Gronq Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 At the moment paratroopers get to drop for 'free' i.e. there is no defence against them until after they've dropped. Would it be more realistic to enable fighters to attack them prior to the drop? They would, therefore, have to have a fighter escort to minimise casualties prior to the drop itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin I Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Agree: fighter intercept (and escorting) should apply to paradrops and it should cost MPP to prepare to jump. If transporting parasby ship costs MPP then by air also. Maybe make the unit a bit cheaper to compensate or better against fortresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkman Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I think Airborne troops should not be allowed to enter an enemy capitol until other ground units have done so, that would prevent these very unrealistic lightning conquests using only an airborne unit and some tac air support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 To all the above posts: "NUTS" What's dumb is the amount of damage they take just landing. 50% causalties is a joke. Just like AV's landing and losing 40% of their troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkman Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 It seems to have a lot to do with terrain, my experience has been that drops on clear tiles usualy result in very little damage, drops in rough terrain result in higher damage. That seems logical to me. They should be vulnerable to fighter interceptions though. I think the Ariborne units in this game are far too unrealistic, so far I have rarely seen them used in their historical role to establish a bridghead on a coast or accross a river. These units are droped far behind the enemy lines with no hope of ever getting in supply with no other ground forces just to quickly occupy an enemy capitol. I'm no expert historian but the only comparable action I know of is Crete (which is not a capitol), done with Axis air superiority, and it nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 I don't know what game y'all are playing, but Paras are one of my most effective units, their threat probability is very high. I use them exclusively for invasions like Sealion and to complete envelopments in early Barbarossa assaults, as we all know that logistics is the key for any sustained military action. Later they are always helpful squashing any partisan activity that may pop up. They are always sitting behind my lines prepped for any occasion where you might need a last minute attack to vanquish a defender that is barely holding on. All in all a very flexible unit with high mobility, just don't send them out on suicide missions, make sure help is only the next turn away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkman Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Those are all reasonable missions for Airborne units, I hav'nt played enough games to say too much, but I hate seeing them used to conquer entire nations with 1 single airdrop, I think the conquest of a country should require more than 1 airdrop on the capitol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 I'd like to complain how AV's receive massive damage just landing when nobody is home. Seriously, I have Marines landing on an unoccupied island, and I take 40% dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyguy Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I concur w/these posters. First, paratroopers should not be able to land unescorted behind enemy lines. Escorted, yes, they can damage similar to a bomber or tac bomber, but they should take some damage. They are more lumbering than bombers and have virtually no defenses compared to a B-17 or B-24...yet they take no damage? They should take damage commensurate w/an unescorted bomber/tac bomber. Second, I agree w/Rambo. I've had paras land in friendly rough hexes and take 50% damage...that's way unrealistic. 10% maybe, and perhaps a degrade to readiness, but not 50%. I can't recall if amphibs have done the same, massive damage on friendly hexes, but if so then that needs to be addressed, too. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Maybe Paras should lose more often readiness and supply and less strength points. Certain losses are probably always possible. Missing the target, bad weather condition, bad maps, wrong recon (swamp or trees where open plains were suspected) etc. If enemy garrisons around, or AA guns, losses might rise quite a bit. AA improvements could be inflicting higher losses when jumps happen into the AA upgraded tile or next to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 How about some more "hidden" stuff? Just because you have LR bombers to "see" the enemy, doesn't mean the results should be 100% accurate. 1) Didn't the Germans hide some Panzers in "Bridge Too Far"? Well, the Brits/Poles didn't know. 2) Didn't the Germans move up alot of units for The Bulge? Would be cool to mask units a little bit. 3) Intelligence Tech lets you know "where" ships are, but that doesn't do that much unless you're in position. What you NEED to know would be DIRECTION the ship is sailing. Hey, maybe add more to the behavior of Intelligence Tech, such as "Fake Units".....a.k.a. Patton's fake units pre-Overlord. Love the game, ready for more stuff to do for strategy & fun. -Legend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts