Are Paratroops Special Forces or No?

Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War

Message

Tanaka -> Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/9/2020 6:37:07 PM)
"- HQ units, after amphibiously unloading, start at 10 supply and maintain supply for up to 5 turns with a drop of 2 supply points per turn. This is similar to Special Forces, and allows the HQ to act as a Mulberry for an initial landing until further supply sources are achieved." As of now Special Forces and HQ get special supply rules. Why not Paratroops dropped with supplies behind enemy lines?

Hubert Cater -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/14/2020 10:01:10 PM)
I can see why this might be desirable, but at the same time I'd be hesitant as it could potentially become exploitable and too powerful a unit out of proportion to the game scale and intended use. Especially with the longer ranges and literal ability to drop deep behind enemy positions. I think typically they were quite vulnerable, and quickly so if not immediately or shortly thereafter re-connected to the regular supply lines.

MVP7 -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/14/2020 10:10:46 PM)
Maybe they could follow the partisan rule instead and have minimum 3 supply? That wouldn't massively increase their efficiency when cut out of supply but at least they wouldn't self destruct if they can't secure a supply source right after the drop.

Elessar2 -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 1:08:53 AM)
I had a suggestion to have any medium or heavy bombers be able to do supply drops.

EarlyDoors -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 7:11:59 AM)
like it -- or maybe the paratroops prepare option could call in a supply drop with its effectiveness based upon logistics level

Tanaka -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 8:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater I can see why this might be desirable, but at the same time I'd be hesitant as it could potentially become exploitable and too powerful a unit out of proportion to the game scale and intended use. Especially with the longer ranges and literal ability to drop deep behind enemy positions. I think typically they were quite vulnerable, and quickly so if not immediately or shortly thereafter re-connected to the regular supply lines. I understand the concerns. Maybe if they were just given enough supply to last more than one turn? Like two or three turns? I just think of places like Crete and Market Garden where they needed to survive on their own. The thing is who uses them to drop behind enemy lines if they are just going to be immediately destroyed without supply? I know I don't. Only front lines.

Tanaka -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 8:53:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 Maybe they could follow the partisan rule instead and have minimum 3 supply? That wouldn't massively increase their efficiency when cut out of supply but at least they wouldn't self destruct if they can't secure a supply source right after the drop. I like this! Not too strong but can last longer than one turn and stronger than a Partisan unit!

Tanaka -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 8:54:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elessar2 I had a suggestion to have any medium or heavy bombers be able to do supply drops. Neat idea in general! This makes me think of Stalingrad!

Tanaka -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 8:56:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors like it -- or maybe the paratroops prepare option could call in a supply drop with its effectiveness based upon logistics level Interesting!

BillRunacre -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 9:33:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka I understand the concerns. Maybe if they were just given enough supply to last more than one turn? Like two or three turns? I just think of places like Crete and Market Garden where they needed to survive on their own. The thing is who uses them to drop behind enemy lines if they are just going to be immediately destroyed without supply? I know I don't. Only front lines. Though if they capture a source of supply in their initial drop then they will have a source of supply, whereas if they don't then it means the mission has likely failed? Are there specific situations that you're thinking of where it has felt that they should have had some supply in order to achieve more, while remaining in line with their historic capabilities - and weaknesses too?

ElvisJJonesRambo -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 1:09:32 PM)
In the scale of this game, meaning the equation = Time x Size x Map, I would answer "Paratroops are not considered special forces in terms of supply". Much as I love Band of Brothers, Easy Company did not have a supply source nor the range to exist long without supply. There wasn't time for a hunting party to forage Ammo & Food for thousand of servicemen. Well, back then, they were men. Paratroops landing in an enemy city didn't have time nor the locals certainly weren't opening their donut stores for coffee. Far as the limited dropping of supplies via the planes, maybe turn Supply 0 to Supply 3, but in scale, not really happening.

Taifun -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 8:00:15 PM)
I agree with EJJR. I will leave the paratroops as they are, with a supply of 0 if they do not capture a source of supply. They were very vulnerable as Crete and other operations showed in the war. "...as it could potentially become exploitable and too powerful a unit out of proportion to the game scale and intended use" I completely agree with this, they are already a powerful unit in the game.

Tanaka -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/15/2020 11:30:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BillRunacre quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka I understand the concerns. Maybe if they were just given enough supply to last more than one turn? Like two or three turns? I just think of places like Crete and Market Garden where they needed to survive on their own. The thing is who uses them to drop behind enemy lines if they are just going to be immediately destroyed without supply? I know I don't. Only front lines. Though if they capture a source of supply in their initial drop then they will have a source of supply, whereas if they don't then it means the mission has likely failed? Are there specific situations that you're thinking of where it has felt that they should have had some supply in order to achieve more, while remaining in line with their historic capabilities - and weaknesses too? This is true and these are fair points. Maybe they are fine as is after all of these considerations. I would only argue for a tiny increase in supply but I do understand these points. Anyone else have any other thoughts on this?

James Taylor -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/16/2020 3:03:16 AM)
Historical context dictates there should be a provision for air resupply. Not just to include paratroopers but all combat units. IMO this should be an air transport unit that is bought using MPPs, price dependent on the the nation's historical ability to provide such a specialized service, the ones(majors) with large transport fleets would be cheaper. The unit is expended upon using for the air resupply mission and the number of max units available is based upon the logistical tech level of the owning country.

MVP7 -> RE: Are Paratroops Special Forces or No? (12/16/2020 3:08:46 AM)
There are definitely arguments for both 0 supply and some supply in my opinion. One important question is if a a "supply source" really is the only realistic target for an airborne operation. Currently in-game airborne has to take a town immediately after landing or it starts disintegrating. Using the airborne to take non-town hex to cut a railway for example is not really viable (and maybe it even shouldn't be from balance point of view). The Battle of Crete went wrong for the German paratroopers in pretty much every possible way but they still took some of their key objectives. From "supply" point of view taking the Malene air field allowed the German paratroopers to be reinforced and supplied. In this particular case the SC:WaW presentation seems pretty accurate. However in many of the Allied airborne operations securing "supply" was not an objective for the paratroopers themselves as it's not like the typical towns and infrastructure that airborne operations targeted were loaded with supplies. What additional supplies the paratroopers received before ground units caught up with them were mostly delivered by air. Supplies were delivered for the purpose of taking and holding the objective rather than vice versa and this seems to have been the case in most airborne operations other than Crete. Reducing paratrooper supply to 0, if they have failed to occupy their objective immediately, isn't completely wrong in the the scale of SC:WaW but it's still pretty extreme effect. Even a freshly operated garrison sized defender is too much for airborne units to handle on the turn following the drop. Partisan supply would soften the decline of fighting ability in short term to what seems like more reasonable level, but it might indeed risk misrepresenting their role on some theaters. If that's too powerful then maybe the airborne units could have their own special rule where they have 4 supply on the turn following the drop so they would still have some fight in them but wouldn't get full movement(?) and would risk complete destruction. On the following turn the unit supply would drop to zero. --- Edit. Personally I think manually dropping supply for airborne of any other units is beyond the scope of the game. Airborne units would be receiving supply drops and reinforcements in the immediate aftermath of the initial drop in any case and maintaining long term large scale air-drop supply operation into hostile territory doesn't seem realistic.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.625