On Suggesting Paratroopers

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

    • Restrisiko wrote:

      What for?

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      why wouldn't u want paratroopers Restrikio?

      An infantry unit that can be deployed a considerable distance in a short period of time that can go over a frontline defence into enemy territory, un impeded by mountains, forests or water obstacles?

      does that not add a different dimension to strategy for both attacker and defender? do you want to know more?
      Restrisiko, I know you and handful of others hate the idea of paratroopers. So did the Dutch in 1940, and the Greeks in 1941, and the Germans in 1944. The answer to your question is obvious, and everyone reading this knows it.

      The question is not whether a World War II strategy game should have an airborne infantry in it. The question is how such a unit should be implemented in keeping with its historical realities and the limitations of the existing game.

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Restrisiko wrote:

      What for?

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      why wouldn't u want paratroopers Restrikio?

      An infantry unit that can be deployed a considerable distance in a short period of time that can go over a frontline defence into enemy territory, un impeded by mountains, forests or water obstacles?

      does that not add a different dimension to strategy for both attacker and defender? do you want to know more?
      Restrisiko, I know you and handful of others hate the idea of paratroopers. So did the Dutch in 1940, and the Greeks in 1941, and the Germans in 1944. The answer to your question is obvious, and everyone reading this knows it.
      The question is not whether a World War II strategy game should have an airborne infantry in it. The question is how such a unit should be implemented in keeping with its historical realities and the limitations of the existing game.
      8)
      I look at it from the my perspective of basicly gameplay; not from the perspective of how it (maybe) would behave in reality.
      For me goal-oriented strategy of this game is to use the available resources better than the opponent.
      Overall, therefore an efficient approach is far better way than fast conquest.

      Ok, with paratroopers I will probably be able to conquer some provinces (maybe) faster than with my existing troops.
      But I would have to research and train the paratroops in addition to my existing troops, which would tie up time and resources in these special and only occasionally usable units.

      Moreover, if the enemy province is valuable and defended, I would have to prepare the province with regular troops anyway for taking by my paras; and I have to support them, if I dont want to lost the paras (and the province) after they conquered the province - so I could just as well march with (stronger) regular troops to the province.
      Of course, if the target province is behind a front, I'll have to break through the front before that, but if I did not do that, my paras (and the province) would surely be lost shortly after they could possibly conquer the province.

      On the other hand, if the province is not valuable no hurry is needed anyway.

      Either way, I would have to strongly support my paratroopers if I do not want to burn them as kamikaze troops
      (because that would be a bad strategy).
      But if I have to be present with strong regular forces anyway, the paras, for a sustainable strategy, are rather counterproductive than helpful.

      That is why here in this game for me paratroopers are unnecessary and even superfluous.
      So why should I wish for anything to be crafted into the game, which I will not possibly use and consider expendable?


      In addition, the game would be slowed down by "fast" paratroopers altogether, as paradoxical as it may sound.
      The mere possibility of faster conquests will force a (more) defensive gameplay, and the bigger the Empire and the longer the outer borders become, the more resources and time will be needed because more defence (units) will needed .. -
      .. if one not want to "run into an open knife" in kamikaze style.

      It's in principe the same as with the planes, actualy they also act as "brakes", forcing, not to rush through the botany with fast tanks, but to act with mixed stacks equiped with AA .. (which all costs time and resources, and what makes the game slower).
      Yeah, I know ... that of course is ignored by most, but instead they lamenting about the supposedly overpowered planes. :00008185:


      But no matter; so I'm already strained for the complaints if there actually be paratroopers sometimes .. :D

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D

    • So uh, I wake up to the below image. Do people still not realise that para would, in the only ways it could be implemented, be a super OP inf unit or glorified militia? Neither of these would be good in the game, there are too many variables for paratroopers to be implemented fairly in game, right down to the direction of the wind and how the clouds are looking on a particular day.
      Images

      • lala.PNG

        50.45 kB, 414×202, viewed 34 times
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Quasi the para would be neither. Nor would it be expendable as Restikio suggests.

      It will require certain changes to the style of play for those who use them but that's it. It adds a further dimension and opens up new avenues to a player using it.

