Possible American Airborne unit line

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

  • Possible American Airborne unit line

    So, I know some of you know me as the boring ole air borne unit guy. Well, I have been doing a little research on American airborne units and I think this would be interesting to have in CoW. First off, we have armored units, some of which I only know a few of. Secondly, all airborne units would be more useful in Plains, and forests. Then, they would be weakest in Cities and mountains. The tanks would be useless during the airdrop UNLESS they were dropped in the plains area, any where else and you have a 50% chance to lose the tank unit. The motorized airborne would be the same except in cities and mountains you have a 75% chance to lose the unit. Now, the regular infantry have a smaller chance to die, but have a larger chance to lose HP, the airborne units would have greatest effect in Plains, and Forest biomes.
    Armor:
    Level 1: M22 Locust (EXTREMELY light tank used in WW2 dropped by Gliders and other cargo aircraft)
    Level 2: M4 Sherman (some were cut down to be dropped by glider)
    Level 3: Any ideas?
    Level 4: M551 Sheridan (Used up until the 1980s when it was replaced by the M1A1 Abrams)

    Motorized Airborne:
    Level 1: Take two hours to move, attack and defense are at 35% of the total on any terrain.
    Level 2: Take one hour to move, attack and defense are at 40% of the total on any terrain.
    Level 3: Take 45 minutes to move, attack and defense are at 45% of the total on any terrain.
    Level 4: Take 30 minutes to move, attack and defense are at 50% of the total on any terrain.

    Airborne Infantry:
    Level 1: Take 3 hours to move, attack and defense are 35% of the total on any terrain.
    Level 2: Take 2 hours to move, attack and defense are 40% of the total on any terrain.
    Level 3: Take 1 hour to move, attack and defense are 45% of the total on any terrain.
    Level 4: Take 45 minutes to move, attack and defense are 50% of the total on any terrain.
    "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some ******** in the world that just need to be shot." - General Mattis (USMC)


  • Well, if America received airborne, you'd have to add it to other countries, which gives way to two problems. 1: America, Britain, France, and a few other Allied associated nations use American equipment, even when they have their own equipment in RUSE (i.e., French heavy lvl 1 should be Char B1, British medium lvl 4 should be Cromwell, Belgians should have their own armored cars). 2: Armor couldn't be made airborne because only America, Italy, and Britain developed successful airborne tanks. And even if you decided to make airborne tanks, which would deploy from gliders, they'd all have to be one research lvl each (like commandos), with: Germany (and nations with units that come from Germany) receiving a Leopard, America (and Britain) getting a Tetrarch Mk VII, USSR getting T-60s (or, god forbid, Antonov A-40s), and Japan (hopefully) able to build a Type 94.

    Other than that, it sounds good. In fact, I just got an idea based on that. You see, towards the end of WWII, Germany dropped parachute training for their Fallshirmjaegers in favor of getting troops to the front. The infantry and transport planes could be built separately, giving you an opportunity to transport infantry, artillery, anti-tank, anti-air, and (with enough research) light armor from airfield to airfield.

    Ex:
    Germany (transport)
    Level 1: Ju 52 (range of 300 km, carries per plane: 1-5 airborne, 1-3 infantry, or 1 AT/Artillery/AA)
    Level 2: Ju 90 (range of 375 km, carries per plane: 1-10 airborne, 1-9 infantry, or 1-2 AT/Artillery/AA)
    Level 3: Me 323 (range of 500 km, carries per plane: 1-35 airborne, 1-18 infantry, or 1-3 AT/Artillery/AA/AC/LT)

    I mean, this has serious potential.
    Panzer vor!
  • Quasi-duck wrote:

    aphGermany wrote:

    Armor couldn't be made airborne because only America, Italy, and Britain developed successful airborne tanks
    You forgot the USSR
    As far as I know, the USSR dropped tanks by throwing light tankettes off of bombers, with the crew dropping separately. Their attempt to make a tank that could drop without the above was the An-40, which was dropped for being a nightmare to use. If you are referring to the BMP/BMD series, let me remind you that this MMORTS focuses on WWII, with later researched Cold War medium tanks. So, when I listed America, Italy, and Britain as developing successful airmobile tanks, I was focusing my thoughts on WWII tanks/AFVs.
    Panzer vor!
  • aphGermany wrote:

    let me remind you that this MMORTS focuses on WWII, with later researched Cold War medium tanks
    There is a helluva lot more units than just MT that are not from WWII. Hell, we have the Kirov II as the lvl 6 Soviet BB, which is from the 70's and is not even a BB.
    Forum Gang Commissar



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

    Quasi-duck wrote:

    Hell, we have the Kirov II as the lvl 6 Soviet BB, which is from the 70's and is not even a BB.
    Actually, the Soviet lvl 6 Battleship is the Sovetsky Soyuz Class, a ship that was built in the late 30s and scrapped in the 40s. This is from me playing as Vladivostok in the Pacific map.
    My bad, NBB.

    Forum Gang Commissar



    I changed it for you Dia <3
  • Well, I think that if we could have one airborne tank, for the Americans, it would be the M22 Locust, because it was used the most and was made to be dropped from planes. Maybe for the other allied countries, they could use the M22 Locust as well, but the Soviets could use the An-94, and the Germans could use Wiesel AWC.
    "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some ******** in the world that just need to be shot." - General Mattis (USMC)


  • Not A Communist wrote:

    Quasi-duck wrote:

    aphGermany wrote:

    Armor couldn't be made airborne because only America, Italy, and Britain developed successful airborne tanks
    You forgot the USSR.
    Because the USSR sucks.

    Quasi-duck wrote:

    Not A Communist wrote:

    Quasi-duck wrote:

    aphGermany wrote:

    Armor couldn't be made airborne because only America, Italy, and Britain developed successful airborne tanks
    You forgot the USSR.
    Because the USSR sucks.
    Says the fascist.
    I agree with not a commie the USSR sucks. I hate commies.
    [/url">therpu.wixsite.com/homepage][/url]

    ROLEPLAYERS UNION

    PLEASE SIGN UP