Paratroopers useless?

[XOR]

Originally posted by bbaws
Paratroops are good for managing choke points, once used them against the Indians. Stacks of 6 or so on every square around their capital on the first turn of war. Bam all their trade agreements lapsed and four border cities flipped to me without a shot fired. I could have done it with helicopters but I had to use them for something just to enjoy that glorious animation.

If that's true, their capital and your airport city must have been, at most, 5 tiles away from each other. You then dropped 6 paratrooper on each surrounding tile which means 6x8=48 paratroopers. Their cost of production is the same as the tank. With 48 tanks, their capital, their 4 border cities, and probably a few more would have been yours, that and the fact that tanks can be used to fight any battle after that, the paratroopers will probably not be usable again .

Being the 2 cities 5 tiles away means that there was a distances of at most 4 tiles between one and the other. At least one of thos 4 tiles must have been within the cultural borders of your airport city, so there must have been, at most, 3 tiles of enemy territory between your airport and their capital. Tanks can make 2 moves, so if there were no was no forest-like (the AI alway cuts it down) or mountain-like terrain in the way they could reach the city and attack it in just 2 turns, the same amount of turns it takes for a paratrooper to get there and attack (if they "attack"), plus tanks are much stronger. So reaching the attacking a position takes the same amount of time for a paratrooper that paradrops as for a tank that simply does reaches the place trough land.

[Kizami]

Tanks and other "heavy equipment" were indeed air droped in WWII but its not like they were air dropped en masse. Maybe one or two here and at most 3 or 4 there.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Stacks of 6 modern unit of any kind should work for that. The issues is to me, would you rather have x paras or x mechinf?

Paratroopers... and here's why...

If you want to build Mechi Infantry, you'll need a copter for each unit, which takes time and increases your unit support costs needlessly.

Paratroopers are an all in 1 deal, so you can build as many as you want.

[vmxa1]

I got lost here. What do I need choppers for again? Paras can only go a short distance for the air drop and then they are any other ground unit, but weaker than all of the ones they will be fighting (MA and MechInf). I have not made a helo since Civ2. If the city was on another land mass, I will need transports, but so will paras.

[Theseus]

Correct me if wrong, but vxma1 is saying: hell with the fancy footwork, just wade in there.

I'm hard put to disagree.

[Thrawn05]

Personally, I would just use mech infantry. Because for me the bottom line is that you have a weak unit that can fly and a strong unit that can't... so don't bother with the flying.

[XOR]

Originally posted by Thrawn05



Paratroopers... and here's why...

If you want to build Mechi Infantry, you'll need a copter for each unit, which takes time and increases your unit support costs needlessly.

Paratroopers are an all in 1 deal, so you can build as many as you want.

1- Mech Inf can get there by road, and does not need to have an airport so bloody close.

2- Helicopters cant transport Mech Inf.

3- Helicopters can drop infantry FROM ANY CITY. And infantry is cheaper than paratroopers, so if you have 10 helicopters you can drop FROM ANY CITY 10 infantry per turn, they can also be used as trans-oceanic airlift (which is a bit silly but WTF). All that without the contruction and support cost of having to have airports everywhere.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by XOR


1- Mech Inf can get there by road, and does not need to have an airport so bloody close.

2- Helicopters cant transport Mech Inf.

3- Helicopters can drop infantry FROM ANY CITY. And infantry is cheaper than paratroopers, so if you have 10 helicopters you can drop FROM ANY CITY 10 infantry per turn, they can also be used as trans-oceanic airlift (which is a bit silly but WTF). All that without the contruction and support cost of having to have airports everywhere.

2: Goes to show that I don't use copters.

3: I still wouldn't bother. If I can't there by road... transport them.

[vmxa1]

The only other method I have used is to transport a large force to another large landmass and grab or built a city. Then rush an airport, now I can drop in from all my airports.

[Jawa Jocky]

PTW will have airfields. That might help.

[Barchan]

Firstly, for Thrawn05: Krankor! Brilliant, man! "Now I have you, Prince of Space! Haaah, haaah, haaaaaah!"

Secondly, for everyone else: I think that the sad values for the Paratrooper unit are unfortunately one of the most realistic in the game. I've got nothing against Paras IRL, and think that pound for pound they're some of the best-trained and most effective units out there. But that's the key: pound for pound. As others have pointed out, by their very nature Para units travel light. They cannot bring a lot of ammunition or heavy weapons and are thus no match for a head-on fight with traditional "heavy" units with a lot of armor or artillery. It's true that some armor and vehicles can be airdropped (and were, on occasion, in WWII), but we're talking a few here and there, not anything to tackle a ground-deployed armored division.

