Airborne Troops

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

    • Airborne Troops

      I am hoping to see Airborne Troops are introduced into this game. I am very new to this game...I've only been playing for ten (10) days but I think the introduction of Airborne troops and their transports would add an interesting dynamic to this game.

      Airborne troops were experimental in many countries (Germany, Russia, and the U.S.A.). And a tid bit if trivia information (in case anyone who reads this is on Jeopardy someday), the Soviet Union actually experimented with Airborne troops by having the men hanging on/attached to the wing of the aircraft and once over the Drop Zone (DZ), they would simply detach/let go and parachute down. Needless to say that method did not work very well.

      However, with this game simulating WWII, and since the history of the Airborne really flourished out of the needs of war, I would like everyone who agrees or just want to see another dynamic added to the game to post replies and forward this to all your friends/Alliance members. Perhaps we can get the Airborne back into the fight of WWII!

      Thank you and please post any and all replies both positive and negative...I am interested in all opinions...

      JWFrink

      P.S. The idea of Vertical Envelopment (Airborne) got its first breath of life with the idea of developing parachutes for the pilots in WWI.

    • Pablo22510 wrote:

      Yeah, most of us would definitely like to see airborne troops in the game, but the community isn't going to debate it anymore because we've debated it countless times already.
      Original idea. More debate needed, never discussed before.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • I also think paratroopers are a good unit...
      ...but the big problem with paratroopers is, that their "original conditions" would be too fast for this slow browser game.
      A unit quickly as planes with the ability to occupy provinces does not fit into the existing "working speed" of the game.

      If they can conquer, they may not be faster than the fastest existing ground unit.
      If they are fast as airplanes, they may not be able to conquer.
      Otherwise, the next wailing threads were already programmed. :rolleyes:
      (probably primarily by those players, who are now vehemently for the paratroopers ;) )

      So the paras must have to be adjusted very strong.
      But will they be still a desirable and useful unit then?
      Or just a (unnecessary) gimmick...

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

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

    • The ability to "Jump" units behind enemy lines would end up getting spammed, and players would have to keep troops thick deeper behind lines. This would lead to the game rounds (which most new players complain are too slow, as it is) to slow down even further as players adjust out of Blitz tactics, and semi-turtling becomes the standard course of action.
      Free Time looks good on me

    • Posts from @Restrisiko and @WiseOdin are both very good critics of paratroopers. Paratroopers were suggested many times, even really discussed once if I remember.

      If they would be implemented like infantry with ability to jump behind enemy lines, they would be too overpowered. If you, however, need some planes to transport them, that would add a little more strategy to them, but still they would be too strong. They need heavy penalties to either the range they can jump behind enemy, ability to be produced or their performance once they land.


      If the range is to be penalized, perhaps the range of rocket fighter or lvl1 naval bomber is good enough. But I don't know if range is the solution.

      Talking about ability to be produced, maybe they should have the same requirement like commandos. But in that case, player should either have to choose to make one of those units (if any), or there should be some special building or whatever to make it possible that one city can make commandos and other one paratroopers.

      About strength once they land, maybe they should need to have some time when they are not operational (like being a convoy on land), perhaps the same time as needed for a convoy to disembark on enemy shore, or, on the other hand, making the unable to conquer enemy provinces. Example of CIV5 comes to my mind (just to give example of paratrooper usage):
      Display Spoiler
      I played it few years ago, and the late game melee land unit of my choice was paratrooper (not tank or infantry), because it didn't have resource requirement like tank, it had similar strength like infantry, it could jump to secure great position (very important in that game) and had powerfull upgrade. I was nowhere near being a master of that game, but in my opinion that was extremely good unit there, possible overpowered (even when we take the fact that once it jumps, it can't attack for some time). Totaly different game genre that we have here, but I just wanted to point how easily paratroopers can't become overpowered if not implemented properly.


      My opinion is that the combination of one of the two strength penalties I mentioned and production penatly I also mentioned would maybe be enough to make them useful but not too strong. Of course, their normal strength and HP should be also properly constructed.

    • @Paramunac

      I couldn't agree more that, if paratroopers were to be added, the only way to keep them from being game breaking would to be making it so they both could not capture cities, and also needed a certain time (4 hours, 4.5 hours) to consolidate once they land. A level 3 air base with level 3 barracks would be all they should need to be trained. Maybe only be trained in Capitol, like commandos

      Given what it would take to make Paratroopers viable, they would most likely be "too nerfed," at creation, for most players to see too much use in using them.

