On Suggesting Paratroopers

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

    • WiseOdin wrote:

      When I look at the spy options, I honestly see them as paratroopers. Get behind enemy lines, damage facilities, damage infrastructure, gain intel.
      Paratroopers lacked the proper weapons to sustain themselves for long periods detached from main armies. In general, they were unable to sustain long, drawn-out fights, and did not capture land.
      :P

    • I don't see Stormbringer's pr WiseOdins comments as relevant or helpful in any way.

      Mil Espionage is one thing, parachutists are a completely different thing.

      Mil Espionaga costs £15k to create, no time lines and can be deployed instantly anywhere in the world, across continents and oceans. but cannot fight a unit on the ground. Parachutists are not deployed to gather intel either.

      paratroopers cannot withstand an attack from a heavily armed enemy (artillery and armour) that's true, neither is an inf unit in this game. paratroopers are just a bit stronger i

      How does that add up? Hardly a credible comparison.

      You suggest that certain things are not worth doing or OP? How can it be OP if it is properly designed and game balanced? Is the Commando then something we should have? or the nuclear ICBM? How can you (who don't work for Bytro) know it it's worth doing? We've had the Antartica map, the other weird evenly balanced map, the 260p map. Were these things worth doing?

      I don't want to cause offence either but some of us like to sit in judgement of other's input when in fact all we should do is explain a contrary point

    • People of the Philippines, I have returned. Just to say just go check out my threads on paratroopers because they kinda have all of these ideas cough. But, Paratroopers are just another tactic that armies have, once they hit the ground they become standard light infantry men. (At least in WW2) Parachutists are a completely different thing than the paratrooper divisions of World War 2. Yeah, Spies did parachute in, but they were so few in numbers that it would be sending one man against a German Brigade to fight them, that would be useless. Paratroopers shouldn't be a huge cost, because then they'd turn into some late level units, like SP Units and what not. If anything, the developers should find a unit that is the least used, and get rid of it and throw in Paratroopers/Airborne.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by JCS Darragh: just had to add some more things ().

    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      idk, People were talking about "Oooh there are too many units already, adding a new one would make too many units in CoW" so, just remove a unit that is rarely used and throw in Paratroopers in that spot.
      Removing any unit is going to cause a lot of people to get mad.
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower

    • Not unless it is a really useless unit, Go and look at the most useless unit thread (Pretty sure that exists) and look at it. The Developers could also just do a vote, and what ever unit is deemed 'the most useless' gets replaced with paratroopers. I don't think that would make a lot of people mad.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      Not unless it is a really useless unit, Go and look at the most useless unit thread (Pretty sure that exists) and look at it. The Developers could also just do a vote, and what ever unit is deemed 'the most useless' gets replaced with paratroopers. I don't think that would make a lot of people mad.
      This is completely irrelevant, all it does is lower the diversity and realisticness of units, which is what you guys want by adding paratroopers. It also has no effect on the problems associated with paratroopers, and to top it off creates more work for coders by removing something in the game.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

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



    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      Not unless it is a really useless unit, Go and look at the most useless unit thread (Pretty sure that exists) and look at it. The Developers could also just do a vote, and what ever unit is deemed 'the most useless' gets replaced with paratroopers. I don't think that would make a lot of people mad.
      Honestly, there's not a single unit that doesn't have a purpose in the game. Sure, some aren't used as much just because there's more well-rounded units available to research, but the purpose driven units; the ones that I think we're calling 'useless' here, have a time and a place to be used, and I can think of a time where I used every single one of them in the course of a game.
      Forum Gang Premier

      you are a balls

    • Okay, well sure, the oldest and best players on CoW have a use for every single unit, most new players do not. I'm mainly talking about casual players, ones who hop on and play for an hour or two then get off. That is why I suggested a poll in the first place, that way EVERYONE can vote on the unit they don't want. I'd say the SP units are probably useless, but that's just from my experience using them. Idk..
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

    • I sincerely hope that paratroopers are not added. TL;DR, grossly unrealistic, and we already have enough of that.

      At the level of this game paratroopers would be another offense against realism, which is already strained to the limit for many of us. They were not a significant factor in WWII.
      1. Attacks like the German attack on Eben Emael were far, far to small to figure into a a game of this scale. IIRC operations in Burma were below division scale... not worth discussing at this level.
      2. There were only four division-level airborne attacks in WWII that I recall.-- Crete, Normandy, Market Garden (Arnhem), and the Rhine Crossing. The the third failed, the fourth was entirely unnecessary, and the first ended in the destruction of the attackers, and may have been unnecessary (sea transports got thru also). Normandy was helpful but not really important. The Russian operations may have been division-level, but were of no importance.
      3. And none of these were strategic-level, except Crete. All the others were drops just a bit in front of advancing ground troops.
      4. Because... paratroops must link up with ground-based logistic system within days at most. They have no heavy weapons. The have only air supply, which is insufficient to sustain any reasonable number of troops. They have no ready source of reinforcement. Their internal command and control is hard to establish.And they are entirely surrounded by the enemy (until the linkup), which is usually not considered a good position.