      Restrikio seems (with all due respect) to present seriously flawed arguments which only hold ground if you keep to his own theories of game play.

      A goal oriented strategy for this game is to get as many victory points as needed to win the game. Anything else about resource management etc must be subverted to this primary, game winning goal. End of. Anything else is a diversion or someone wanting to play Sim City.

      Having to research paras is only an option if you want to use them. There are a plethora of units I do not research because they do not support my operational strategy and tactics. This argument is therefore irrelevant.

      If a province is valuable and defended then you don't send paras in. Try landing on an SS Panzer Division with paras, not a good move as history bears out.

      If the province is behind a front then you must ensure that you have enough military force to break through and link up with your paras ( a failure of the Garden part of Operation Market Garden, relying on a single avenue of approach was silly as it gave the plan a single point of failure).

      Of course paras need to be supported by normal troops, always has been the case. They "enhance" your normal combat operations they are not a war winning tool by a long shot.

      Your suggestion that it slows down the game has a grain of truth to it, but that is part of how the unit is implemented. I do not see the game being adversely affected by the seriously OP Commando unit, why? because of limitations in it's implementation. This is all about implementation. Mounting an airborne assault is a costly resource heavy operation and this should be reflected in the implementation. We can't have the Russkies advancing across all of Europes simply by dropping paratroopers everywhere?

    • Everyone suggesting the implementation of paratroopers should keep in mind that they also can be used against you. Imagine having conquered some of your neighbouring countries already, so having quite some territorial area, but you are still surrounded by several enemies. Now with paratroopers in the game you could wake up with all your core territory being conquered over night by your enemies, as they are able to avoid your defending army stacks on the border. They could conquer a province, build an airport and continue their flight or even recruit more troops from there (keep in mind that our game supports speeding up production with gold, and no, we won't limit that), which makes taking provinces even faster than with an armored car running through your country. The mere possibility of this would probably shift the meta strategy to all players needing to leave defending troops in their provinces, creating a much greater resource drain.
      To make this unit balanced and not break the current gameplay there would need to be severe restrictions in it's implementation, but too harsh restrictions would also make it quite useless. Unfortunately also most of these restrictions and functionality would need serious design, balancing and programming work. Probably also the rest of the game would need to be rebalanced.

      That is one of the reasons why they were not implemented yet. But we are of course always open for suggestions on how to properly implement them, but still no promises yet :)

    • Dear Mr Freezy,

      of course we have to understand that paratroopers can be used against you. That's why it adds depth to the gameplay. You must be able to counter such an attack and invest in these preparations. It can affect your meta strategy if the para is an OP and easily produced unit, counters to this are suggested below.

      The game balancing that has recently taken place addresses this to some extent with the cost of AA coming down. AA should be even more effective against paras than against aircraft, which is quite realistic.

      Perhaps this simple modification could be implemented easily by increasing damage done by AA to Inf OR have a new terrain class whereby paras in the air are "disembarking" for say 1 hour over the target and at that point they have only 10% strength. This means that an airborne landing takes 1 hour once it is at the target location and is treated like a convoy disembarking, para troopers will be treated as a convoy when in flight till they have finished disembarking.

      The range of a parachute unit should be fairly limited, say not more than a naval bomber? Range could be increased by research.

      There are a number of other measures that can be taken to restrict the use of paras.

      1. Only produced at level 3 airbase
      2. Only produced at capital with a level 3 airbase
      3. Only produced with level 3 barracks
      4. High cost of research/production
      5. Available as a secret unit from Day 8 or later
      6. Limited number of para units can be maintained at one time OR have a high food and MP cost of maintenance
      7. Unit is slightly stronger versus normal infantry on the ground but very weak versus armour and artillery and against air attack whilst on ground.
      8. Paras are a one time use, once deployed by air they cannot redeploy via another airfield, however they should be able to move from friendly airbase to airbase as a simple move command. They would use the attack command to deploy to an enemy province

      Perhaps what we need to do is reverse engineer the paratrooper. How can we create an airborne unit with a minimal of rebalancing/reprogramming? What characteristics can then be engineered to give this unit the utility of an airborne unit within the limits of so much programming effort?

