On Suggesting Paratroopers

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

    • NashBean wrote:

      We were the 2nd wave, bumped up to just a few hours after 1st wave. Our track convoy with m110a3 was about 45 MPH. We drove non stop for 28 hours, help secure 101st first jump spot behind enemy lines. Did 3 or 4 hours of work to keep m110 going. By the 2nd day we were past As Salman airport. With France 6th Light Division clearing the tanks out as we pass by them. By the 3rd day the Sarin Gas was so thick, you could barly see your hand, we got the orders back to turn towards Kuwait. So we went from the left side, all the way to Kuwait. Then back to left side, just to come back again. We ended up going through Highway of Death 3 times.

      We stayed on the move, 0-5 day camp spots, mostly less then 2 days. For over 3 months.
      Here is a picture of me in one of the many fox holes I dug each time we stopped:
      motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/19910201_zaa_p138_003.jpg
      I am the one on right with a unloaded m60, with only one leg on the bypod down. And a tank of Iraqi Blood agent in background to the left.
      Thanks for the info, hope you had a fun time showing those Iraqi's why they shouldn't pick on smaller nations.
      Forum Gang Commissar



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

      How was coordination with the French ? I read that the French, while covering a flank efficiently, were basically doing the job on their own with little horizontal unit coordination, though of course Command was integrated.
      We stayed in touch with them by Radio, when we were on the left flank with them.
      They drove armored personnel tracks (think it was like a m577) They would stop before the tanks get out the back, set up a mortar, and blow the tank up :-).
      One time I was about to shoot one with a L.A.W. and right before I pulled the trigger. A French attack helicopter com over a hill and shot a rocket at it, blowing the top off of it. :) He was aimed at my gun at the time.

      Here is a picture found on wiki, where my gun section and one french guy checking out one of the tanks.:
      French Guy is the one with his helmet off. I am the one on left walking away with my new Iraqi entrenching tool.
      I used to dig more fox holes.

      upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…_during_the_Gulf_War.JPEG
    • If there are paratroopers, they should be weak. They would not have the weaponry or logistical support of other types of units. They would have to carry everything on themselves:(food, ammo, etc.). They had a limited amount of ammo. They usually didn't have reinforcements for their unit. They usually had to be reinforced by other types of units. They normally wouldn't have had machine guns, grenade launchers, trucks, etc. Often supplies for paratroopers didn't drop near the paratroopers. Often the supplies wound up in enemy controlled areas.
    • Lawrence Czl wrote:

      If there are paratroopers, they should be weak. They would not have the weaponry or logistical support of other types of units. They would have to carry everything on themselves:(food, ammo, etc.). They had a limited amount of ammo. They usually didn't have reinforcements for their unit. They usually had to be reinforced by other types of units. They normally wouldn't have had machine guns, grenade launchers, trucks, etc. Often supplies for paratroopers didn't drop near the paratroopers. Often the supplies wound up in enemy controlled areas.
      M8 paras are not weak in real life. They have special traning at all they can pick up with them lunchers (in ww2 lounchers on gun wasnt so usable like now) and granades if needed ... and if they are so weak tell me what they will do then ? Mooving like free frags on map ? What will be the special in them when u just drop some free frags from the air and if u do it with ur planes even risk to loose ur planes ? Paras are aways better trained soldiers from first line army troops isnt they ? They must be special in somethink not just some noob units droped from air. Why should u use them if they are weaker then infantry units in battlefield ? U cant do even one suprise attack with them if 1vs1 infantry kill them. They must be equal or strong then infantry (if they are strong then hard to create them, if equal then not so hard to be created) and they must mooving faster then enemy infantry in enemy teritories (in real they are special in mooving rly fast , quiet and strike down the enemy) maybie they must need when fighting vs 2 divisions ( 1 by 1 ofc ) supplay drop to continue fighting cuz they are limited ammo
    • God damn how do none of you para-fanboys understand logistics? You can't support paratroopers with heavy weaponry because that stuff can't be air dropped, so no matter how good their training is paratroopers are going to eat lead and get pinned down when an infantry division comes along with large howitzers, mortars, support vehicles and proper supply lines.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      infantry division comes along with large howitzers, mortars, support vehicles
      American airborne divisions included 4 battalions of airborne artillery, in addition to 3 or 4 regiments of parachute or glider infantry. Conventional U.S. infantry divisions had 3 battalions of 105 mm howitzers and 1 battalion of 155 mm howitzers. U.S. airborne divisions included 3 battalions of 75 mm pack howitzers and 1 battalion of 105 mm. Clearly, the U.S. airborne arty was lighter, but it was still better than most of what the German divisions had in the final year of the war.