        And this is basically true of Crete. The drop was not behind enemy lines. It was an advance. The Axis had practical control of the sea due to air cover. Seaborne supply was established soon (granted it was probably not necessary at that point).

        And of course after Crete the German airborne force was never employed again in any strength. It was too expensive to be worthwhile.
      If you did have paratroops, they would have to be dropped into an existing battle, or into a province already owned. It *would* be a way of getting a couple divisions into a ground battle. Air transport of regular infantry from airfield to airfield... this would be OK. The only new unit you would need would be transport aircraft.

    • See, Everyone knows that. We just do not care, We've been waiting for YEARS to have some sort of airborne units. Most of us know that it is unrealistic to have large amounts of Airborne units. Hence why we suggest unit caps, It doesn't have to be Hearts of Iron realistic levels, we just want some sort of unit that is viable in a fight and can be airdropped. Hell, this is why people have been saying "Just give us a unit that is equal to militia, but can be airdropped!" There is no sort of "supply" factor that I am aware of, so there is no need for it. Airborne units, as many people have said, and I will repeat this, Can literally be the equivalent of Militia, it is viable in a fight, and can be airdropped. Also, Under division level is fine for CoW, as most units are Brigades, Battalions, or Regiments.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Yeah sounds like something WiseOdin would say, he always had the best ideas tbh.
      Awesome that months after leaving, I'm still being quoted.


      I hardly have a horse in the race, at this point. I honestly DON'T have a horse in the race.
      That being said, if anybody really wants to have paratroopers, try Conflict of Nations (a Bytro co-op with Dorado) and check out the airmobile infantry. I only played a couple maps of CoN, and sliced through readily by abusing airmobile infantry. I stopped playing, because the game was too easy (Well, that was a main reason). Airmobile infantry pretty much ruined CoN for me. 100%, whether you are for or against paratroopers, you can get a loose feel for how they could act, by playing CoN.

      In Call of War, paratroopers would not be relevant due to size
      In Call of War, paratroopers would not be realistic without a supply element (requires game overhaul)
      In Call of War, paratroopers would do nothing but slow down the game, because every player would have to overproduce units to protect behind their lines. I've seen enough posts in the three years I played the game, to know that the game does not need to be slowed down.

      The only right way to make paratroopers, would be to not allow them to capture land, and have them as a unit that can damage things like arty, in order to tie it up from doing it's job. Paratroopers would have to have fairly weak stats, and would be killed quickly when put up against combat units. When placed in an undefended province center, they could screw up structures. Berlin did not fall to paratroopers. Why? Because paratroopers do not have the manpower to capture territory.

      Stating that you WANT something, does not mean you should have it. It isn't worth the developer's time, to make a unit that over half of the player base doesn't want.
      Free Time looks good on me

    • See, In Conflict of Nations, Airmobile infantry were the best thing ever. They couldn't do that much, but there were damn effective in capturing provinces. If you add Airborne into CoW, us players want them to be a viable unit, the complete opposite of what you suggested. Airborne wouldn't be irrelevant in CoW. Airborne would really just make the games faster, Go look at some of my threads/suggestions on paratroopers. Even in CoN, the airmobile infantry have several ways to be defeated, they have a minimum time to board and deploy (Kinda like the Convoys), where they have around 30 minutes to deploy and board. If you have just a couple of Anti-Air pieces stationed in a province, that would totally destroy that Airborne unit. It's really not that difficult to understand tbh.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      See, In Conflict of Nations, Airmobile infantry were the best thing ever. They couldn't do that much, but there were damn effective in capturing provinces. If you add Airborne into CoW, us players want them to be a viable unit, the complete opposite of what you suggested. Airborne wouldn't be irrelevant in CoW. Airborne would really just make the games faster, Go look at some of my threads/suggestions on paratroopers. Even in CoN, the airmobile infantry have several ways to be defeated, they have a minimum time to board and deploy (Kinda like the Convoys), where they have around 30 minutes to deploy and board. If you have just a couple of Anti-Air pieces stationed in a province, that would totally destroy that Airborne unit. It's really not that difficult to understand tbh.
      This post just makes it clear that Odin's post WAS hard to understand.
      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.

    • Uh okay..

      Edit:
      Also, Since when did half the community NOT want paratroopers? I don't remember there being a poll or anything.. If you mean half of the CoW Forum community then that's kinda dumb. Pretty sure the forum community is MUCH MUCH smaller than the actual people playing the game.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

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