Massed paras the new super exploit?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Massed paras the new super exploit?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Massed paras the new super exploit?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/19/2020 10:05:37 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

In my game vs Sveint he has done I think 10 para drops in 3 turns. See sveint's AAR. At least I assume it will show all the drops but obviously I can't check

. I should also say all credit should go to him for coming up with this plan.

No way of intercepting them unless you have a lot more fighter than the Germans which will mean no ground troops to defend with. IRL paras suffered horribly on landing,even with air supremacy. They had only had very light equipment (in '41 they didn't even drop with their rifles) compared to normal inf but his para units have the same combat strength as my inf xxx and had no way of defending against tanks in the open. Even with air supremacy. IRL drops on bad terrain were impossible but here they can land anywhere at full strength and march 60 miles ( I think 1 hex = 30 miles) and/ before the enemy can react so they can cut off large areas.

I don't want to limit numbers because that doesn't fit with the game so my suggestions are:

1 There always has to be a significant risk of serious loss of cohesion/readiness and also of casualties. That will also stop them being ably to jump every couple of turns

2 No drops into cities, swamp, forest or mountain hexes (too many losses) or beach hexes because most of them would probably drown as drops were rarely accurate. The alternative would be greatly to increase the penalties in 1 for dropping into these terrain types, but that would be more complicated to sort out.

I know that paras aren't much help to a player who is on the defensive, and with some restrictions on where they can jump, there may be a case for reducing the unit cost but that must be the last part of any adjustment.

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

Post #: 1

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/19/2020 10:33:01 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Respectfully disagree. He spent the money and got the assets and used them well.

Your basic mistake in this game was trying to do too much with too little at the wrong time. You are spread all over the place: Egypt, French North Africa, Persia, and the UK. You are facing Germany and Italy all by yourself.

The UK cannot afford to do all of that while facing the Axis alone. You have to wait until they commit to Barbarossa.

Had you focused on just Egypt and the UK he could not have pulled this off because your home garrison would be too strong even for massed paras.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 2

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/19/2020 10:35:28 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

That said, I am skeptical that this gamble will pay off for him long run. You actually could come back from this with early US entry and a mnoster Red Army. It's a very interesting game.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 3

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/19/2020 10:54:11 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

I don't think sveint and I can have a boring game, but medication for high blood-pressure or prozac might be the price we pay.............

_____________________________

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 4

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/19/2020 11:40:13 PM

baloo7777

Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline

The description of Paratroops landing and moving anywhere on the same turn flies in the face of what they actually did in WWII. Even if not scattered all over, the tactical use of them in Normandy was to drop near their objective and take a bridge or a town because operationally they were to block Axis forces from counter-attacking the bridgehead. I assume they can move in this game because it represents about 2 weeks/turn. They were elite troops and took heavy casualties in Crete, DDay, Market-garden. Perhaps they should not be able to move in the turn they drop?

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 5

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 3:43:34 AM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Respectfully disagree. He spent the money and got the assets and used them well.

Your basic mistake in this game was trying to do too much with too little at the wrong time. You are spread all over the place: Egypt, French North Africa, Persia, and the UK. You are facing Germany and Italy all by yourself.

The UK cannot afford to do all of that while facing the Axis alone. You have to wait until they commit to Barbarossa.

Had you focused on just Egypt and the UK he could not have pulled this off because your home garrison would be too strong even for massed paras.

Flavius, I bow to your greater knowledge as to the mistakes made by Sillyflower and the ways he could have countered the use Sveint is making of his paratroopers. But just because something can be countered doesn't make it realistic.I agree with Sillyflower that paratroopers do seem overpowered for what they were able to accomplish historically.In particular, paratroopers should not be able to drop into anything but clear or woods and they should suffer a significant loss of efficiency in doing so. They should only be able to move 1 hex on landing. To compensate the cost of paratroopers and air transports can be slightly reduced.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 6

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 7:28:13 AM

ComadrejaKorp

Posts: 377
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline

I do not agree with what you say, paratroops rules seem correct to me, i think this time you have defended poorly, you should have kept the efficiency of yours fighters high and put them out of reach, so they always fall.