      Without sight of the work involved and not being a game developer I can only guess. But my guess is that by treating the paratrooper deployment as a convoy journey with a disembarkation period at which they are very vulnerable might be a workable and relatively easy to implement measure.

    • Captain Hurricane wrote:

      1. Only produced at level 3 airbase
      2. Only produced at capital with a level 3 airbase
      3. Only produced with level 3 barracks
      4. High cost of research/production
      5. Available as a secret unit from Day 8 or later
      6. Limited number of para units can be maintained at one time OR have a high food and MP cost of maintenance
      7. Unit is slightly stronger versus normal infantry on the ground but very weak versus armour and artillery and against air attack whilst on ground.
      8. Paras are a one time use, once deployed by air they cannot redeploy via another airfield, however they should be able to move from friendly airbase to airbase as a simple move command. They would use the attack command to deploy to an enemy province
      They would be used even less than commandos then.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Paratroopers, as I see, has drawn a huge debate in this. If I want to add more reality in this game, then of course I would support adding paratroopers. However, as Freezy has mentioned, this is not simply about a new troop, it's about how to make this new troop without damaging the game. Your recent suggestion, Captain Hurricane, has made the para too hard to produce. Also, this is not about whether you support para or not. I personally am supporting the adding of paras, but how? The developers have other things to do, such as updates to keep us as players happy. We should not post any more things here until someone gives a GOOD idea about how paras should be created. What is a good idea, I personally cannot comment because I have my own bias. However, if you cannot give constructive advice on how paras should work, then you should not post anything until you believe the general public is going to agree with what you say.

      I am not convinced by the quality of the suggestions that paratroopers will come anytime soon.
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)

    • Captain Hurricane wrote:

      why should the unit be terrible and unusable?

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      1. Only produced at level 3 airbase
      2. Only produced at capital with a level 3 airbase
      3. Only produced with level 3 barracks
      4. High cost of research/production
      5. Available as a secret unit from Day 8 or later
      6. Limited number of para units can be maintained at one time OR have a high food and MP cost of maintenance
      7. Unit is slightly stronger versus normal infantry on the ground but very weak versus armour and artillery and against air attack whilst on ground.
      8. Paras are a one time use, once deployed by air they cannot redeploy via another airfield, however they should be able to move from friendly airbase to airbase as a simple move command. They would use the attack command to deploy to an enemy province
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • It is my opinion we already have paratroopers. Military espionage spies could be considered to be para-units, as they do what paratroopers do, and how did those military espionage troops get behind the lines to do their spying? They air dropped in!

      Just change the names of the military espionage spy to paratrooper, and the debate is over. no changes to upset the game balance, and there are finally paratroopers in the game

    • Stormbringer50 wrote:

      It is my opinion we already have paratroopers. Military espionage spies could be considered to be para-units, as they do what paratroopers do, and how did those military espionage troops get behind the lines to do their spying? They air dropped in!

      Just change the names of the military espionage spy to paratrooper, and the debate is over. no changes to upset the game balance, and there are finally paratroopers in the game
      Finally! I must say you're really smart to say that. We were so focused on debates there wasn't anyone who said that.

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      Little Racoon wrote:

      I am not convinced by the quality of the suggestions that paratroopers will come anytime soon.
      what do u deem as poor quality suggestions LR?
      Captain Hurricane, I am simply deeming poor quality suggestions as suggestions that cannot be implemented in the game because it's either not worth it or too OP. This, as I mentioned in my previous post, has my own bias, but my views of poor quality suggestions can at least have many people's agreement. Captain Hurricane, I do not wish to offend you, but we have just focused too much on debates than an idea that will actually, which what Stormbringer said, will create the most convenient while good way for Bytro to shut us up.
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)

    • Little Racoon wrote:

      Finally! I must say you're really smart to say that. We were so focused on debates there wasn't anyone who said that
      I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll go with you're not being sarcastic. Stormbringer's idea has actually been suggested before, but it is probably the best of a bad lot. My only problem then is that we'll have no spies.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: