemy lines. They would drop up to five men in one go, I think, and then drop bombs on the way back for an alibi in case they were shot down. The spies would then gather info and wreak havoc.

Then we go into German airborne operations during WWII. They were initially used to try and bring down part of the Maginot line or some heavy duty forts in Maastricht in Belgium, I am not sure, and secure some bridges and make sure that the bridges were not destroyed as someone had placed explosives on them. The Germans were dropped in by parachute and gliders from a JU-52. This did not go well. Some JU-52's were shot down(I think), some gliders were shot down or crashed on landing but the normal paratroopers who had 'chutes were okay. I think some planes had to turn back and I know that the tow ropes on some of the JU-52's snapped, causing the glider to fall short. Despite these setbacks as well as some troopers getting blown off course, the invasion went okay. Some troops had to disable a fort by landing on top of it and clearing it from top to bottom. This went wrong as wind caused the troopers to land in the wrong place. The had to climb up to the top of the fortress, under enemy fire, and blow a hole in the roof, which they were meant to do anyway. This worked well enough. When they had done this, they were after disabling the AA's on the roof and securing the forts top floor. They had lost the element of surprise while climbing up and could not secure the rest of the fort and took heavy casualties. They had to wait for reinforcements to arrive. When they finally did, most of the men were dead, injured or exhausted, including the CO who had been killed/wounded, not too sure. They successfully took the bridges with minimal casualties, but did not have time to remove the bombs, only to defuse them. When the enemy counter-attacked, they accidentally blew up one/two/all of the three bridges during the firefight from stray bullets hitting the bombs. This slowed the invasion down. Some other stuff happened too but I am not searching through the book to look for it. The invasion went well but there were a lot of casualties. They fought the French, British and Belgians here I think.

During the German invasion of Norway, the paratroopers did a great job capturing airfields, especially when paired up with some Bf 110's. The Bf 110's would land sometimes land at an airfield(that was already in enemy hands) and use their waist gunner to shoot at ground forces on the field, wreaking havoc. Then the paratroopers would come in. When the paratroopers tried to capture a bridge leading to the capital, which was on an island, they failed. When they were sent to capture the town, they failed again. On those two occasions they had been fighting Brits while at the airfields they were fighting Norwegians.

Then we have the final time that German paratroopers were used against the Brits. This was the invasion of Crete. This really is a funny story, you should read about it in full detail. I will run through it quickly to get on to the Russians. Basically, the battle lasted a week or so, I believe. After bombardment from some Stuka's and strafe runs from Bf 110's and 109's, I think. Then the funniest invasion I have ever read about was launched. Their was a few divisions, 4-5 I think, involved. The first wave was all either shot down, shot while parachuting down, blown of course or crashed on landing. Their first objectives were to disable enemy AA's and capture an airfield. They did not succeed and took heavy casualties. Whenever reinforcements arrived, the same thing would happen. They spent most of the time running from the Greek, Aussie and British forces. Eventually after heavy casualties and a failed seaborne invasion which had been sunk by the British, they took they island. The results of this was the destruction of any ground unit which had been involved in the invasion, any survivors being transferred to another unit and German never again mounting an airborne invasion against the allies.

For the Russians, basically the suffered heavily enough casualties but Russia always has more men so more men were trained and sent to the unit that needed them. They were a lot more successful than the Germans because instead of being used against the frontline troops, they were deployed behind German lines to kill retreating men and capture airfields. The main reason this was successful was because they always had armies pushing ahead to meet up with them.

Now that we have learnt a little about airborne units, let me point out some things. Paratroopers cannot be deployed in cities, mountains or forests, so you could only use them one terrain ingame. They are easy to defend against by digging ditches and putting up poles where they could actually land. When they are on their way to the dropzone, while landing and for a few minutes afterwards when they are finding their weapons, they would be vulnerable to attack unless you have them a fighter escort on their way and bomber protection while landing and getting their guns, which in turn would need another escort. When all is said and done, it would most likely be quicker and cheaper to build a BB with some tanks and infantry.

No more is to be said, okay?

Yes. Wait till WWIII.

Wouldn't say so. Just let Greece's debt and the Rooskie sitch in Ukraine get worse.

What?

Perhaps we can make this simply as challenging as a coastal landing attempt from sea-to-land.

Coastal landing attempts are difficult due to the challenge of disembarking for 3:00 hrs - 4:30 hrs without getting spotted by the enemy and dealing with a reactionary force.

Paratroopers can be implemented under a similar example. Chances of success can be reduced to compensate for the advantage of mobility and distance.

What do you think?

No. Paratroopers have been discussed multiple times and every time they turn into a thread filled with OT stuff and insults. This will only happen once more.

Oh no not this again, it's been discussed multiple times already and a lot of ideas but there are mostly arguments and counter-arguments about whether their good or bad for the game.

Since this topic is WELL KNOWN here in the forums our talk is worthless, it's up to the devs now.

The talk is worthless because Bill keeps downplaying everyone that supports the idea. He responds negatively about it and people don't have time to argue back and forth with him, so they leave him be. That's why nothing's getting done about paratroopers. As long as Bill is around on the forums, any idea he doesn't like will likely end up in the trash. If more users had the brains and the guts to argue with Bill, or the devs decided to overrule Bill's opinion, then we'd start seeing stuff get done with paratroopers.

For now, arguing is futile because nobody can come up with a smart comeback to shut Bill up

Enough bickering, all of you. Keep it civil. Consider yourselves warned.