field hospitals is a no , this has been suggested many times. Also, explain what kind of helicopter

I agree with all points except 2 and 4.
Casualties of a war cannot go into a 'hospital' and 'heal' back up. They cannot fight back anymore during the duration of this war (in this case round).
Snipers are organically present within Infantry divisions itself ( i havent seen the xxth Sniper's regiment in WW2)

1. Helicopters have been suggested many times but had a minor use in WW2 and will not be implemented.
2. Wounded in Field Hospitals are mainly send home afterwards, the war for them is over. There's already a daily 15% healing process implemented at day change which covers the part of reinforcements and lightly wounded that are returning to their unit.
3. Chemical Warheads could be an option indeed, then again we have already nuclear so what would the incentive be to add it?
4. Every infantry unit has snipers integerated in on platoon level.
5. Mountain troops: we have commandos which are stealth and get 50% bonus in both mountains and forests.

agreeed with 1 and 3

were the Snipers an independent Unit in a regimental formation? I mean Were they ever made a regiment of their own?
For the most part they were combined in Infantry regiments as an organic unit on the platoon Level as stated by @BMfox.

Helicopters weren't used in WWII, if they were it was on a very minimal scale.
We have spies already in the game for sabotage actions.

I'd like transport planes in a competitive match. Suppose Italy trying to Reinforce it's Libyan colonies so they conquer Malta and use the airstrip there to send airborne divisions to fight the British in Africa etc etc. Can make tactics such as paratrooping troops then sending airborne divisions to support, a thing.

What is the difference between this new idea and paratroopers?

paratroopers land on enemy territory, Airborne divisions are transported ob captured airfields.

It's your post so you can discuss what you please. It's just that most ideas have been suggested plenty of times over the years. Some ideas like commandos, paratroopers, rocket artillery and attack bombers have been implemented thanks to the ideas of forum users like yourself. Other ideas like mine fields, trenches and so on are considered as fortifications with the aim not to complicate the game too much. The same goes for bio warheads, we already have nuclear warheads so we might complicate too much. Again the same for field hospitals, those are already calculated in the 15% damage heal up at day change.

Troop transport planes would be amazing to have. "During World War II, the Air Force acquired 10,174 DC-3s, produced as C-47 military transport planes—the same type of troop carriers that parachuted men into Normandy. The planes became renowned for their easy operation and maintenance, as well as for their strength and flexibility. In fact, hundreds of DC-3s are still in the skies today."

"During World War II there was little debate as to what was desired of a transport aircraft: it was one that was equally useful for the delivery of either cargo or troops to their destination. However, the only aircraft specifically developed during the war for this purpose was the Fairchild/North American C-82 Packet that did not see service until after the war. Meantime, great resourcefulness was displayed in meeting emergency demands using the aircraft and equipment that was readily available. Those aircraft, forming the backbone of the Army Air Force’s (AAF) transport fleets, were the C-47, C-54 and the C-46."

amcmuseum.org/history/world-wa…nsport-and-troop-carrier/


Please note that 1 unit in COW is a Brigade or Division. You can already Imagine how complicated this would be as you would need quite a lot of planes to transport one single unit in the game. How much I like the idea, it seems to me that it wouldn't be practical.

Let me say straight away, that for much of this game's player base, the game gets more difficult and less enjoyable as it gets more complicated. For real "strategists", complicated games aren't such an issue if it adds more thinking and options, but not all of us are strategists. So, a large emphasis is put on keeping it simple. This ruins most realistic improvements. This game's pretty enjoyable for strategists and yet simple enough for everyone, so we're trying to keep this wonderful balance like that and prefer changes that don't require more learning efforts from lower-level players.

Helicopters:
Not considering historical aspects there, as I'm not really sure about them, but I could hardly see a way to find an important strategic role for helicopters without complicating the game. You could, for example, make them a scout unit that doesn't need airports (operates from any friendly territory) and is cheap, but without combat capabilities, etc. But such a change would require a major rework of the whole balancing, as scouting is very important in high-level play. The strategies are affected by scouting considerably (eg. it makes most of the defender's advantage) and are very well balanced, so it's not wise to play around with this. Many other suggestions deal with such problems.

