Add transport planes/Paratroopers

Let's hope that the "right time" comes sooner, rather than later, to add a new airborne infantry unit to Call of War. I think any honest, representative survey of Call of War's existing players would put an airborne unit at the top of players' wish list of new units to be added to the game.

We can do this if we want to do this, and we can do it in a meaningful way that does not "wreck" the game. The solutions to the perceived "problems" melt away under an analysis and careful consideration of unit design elements in light of the historic World War II reality.

What everyone keeps forgetting... WW2 airborne units were capable of conquering a VERY SMALL piece of ground (a bridge, a city, a ridge), and then fortified there waiting for relief troops (ground attack or seaborne). Their role would be to block enemy supply lines, disrupt enemy assembly, or capture key objectives undamaged (e.g. a bridge), for OTHER troops to use and exploit.

What they would ABSOLUTELY NOT do, is capture CoW-province-sized areas (like 100x100 kilometers or more) and occupy them. ANY use of paratroopers to do such a thing would be EVEN MORE inaccurate as nuclear carriers for this era (territory-controlling airborne troops wouldn't be deployed till 1980-2000 era).

Though many provinces are to large to be captured by airborne, there are several that are very realistic targets. Malta, Crete, Cyprus, and Rhodes immediately come to mind. I think it may also very by map. I noticed on a brief exposure on the 25 player map, that territory size felt much smaller.

Well, even the historical attack on Crete was about gaining control of an airfield for reinforcements to come in. With out that airfield, Crete would not have fallen. Even with the airfield, the German High Command decided it was too expensive to ever do again.

Maybe paratroopers shouldn't conquer a province, but damage it in someway. They could damage buildings slightly, they could weaken some troops or at least help the attacking team know the numbers, and/or they could also slow down unit transportation through that province. Depending on all the numbers, it would be unlikely for them to be able to do all three, but these are just suggestions. And shouldn't somebody address something about their range? Maybe they need to go with an interceptor to be dropped off, and whatever plane you send to drop these paratroopers off shouldn't be a warplane for down below, because they would end up killing their own men. I guess you could send some warplanes along just to protect the interceptor and paratroopers, but I don't know. Just giving some ideas...

If we're going to make the new airborne infantry unit completely worthless, then let's not even bother creating it.

Where did we get this preposterous idea that paratroopers cannot take and hold ground? Yes, they could and they did. They were elite infantry, i.e., they were better trained, better paid, and had higher morale and esprit de corps than most conventional infantry units. While they had certain weaknesses, they invariably kicked ass against other infantry. Hell, the Germans thought just calling an infantry division "paratroopers" was worth several thousand extra men, and they used 5 or 6 of them as conventional elite infantry on all three fronts for the rest of the war after 1941.

A bit ironic that players don't bat an eye at militia units being able to conquer provinces, but somehow, paratroopers should not be able to.

Compared to the other absurdities in the game:
A. Warships must stop to fire.
B. Warplanes can remain on indefinite patrols.
C. Ranged units are just as effective at max range as they are point-blank.
......

Wayne, I think we both know that there is a rump minority of older players who oppose the addition of a new paratrooper unit because they believe that it will disrupt existing game play and destroy the game as we know it. Bah! Humbug! And if they can't stop the addition of the new unit, then they want to neuter it to make it as worthless as possible. Even most of the forum staff, most of whom were once opposed to the idea, are now behind it.

My reaction: if we're going to create a worthless unit, then don't bother.

I have repeatedly and consistently said that the solutions to the various issues raised lay in tracking the historical strengths and weaknesses of actual World War II paratroops, and limiting their numbers in a manner consistent with elite training and limited air transport capacity. They were not supermen, but they had unique mission capabilities and were reknowned for the superior fighting ability. I'm not going to repeat myself again, but these issues can be resolved, as I have previously outlined on sever occasions.

I never thought about it like that, but the first and third absurdities are not so easy to fix. And you need to realize the patrols the warplanes go on are until they die. And might I just add, militia and paratroopers are different units. Militia are weak ground troops, while paratroopers are supposed to be these over-powered air troops. If we are going to make these paratroopers, we might as well make some crazy requirements for them if nothing else. The research requirements include commandos, maxed air research, and maxed rockets. Plus, these units should only be able to be created in the capital, because of their skill.

the research requirements for paratroops should include maxed rockets?

the list of absurdities continues to grow!

I would be happy with paratroopers if we just fixed submarines first.

I still remember my shock at watching a bunch of submarines eat an equal number of patrol planes. Absolutely ludicrous.

As for paratroopers, I would be very cautious about making them any stronger than infantry of the same age / tech level.

Yes the individual paratrooper was better trained and motivated however the typical infantryman was supported at the regimental level by a huge host of equipment and supplies that the paratrooper simply could not bring to the battle field.

