P A R A T R O O P E R S

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

    • P A R A T R O O P E R S

      So, I have a question for all of you;

      Why or why do you NOT want paratrooper units?

      Every time I or others have suggested this unit it is blasted by several people and supported by others. So, for those that do not support it, Why not? Why don't you want to see airborne?

      The superior and more intelligent ones that do support paratroopers, why do you support them and would like them added?

      Just want some intelligence and learn about the community without having to take a thread off-topic.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • I am among the against-ers... and I think I expressed my reasoning in maybe 5 different threads now. So when you want an in-depth, browse the forum for the older threads.

      Bottom line, 90% of the provs are empy at any given time, and it becomes impossible to form "fronts" where you can rely on, especially when offline.

      Most people supporting paratroopers are thinking about clever and devastating ways of attacking their enemies with them. Few people think how they will defend against them.

      And you should think again about considering yourself "superior" because of an opinion.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      So, I have a question for all of you;

      Why or why do you NOT want paratrooper units?

      ..
      I like them -- but as everybody knows who has at least halfway understood the basic gameplay mechanics of CoW it is obvious that paratroopers unfortunately can not be implemented -- at least not in their typical use, unless you want create and play a different game as the original CoW.

      For this reason I'm against paratroopers here at CoW, because I like CoW as it is with its game basis, but I dont like any action-shooter-like clones or, as exemple, CoN where you by the way have paras.

      Restrisiko wrote:


      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Browsergames sind eine geniale, mehr oder weniger geschickt als Spielattrappe getarnte Geschäftsidee zum Kohleziehen :!:
      Also Vorsicht, es können überall Fußangeln, Stolperdrähte und Selbstschussanlagen lauern :00000156:
      Achtung!
      Texte oberhalb dieser Signatur können Spuren von Ironie enthalten ;)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Restrisiko ().

    • JCS Darragh wrote:


      The superior and more intelligent ones that do support paratroopers, why do you support them and would like them added?
      For starters I don't want paratroopers partly because some of the people who want them are jerks who can't be polite and don't know how to listen.
      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
      Senior Game Operator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • I like Paratroopers and I want them in CoW. :thumbsup:

      But they need to be restricted and good balanced integrated in the game mechanics.
      The only way I see at the moment is that they are a development of the Commandos and can only be used one time as Paratroopes. After the first us they are only Commands until the end of the game.


      AND when they come the upkeep in grain for Militia and Infantry must be reduced to have units that can protect provinces form attack with Paratroopers.


      Registration for round two is open! - The Dirty Dozen
    • Yet another paratrooper thread...

      I will say it again. We already have paratroops.. They are called Military Espionage spies.

      How else are we placing spies in cities all around the world instantly?

      And the military espionage spy does exactly what paratroopers did, with the exception of engaging the enemy.

      Lets just rename military espionage spies paratroops, and give them a small chance of damaging garrisoned units in the provs they are placed.

      That would give folks the paratroops they have been asking for, and wouldn't require extensive reprogramming of the game mechanics. Nor would it throw off game balance.
    • Stormbringer50 wrote:

      I will say it again. We already have paratroops.. They are called Military Espionage spies.
      What?

      We want a tangible unit, something we can see, a unit we can command and destroy things with. Paratroopers weren't spies, they were infantrymen that could parachute. It's not really suggesting paratroopers either, its just a general conversation about them where I hope some eventual agreement can be made about them and why people don't or do, want them in CoW.


      VorlonFCW wrote:

      For starters I don't want paratroopers partly because some of the people who want them are jerks who can't be polite and don't know how to listen.
      B-But I'm not like that right onee-chan? ;(
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      B-But I'm not like that right
      Of course not, you are superior and more intelligent as you say. ;)
      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
      Senior Game Operator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • Oh yikes. Another paratrooper thread. Summed up in one word for my point of view: No. I like the research tree as it is, and as Stormbringer has said, military espionage is basically paratroopers. CoW is different from real war. In real war, there is always a second line of defense and much more complicated, whereas in CoW, you don't have resources for a second line, and therefore, most of your provinces would be empty = if someone breaks through your defense, you're screwed. What point is there for elaborate and supposedly invincible defenses that takes days to create when there's one troop that simply bypasses the defenses with the production of a few hours?
      "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)
    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      Of course not, you are superior and more intelligent as you say.
      Sarcasm detected?
      I didn't actually mean that ones who want paratroopers are superior and intelligent, that was supposed to be a joke that makes you go haha

      Little Racoon wrote:

      you don't have resources for a second line, and therefore, most of your provinces would be empty = if someone breaks through your defense, you're screwed.
      > [insert person screaming about militia and anti-air defenses here]
      Not to mention, you could just put units in major cities and industrial areas that you want defended. Throw some AT, AA, a light tank or medium tank battalion and that's pretty much it for any airborne operation that occurs.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

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

    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      Not to mention, you could just put units in major cities and industrial areas that you want defended. Throw some AT, AA, a light tank or medium tank battalion and that's pretty much it for any airborne operation that occurs.
      Large empires tend to have a lot of these, and small nations tend to have very little units for these.
      "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)
    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      R.I.P. Small nations then, War isn't supposed to be fair..

