Massed paras the new super exploit?

[sillyflower]

Welcome to the forum Cav.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

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.

Alvaro, the issue, at least for me, is that I prefer games that model historical reality as closely as possible. You have done an excellent job here with this game of doing that; but improvements can still be made. The fact is that it was not possible for Paratroopers to be dropped without suffering a loss of effectiveness. In most cases this loss of effectiveness was significant. In this game if I simply move a paratrooper in a clear weather turn by land one hex into a friendly clear terrain hex it will suffer a loss of effectiveness. But if instead I drop it out of an airplane at night in the rain into enemy territory 8 hexes away into mountainous terrain (or a City with AA) it suffers no effectiveness loss at all. To me that makes no sense. It doesn't matter if paratroopers can be countered or not by armour or divisions in every city or laser cannons. I am not just talking here about their use in Sveint and SillyFlowers game. I am talking about their use in all games in all situations. The biggest problem is that they can be used repeatedly turn after turn.

Below is an example from one of my pbem games as the Axis. On the previous turn I dropped my paratrooper in the hex SE of its present location and than moved it to where it now is. This move allowed me to prevent two Russian armour located to the West of Moscow from retreating. I was thus able to destroy both of them. I have no problem with this. It wouldn't have mattered how much effectiveness my paratroopers lost as I didn't even use them in any attacks (the move used up all their OPs). As you can see there is no opportunity for any Russian armour to attack my paratrooper. My problem is that the paratroopers effectiveness remains high enough that by simply expending a supply truck I can drop him again this very next turn. That IMHO is what needs to be fixed.

[Harrybanana]

Oops, I realized I cropped off the box showing its statistics.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

My problem is that the paratroopers effectiveness remains high enough that by simply expending a supply truck I can drop him again this very next turn. That IMHO is what needs to be fixed.

What some people may be forgetting is that para units were not just men with parachutes. They were also heavily dependent on gliders to carry all the heavier kit and supplies. These needed not only a lot of clear land and even then the losses of their contents was very high even if there wasn't anyone shooting at them as they flew over. Furthermore, they can't take off again to do another drop next turn. Same goes for the paras as they will need new chutes and an airfield with all the facilities.

With all due respect, Alvaro, defending the current position that para units keep ALL their cohesion after dropping, whilst they and all other land and air units lose it when moving on land or by air, is simply irrational in the true sense of that word. I do not use that word lightly, but in the way as defined by the courts in the UK because this was my particular area of expertise. A decision is irrational if it is one that a reasonable person (formerly known as the man on the Clapham omnibus) armed with all the relevant facts and matters, and disregarding all irrelevant matters, could not properly make.
In fairness, I should add that the courts will only intervene when a body carrying out a public body makes an irrational decision, so you are quite safe[8D]. Anyway. I don't think courts the USA have equivalent powers but I may be wrong.

I know that this is a game not a simulation (thank goodness), and there are other mechanisms that are bit bonkers if looked at through the prism of historical capabilities, but I can't think of any that I could properly described as irrational.

[Simulacra53]

...please reduce the effectiveness and mobility after a drop and be done with it.

[&o]

Basically it will only allow for point capture of undefended areas.

It will also leave airborne corps exposed to counter attack and probably not survive a drop turn if no relieve support is available. Realistic enough in a two week turn game.

An airborne invasion of Britain will be practically impossible without major support from the sea, like Sealion, unless the defender left the UK bare of any invasion countering reserves - If so he needs a lesson.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
10 para drops in 3 turns

10 paratroops at 100% readiness for drops in 3 turns? I'm surprised there are that many, or any that were able to make multiple drops within 3 turns. Interesting.

[sillyflower]

You can drop the same para in consecutive turns as Harrybanana has shown. This shows that Simulacra preferred solution of reducing their post-drop action points doesn't solve the problem as well, or as 'historically' as reducing cohesion according to drop terrain.

I think sveint used 6 paras (4G 2It)

[AlvaroSousa]

Ok so there is a game mechanic issue then where people are manipulating constant drops. That is a different matter and point taken.