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 7

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 7:47:03 AM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

I do not agree with what you say, paratroops rules seem correct to me, i think this time you have defended poorly, you should have kept the efficiency of yours fighters high and put them out of reach, so they always fall.

I shall respond to critiques of my play on my AAR but I was doing exactly what you suggest in your post. All the attacker has to do is to fly other missions first to soak-up any interception capability in range of drop zones. I don't criticise that mechanism in any way.

I think that this thread will be more useful as a discussion about para capabilities rather than my failings.

_____________________________

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)

Post #: 8

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 8:00:55 AM

ComadrejaKorp

Posts: 377
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline

I just did some tests in hotseat, although it would be risky, it would be nice if the CV could intercept paradrops, but they don�t.

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 9

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 8:08:01 AM

ComadrejaKorp

Posts: 377
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline

I did not want to criticize, it is only an opinion, i am sorry if i have bohered you, i read your AAR with devotion.

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 10

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 9:06:06 AM

Simulacra53

Posts: 632
Joined: 5/16/2015
Status: offline

The main effect of airborne drops is to disrupt the enemy.
A game in this scale and turn length is unable to model air borne operations in a realistic way, except combat power, mobility, supplies and maybe initial losses.

The airborne operations in NL1940 were over in 5 days.
Crete 1941, just under two weeks.
Both operations are characterized by chaos.

Just look at the aircraft losses, these were crippling for the Luftwaffe�s transport groups (long term effects).

Long story short an Airborne landing is either successful achieving its goals within the context of a larger operation or it is destroyed.

With a game like WarPlan you should be able to drop into an undefended city hex.
Just imagine an operation like Arnhem, with airborne troops landing near a town and moving in key points.

But beyond taking these lightly or undefended target points the airborne unit is basically immobile for the turn, mimicking both disorganization, limited supplies, transport and firepower. Indeed a 2 week timed for hold until relieved. The next turn it basically becomes a poorly supplied elite infantry unit, with limited transportation and heavy weapons.

So it is crucial that you can drop in on a undefended strategic point, but that�s about it for the 2 weeks.

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)

Post #: 11

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 11:45:39 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

I'm basically with Simulacra53 here. At the scale of WarPlan, certain liberties have to be taken with airborne. It is treating them much the same way airborne were treated in things like Advanced 3rd Reich or World in Flames. So I'm not very troubled with their ability to drop into an open hex anywhere, including urban. Nor do I consider the units to be very strong in purely CV terms. The game already accounts for this by making them 20 pt rather than 30 pt corps.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Simulacra53)

Post #: 12

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 12:00:24 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

I did not want to criticize, it is only an opinion, i am sorry if i have bohered you, i read your AAR with devotion.

Your English is very good and your manners are even better

. I described your comments as a critique, which means an opinion. Criticism should always be welcome too, especially if it is constructive.

Offering a solution is constructive, and that should always be welcome. Keep posting here and/or on the AAR.

_____________________________

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)

Post #: 13

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 1:19:38 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The game already accounts for this by making them 20 pt rather than 30 pt corps.

I thought a 2 division unit was more accurate. I looked at several airborne operations and their drop areas.

They easily die behind the lines. One armor + 1 other unit can usually force them to surrender as they have lower gun values which affects retreat.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 14

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 2:18:20 PM

kennonlightfoot

Posts: 1530
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

Keep in mind game scale. These are two week turns. Paratroopers should be limited but they still can respond to some degree with mobility over a two week turn. Probably do need more automatic responses from the defenders since we don't have a way to deploy small garrison units all over the rear of our armies. Breakthroughs should also run into similar "inherent" defenses once they are enemy held territory.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 15

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 2:24:50 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

If say you are defending France as the Germans you should have all ports covered. Units lose movement at a certain point of supply. It takes an incredible amount of resources to keep them up behind the lines.

We had this discussion in Beta if I remember. The current solution is what the testers thought was a balance of fair and fun.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)

Post #: 16

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 2:35:04 PM

baloo7777

Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The game already accounts for this by making them 20 pt rather than 30 pt corps.

I thought a 2 division unit was more accurate. I looked at several airborne operations and their drop areas.

