Matrix Games Forums

This screenshot intrigues me. First, I am sure the French were not having the doctrine to create Paratrooper in 1939. Their defensive doctrine from WW1 was well from WW1.

http://www.matrixgames.com/files/games/ ... width=1600

This is the corps size that intrigues me the most. A Paratrooper corps is huge. Even the US or the UK at the end of the war where having respectively five and two airborne divisions:
. 11h, 13th, 17th, 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions for US.
. 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions for UK.

For the battle of Crete, the biggest airborne operation for the German, only one airborne division was used i.e. the 7th Flieger Division.

Even in Russia, all the airborne corps were converted and renamed into guards rifle divisions.

Airborne Division would be a more realistic size to produce. Especially if you can combine 2-3 airborne divisions into one airborne corps.

I took all this into consideration and originally paratroopers were divisions. But because the hexes are 25-30m generally that means there are at least 2 divisions dropping to be effective. The solution that I came up with was making them smaller. So while a large corps consists of 40-60k men (30 health), a paratrooper corps consists of 25-40k men (20 health). This makes them effective enough but also vulnerable to a counter attack and forced to surrender. So they have to be used wisely. Paratroopers are also subject to interception. Foolishly trying to fly 10 paratroopers backdooring into Berlin will get them all shot down. Even with escorts there is still a chance the paradrop mission gets aborted.

As for doctrine I am not trying to mimic HOI. Player can build what they like at the cost of logistics, manpower, and oil. Would you build an expensive logistical unit like paratroopers as France in 1940?

There are a lot of previously untested ideas going into Beta that several will have to be adjusted for better player. I have a solid core of testers I know in the mix.

Hmm by what I see in this screenie though, it seems to me that while there are many INF types, there is only 1 armour type.
And that non INF units lack breakdown.

If you're to implement breakdown you best have it for everything or keep them at lower level instead of corps (ie - Paratroopers are divisions, not corps)

There are 2 armor types, mech and armor. Each have 2 advancements types, breakthrough or heavy armor. Units also have 6 specialties. So you can have all sorts of variations on units.

There have been questions about breakdowns and I said I would suggestions are always considered and tested. Sometimes a concept might be good on paper but in game play it doesn't work well and needs to be removed or modified. Also sometimes a new suggestions makes it into the game that I never thought of before.

The main purpose of breaking down infantry units is allow flexibility for the player. Which I forgot to say on another post about unit break down.

Instead of a having a force pool that builds X many garrisons, X many static units, X many regular infantry of different sizes you just build the size you want and use advancements and status to change the unit. When those units aren't needed anymore you can reconfigure their status and merge them or convert them for production and manpower.

Regarding the discussion on paratroopers above. I like the idea of "build anything that you want - but be careful!"

In the same line of thinking, which I applaud, the Axis might have a choice between building 1 heavy tank unit or lots of infantry units. Again "be careful" is a concept that I like.