      I don't think players should have to make choices between Commandos and Paratroopers, if paras were released. Making players chose one special unit has been widely unpopular to what I saw in Thirty Kingdoms, copying that build in CoW wouldn't make sense.
      Free Time looks good on me

    • Paramunac wrote:

      Posts from @Restrisiko and @WiseOdin are both very good critics of paratroopers. Paratroopers were suggested many times, even really discussed once if I remember.
      Yeah, I mean, I'm completely pro-Para but it's nice to have other people express their opinions.

      Paramunac wrote:

      If the range is to be penalized, perhaps the range of rocket fighter or lvl1 naval bomber is good enough. But I don't know if range is the solution.

      Paramunac wrote:

      About strength once they land, maybe they should need to have some time when they are not operational (like being a convoy on land)
      I think range is part of the solution. As @WiseOdin pointed out, if Paras aren't nerfed in some kind of way, they will end up becoming spammed. And unit spam is never good, as well as the fact that the game would considerably slow down, because players would have to keep a considerable amount of troops behind the frontlines. However, if we give the paratroopers the range of a level 1 rocket fighter, it would mean people would only have to keep some troops in the provinces directly behind the frontline. If the range penalty were to be implemented, it would also be realistic, as all paratrooper operations during WW2 were not launched from bases thousands of kilometres away.

      I also like the idea of the time penalty, like convoys. If we take, for example, operation Neptune, paratroopers take hours to group together and mount an offensive. I like the idea of paratroopers having to wait some time to regroup, and I suggest the time is 3 hours. I also suggest that if a unit of paratroopers are attacked by any unit while regrouping, they should be wiped out with the enemy unit taking extremely few casualties.

      However, this last thing would pose a problem, because if paratroopers are only allowed to land on province centres, which are sure to be occupied by enemy troops, they would be wiped out continuously. To work around this problem, I suggest paratroopers being able to land on roads between provinces.

      Thoughts, @Paramunac ?
      The past is a foreign country.

    • Having paratroopers forced to land only in cities would nerf them WAY too far. Especially if they don't capture cities.

      As far as their consolidation phase, it would probably make sense to change the time based on terrain. They're going to regroup in three hours in plains, but it might take them four hours to find each other (and climb down) if they land in a forested province. Mountains could be even worse, with 4.5 hours to consolidate.
      Free Time looks good on me

    • I have read the comments and I thank everyone for their input. I am new to this game and being former military (Airborne) would like to see that kind of unit.

      There is talk of the strength of a paratrooper unit and unit consolidation time after a drop. I would like to point out that on the evening preceding DDay paratroopers of the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions as well as British and Canadian paratroopers were dropped behind the lines (inland from the beaches). Due to the inexperience of the allied countries in Airborne Ops...the paratroopers were scattered all over the French countryside. As we all know from history, DDay was a success.

      General Gavin, the commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division said after DDay operations were consolidated and the move inland began, "There is nothing more dangerous than a bunch of L.G.O.P.'s." L.G.O.P.'s is and acronym for Little Groups Of Paratroopers. Yes, the Airborne troops were scattered all over the French Country side however, as those small groups made their way to their objectives, little groups became bigger and bigger. It is these little groups that attacked the enemy in many places that led to a complete meltdown of the German response. They drastically overestimated enemy strength, they were forced to leave troops in the rear rather than send them forward to the beaches to repel the true assault, and the sabotage of communications, supply, and transportation by LGOP's further hindered a decisive German response.

      We are talking about WWII technology. The Airborne drop by the allies into France began in England and the troops were dropped a few dozen miles behind the lines at the most. Taking into account distance (to include the distance the aircraft had to fly in a holding pattern to allow all the planes to get into formation), we are not talking more than a couple hundred miles at the most for an Airborne assault.

      As far as "building" an Airborne unit, what should be taken into account is the game should already have an airborne component. Commandos have always been trained in Airborne Ops. It is the nature of their mission that requires this Airborne training as well as Amphibious assault training. Commandos in the game as they stand to me are no more than an infantry unit beefed up as they do not have those special infiltration abilities. Commando units do not walk thru friendly lines and into enemy lines to perform their missions. As far as their increased abilities in the mountians, the German counterpart would be their Alpine Troops. They were no more that regular infantry with extra specific mountain warfare training (they were not Commandos).

      I know balance is of the utmost importance however, with thought and a little work, I believe an Airborne component can be introduced to the game. After all, if we are gonna simulate WWII, that is when the Airborne Soldier was born.



      JWFrink