The one thing that allows Para units to "punch above their weight" is the element of surprise. Being able to drop behind or in the midst of the enemy gives Para units the chance to attack before defensive preparations can be made, which makes the Para units stronger by comparison. However, once the element of surprise is lost, Para units are just ordinary light infantry units. Well trained light infantry units, perhaps, but light infantry units nonetheless.

So, my suggestion (knowing it won't be implemented...) would be to double the attack strength of Paratrooper units on the turn they drop. I think the same benefit could be successfully argued for Marines whenever they make an amphibious assault. However, once the initial airdrop or amphibious attack is done, the normal values apply for any subsequent non-airdrop or non-amphibious attack.

This would have the added "realistic" effect of wanting to get your Paratroopers and Marines the hell out of combat and back to friendly territory ASAP for R&R (replacements and repair for casualties, rest and relaxation for the veterans) so you can use their special abilities to maximum effect. After all, if you've got Paratroopers marching to the front with the rest of the "legs" you're just wasting all that training.

[shigamoto]

Well they are not good at attacking. However combined with forces that are stronger for example modern armor or well something stronger.

They can also be used for recon. Another tactic is if you are attacking a city from only one direction you can insert paratroopers to cut of the other side of the city.

But they are not suitable for direct attacks as said before...

[vulture]

Originally posted by Barchan

So, my suggestion (knowing it won't be implemented...) would be to double the attack strength of Paratrooper units on the turn they drop. I think the same benefit could be successfully argued for Marines whenever they make an amphibious assault. However, once the initial airdrop or amphibious attack is done, the normal values apply for any subsequent non-airdrop or non-amphibious attack.

Presumably you'd argue for allowing paratroopers to move/attack following the drop on the same turn then (which they really ought to do IMHO). Or, given the scale of each square on the map, allow them to paradrop into an enemy occupied square, which implicitly allows them to land, regroup and launch a surprise attack (or possibly get shot out of the air).

Sadly it can't be done with the editor AFAIK, and Firaxis aren't about to make that kind of change to the game this late in the day.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by vulture
Presumably you'd argue for allowing paratroopers to move/attack following the drop on the same turn then (which they really ought to do IMHO). Or, given the scale of each square on the map, allow them to paradrop into an enemy occupied square, which implicitly allows them to land, regroup and launch a surprise attack (or possibly get shot out of the air).

Exactly. I'd prefer the drop right on 'em approach (I know, you rarely want to actually drop *right* onto the enemy, but for scale and simplicity reasons, it'd be a better game approach). If they don't drop on an enemy, they lose their attack bonus. If they dropped onto an unoccupied, non-city square, I'd allow them to pillage after landing as well.

Originally posted by vulture Sadly it can't be done with the editor AFAIK, and Firaxis aren't about to make that kind of change to the game this late in the day.

Precisely why I said it wouldn't be implemented. Still, it's nice to daydream about it....

[Panag]

Originally posted by vulture


Presumably you'd argue for allowing paratroopers to move/attack following the drop on the same turn then (which they really ought to do IMHO). Or, given the scale of each square on the map, allow them to paradrop into an enemy occupied square, which implicitly allows them to land, regroup and launch a surprise attack (or possibly get shot out of the air).

Sadly it can't be done with the editor AFAIK, and Firaxis aren't about to make that kind of change to the game this late in the day.

hi ,

give them two movement points and they can move the same turn as they dropped , ....

have a nice day

[XOR]

Secondly, for everyone else: I think that the sad values for the Paratrooper unit are unfortunately one of the most realistic in the game. I've got nothing against Paras IRL, and think that pound for pound they're some of the best-trained and most effective units out there. But that's the key: pound for pound. As others have pointed out, by their very nature Para units travel light. They cannot bring a lot of ammunition or heavy weapons and are thus no match for a head-on fight with traditional "heavy" units with a lot of armor or artillery. It's true that some armor and vehicles can be airdropped (and were, on occasion, in WWII), but we're talking a few here and there, not anything to tackle a ground-deployed armored division.

US 82nd and 101st airborn infantry divisions, being the main examples of the role of paratroopers in a war, were just as heavily armed as the common ground grunt. Even if they did not have vehicles, their superior training balances the thing, you could argue "lighter weapons lighter armor" but the weight of the weapons does not make a soldier be more effective on an attack, the weapons are important, sure, but paratroopers get to have the same weapons as non-airborn infantry, if not superior weapons sometimes (historically: WWII german paratroopers got the highest tech on weapons, same for british, americans gave the highest tech they could afford to all troops, airborn or not). So, paratroopers historically have equal or superior weapons, the "Tank support" story, would have to apply to the normal non airborn infantry as well until you mix them with tanks, dont you think?