      :rolleyes:
      Yahy! [sarcasm] I can’t wait to play as GB, having to fill 3/4 of my land with AA and militia, while keeping a navy, killing all my economy to protect against any invader from the mainland cause they can simply drop a infantry unit(or god forbid a damn commando) anywhere they want within the plane range[/sarcasm]

      :whistling: I honesty would love to see Devs to actually implement them in A pioneer and all the usual suspect that suggest paratrooper actually defend against them
      It’s also funny how such usual suspect always have a perfect defense against them while also having a perfect attack with them completely forgetting that resource aren’t coming out of thin air
      Display Spoiler
      unless you use gold, then ok I guess
    • Simple, don't put AA and Militia in every province, just the important ones that you want defended. If you look at what me and a couple others have suggested in the past, we suggest a unit cap of 5 - 10. That way it is able to be defeated and not be overpowered, plus, having 60+ airborne units dropped in isn't realistic, I don't think even every air fleet in the world at the time could handle that many aircraft.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • Sigh. So we're done with the gameplay arguments now, and revert to "realism"?

      OK, ONE MORE TIME on realism then...

      With the possible exception of Crete, NO SINGLE airborne operation in WW2 conquered ANY significant area on its own. They were always relying on land or seaborne troops to relieve them.

      From a historical/simulation perspective, the only realistic implementation would be: join them into regular stacks of other troops. When "enough" are present, the "enemy territory" speed penalty would be bypassed or diminished.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      60+ airborne units dropped in isn't realistic, I don't think even every air fleet in the world at the time could handle that many aircraft.
      What I meant by this is that we shouldn't have the ability to drop 60 divisions into enemy territory, we shouldn't even be able to have 60 airborne divisions at once. I simply meant that if airborne was implemented that we should have a unit cap and a time to drop cap (I.E. one drop every 24 hours, etc, not realistic but fair) to balance them out. I'm not trying to go into Crete, Market Garden, etc. Like you said, airborne was relying on land and seaborne troops, if players decide to use airborne units and go from Brest, France to Berlin, then that is their choice and that unit will probably be killed.


      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      With the possible exception of Crete, NO SINGLE airborne operation in WW2 conquered ANY significant area on its own. They were always relying on land or seaborne troops to relieve them.
      Airborne weren't apart of regular units, they had their own divisions (duh) and yes, they did capture significant area but not right after a drop, they didn't just forget all the training they had and die, they were able to fight and capture towns, cities, etc. No one division was able to capture an entire province by itself. They had their own jeeps, trucks, artillery, half tracks, all of it. We don't want a simple speed boost to our units, we want to be able to drop airborne troops into enemy territory.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      Simple, don't put AA and Militia in every province, just the important ones that you want defended.
      sure, tell me which one is not an important province in GB? Or Cuba? Or even Philippine? Let’s not get Japan opionion neither :S
      Your unit cap is useless too since I can just stack them and drop them all in a go to avoid a naval fight, get your defense completely made empty and march in your land willynilly.... the time cap is the most logical thing and even then will make the troops useless since you drop one, I chase it with a tank and it’s gone with my economy still screw
      I repeat, whoever suggest paratroopers never even think about defending from them without screwing the economy severly
    • So, you would rather have unlimited airborne divisions that just 5 airborne divisions? The 5 airborne divisions aren't going to be like infantry divisions, they are going to have different stats than the infantry. 5 divisions + time cap is probably the fairest thing you could have with airborne. I do think about defending, it's quite easy in fact, the players will most likely try to take cities, so if you defend the cities you should be fine. Or even have a decent home defense stack, a couple arty, AA, militia, and you should be fine. If you actually look at the stats, or what we have been saying, the airborne would be demolished by any significant force.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      I do think about defending, it's quite easy in fact, the players will most likely try to take cities, so if you defend the cities you should be fine. Or even have a decent home defense stack, a couple arty, AA, militia, and you should be fine. If you actually look at the stats, or what we have been saying, the airborne would be demolished by any significant force.
      no you are not doing it. Make some simple math and you will figure out that whatever you are trying to suggest is just silly fantasy land ideas on a home defense stack :S : like you said couple of arty, AA, militia
      Count the ammount of food consume, manpower, resource and study resource(plus time to actually make all this) now multiply it for 11(closest regions to France in GB on a 22map. Or multiply it by 16 for Japan on a 50map. Or multiply yet again by 9 for Cuba in a 100map), and before even you try to point it out on people will just defend city.... ok they will not do that, (which if you do i hope to meet you in any game to curbstomp you in less than a day || ) I can take your resource regions and make you beg for mercy since you don’t have anymore resource to make an army therefor getting still screwed.


      Wanna do low stats? Sweet, now you still have to defend even if they are a 1hp units becasue otherwise as I said above you got all your resource region occupied therefor you can stuck your thumb in your :love: .... oh, and all this is also in parallel to making an actual attacking force unless you just enjoy watching other people play and you stay still for the match

      As I’ve said, people that suggest para never do their homework even after all the countless threads pointing facts about how silly it would be, always trying to justify it jump around between realism, fantasy land and amazing defense idea even tho the physical resource aren’t there unless you use gold for them