Field hospitals:
No need for that. It, again, would be a needless complication of the game. It also has to be mentioned what a role healing has. For example, if an army of 100 tanks fights 10, the larger army's health % and therefore damage efficiency goes down 10x slower. This results in the army of 100 winning with 94% hp left. Damage is lowered with health and to get an army's potential strength, we multiply health by damage. So, the 94% army only has 95.2% damage, meaning its strength is only about 89% of an identical 100% health army. This suggests that healing has a major impact. Field hospitals would give advantage to a more active player capable of managing all the armies and building hospitals where needed, so micromanagement would get more, overall strategy less important. It'd also give advantage to the defending side, who can arrive to heal faster, though that's kind of in the current healing mechanism already.
Healing mechanism - Units regain 15% of the missing health at daychange if on own (even conquered) land; planes when using an own airstrip/factory (not carrier), ships except convoys anywhere. Units don't heal on forced march or convoy but can be moving or fighting. The terrain, buildings and morale have no effect.

Chemical warheads:
Not sure about this, as I know very little about it. However, contamination is a feature that's not in the game at all, so it would add quite a bit of new complication. On the other hand, it would also be a new strategic feature and would be different from other kinds of attacks - rockets deal one-time damage and can't hit moving targets, and aren't exceptionally good against other armour classes. Same about flying bombs, except weaker and can be shot down. Other units are interceptable (artillery by bombers, rocket arty; bombers by airport snipes, fighters; other units in close combat). So it could be an interesting new feature. But again, we mostly value simplicity over realism.

Sniper unit + mountain troops:
You're suggesting a unit capable of getting rid of infantry and good in mountains, with low health. Low health exposes it to bombers, so it'd be useable defensively. This would, though, make snipers+commandos+advanced mountain defence (bombers, airport snipe units etc) an impenetrable strategy in mountains especially.
Mountain troops may resolve that, but they'd have to be quite fast if you're the attacker, which would basically reduce the strategical importance of mountains. They are a pain intentionally as they change the way you play a country and force good planning to somehow deal with or take advantage of the difficult terrain's presence.

Transport planes:
Same as with field hospitals. Fronts are still an important part of the play and the options of plane attacks, sneaking around with land units etc. are very important for skilled players. Transport planes would require a large rework of the strategy, unit and doctrine balancing (take the speed penalty of Allies, for example, getting insignificant if you can transport).

Kamikaze bombers:
There isn't much difference between them and flying bombs, nuke bombers resp. As planes capable of using air transfer and reacting quickly, they would have a similar role like other bombers, anyways.

Minefields and denying infrastructure:
Minefields are a nice idea and have been suggested already. They are inflexible, as you can't move them once built, and directly convert resources into damage or battle advantage. They could damage enemy units in their forward assault, and reduce their combat capability severely (as mentioned, health has more impact than it seems to have!)
For those reasons, it's a good addition to the strategy. It forces you to predict enemy movements and place minefields correctly. The only downside I see is it favours active and skilled players, so some lower-level or busy ones would have even more difficulty. How much of an issue that is, is hard to say, though.
Denying infrastructure is an interesting feature, but the increase in complexity and effort to learn the game is quite high if we consider how little this feature adds to the strategy. Infrastructure is quite rare to be used. You could implement barricades instead, which would then have the same impact as difficult terrain. However, that means you can adapt the country to your strategy more, and certain strategies could get too powerful. Imagine Tibet barricading its weak side while it also has the arty-plane-AC doctrine. Good luck defeating that. So, it would once again require a larger balancing adjustment.

Concentration camps:
One could, you know, say it'll encourage players - in roleplay for example - to mention crimes against human rights, etc. But I think it's not very useful either, as building recruiting stations would anyway increase manpower and cost food and goods, which could be used for propaganda offices otherwise. Manpower is also a key resource in limiting late-game production, so I'd be careful with adjusting it.

