Modern paratroops

[Myrddin]

This unit appears at the same time as Modern Armour but seems pointless as I do not believe that the paradrop ability in the late game is useful, as any paradrop will get counterattacked by TOW infantry at least

Some thoughts on things that could be added:

Add amphibious attack, increase attack strength to 16 and allow marines to upgrade - to allow amphibious attacks to be worthwhile even after infantry defenders have been upgraded

Increase range to 14 to allow really deep attacks and reflect increased range of jet transports

Add stealth attack ability, a la special forces

Add build airfield ability - to allow long range force projection, if you can find somewhere to build an airfield


Even with these added, the Modern Paratrooper will not be the attacker of choice, but will allow some more interesting options in the late game

[alexman]

Originally posted by Myrddin
Add amphibious attack, increase attack strength to 16 and allow marines to upgrade - to allow amphibious attacks to be worthwhile even after infantry defenders have been upgraded

This is not a bad idea at all.

[Stuie]

Turns the unit into more of a generic "Special Forces" unit with multiple roles.... I like it, too.

[donZappo]

One of the things that could be done is make the operational range of paratroopers and modern paratroopers to be in line with the bombers of the time. As it stands right now Paratroopers have a range of 6 while Modern Paratroopers have a range of 10. To bring them in line with bombers and stealth bombers, their values could be raised to 10 and 18, respectively. This is a pretty hefty boost, but I think that both of these troops are in need of something to help them out.

Also, would it be helpful to give these guys zero range bombardment as well? This would help to make them an instant-support troop to stacks of troop that are in the field. If inserted for pillaging purposes this would also allow them to survive a bit longer themselves.

-donZappo

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not so sure about turning them into a "special forces" combo of Marines and Paratroopers - I'd rather make their paradropping abilities more useful. However, I would support a "Modern Marines" unit.

I do like upping the paradrop ranges to 10 and 18 respectively, and adding zero-range bombard. Stealth Attack would also make them quite interesting.

[Myrddin]

There are probably 2 roles:

Modern marines - amphibious + stealth attack, for seaborne attacks in the modern era plus stealth raids (eg taking out air defences before the bombers hit)

Modern airborne- long range + build airfield, traditional paratroop role plus creating a new strategic base for airlifted forces (think northern Iraq)

I am not sure whether these should be combined in 1 unit, but it is easier than adding a unit, and I don't think that a single unit with both skill sets would be overpowered, as it arrives the same time as Modern Armour

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think the AI would use "build airfield" - it's a worker option, and the AI only uses worker abilities on a unit with the "Terraform" strategy enabled. To do that, you have to give it ALL the worker abilities.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by skywalker
I don't think the AI would use "build airfield" - it's a worker option, and the AI only uses worker abilities on a unit with the "Terraform" strategy enabled. To do that, you have to give it ALL the worker abilities.

That was true in PTW. Is it still true with C3C??
(Please document your response)

[Kuciwalker]

I have no idea. I don't recall any mention of it being changed, though.

Plus, have you EVER seen the AI use the "Build Airfield" ability?

And finally, how would the "Build Airfield" ability be useful? You can't do that in enemy territory (AFAIK) and workers are a lot cheaper if you are doing it in your own territory. Not to mention the fact that airfields are only useful in a very few extremely limited situations IMO.

[Myrddin]

Where the airfield ability would work for a human (I have no idea of what the AI would do) is in creating a new front, not accessible by a normal sea-borne invasion

Drop a stack of paratroops to hold a tile (in neutral territory); next turn use one to create an airbase and you can airlift a stack of conventional forces

This is likely to most useful when the several AI are already fighting a war and cultural boundaries for cities shrink giving room for an airbase.

I don't see this as a big change, as the unit arrives too late to have a major impact, but it seems a fun option

[nbarclay]

Paratroops shouldn't be powerful or generally useful units. Face it: guys dropping with parachutes can't carry the firepower to match similarly modern conventional forces either offensively or defensively.

Paratroops have no busines dropping into the heart of enemy territory when the enemy is similarly technologically advanced. Giving that kind of power to Civ 3 paratroops would give them a kind of power that their real-world counterparts never even began to enjoy.

Nonetheless, paratroops do have legitimate targets if no better way to strike at the targets can be found. Towns on islands, or on a continent away from home, or separated from a nation's core by another civ's territory, can be reduced by bombers and taken by paratroops if a better way to take them can't be found. I haven't actually tried it, but the units' stats say it should be practical even without the help of lethal bombardment if an airport is in range (and if paratroops don't have the kind of 1-per-airport limit that airlifting does).

I do think that if we boost the attack values for guerillas and infantry to 8, we should seriously consider boosting the attack value for paratroops and modern paratroops to 6 and 8, respectively. That would make paratroops more useful without upsetting the balance between them and conventional offensive units.