WarPlan is based on history but isn't history.
But if a mechanic is interfering that can be exploited that is a different story. If it can be fixed with a historical representation that is a big plus also.

So now that I have a better definition of the problem with examples and reasonable reason why I will do something about it.

[Simulacra53]

So you can do 3 combat consecutive jumps behind enemy lines with the same troops?

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

So you can do 3 combat consecutive jumps behind enemy lines with the same troops?

At the moment yes; but Alvaro says he is going to fix this. Thank you Alvaro.

[sillyflower]

Perfectly possible in Harrybanana's demo if he had kept it up because no cohesion is being lost.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Ok so there is a game mechanic issue then where people are manipulating constant drops. That is a different matter and point taken.

WarPlan is based on history but isn't history.
But if a mechanic is interfering that can be exploited that is a different story. If it can be fixed with a historical representation that is a big plus also.

So now that I have a better definition of the problem with examples and reasonable reason why I will do something about it.

[&o]

[baloo7777]

Thank you Alvaro. You are one of the most engaged developers I've seen. And thanks to all those who made reasonable arguments for this change.

[AlvaroSousa]

Thanks for the support and the feedback.

We will start with a moderate loss and see if that works.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Thanks for the support and the feedback.

We will start with a moderate loss and see if that works.

Will the amount of effectiveness lost be based on the terrain? Logically it should be; but I guess I shouldn't be too picky.

One thing I would like to see is paratroopers being able to drop into friendly hexes. This was actually done fairly often, for example the Germans did it at Catania in Sicily. Would be very useful for getting paratroopers into or out of North Africa.

[AlvaroSousa]

It will be 24% + 8% per unit next to the drop spot.

[Dalwin]

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.

That is historically. Unfortunately, as in some other games, para formations have far too much staying power and are capable of causing significant encirclements with a pocket that can generally be closed before they collapse.

Couple the strength of paras with a fog of war system that lets you know exactly where every enemy formation on the map is located (only type and strength are hidden), and you have a formula for shenanigans.

And yes, I agree with the OP that Sveint is quite fond of this method.

They are much more effective in game than historically.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Dalwin
a fog of war system that lets you know exactly where every enemy formation on the map is located (only type and strength are hidden

Yeah, I'd like to see FOW reconsidered. You shouldn't see anything beyond a spotting range. Russian buildups for Uranus at Stalingrad, German buildups for Wacht am Rhein, etc.

Alternatively, there could be some chance (10%?) that real units do not get displayed and that some fake units do get displayed each turn. That would cause players to question the intel.

[Uxbridge]

Agree with pzgndr and Dalwin regarding FoW.

Admittedly, when I first started play of WarPlan, I was aghast at the realization that one could see all units, even though there wasn't any exact info off the frontlines. But after a while my view changed. Having to fight against a blank map, always getting surprised over things the enemy might have in store, isn't very realistic either, and the real commanders had better info about the enemy than so; they just didn't have a complete picture, and from time to time suffered some unpleasant shocks.

I think the things you can see close to the front works well as it is. But beyond that there could be a gradual reduction of likelihood of detection. Maybe only 25 % chance a number of hexes away. If the ground units concerned is withing operational range of a (present) enemy fighter or bomber unit, the chance is raised with 20 %. If it is withing reach of both a fighter and a bomber unit, it is raised to 40 %. Therefore, if a player is massing for a spring offensive and don't want to be too obvious about it, he can't just collect the units some hexes off the front, he have to consider the enemy ability to spot it from the air.

This, of course, might not be so easy to implement technically. We also have to consider the "A button". If a unit moves in the fog, should we see its tail?

[sillyflower]

The FOW issue is a different one from paradrop spam.It merits a different thread.

Having said that, for what it's worth, I'm happy with the FOW position here. There are plenty of other games that have stricter FOW rules, and I for one don't want to see Warplan become SC4 or suchlike. There are advantages from an historic perspective too. If it encourages players to do more gamey things sometimes, it also makes them be less gamey and more 'historical' in other ways. For example, you should have garrisons in your ports and cities: or risk paying the price for not doing that.