On Suggesting Paratroopers

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

    • See, I think most people wouldn't care if you could airdrop commandos (probably be too OP) but, we just want a unit that can be dropped by air. Who cares if they didn't play a significant role? It's a damn game, it's not going to be historically accurate. Sure, we can argue about it all day long, but with that logic, why not remove Rocket Fighters? Why not remove nuclear rockers? Why not remove nuclear ships? Why not remove commandos? None of those played a significant role in WW2. So, using the "Oh Paratroopers didn't play a significant role in WW2, look at the German invasion of crete and operation market garden" narrative doesn't really work if at the same time you defend the nuclear rockets, rocket fighters, and nuclear-powered ships. What country had working nuclear rockets in the 1940s that could be successfully deployed against another country? What country had built Rocket fighters in large enough numbers that they could play a significant role in the war? I'm really sick and tired of you guys just saying "Paratroopers didn't play a significant role in WW2 they shouldn't be in the game!" but at the same time you defend units that didn't even exist in this time period.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

      The post was edited 2 times, last by JCS Darragh: testing something ().

    • So why not just remove the nuclear branch as a whole? JCS Darragh mentioned many nuclear troops. I would like that except for the nuke bombers part. It would be a big cut. However, I would like to keep commandos since they were functional in WWII.
      "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)

    • Hello fellow players and devs,

      In all the threads I have read about paratroopers there is one thing that always strikes me as a reason to not have paratroopers in the game. If it is a unit that has an increasingly good range this would mean somewhere half way through a war the player with his core closest to the enemy could have some enemy troops dropped in their core. This would be a major problem. Think about playing as Britain on the europe map. As soon as paratroopers come into play, you would be done for. Even if it is only a single unit that can take provinces it would make no one want to be Britain anymore.

      The solution? Possibly a restriction on how far you can go into enemy teritory with them, not enough to go past more than one enemy province I would say. Somewhat historicly accurate since paratroopers were never just dropped in the middle of an enemy country. They were dropped around the frontline or soon to be frontline to secure targets and stop reinforcements from comming in. The latter can already be stopped effectively by tactical bombers. So the real need for paratroopers in the game is somewhat small.

      Having them with a cap on how far they could go into enemy teritory would surely mean that you can get some troops into britain without having to boat them over, but not to an extent that would make you not want to be Britain anymore. This way it could also make the fights over the smaller islands in the mediteranian a bit more challenging and give more reasons to have carriers around.

      Making a specific airborne unit makes little sense to me since it was basicly just infantry. Most of what has ever been airborne are all units that we already have, infantry, anti tank, artillery, motorozed infantry and commandos.

      My solution would be to make an aircraft type that works somewhat like a carrier. You could put certain infantry units in this aircraft, like the ones I meantioned before. This would mean that much like a carrier they can only cary a certain amount of units per level. I do not know what a good balance would be for this, maybe 1 or 2 units per aircraft or something? The craft would also need to have a boarding/regrouping after landing time much like the way that disempbarking from a convoy ship does the same.

      This way there would be very little need to put a cap on the amount of troops that you can send via an airborne lift since it would make very little sense to spend a lot to put all your troops one province into enemy territory. In the case of Britain on europe maps however I think that a cap surely is needed. Maybe 10% of your total unit count once every 24 hours? I say 24 hours and not every day because around day chancge you could otherwise drop 10% twice with a few hours apart. The reason I think 10% is reasonable is because it is common for players to have less then 100 units during the first two weeks of the game and dropping 10 infantry type units over the front line is not much of a game changer.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable

    • That is what we have all suggested, hell, most of us have compromised with people and said, yes we are willing to have a limited amount of paratrooper units. Having a cap to how far they could go into enemy territory would be extremely difficult to implement and then would make them useless as far as paratroopers are supposed to be used. (Like using them to drop behind enemy lines and flank them) You add in a cap like that and then they won't be able to do anything useful and worthwhile.

      Most of us, or at least I have, agreed that having airborne tanks, mot. infantry, mech. infantry, and other vehicles would be very overpowered. At the very least what players (from my research at least) want out of airborne is:

      - Airborne Artillery
      - Airborne Anti-Tank
      - Airborne Infantry

      I'd be willing to lose the Anti-Tank and Artillery for infantry, and as many have stated before, these units cannot have a "poison pill" like you have suggested (Having a limit cap to where they can go) they need to be dropped everywhere. As far as dropping paratroopers right onto a core province? That's fine! Just put Anti-Air and militia in your most important provinces. Most of us have said that they need a drop time limit (like 30 minutes or smaller) to where the units can be essentially 1 hit by anti-air, but once on the ground they have a little better stats than infantry and higher speed (due to the equipment that paratroopers have, essentially just infantry, and a couple organic support companies)
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

    • I don't think paratroopers should have either better stats than infantry or be faster.
      1) The logistics for paratroopers was worse. Often supplies for them would go off course or even wind up behind enemy lines.
      2) Paratroopers were not better equipped. They had to carry everything with them. Regular infantry were easier to resupply with ammo, food, troop replacements, etc.
      3) Paratroopers being faster: They were only faster if unopposed. So, don't make them faster.
      4) If implemented, I would say just implement an infantry type air transport similar to how an aircraft carrier works. It would carry existing infantry type units like infantry, AA, AT. I think paratrooping artillery would be to make an advantage since it is a ranged weapon.
      5) The air transport would be a plane and have a range. It would have a capacity limit. All existing planes in the game have range limits. It would require a drop troops here (would have to be a point on a road).

    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      That is what we have all suggested, hell, most of us have compromised with people and said, yes we are willing to have a limited amount of paratrooper units. Having a cap to how far they could go into enemy territory would be extremely difficult to implement and then would make them useless as far as paratroopers are supposed to be used. (Like using them to drop behind enemy lines and flank them) You add in a cap like that and then they won't be able to do anything useful and worthwhile.

      Most of us, or at least I have, agreed that having airborne tanks, mot. infantry, mech. infantry, and other vehicles would be very overpowered. At the very least what players (from my research at least) want out of airborne is:

      - Airborne Artillery
      - Airborne Anti-Tank
      - Airborne Infantry

      I'd be willing to lose the Anti-Tank and Artillery for infantry, and as many have stated before, these units cannot have a "poison pill" like you have suggested (Having a limit cap to where they can go) they need to be dropped everywhere. As far as dropping paratroopers right onto a core province? That's fine! Just put Anti-Air and militia in your most important provinces. Most of us have said that they need a drop time limit (like 30 minutes or smaller) to where the units can be essentially 1 hit by anti-air, but once on the ground they have a little better stats than infantry and higher speed (due to the equipment that paratroopers have, essentially just infantry, and a couple organic support companies)
      If you do not add someting that would stop players from winning the game withing a week, something you describe as a ''Poison pill'' the game will be ruined by paratroopers. Your suggested ''Just put militia and anti-air in your most important provinces'' is not a solution. How will you ever have enough manpower early to mid-game to defend against paratroopers and also build an army if you are Brittain for example? In Brittains and everyone's case every province is important since they are all connected to the rest of your core. Paratroopers could just be dropped in the least protected province or after defences there are gone. Your solution is not a solution since defending against paratroopers the way you suggest would cost at least 20 times more recources than using them. Not very good from a game perspective in Call of War. A lot of players get surprised by boat landings that take 4,5 hours to unload and they can only get to land in provinces by water. So how you can ever think implementing something far more mobile in the game that you can get out of within a fraction of other possible ways I do not get. No one thinks having marines in speed boats that can unload in 30 minuits or less are a good idea, so why would having paratroopers do this would be?

      Maybe most players should not only think about how much fun it would be to use paratroopers and what they could do to their opponents with them. More so, they should also concern themselves with how to defend against them and if the way they propose is balanced and somewhat doable inside of the game as it exists now.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable

    • Well,

      1. We have suggested a cap of around 5 paratrooper units, so you can't spam them
      2. Having paratroopers take an hour to off load would be ridiculous, as I said, they can easily be killed while off loading, anything more than 30 minutes would allow them to be killed very fast.

      3. My solution is a solution, you would have to upgrade anti-air and militia units, What I suggested was you put them in cities, Like London or whatever other cities (I don't play Britain)

      4. Parachute operations and boat landings are VERY different. Parachute operations happen very fast, hundreds of men offloaded in a few minutes. Boat landings, you have to first shell the beach (maybe), sail over there, then off load troops who may or may not be experienced with that sort of operation, and then continue to make room for more waves of troops. You really can't compare the two like that, real amphibious operations take hours or sometimes days to get EVERYONE onto the beach. Airborne, you just fly over the target, jump out, land, then regroup and accomplish the mission.

      5. When I said a "Poison Pill" I meant something that limits how far the troops can move, I support the limit of range they can be sent (as in how far the planes can fly them to) but limiting them on how far they can advance into a country is stupid. Another suggestion I saw was making airborne units disappear after like, 5 days or something.