The efforts to add artillery and armored fighting vehicles to paratrooper deployments is an indicator of just how badly those capabilities were missed by the paratrooper. With out them, the paratrooper was not going to hold ground for long.

If we must give them strong stats, make them fragile. They can't absorb a lot of damage before significantly degraded.

OK, lets look at the major paratrooper operations of the war (regiment and up), their objectives, how they were executed, and the extent of the ground the paratroopers took:

Netherlands, may 1940. Two-fold operation; targets: capturing airfields near The Hague (wiped out by security-level defenses), and capturing major river bridges for the advance of 9th Panzer division (succesful). Territorial: no more than 5 km diameter.

Crete, may 1941.Airborne troops dropping on one major and two minor airstrips. Reinforcements flown in by regular transport planes to those airfields after capture. Territorial by air drop: no more than 3x 5 km.

Vyazma, Russia, january 1942. Corps (planned) / Brigade (actual)-sized unit dropping in the rear of German army group Center to prevent their retreat. Unsuccesful, widely scattered. Linking up and incorporated into ground forces afterwards. Territorial gains: hard to find sources, but very limited.

Sicily, july 1943. British and American paratroopers taking and holding tactical objectives (road crossings, high grounds, and bridges), meant to support the advance of a seaborne invasion force. Territorial by air drop: several pockets each less than 5 km diameter (though the Americans were scattered over a much larger area, they operated mostly as commando/raid troops without holding ground).

Dniepr, Russia, september 1943. Russian air drop to reinforce an existing bridgehead across the Dniepr river in the aftermath of the Kursk battle. Territorial: 25km, together with ground troops.

Normandy, june 1944. Three American/British divisions landing at the outer borders of the intended beachhead, mainly to block German reinforcements deployment to the battlefield. Contact with seaborne invasion troops on the same day. Territorial by air drop: < 15 km (101st on Cherbourg peninsula).

Southern France, august 1944. 5,000 mixed troops dropping to secure advance routes for a seaborne invasion. Territorial: less than 10 km.

Netherlands, september 1944. Three American-British divisions plus a Polish brigade landing in a "string" to secure a highway and the bridges in it, to ease an advance of British ground forces. Territorial: about 50 km long, 3-10 km wide, with many gaps in between (that's still much less than a CoW province!)

Germany, march 1945. Two British-American division dropping across the Rhine river to secure exploit routes for ground troops crossing the Rhine by boat. Territorial: about 15km diameter.



CONCLUSION:
With the possible exception of Crete, ALL of those operations were in direct conjunction with a regular ground attack or seaborne invasion. Closer examination of each of those operation will show that the paratroopers would have been quickly and completely wiped out (indeed, none of those operations would ever have been executed), if no ground/seaborne troops had been involved. Paradrop ONLY conquest of a CoW-sized province (and please don't start about those small island provs now)
was done by air drop only ONCE (Crete), and even then, only when additional ground forces were flown in by transport planes.

Your CONLCUSION is FLAWED, because you have gone searching for a conclusion and then looked for evidence to support it, rather than comprehending the history at hand. Here's reality: that NO SINGLE UNIT OF ANY TYPE -- armor, conventional infantry, motorized/mechanized infantry, artillery, anti-aircraft, anti-tank, etc. -- is capable of holding out indefinitely when surrounded and confronted by superior forces. Even the much-vaunted armor units make lousy occupation troops when they are unsupported by infantry -- unsupported armor becomes vulnerable to a variety of very effective anti-armor tactics. In this regard, paratroops are different primarily for one reason: their unique ability to be inserted behind enemy lines. Beyond that, any differences in fighting capability, when surrounded, is only a matter of degree when compared with other unit types. And once they are on the ground, they become conventional infantry.

As for "CoW-sized provinces," no single regiment (1500+ men) or brigade (600+ men, plus vehicles) of any kind could hope to seize and hold a province the size of Brittany or Kamchatka or the population of New York or London. But that's the game dynamic, and that's the level of granularity/abstraction at which this game is designed. The solution to the "problem" you raise is simple: counter-attack. If someone wants to risk dropping a couple of airborne infantry regiments one province behind your front lines, then use your forces to wipe them out. Otherwise, the fault is yours as the defender. The same dynamic will apply in the game as in historical reality: if the airborne infantry cannot be reinforced, and they have been dropped in the midst of superior forces, they will be wiped out. And it is incumbent upon the player dropping them to assess their chances for success, and it is the obligation of the defending player to take them down.

BTW, I recited the same history as you did three weeks ago. You would do well to re-read the recent threads on the proposed new paratroops/airborne unit, rather than re-hashing the same ground again. And again. And again . . . . most of these questions have already been asked, and answered, several times over.

