Massed paras the new super exploit?

[MVokt]

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).

[Flaviusx]

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.

[AlvaroSousa]

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.

[kennonlightfoot]

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.

[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.

[Simulacra53]

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...

[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 ?

[baloo7777]

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.

[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.

[Harrybanana]

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.

[battlevonwar]

I will tread lightly as I have not been around but I will say in HOI4 we saw this. 10-14 Paras dropped on key strategic areas and it was quite annoying. We outlawed it with a houserule.

Here with garrisons and the limit of 1 unit per hex I don't see where they're OP. As mentioned above a tiny little Division or other smaller unit entrenched should be able to make it very difficult and cost ineffective to use Paras in any large numbers except isolated instances.

Furthermore if you watch your enemy's builds and notice there is an oddity of too many Infantry in a region and no armor, mech, air, etc... Then you can forecast what's coming. Which ultimately is counterproductive for him. Too few Strong Units means ultimately in most cases he will lose. That or your own very strong air supremacy might knock out a few. He has to buy those precious air points. Even if you only KO 30-40% of his Air Points/prevent 3-4 Drops it could be a very bad idea for him. Would it be worth the gain for him? Mopping up isolated Paras with 2-3 Armor is relatively nice...

Try this move on me and I'll make you pay one way, or another way!

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I will tread lightly as I have not been around but I will say in HOI4 we saw this. 10-14 Paras dropped on key strategic areas and it was quite annoying. We outlawed it with a houserule.

Here with garrisons and the limit of 1 unit per hex I don't see where they're OP. As mentioned above a tiny little Division or other smaller unit entrenched should be able to make it very difficult and cost ineffective to use Paras in any large numbers except isolated instances.

Furthermore if you watch your enemy's builds and notice there is an oddity of too many Infantry in a region and no armor, mech, air, etc... Then you can forecast what's coming. Which ultimately is counterproductive for him. Too few Strong Units means ultimately in most cases he will lose. That or your own very strong air supremacy might knock out a few. He has to buy those precious air points. Even if you only KO 30-40% of his Air Points/prevent 3-4 Drops it could be a very bad idea for him. Would it be worth the gain for him? Mopping up isolated Paras with 2-3 Armor is relatively nice...

Try this move on me and I'll make you pay one way, or another way!

Again, you are saying that there are ways to counter paradrops. That may or may not be true, but IMHO is irrelevant. The question should be are the way paradrops are modeled in the game historically accurate. Could paratroopers be dropped into even clear terrain without sustaining significant loss to effectiveness? Could they be dropped directly into heavily urban areas (even ones with AA) or mountains and, if so, would they not sustain even greater loss of effectiveness? Could they historically be dropped twice in a 6 or even 4 week period? I would be in favour of giving paratroopers of all nations higher morale (they were after all elite units) but only on the condition that when dropped they suffer a 10% to 50% loss of effectiveness. The actual amount of effectiveness lost would be dependent on a number of factors including terrain, the presence of AA and luck.

[Simulacra53]

Me leaning towards storm in a teacup.

[:D]

[baloo7777]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I will tread lightly as I have not been around but I will say in HOI4 we saw this. 10-14 Paras dropped on key strategic areas and it was quite annoying. We outlawed it with a houserule.

Here with garrisons and the limit of 1 unit per hex I don't see where they're OP. As mentioned above a tiny little Division or other smaller unit entrenched should be able to make it very difficult and cost ineffective to use Paras in any large numbers except isolated instances.

Furthermore if you watch your enemy's builds and notice there is an oddity of too many Infantry in a region and no armor, mech, air, etc... Then you can forecast what's coming. Which ultimately is counterproductive for him. Too few Strong Units means ultimately in most cases he will lose. That or your own very strong air supremacy might knock out a few. He has to buy those precious air points. Even if you only KO 30-40% of his Air Points/prevent 3-4 Drops it could be a very bad idea for him. Would it be worth the gain for him? Mopping up isolated Paras with 2-3 Armor is relatively nice...

Try this move on me and I'll make you pay one way, or another way!

Again, you are saying that there are ways to counter paradrops. That may or may not be true, but IMHO is irrelevant. The question should be are the way paradrops are modeled in the game historically accurate. Could paratroopers be dropped into even clear terrain without sustaining significant loss to effectiveness? Could they be dropped directly into heavily urban areas (even ones with AA) or mountains and, if so, would they not sustain even greater loss of effectiveness? Could they historically be dropped twice in a 6 or even 4 week period? I would be in favour of giving paratroopers of all nations higher morale (they were after all elite units) but only on the condition that when dropped they suffer a 10% to 50% loss of effectiveness. The actual amount of effectiveness lost would be dependent on a number of factors including terrain, the presence of AA and luck.

+1 (I feel mobility should be reduced to 1 hex on the turn they drop)

[sillyflower]

Having considered all this, I am leaning towards the view that the answer lies in cohesion loss on dropping, with the amount being dependant on the terrain in the landing hex.I also see no reason why AA can't shoot at the transports. They were the easiest target ever for AA guns.

[Flaviusx]

Sillyflower, I will cosign your suggestion. This will also reduce the pace of redrops which is perhaps more of an issue than the mass drops as such.

[Richard III]

Surely this issue can be fixed with simple House Rules rather then risk breaking other areas of the game by tinkering with the code. Broken WITE being the poster boy for this code tinkering approach to minor gameplay issues.

[Flaviusx]

I would hope that changing the readiness loss for drops doesn't break the code? This is a very minor tweak.

[AlvaroSousa]

It is a minor change. But I don't understand what the issue is. You want to spend all that money on paradrops and land in England? Be my guest. My armor will mow them down the 1st turn easily. Say you take a port. You can't reinforce it till after I have my chance to beat your ass.

I always build an armor for the UK vs Sealion. It gets deployed in France then back to England.
Para's are already weaker than normal units.

Also their cost as a front line troop is not good.
It is a lot of resources to build a huge fleet of them.
They can't fly into enemy interceptors without escorts.
Still have a chance to be shot down regardless.
It is a risk vs reward. If players want to build 8 paras + 8 air transports and invade England that way. They risk losing the game right there. That amount of resources drastically impacts the Russian Front. Then there is the USA entry hit.

As the UK your #1 priority is protecting your coast. In protecting your coast you also protect vs Sealion.

To me it seems people aren't defending England enough.

[Cav_Legion]

Hi everyone My very first post ! I agree that Paratroopers should lose effectiveness on drop. In terms of moving/taking cities/combat after a drop, my input is that WW2 airborne used gliders extensively which are far less disruptive than parachuting in. Cheers all !