You may feel like I'm conservative trying to refuse new ideas. I'd say though, that it's more of a logic issue. This game's been evolving for a long time and a lot of strategic features are hidden in the complexity of the game that may look far more simple at first glance. It's been adjusted for years and though 1.5 is still quite new, it's well-balanced already. There are many ideas that seem good and aren't suitable due to those hidden aspects because it's been adjusted for years and an idea that has no such hidden aspects would very likely have been suggested and implemented already.

The only one that seems to me as a 100% good idea is the chemical warheads. Mines/fortifications, snipers, and field hospitals are all already factored into the game, they just aren't shown. Despite being "used" in WWII, helicopters never saw combat and were never used on a large enough scale for this game. Similarly, kamikaze planes weren't used on a scale large enough either. Usually, pilots kamikazed after they had run out of munitions, or were too badly damaged to rtb. If transport planes were to be implemented, they'd have to take hours to embark and disembark and be relatively slow for an aerial unit. Chemical warheads would be similar to nukes, except they are cheaper and deal less damage. Perhaps they deal more damaged to non-armored (foot/infantry) units, though irl armored and grounded aerial units would still be affected just the same by a chemical attack.

There are already some sort of mountains units in the game. Commandos are one and only such unit that can fight in mountains. Did that help?

NUCLEAR WARHEADS are already in the game. I don't know if you meant that. But with the Field Hospitals... well CON (Conflict of Nations) already have this, I know you can heal you units anyway in your own core provinces but I think those building should be introduced to make healing quicker. CHEMICAL warfare was not really a thing in WW2 as opposed to WW1.

I am well aware that nukes are in the game. I'm saying that chem bombs would function similarly to nukes, but would have the changes I suggested earlier. Additionally, gas warfare (while not used as extensively as WWI) was used commonly. The Nebelwerfer was created to launch chemical and smoke mortar shells, and was originally issued exclusively to chemical warfare units. The allies used chemical gasses in Italy, though the extent to which they used it is unknown. There was an incident where an allied cargo transport docked in a recently liberated town was blown up. The entire town and beyond was sickened and livestock died, because the ship was carrying chemical gasses. The allies quickly took care of the affected people, but the incident gives definite proof that the allies did engage in (limited) chemical warfare as well.

That's not to mention white phosphorus, which was used extensively both to deploy a smokescreen and to injure or kill people.

EDIT: Field hospitals are already "in the game", just not the way you think. IRL, those too injured to fight would more often than not be sent back home. Their fighting days were over. Those with minor injuries would be sent back to fight. The only way to "heal" a unit would be to replenish their numbers with fresh recruits. And that's not even taking into account broken equipment.

If the game were to realistically implement field hospitals as buildings, they'd regenerate maybe 10% of the units current health over the course of one day. They could only be built in non-core, non-urban provinces and would be relatively cheap and quick to build. They could not be leveled up.

Another solution would be "Supply Depots", which would be able to "heal" a unit completely, but would take several days. These would be about as expensive as industry, and would could only be built in urban provinces. These could be leveled up.

4. Sniper unit, 6. transport planes and 8. Minefields.

It may contain my misunderstanding, but in Call of War,
( 1 ) More larger than the regiment if it was an land Army, more larger than the company if it was a ships and aircraft
( 2 ) Corps-scale operation was not performed

So transport and freighters will not be implemented as troops are basically ignored seemed to be accepted as an accepted opinion.

However, I feel that a little inspection is actually needed.

A total of 8,000 to 9,000 Beechcraft model 18 ( = C-45 Expeditors ) were provided to the military and civilians, of which at least 1,700 belonged to somewhere in the Allied Forces during World War II.
Some have become variants of bombers and reconnaissance aircraft, but vice versa.
Conversely, it appears that only 38 were produced Douglas B-23 Dragons that falls under the Allied Doctrine's Tactical Bomber Level 3 unit.
Top level units such as the Martin XB-48 etc. are only in almost single digits.
( Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortresses that Level 3 strategic bomber of Allied Doctrine is produced 25. )