They easily die behind the lines. One armor + 1 other unit can usually force them to surrender as they have lower gun values which affects retreat.

You're right. In a recent pbem game I dropped 2 German Paratroop units in adjacent hexes just behind enemy lines and was able to attack units and take the hexes adjacent to them, but I had to use the Para's to get 3-1 and 4-1 odds and they took heavy losses. On the next turn, my opponent counterattacks the weakened Para's and destroyed them both. My fault for leaving them at the front line, but I get that they die easily like you point out. I still feel they should have limited movement on the turn they drop.

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 17

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 2:54:28 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

I don't think you would find it fun if you were the corps commander to be told to para drop into mountains or swamp because your boss thought that you won't lose any men or any unit cohesion.

I don't want to take out the fun of paradrops (for the dropper anyway) or to nerf them so that they will fall into disuse because they are not cost-effective.

1 of the best features of this game, Alvaro, has been your enthusiasm for revisiting , or at least willingness to relook

, at issues and to make changes where they will improve the game.

I just think that paras need another look.

_____________________________

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 18

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 3:00:20 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The game already accounts for this by making them 20 pt rather than 30 pt corps.

I thought a 2 division unit was more accurate. I looked at several airborne operations and their drop areas.

They easily die behind the lines. One armor + 1 other unit can usually force them to surrender as they have lower gun values which affects retreat.

You're right. In a recent pbem game I dropped 2 German Paratroop units in adjacent hexes just behind enemy lines and was able to attack units and take the hexes adjacent to them, but I had to use the Para's to get 3-1 and 4-1 odds and they took heavy losses. On the next turn, my opponent counterattacks the weakened Para's and destroyed them both. My fault for leaving them at the front line, but I get that they die easily like you point out. I still feel they should have limited movement on the turn they drop.

I think that it is about how they are used. They work well used as you describe.

_____________________________

(in reply to baloo7777)

Post #: 19

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/20/2020 3:29:01 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

The main effect of airborne drops is to disrupt the enemy.
A game in this scale and turn length is unable to model air borne operations in a realistic way, except combat power, mobility, supplies and maybe initial losses.

The airborne operations in NL1940 were over in 5 days.
Crete 1941, just under two weeks.
Both operations are characterized by chaos.

Just look at the aircraft losses, these were crippling for the Luftwaffe�s transport groups (long term effects).

Long story short an Airborne landing is either successful achieving its goals within the context of a larger operation or it is destroyed.

With a game like WarPlan you should be able to drop into an undefended city hex.
Just imagine an operation like Arnhem, with airborne troops landing near a town and moving in key points.

But beyond taking these lightly or undefended target points the airborne unit is basically immobile for the turn, mimicking both disorganization, limited supplies, transport and firepower. Indeed a 2 week timed for hold until relieved. The next turn it basically becomes a poorly supplied elite infantry unit, with limited transportation and heavy weapons.

So it is crucial that you can drop in on a undefended strategic point, but that�s about it for the 2 weeks.

There is a lot of good sense in this.

However, the example of Arnhem supports my suggestion. It is not an on-map city, and only a few troops even reached the town in a state to fight. No one contemplated dropping of any of the places which are on map cities. 1 of the reasons was probably because they would all have had troops in them that aren't replicated as in in-game counter. NB I am not in favour of adding such counters!

Perhaps 1 option might be to restrict movement (not attacks) if you drop adjacent to an enemy unit. Hwever, that may be difficult because units don't have MPs

so you can't take away ability to move without removing the ability to attack. This would make things worse rather than better.

At least this is stimulating a thoughtful debate, and that always helps a game when the dev is someone like Alvaro the Great

_____________________________

(in reply to Simulacra53)

Post #: 20

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/21/2020 8:54:30 AM

MVokt

Posts: 95
Joined: 7/1/2018
Status: offline

In CEAW, a paratrooper unit could easily take a capital and this way won a game. Many CEAW fellows complained about this ģamey thing.

Many discussions occurred and finally some changes were made (as increasing substantially losses when dropped directly into a city).

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 21

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/21/2020 12:14:53 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

If you want to prevent paradrops into empty cities, then garrison them. I just don't see a problem here. Even with massed paras, it's going to be very difficult to budge a corps sized garrison. They need assistance from conventional units to do it.

I do have one question, though: does flak affect paradrops? If so, that suggests an alternate method.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to MVokt)

Post #: 22

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/21/2020 2:11:57 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

No it does not but the thought did cross my mind when this discussion started.

Big difference is that you can garrison easily in WarPlan. In other games you need a large unit to garrison taking away from the front. WarPlan you can break down a large unit into 2-3 units and garrison. Much easier. Air Sups also attempt to stop paratroopers. You try and fly with no escort you are 100% shot down.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 23

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/21/2020 2:43:51 PM

kennonlightfoot

Posts: 1530
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

It is a little difficult to garrison heavily because the smallest unit you have to work with is a division, sometimes Army or Corps for allies. These units are badly needed for other duties like rear guard. You either have to go with extreme overkill or nothing. It would be helpful if cities in the Player's country had a small defensive value to prevent "Hail Mary" drops. Maybe if AA guns came with a "small" defensive strength. Three AA having enough "strength" to make a para-drop very iffy.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 24

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/21/2020 5:56:27 PM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

Sorry, I just don't buy the argument that the historically impossible use of paratroopers in this game should be allowed to continue simply because there are counters to it. It is like saying "It is OK that the paratroopers have plamsa rifles because you can counter them with your laser tanks." You should not have to garrison every city within 8 hexes of every paratrooper with a division for the simple reason that paratroopers could not drop into a major urban area, not could they drop into mountains, nor could they drop in anything less than 2 months (4 game turns) from a previous drop. As well in every large scale paradrop that was made in WWII (even into clear terrain) the dropping units were very disorganized. But in this game they drop with the same effectiveness (at least 100%) that they started with. I don't mind the use of paratroopers in a game in a non-historical manner, so long as it was historically possible. If the Axis want to build them in massive numbers and use them in Barbarossa that is fine with me. But I do object to the historically impossible use of them. I note as well that restricting paratroopers to there realistic abilities does not favour either the Allies or the Axis. So I repeat my opinion that paratroopers should be limited to dropping in historically realistic terrain and should suffer some loss of effectiveness in doing so. Now if someone wants to debate with me that the game does in fact realistically model the abilities and performance of paratroopers in WWII than please do so. But please do not respond by simply telling me that it doesn't matter if the game does this or not because there is a counter to it. To me it does matter.

As an aside, I will say that I think by and large this game does a much better job than most that I have played in simulating WWII on a strategic level. Well done Alvaro.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 6/21/2020 6:00:03 PM >

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)

Post #: 25

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/21/2020 6:48:31 PM

Simulacra53

Posts: 632
Joined: 5/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Sorry, I just don't buy the argument that the historically impossible use of paratroopers in this game should be allowed to continue simply because there are counters to it. It is like saying "It is OK that the paratroopers have plamsa rifles because you can counter them with your laser tanks." You should not have to garrison every city within 8 hexes of every paratrooper with a division for the simple reason that paratroopers could not drop into a major urban area, not could they drop into mountains, nor could they drop in anything less than 2 months (4 game turns) from a previous drop. As well in every large scale paradrop that was made in WWII (even into clear terrain) the dropping units were very disorganized. But in this game they drop with the same effectiveness (at least 100%) that they started with. I don't mind the use of paratroopers in a game in a non-historical manner, so long as it was historically possible. If the Axis want to build them in massive numbers and use them in Barbarossa that is fine with me. But I do object to the historically impossible use of them. I note as well that restricting paratroopers to there realistic abilities does not favour either the Allies or the Axis. So I repeat my opinion that paratroopers should be limited to dropping in historically realistic terrain and should suffer some loss of effectiveness in doing so. Now if someone wants to debate with me that the game does in fact realistically model the abilities and performance of paratroopers in WWII than please do so. But please do not respond by simply telling me that it doesn't matter if the game does this or not because there is a counter to it. To me it does matter.

As an aside, I will say that I think by and large this game does a much better job than most that I have played in simulating WWII on a strategic level. Well done Alvaro.

If you cannot drop into an empty urban hex, you have to model some limited mobility, because you are playing a two week period.