      Also, It isn't our problem if Britain doesn't have enough manpower to deal with an airborne operation, that's something they have to work out, do they want to defend until they have enough MP? or do they want to attack and leave behind a small garrison to guard their country? It adds more realism to the game, in real life you wouldn't just leave a city undefended, you'd leave behind a garrison to defend it from attack. That should be a factor in CoW, you should have to leave behind troops and defend a city, not have a massive doomsday stack. I am all in favor of slowing down the game for more realism, you are also massively over exaggerating the effect of 5 paratrooper units, you can't "Win the game in a week" from 5 paratroopers. Sure, you could win a few battles and take over a few provinces, but you aren't going to defeat an entire country with only paratroopers.

      My idea for paratroopers was to have them be dropped in, you fight and take a province, then you connect them with regular ground forces, reinforce them, and then you carry on with the war. If you can't manage to defeat that sort of engagement, then I am sorry for you. It's not very difficult to prevent a break through of 5 units with no armor support, and barely any arty support. Hell, You'd be fighting either infantry with 1 arty and 1 AT, or any combination of that.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

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

    • 1. If you have a limmited range for them that they can go into enemy territory I think a percentage would be just fine, but sure. Around 5 would do fine.

      2. You can have them be as the units they are as soon as they land, but have to wait for an hour or more before you are able to move them since they would be regrouping.

      JCS Darragh wrote:


      3. My solution is a solution, you would have to upgrade anti-air and militia units, What I suggested was you put them in cities, Like London or whatever other cities (I don't play Britain)
      3. Perhaps playing as Brittain would give you some instights into why having paratroopers the way you suggest is a bad idea. Every province is important because it is all part of your core, losing a few core provinces early on will destroy the buildings there on recapture and ruin someone's chance of comming back to compete for a win. There is no way you can protect everything important because there is not enough manpower.

      Food, goods, metal, oil and steel are all mostly poduced in your core at the start (and even later on). So you need to protect at least one of every one of these provinces. How will you ever have enough manpower to protect 5 provinces with anti-air?! Even if every airborne unit has only 5 HP when airborne that would mean 25 HP could possibly be dropped in a province. Anti-air on level 1 has a power output of 5 and then there is the x factor. So you would be somewhat obligated to have the maximum of 8 possbible SBDE total in at least 5 provinces, that is 5 * 8 anti-air = 40 units. Costing 40 * 750 = 30k manpower. In the beginning of a map you produce around 5k manpower per day if you are lucky, training nothing but anti-air for a week when I start a map does not sound like fun to me (not even including the manpower production drop from paying the already trained anti-air upkeep).

      4 I'm pretty sure marines get out of their little inflatable boat just as fast as the airborne drops from their airplane.

      JCS Darragh wrote:


      5. When I said a "Poison Pill" I meant something that limits how far the troops can move, I support the limit of range they can be sent (as in how far the planes can fly them to) but limiting them on how far they can advance into a country is stupid. Another suggestion I saw was making airborne units disappear after like, 5 days or something.
      Historicly accurate though, somewhat civilised countries are not allowed to send their military personel out on suicide missions. Having airborne units disapear after 5 days is strange, damage would be done as soon as they take a crucial recource producing province or capitol.


      JCS Darragh wrote:


      Also, It isn't our problem if Britain doesn't have enough manpower to deal with an airborne operation, that's something they have to work out, do they want to defend until they have enough MP? or do they want to attack and leave behind a small garrison to guard their country? It adds more realism to the game, in real life you wouldn't just leave a city undefended, you'd leave behind a garrison to defend it from attack. That should be a factor in CoW, you should have to leave behind troops and defend a city, not have a massive doomsday stack. I am all in favor of slowing down the game for more realism, you are also massively over exaggerating the effect of 5 paratrooper units, you can't "Win the game in a week" from 5 paratroopers. Sure, you could win a few battles and take over a few provinces, but you aren't going to defeat an entire country with only paratroopers.

      My idea for paratroopers was to have them be dropped in, you fight and take a province, then you connect them with regular ground forces, reinforce them, and then you carry on with the war. If you can't manage to defeat that sort of engagement, then I am sorry for you. It's not very difficult to prevent a break through of 5 units with no armor support, and barely any arty support. Hell, You'd be fighting either infantry with 1 arty and 1 AT, or any combination of that.
      No exactly, it is the developers problem. Since paratroopers are the oldest suggestion of a new unit as you said I think there is good reason they have not been implemented in the game yet.

      People not wanting to play as Brittain would be a major problem for any historical map as well as the smaller ones. I think realism goes out the window as soon as you suggest paratroopers being dropped more than a province or so into enemy territory. I do not know about you but I always make sure to have troops in my core on any map but antarctica I guess since your core can not be penetrated there. Sure the game would not be over in a week. The possiblilty of someone still being able to win on a map would be gone if partroopers take the capitol or one or multiple vital resource producing provinces in week one or two though.