F., you may want to review the recent changes to the anti-ship capabilities of the naval bomber units, as well as the changes to the AA capability of the submarine units. We won't know the full impact of the changes until we've played with them for several weeks/months, but obviously the most recent changes are a step or two in the right direction.

Yes, and I have witnessed the same result, and bitched bitterly about it. Repeatedly. Apparently we have finally been heard.

And I was not suggesting that they should be stronger than conventional infantry, only attacking the silly idea that paratroops were somehow incapable of taking and holding ground in comparison to, say, conventional infantry. Once they're on the ground, paratroops are effectively conventional infantry.

In previous discussions where I have outlined how a historically representative in-game airborne infantry regiment could be designed, I have suggested that they would have the same offensive and defensive characteristics as conventional infantry vs. all other unit types, with the exception of armor, against which they would be somewhat weaker than conventional infantry because of their inability to bring along heavier anti-armor weapons in the same quantity as a typical conventional infantry unit. Their need to be resupplied, and their reduced ability to carry a full supply train of a typical conventional infantry unit, would be represented by a reduced number of hit points in comparison to an in-game conventional infantry unit -- say 12 or 13 hit points for an airborne infantry regiment vs. 15 hit points for all other types of infantry regiments.

FYI, Hitler drew the wrong conclusion. The Crete operation was successful, and it circumvented the Royal Navy's superiority on the sea. Yes, the cost was far higher than previous German airborne operations for two reasons: (1) the Germans actually attacked a numerically superior enemy on Crete; and (2) thanks to the ENIGMA decrypts of German communications, there was no element of surprise because the Brits knew the Germans were coming. It was just one more example among many where the Germans got mauled and they had no idea why.

The Germans were so confident of the unbreakable ENIGMA coding machines, it never dawned on them to completely change their coding system mid-war as an intelligence counter-measure. Churchill even warned Stalin of the impending German invasion of Russia 10 days to two weeks before it happened, and Stalin chose to ignore him. The Germans, for their part, were so smart and so blinded by their own arrogance; at some point they started to believe their own propaganda of superiority.

I have been slow to respond to this subject, because there have been a lot of points made by many intelligent people, and I dont wanna get slammed. But, I'm gonna have a go at it.

Transport planes:
Should be their own separate unit, researched and leveled up much like an aircraft carrier, so increased capacity as level increases. Level 1 carries 1 unit of any type (even heavy tank), level 5 carries 5. Transports have no offensive or defensive capability, but have hit points the same as strategic bombers. Transport planes used like this fly from allied airbase to airbase like any other plane, and can disembark immediately at the friendly field. Simple.

Airborne: Level 2 of commandos on Secret tab. Same stats as commandos, except for the mountain boost. Can definitely capture provinces. They require embarking onto a transport plane at a friendly airbase. Then, while patrolling over the target province, they can disembark. Disembarking takes 15 minutes to half hour, and during this time airborne are very vulnerable, and are reduced in hps much like an airplane convoy. There should be a strength penalty when jumping into a forest.

What keeps them from being OP?
must research transport planes and the unit itself

ABorne units might take a province with only 1 or 2 units,but they may not be able to hold it if they dont get reinforced.

By the time plane can carry 4 or 5 units to drop, there would be the potential someone would have spammed nuclear missles and bombers anyway., so in comparison not OP.

A single interceptor could shoot down a transport plane full of expensive units, making it risky to send airborne into enemy territory.

I hope this helps

Ouch, whence does this anger come? Please, refrain from personal attacks, I'm trying to have a civilized discussion. I'm very sorry, but I may have lost track among the endless amount of "Paratroop" threads... but I haven't seen the "no historical conquest by parachute" issue discussed any time recent. I have read the recent discussion(s), and concluded that it focuses on different WAYS to implement prov-conquering paratroopers... but I disagree with the entire concept of it.

I'm not re-hashing, I just noticed you apparently didn't read my argument before, so I pointed you to this thread again to avoid cluttering yet ANOTHER general thread with endless "paratrooper" discussion. If, in your opinion, my arguments have already been adressed and refuted, please point me to the thread where that was, for I must have missed it. Actually the article you just wrote is the FIRST I think defending the PRINCIPLE of airborne conquest (other than "Hey they had paratroopers in WW2 so lets have them here too and jump around the map").

You are right in saying that no single unit type could ever be self-sufficient, and that the only difference between para's and other troops is their method of insertion. However, that exact insertion method makes the world of difference. For other troops, we could "imagine" that the complement troops could have just travelled with them. For example, you could think of a CoW AT gun unit as a "mixed unit with an emphasis on AT guns". As such, it makes perfect sense that it could operate alone. For paratroopers, this doesn't work though - BECAUSE it assumes all those OTHER parts of the "mixed" unit would ALSO have the airborne insertion attribute - which they simply didn't have. You cannot have a "mixed unit with an emphasis on oparatroopers" and still perform an air drop with it. I'm not just talking about Shermans and Panthers and halftracks and trucks dangling from a parachute or stuffed in a glider, but also the entire logistics, workshop, engineering equipment, etc etc etc support that is needed to operate a modern army.

CoW is a simplified game. Let's take operation Overlord. In CoW, this would play out something like: "Take 3 tanks and 10 infantry, group them together, pack them in a convoy, and land it in Normandy after shelling it with two battleships and 6 tacs for a while". There's a severe penalty for this, the 4.5h disembarkation time that gives the enemy plenty of opportunity to respond. With your style of paratroopers, you would just negate all that, find an empty province (Paris? Orleans? Brussels?) and airdrop there right away. I estimate about 60-80 % of provinces in CoW are empty at any given time, so finding an empty one shouldn't be too hard. Oh and finding the enemy air base would be another huge bonus of course, you hit the jackpot if you can find it undefended.

Oh yeah, and of course there are methods to defend against all that. But fact is, that defending is ALREADY much harder than attacking (AS OPPOSED to historical reality btw), especially since most of us want eight hours of sleep at night. Paratroopers will favor attackers even more, and make defending harder. You HAVE to be able to set up some kind of defensive line for moments that you are not online, or you'll be screwed. And I think you'll agree with me that there are already enough advantages for being active.

Wrong. American and British airborne infantry divisions had their own integrated light artillery and jeep reconnaissance. They even experimented with glider-landed light tanks. During Overlord, the 82nd and 101st had special airborne anti-tank supplemental units attached. You really need to do some more reading about Allied airborne divisions before commenting further.

As for your central point, that a 1,500-man airborne infantry regiment could not "conquer" a "COW-size province," please show me one single instance when a 650-man, 100-tank armor brigade "conquered" and then successfully defended a "COW-size province" against determined counter-attack with no support from any other units? You have, in effect, created a strawman by suggesting that paratroops were incapable of defending themselves, which is complete NONSENSE. If my response seems angry to you, it's because your entire premise is just FACTUALLY WRONG. Are you familiar with the 101st's defense of Bastogne, where part of the division, with less munitions and support than they would have had if they had been inserted by air drop, held off a major German offensive for over a week until the they were relieved by elements of Patton's 3rd Army? That's because they were an elite unit, with better training, and better morale -- and that was the character of American, British and German airborne units: tough as nails.

@BB:
I wrote an article on airborne artillery on this board a few weeks ago. I'm sorry I really can't be bothered to find it for you given your current hostile attitude, but it seems to be you that needs to keep updated on related threads.

Artillery was hand-drawn, so almost completely immobile, and had very serious trouble with indirect fire, so most was used in a direct-fire mode which is quite ineffective on a battlefield. It wasn't used in Sicily, and in Normandy there was ONE active 75mm howitzer in 82nd if I remember correctly, may have been 101st too.

There never was any viable attempt made to drop light tanks in battlefield-effective numbers. There were some experiments with it, and they were abandoned for the obvious reason.

Jeeps for reconaissance may be very valuable units, but can hardly make a unit "mixed" in the sense that I meant. And maybe you want to call PIAT's and Bazooka's "AT Guns"?

Uh, no. Both the 82nd and 101st were specially supplemented with additional AT capability for Overlord/Neptune: sixteen 57-mm (6-pounder) AT guns.

From the Wikipedia article on "Mission Chicago" for the 101st:

"Mission Chicago was the 27th serial of the airborne assault, and was flown by the troop carrier C-47 Skytrains of the 434th Troop Carrier Group at RAF Aldermaston. 52 aircraft acted as tugs for an equal number of CG-4A Waco gliders carrying 155 troops, a bulldozer, sixteen 57-millimeter (6-pounder) antitank guns, and 25 small vehicles. 2.5 tons of ammunition and 11 tons of equipment were also transported, including an SCR-499 radio set for the division headquarters command post.

"Chicago was primarily an artillery reinforcement mission. Aboard 44 gliders were Batteries A and B of the 81st Airborne Antiaircraft Battalion. The other 8 gliders carried small elements of the 326th Airborne Engineer Battalion, the 101st Signal Company, the antitank platoon of the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment (GIR), and a surgical team of the 326th Airborne Medical Company."

"Mission Detroit" was the nearly identical supplement for the 82nd. If you don't like Wikipedia, I'm sure we can find plenty of other sources of a more traditional character for you. I suggest you start by googling "101st," "82nd," "Mission Chicago" and "Mission Detroit." In addition to the AT supplement, the 101st's standard order of battle included 17 artillery batteries organized in 4 airborne artillery battalions that were integral parts of the division.