Moving a single hex as a cohesive fighting unit is IMO pushing it - we are talking small corps level movement, that�s a lot to transport with only limited organic transportation. OTOH if you cannot take a city / target area in your drop turn it is practically useless to use airborne forces unless the defender has no defending units.

So either accept being able to drop on an an urban environment, again modeling a drop around the city or town and moving in, or allow limited movement - something like a single hex to take an undefended city from an adjacent hex.

Keeping a reaction force behind and garrisons at your strategic heartland makes sense.
Does it come at the cost of offensive power, yes - but isn�t that the choice you always have to make, balancing offense vs defense?

If you leave your door unlocked and unattended, don�t be surprised if someone slips in...

< Message edited by Simulacra53 -- 6/21/2020 6:56:16 PM >

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 26

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/21/2020 7:21:31 PM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

Been gone for awhile: What is the current issue/exploit with Paras ?
When playing the AI I could _never_ get them prepped, weather always killed them for a Sealion, if I did their range was 5+/- hex's.

The 2 times I got them to the Brit coast the AI woke up and crushed them, the Red Rifle Corps crushed them as fast.

Obvious I don`t get the issue here, please fill me in ?

_____________________________

�History would be a wonderful thing � if it were only true.�

� Leo Tolstoy

(in reply to Simulacra53)

Post #: 27

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/21/2020 9:25:36 PM

baloo7777

Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Been gone for awhile: What is the current issue/exploit with Paras ?
When playing the AI I could _never_ get them prepped, weather always killed them for a Sealion, if I did their range was 5+/- hex's.

The 2 times I got them to the Brit coast the AI woke up and crushed them, the Red Rifle Corps crushed them as fast.

Obvious I don`t get the issue here, please fill me in ?

Play against the AI is extremely different from play against a human opponent (they are devious, cunning, and often decisively brilliant). That said I think there are also two main arguments about the use of paratroops in WarPlan.
1. Should airborne operations be limited in the game in some manner?
2. Should this game closer reflect actions/options that were historically available to the combatants in WW2.

In a recent AAR you can see the use of Paratroops (lots and lots of them) dropping in successive turns or every other turn and being able to move, attack, drop into rough or urban terrain with very little loss to their effieceincy.
I am one who desires a bit more realism as to operations that could have been done during the time period of WW2. I do not waqnt to play WitE or WIF again, but would like something a little less open to unrealistic exploits. But against the AI, you likely won't ever see anything like the raining of many corps of paratroops behind your lines or into an ungarrisoned city. I can see the argument for a para to move 1 hex and attack given the two week turns, but the idea of a modern airborne operation where everthing almost is air mobile is pretty far-fetched IMHO. I can buy an air mobile unit taking an ungarrisoned minor city, but a major urban objective would be tough for a 2 week period behind enemy lines without anti-tank and artillery weaopns dropping with them as even an ad-hoc defense of a major urban center would slow the paras down until larger units appeared to take over... urban centers are death traps for elite units as shown many times in WW2.

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 28

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/21/2020 9:57:58 PM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

I have given this much thought after using the paratroopers extensively.

I think the only thing "wrong" with them at the moment is that they don't lose enough readiness upon dropping into enemy territory.

All my para-drops have been in conjunction with standard land forces. As pointed out here paratroopers are quickly eliminated by any serious resistance.

(in reply to baloo7777)

Post #: 29

RE: Massed paras the new super exploit? - 6/22/2020 6:28:40 AM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

I have given this much thought after using the paratroopers extensively.

I think the only thing "wrong" with them at the moment is that they don't lose enough readiness upon dropping into enemy territory.

All my para-drops have been in conjunction with standard land forces. As pointed out here paratroopers are quickly eliminated by any serious resistance.

Thank you Sveint. But when you say they "don't lose enough readiness" it suggests that they lose something. As far as I am aware they don't lose any effectiveness when para dropping. Which, IMHO, is very odd when you consider that if instead of para dropping them you walked them from one hex to another they do lose effectiveness. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why you can't paradrop them from one friendly hex to another friendly hex. Which I also think is odd as this how they were sometimes used, in Sicily for example.

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 30