      American and British airborne divisions also included Jeep or Land Rover scout vehicles delivered by glider. The scout vehicles could be used to tow airborne arty. The airborne arty was delivered by a combination of parachute drops and gliders.

      The biggest problems Allied airborne units had were lack of quick maneuverability once they were on the ground (no heavy trucks), and they had to be resupplied by air drops if they were surrounded, as they often were by design. U.S. Army doctrine called for airborne troops to be relieved within 3 to 4 days by conventional ground troops.

      As previously noted, American and British airborne troops were trained to a higher standard than conventional line infantry units, and were typically on par with American Ranger units in the hierarchy of elite troops. You don't have to be a "fan boy" to acknowledge that Allied airborne were as good or better than any other division-sized infantry units. Their key weakness was directly tied to their key strength: their ability to be air-dropped into tactical situations where they were completely surrounded by the enemy until they were relieved.
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      The biggest problems Allied airborne units had were lack of quick maneuverability once they were on the ground (no heavy trucks), and they had to be resupplied by air drops if they were surrounded, as they often were by design. U.S. Army doctrine called for airborne troops to be relieved within 3 to 4 days by conventional ground troops.
      Yeah I was about to say this. I have no qualms with para having infantry, just people expecting them to be able to combat a full infantry division.

      MontanaBB wrote:

      As previously noted, American and British airborne troops were trained to a higher standard than conventional line infantry units, and were typically on par with American Ranger units in the hierarchy of elite troops. You don't have to be a "fan boy" to acknowledge that Allied airborne were as good or better than any other division-sized infantry units. Their key weakness was directly tied to their key strength: their ability to be air-dropped into tactical situations where they were completely surrounded by the enemy until they were relieved.
      No debate on this either, I fully agree. This does not mean though that para have any major advantage over an infantry division as the para have to attack the infantry who will be dug in and have heavier weaponry, and proper lines of resupply.

      As well as this, troops in this game have no levels of training, it is all standard. So while paratroopers may be very well trained, it's not like they will be landing on poorly trained conscripts either, they will be landing on a bog standard infantry division who will definitely give them a hard time.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • I just logged on to this forum to specifically request paratroopers!

      (There seems to be a great deal of digression in this thread that should just be deleted.)

      I think Paratroopers should be on the Research Tree enabled via Commandos. IOW, Commandos need to be researched first, AND, level 3 Heavy Bombers ; BUT, you should be able to build Paratroopers at any Level 3 Air-strip.

      Thanks for listening.
    • OK, so I understand that paratroopers would be completely game-changing, but here's an Idea I don't know if anybody ever suggested: what if they're incapable of capturing territory, and slower than militia on the ground? Combine that with inability to fight tanks, and high level buildings needed to build, and it doesn't matter if they're game changing because nobody will ever use them anyways.
      Forum Gang Premier :thumbsup:




      you are a balls
    • GreatbigHippo wrote:

      OK, so I understand that paratroopers would be completely game-changing, but here's an Idea I don't know if anybody ever suggested: what if they're incapable of capturing territory, and slower than militia on the ground? Combine that with inability to fight tanks, and high level buildings needed to build, and it doesn't matter if they're game changing because nobody will ever use them anyways.
      Then what is the point of implementing them beyond stopping these cancer threads, which are pretty much limited to this one nowadays? The devs have a to-do list as long as my arm and then some, no point in making a crappy unit like paratroopers just for the sake of it.