Nathan

[donZappo]

So does that mean that you are opposed to moving up the paratroopers drop range to be in line with their respective bombers? It seems to me that if a bomber could fly to a square, it could drop off a troop there since there would be no troops or AA guns guarding that square. I don't agree with making it a navy SEAL type unit, but I would like to see an increased range.

-donZappo

[Jaybe]

Myrddin's concept of combining the Modern Paratroops with contemporary Marine Expeditionary Unit sounds good enough to give it a whirl -- after the unit's cost is increased to 150 shields (minor detail).

(I am referring for my personal use, not for PolyU)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I do think that if we boost the attack values for guerillas and infantry to 8, we should seriously consider boosting the attack value for paratroops and modern paratroops to 6 and 8, respectively. That would make paratroops more useful without upsetting the balance between them and conventional offensive units.

Nathan

I'd prefer 8 and 10, actually

[nbarclay]

I like 8 and 10 as well. My impression (and granted, it's only an impression since I'm not an expert) is that the planes used to transport paratroops aren't generally geared as much to maximize range as bombers are.

[geniemalin]

If the Crusaders and Rome scenario Legionaries, plus my admittedly brief squiz at the editor are anything to go by, you can indeed give only 'partial' worker functions to a unit.

I like the idea of building airfields

Paratroopers jumping into the middle of enemy territory will indeed get creamed. But if you take out enemy railroad connections with bombers and stick them onto a peninsula, building airfields (and being able to defend it at least for a little while) would give them a nice offensive use.

[Jaybe]

I like the idea of building airfields

Don't forget it will cost you the unit to do so. Also, you cannot build it in enemy territory.

[geniemalin]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Also, you cannot build it in enemy territory.

Oops, I had forgotten that bit (haven't actually built an airfield myself in a long time....)

Which kind of destroys the usefulness of the role as I had envisaged it (penetrate enemy territory and provide a landing site for planes.)

Back to the drawing board....

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I like 8 and 10 as well. My impression (and granted, it's only an impression since I'm not an expert) is that the planes used to transport paratroops aren't generally geared as much to maximize range as bombers are.

I meant attack.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by geniemalin
If the Crusaders and Rome scenario Legionaries, plus my admittedly brief squiz at the editor are anything to go by, you can indeed give only 'partial' worker functions to a unit.

Yes, you can. However, the AI won't use them.

[Theseus]

Something interesting to play around with... I could see both Marines and Paras upgrading to a general Special Forces unit with a WIDE variety of capabilities. Heck, I could even see a SW for this...

[nbarclay]

I think boosting the attack values to 8 and 10 goes too far. That's especially true of boosting the attack value of the paratrooper to 8, which makes it just as good an attacker as AU-Mod-enhanced infantry and guerillas.

[Kuciwalker]

Why shouldn't it be? It is primarily an offensive unit. It may cost the same as infantry, but it has 1 less defense and requires Oil.

[nbarclay]

I suppose one could take the view that since the paratrooper's appearance is closer in the tech tree to TOW infantry than to infantry and guerillas (at least following the usual research priorities), an attack value matching infantry and guerillas could be rationalized based on the idea that although the paratroops' weapons are lighter, they are also a bit more technologically advanced. Still, I have enough interest in history that I'm not fond of rationalizing high attack values just because a unit is considered offensive.

[lockstep]

A special forces unit instead of the Modern Paratrooper ... I like the idea.

Altough it would need an attack strength of at least 12 (like Marines).

[pauli]

i've got this odd vision in my head of upgrading marine expeditionary forces by attaching parachutes to the landing craft

(that said, i love the idea.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lockstep
A special forces unit instead of the Modern Paratrooper ... I like the idea.

Altough it would need an attack strength of at least 12 (like Marines).

It would probably need an attack much greater than that. Something around 16, probably, or 18.

[Theseus]

I've been thinking about the idea all day (I am a former Marine ).

It really does make sense for the Marines and Paratroops to merge into a Special Forces unit. Pretty much most of the "paratroops" units now do report into Special Operations Command, and the Marines consider themselves as being Special Operations-capable as a whole (not to mention Force Recon).

[Chemical Ollie]

The little I have played in the modern age, I have found helicopter insertation of TOW Infantry much more useful than Paras. They can take islands and remote cities isolated by rough terrain. These remote cities are normally not so well defended either, which compensate for the lower attack value of TOW compared to tanks and MA.

One option could perhaps be to give the Paras strike ability at the same turn as they drop, so they can be used for sabotage of critical resources. As it is now, a bunch of Paras dropped on grassland will get run over by tanks, or even Cavallery, before the can do any harm.

[MattPilot]

paratroopers are not offensive units - they are defensive! Their main purpose is to bypass enemy defensive lines, take strategic targets, and DEFEND (HOLD) until reeinforcements arrive. E.G. D-Day, Paratroopers were inserted to hold key road points to stop enemy advance. Operation market garden - they were used (or tried) to take a bridge and HOLD it.

Of course one would have to attack an objective to hold it, though i do not believe that paratroopers engaged in offensive combat verses 'armies'.