Massed paras the new super exploit?

[sillyflower]

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.

[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.

[Flaviusx]

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.

[sillyflower]

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.............

[baloo7777]

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?

[Harrybanana]

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.

[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.

[sillyflower]

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.

[ComadrejaKorp]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Flaviusx]

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.

[sillyflower]

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 [&o]. 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.

[AlvaroSousa]

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.

[kennonlightfoot]

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.

[AlvaroSousa]

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.

[baloo7777]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

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.

[sillyflower]

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 [:D], at issues and to make changes where they will improve the game.

I just think that paras need another look.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

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.

[sillyflower]

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