      Also, if paratroopers are crap, you and I both know the forum will be flooded with requests to buff them.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      GreatbigHippo wrote:

      OK, so I understand that paratroopers would be completely game-changing, but here's an Idea I don't know if anybody ever suggested: what if they're incapable of capturing territory, and slower than militia on the ground? Combine that with inability to fight tanks, and high level buildings needed to build, and it doesn't matter if they're game changing because nobody will ever use them anyways.
      Then what is the point of implementing them beyond stopping these cancer threads, which are pretty much limited to this one nowadays? The devs have a to-do list as long as my arm and then some, no point in making a crappy unit like paratroopers just for the sake of it.
      Also, if paratroopers are crap, you and I both know the forum will be flooded with requests to buff them.
      Well, they could intercept convoy, delay units, etc.

      But I would be just happy with slow units that cannot beat an entrenched infantry (but can totally thrash a militia not in hills/forest.
    • Restrisiko wrote:

      Unfortunately, really unfortunately, the real function of paratroopers does not fit the basic / original methodology (the basicly gameplay) of CoW - keywords: province hopping (ability to skip provinces) and conquest speed (because "time brakes" are essential in a (browser-) wargame where players are mostly online at different times).

      But taking out these two primary skills of the paratroopers or just adapting them to relations of the game (which will be necessary, as has been so by all other units) will make paratroopers useless from the outset (what they are anyway in this game).

      And then they so or so will be nothing more than a fun gimmick for action- and reality freaks, because they couldn't do something really better as what you can do anyhow without them (and even more efficiently / effectively) with already existing units.

      Since I joined CoW in 2015, I have never experienced a game situation where I needed or even missed paratroopers. If one do not want to create a completely different game, paras are unnecessary.

      Yeah :D , stay relaxed please, this is as always only Restrisikos personal rational opinion :thumbup:

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

      and slower than militia on the ground?
      I usually don't add to these paratrooper threads, but this idea interested me. I am not in favor of adding paratroopers, but if they were added I think they could work like this:


      Paratroopers would be a researchable unit. Prerequisites of Commandos and level 2 strat bomber


      Could be built similar to commandos in capital with L3 barracks AND a L2 airbase.


      So what you get would be a single use plane. Think along the lines of an atomic bomber. The attack function of the plane would capture the province when it was undefended, although even a fractional amount of anti air defense in any form would prevent the attack and destroy the plane.

      A sucessful attack would consume the plane, and leave a commando unit at the province


      Like atomic bombers the plane is lost during the attack, so you only have the one commando unit on the ground and you can't get him back aboard another plane. You can only produce another paratrooper plane unit. No reusability.


      You can't stack the planes with any other planes or with multiple paratrooper planes. So you can only deliver ONE commando per province because you can only attack the enemy province once. Once you capture the province you can't land additional paratroopers there.


      The range of the paratrooper is up for discussion I guess. It probably should not be 800 kilometers, but perhaps more than a naval bomber range.

      Of course we could instead of strat bombers use naval bombers and make them carrier capable, just with a really short range.




      I think these conditions would be the closest way to merge the paratrooper idea into the way the game works.

      Without ground forces being able to reach the area soon, the paratroop unit is surrounded and easily eliminated. They will rely on friendly airforces to keep the enemies from overrunning their position.

      The paratroop unit can begin construction or repairs on an airbase, which can project airpower deeper into the enemy territory. I suppose with good luck and timing the paratroop could capture an enemy city where a unit was already being produced and be able to "comandeer" those units fresh off the assembly line.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • Captain Hurricane wrote:

      Can we have paratroopers?
      What for? ?(
      I ask ..

      .. for what are they be needed in this game (.. additional researched, extra produced, and after use needlessly feeded ..)?
      What could be done better with them, as already now and more efficient and effective with already existing units..?
      I know, I often asked this question in the same context; but so far I never received any reasonable explanatory answer ..
      .. please, help me and explain it to me ..

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