Paras for 3.2

[Ortona]

Ok the current system of paras has three problems: 1. they are too cheap for their value; 2. it makes no sense that a unit of second hand soldiers (a GAR) produces an elite unit (except the dirty dozen) at the expense of the rest of the unit (do they get shot?) and 3. because of the kiel canal bug you can build above your game-dictated quota or at least build way earlier to get them jump capable. Simple solution: make it a separate purchasable unit subject to the same huge penalties for over purchase (I think a cost of 40 a good starting point, after all they are the best units in the game, then double the cost for over quota, then triple - this should also make them less expendable in rear attacks on airfields).

Oh and they should only be supplied by air if in range of an air unit.

Playtesters - make it so.

[chrisfso]

LOL! I never even knew about the Kiel canal trick. The things you learn on these forums. Concur that a separate para unit would be a good addition.

[pk867]

Hi,
As for the Kiel canal Bug, that has been fixed in the next update which eliminates having more than paras in the game than allowed.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Adding new "real" units is quite a bit of work. That is why we have upgrades for SS and Guards and for paras. Now we keep the existing unit types, but have coded their special abilities. That was a lot simpler.

In Java we need to create a class for each new unit type. Add them to research and several of the txt files. That means offsetting existing values. In research you get issues with not being able to show all unit types since the window can only show so many without recoding. Many places the code checks for specific unit types and then we need to add more there.

So it's doable, but will take a lot of work and the risk of introducing new bugs is big. If one wants to do that then other types like mountain, cavalry, motorised etc. should be included too.

Probably a task for CEAW 2 if it's ever developed.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If you want paras to be more expensive then you increase this value in general.txt under the data folder:
PARA_INCREASED_COST_GARRISON 15 /* PP's that must be paid to upgrade unit to Para status */

Increase it to 25 if you want the total cost to be 40. 15 for the initial garrison and 25 to upgrade to para.

Paradrop range is equal to the fighter attack range. This means it should be easy for the paradropping side to supply the para units. Para units are specialists in getting their own supply from where they are dropped (food etc.). In addition friendly air units can drop munitions. Therefore it's not wrong to let paras have supply level 1 after being dropped.

If you struggle with paras dropping on your airbases you solve that by having a land unit within reach of the para which can quickly get rid of the para. I don't see suicide paradrops in my games just to harass air units. Paras in my games are done together with an invasion. E. g. paras are great holding a position for 1-2 turns so the beachheads don't get overrun. They can e. g. cut of rail supply to key cities like Cherbourg. Then the city should be easier to capture for the amphs.

[Morris]

If you struggle with paras dropping on your airbases you solve that by having a land unit within reach of the para which can quickly get rid of the para. I don't see suicide paradrops in my games just to harass air units. Paras in my games are done together with an invasion. E. g. paras are great holding a position for 1-2 turns so the beachheads don't get overrun. They can e. g. cut of rail supply to key cities like Cherbourg. Then the city should be easier to capture for the amphs.

paras in my game are usually used to conquer key city like Essen or Omsk ,or use it at key position to accomplish a defense mission .also use a lot during the real Overlord !

[Peter Stauffenberg]

A good defender garrisons his key cities so they don't fall to paradrops. Keeping Omsk unoccupied with German paras within rance is suicide. Same as when one player forgot to garrison London.

[Morris]

A good defender garrisons his key cities so they don't fall to paradrops. Keeping Omsk unoccupied with German paras within rance is suicide. Same as when one player forgot to garrison London.

I had several experience that use para to conquer Omsk : none of them the Omsk is unoccupied . one time there was a FTR , two times there was a full entrenchment USSR corp. Since it was usually by the autumn of 1943 , Luftwaffe had got lvl 12-14 tac with command by Mainstein especially in 3.1 , the tacs are full experience & high tech lvl & top effective (usually around 105), after two tacs attack , the corp was reduced to 2-3steps left with almost less than 10 points effectiveness . Then the para with attack bonus general ( maybe two) did finish the corp quite easy ! ( it have to be fair weather to accomplish this )

[Ortona]

I have used the rear area paradrop to great effect. In one example, my opponent had a blob of sov fighters and bombers in and around Stalingrad. His land forces were around Rostov - strong but beatable. I dropped adjacent to Stalingrad, attacked the air unit there and of course it retreated, leaving me in Stalingrad with no enemy unit less than two turns away. Then his whole blob had to flee, which was a turn they weren't useful to him. I have never seen Omsk excewpt where it was completely encircled - maybe they played Morris, lol. In anther game my german foe dropped a para deep in my rear but on a railway depot. I forced him off then forced back the front to greater than bomber range but tha tlittle bastard held out for several turns. He may have been able to get fed, but he had to be running out of ammo. Shouldn't happen. Should be they remain in supply as long as any friendly air unit can bomb them.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Guess you're not fighting good opponents. Dropping para units in the rear shouldn't cause so much havoc. If you have a blob of air units you just send 2 tac bombers on the para and get the morale down so much so it can't inflict much damage. The morale is already a bit low after the paradrop. Then you rail a unit close to the para if you don't have one already. Paras are very good on the defense entrenched in cities. Not so good in open terrain.

The Russians have lots of garrison units. I often keep then in my rear cities and rail depots. Once they are too far from the front I rail them to other cities / rail depots closer to the front.

The Germans don't have unlimited number of paras. Each para can only attack one unit. If it's adjacent to a fighter unit then just repair the fighter and absorb some damage the following turn. No need to rebase lots of air units just because of 1 para. Tac bombers will soon bomb the para to oblivion. Good xp for the tac bomber against the para as well (using the tac bomber vs elite xp value, new in GS v3.20).

[sgtsteiner1939]

With the greatest of respect, I've seen in too often that you are spread to thin to able to garrison every city in range of paras, especially when ftr range reaches 11. You soon learn don't leave air unit blobs in ciites exept when the city is encircled with air units. It is true that in the open paras are vulnerable, but no one does cities better. You get the inherent AA of the city and supply level 3, so rebuilds are serious. AIrdrop with a 5+ leader and bobs your uncle: a huge resource draining thorn in your side. Well worth the sacrifice often enough.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I had a paradrop happening to me last turn (Allied Market Garden). 2 armor attacks and the para is no more. The attack probably wanted to lure my strategic reserves out in the open, but it was worth getting the unit killed.

Both sides had threats of paradrops in the real war to think about. The Allied commanders didn't know Hitler was so shocked of the high para losses after the Crete invasion he grounded his paras. Still the paras were excellent holding key positions. They were elite soldiers, after all.

Some games have a possibility to permanently ground your para units for a defensive bonus.