      Even if you get back up your feet from a para drop in your core you will likely eventually lose the map to someone that did not have its core invaded by paratroopers. Sorry, the way you propose they would function is just to much of a game changer.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable

    • Haven't read all 7 pages of this thread, so if it's been suggested , please forgive me.
      How about this. We already have "Supply Drops" so why not Para Trooper drops with them.

      1. When a Supply Drop/w Para Trooper happens it'll be a Different Symbol/color

      2. You have to get a Certain type of Cargo Plane to patrol the area for x amount of time for the Para troop drop to happen.

      3. If the plane succeeds w/o getting shot down the drop is Successful.

      4. Para troops have to fight whatever ground units there are.

      5. If they win you get the Province ,Supply Drop, and whatever troops are left after the fight.

      6. If the province is taken any other way w/o the plane flyover you get the supply drop only.

      Thoughts?

    • <p>Well, I would follow the suggestion that we could send the paratroopers wherever we wish, in strategic and tactical terms they would serve to secure a newly won position, for a surprise attack picking up unprotected provinces, for reconnaissance of the place and so on. In addition it would not escape the historical consensus.</p><div><br></div><div>But for the parachutists to exist, they have to be a troop that must be researched, which at first must possess a similar strength of a militia, and imaginary something similar in this sequence:</div><div>Nv.1 (militia) &gt;&gt; Nv.2 (infralaria) &gt;&gt; Nv.3 (motorized infiltration) &gt;&gt; Nv.4 (mechanized infiltration) &gt;&gt; Nv.5 (commands);</div><div>Of course, as the unit is being improved, the province must have the same production requirements as the original unit, eg: In order to produce an Nv.4 parachute unit that would be the mechanized infantry, the province must have the same infrastructure requirements, barracks and</div><div>plant, as it was producing the mechanized</div><div>Logically normal units of infrantry could not become a unit of paratrooper for not having been trained for this.</div><div><br></div><div>In addition, they had to have their own transport (transport) aircraft, which in my opinion should have a relatively small area and fixed from the point of origin, and if the unit is produced in one province and transported to another to serve their purpose) they must be in the state of transportation truck.</div><div><br></div><div>Probably this unit would be used massively from the point of being unlocked until the end of the match, so it should be a very expensive unit in fuel to balance its use in the game, as it will certainly be efficient in any strategic occasion, used correctly.</div>

    • kahue16 wrote:

      <p>Well, I would follow the suggestion that we could send the paratroopers wherever we wish, in strategic and tactical terms they would serve to secure a newly won position, for a surprise attack picking up unprotected provinces, for reconnaissance of the place and so on.

      In all you wrote you are not mentioning a possible counter to the use of paratroopers. As I mentioned in earlier posts being able to send paratroopers wherever is a big problem. This is a big problem for a diversity of reasons.

      - It would change the game beyond recognition compared to how things are now. To name a few things:

      - You would need anti-air troops in at least every single production type core province as soon as enemy para's are in range.

      - Strategies and thus tactics would revolve around the use of paratroopers for a large part.

      - It would require a lot more active play than is the case now.

      - You would have to have a lot of fast reaction troops within a certain time span of every important place on a map, again straining your upkeep expenses and thus the troops you have/can have in the game.

      - Some maps would become unplayable, try winning an antarcica map with paratroopers in the game. Holding the labs would become impossible. Every spiteful player could work with other spiteful players to keep every player from winning the map. Ever. Dealing with spiteful players in an Antarctica map is challenge enough as it is already. Besides, it would take the fun out of conquering maps versus both the AI and Pvp.

      - Landings would be a bit of a non issue. Having to support landings with carriers, sneaking troops into unexpected places would all vanish from strategies. Just drop para's wherever and pick a route to the coast, some will find their way.

      - It would make advancing into enemy territory lightning fast. Think about taking a big province that takes a long time to get to the center of. Not an issue if thanks to para's it is now your province. You could both advance fast and stall the enemy ON HIS OWN TERRITORY.

      Edepedable wrote:

      Sorry, the way you propose they would function is just to much of a game changer.
      I am not a fan of quoting myself but I also am not a fan of not showing that I am aware of what I said earlier. So yeah.... I quoted myself.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable

    • <p>Well you're right as the form of the game would change due to the deployment of the paratroopers, good for a long time people ask for the implementation of this type of unit, but we do not reach a consensus on how we put it in the game.</p><div><br></div><div>And if this unit were a special feature of the game, in which it could be used when it was paid for gold, it would also generate more arguments, since those who have more $$$ can use the paratroopers more reluctantly and have more advantages over freeplayers, but as more ideas emerge from how we put them in the game, we are then formulating a solution to that.</div>