[Palaiologos]

Yes the German paratroopers had better weapons than the infantry. The special assault rifle (stu88 or something ), the ancestor of the Kalasnikov was used first by the paratroopers.

But in late German infantry units the machinegun per men ratio was 2/10.
I think that for paras the ratio was undoubtely worse.
Plus an infantry division also includes a "support arms" (Greek term translated) brigade with mortars etc.
Also the main paratrooper combat unit is the brigade(3000 men) while the infantry's is Division (10.000 men)
Civ makes no distiction so a para unit could represent 3000 while an infantry 10.000.

And one could asume that behind enemy lines without an effective supply system and without direct contact with HQ their combat ability as a UNIT is decreased.

They should have a better range though. And they should not require airport.

[Palaiologos]

Perhaps they should ignore city walls when they attack directly from the air. Only count SAM sites.

And definetely longer range.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Perhaps they should ignore city walls when they attack directly from the air. Only count SAM sites.

And definetely longer range.

hi ,

with a bit of luck we might find out in the friday chat if they have unlocked that field , ..........

have a nice day

[Barchan]

Originally posted by XOR
US 82nd and 101st airborn infantry divisions, being the main examples of the role of paratroopers in a war, were just as heavily armed as the common ground grunt. Even if they did not have vehicles, their superior training balances the thing, you could argue "lighter weapons lighter armor" but the weight of the weapons does not make a soldier be more effective on an attack, the weapons are important, sure, but paratroopers get to have the same weapons as non-airborn infantry, if not superior weapons sometimes (historically: WWII german paratroopers got the highest tech on weapons, same for british, americans gave the highest tech they could afford to all troops, airborn or not). So, paratroopers historically have equal or superior weapons, the "Tank support" story, would have to apply to the normal non airborn infantry as well until you mix them with tanks, dont you think?

It's not the individual soldier's weapons that's the problem (and yes, elite units always have and always will get the latest guns and gadgets available), it's the lack of heavy support equipment that most ground-based "infantry" divisions bring along with them. Even today, when the 82nd and 101st (which is now an Air Assault Division, BTW, and is primarily helicopter-transported rather than airdropped) go into battle, they don't have the overall combat strength and sustainability of an ordinary infantry division. Specifically, they lack the artillery and armor support ground-based divisions can bring to bear and thus suffer somewhat in terms of overall fighting power.

I think it’s important to point out that almost all infantry divisions have armor mixed into them. Frankly, if you look at WWII as an example, the French actually had more armor than the Germans did in 1940, but they had them so dispersed and integrated as infantry support units that they could not mass them effectively. The Germans, OTOH, formed specific armored units to focus the power and mobility of the tank to smash through lines and exploit more lightly defended rear areas, seize supply depots, cut off lines of movement and communication, and etc. I think that’s what the tank (and Panzer and MA as well) represents in CivIII; a higher concentration of armor in a unit to increase its attack and mobility abilities. Surely, there’s infantry in the tank unit and vice-versa, but it’s the focus of the primary equipment and purpose that really defines what kind of unit it is.

As an aside, does anyone know the difference between a mechanized division and an armored division in today’s US Army? (Hint: each has ten combat maneuver battalions, but….)

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

with a bit of luck we might find out in the friday chat if they have unlocked that field , ..........

have a nice day

hi,

panag what is that friday chat you mention? You mentioned at another post also i think........

have a nice day

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Barchan

As an aside, does anyone know the difference between a mechanized division and an armored division in today’s US Army? (Hint: each has ten combat maneuver battalions, but….)

Each division has three brigades.The mechanized division's brigade has two batalions of Mechanized infantry and one of armour, while the armored's division's brigade has two battalions of armor and one of Mechanized infantry. The self-proppelled artillery elements are common for both types of divisions.

At least thats what applies to the Greek army.

So for U.S army should be:

Armored division:6 armored batalions, 3 Mechanized infantry battalions, 1 artillery battalion.

Mechanized Division: 6 Mechanized infantry batalions, 3 armored batalions, 1 artillery batalion.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Palaiologos




hi,

panag what is that friday chat you mention? You mentioned at another post also i think........

have a nice day

hi ,

on the bottom of this page it says "apolyton civ site" , click on it , then go for civIII , ........

and you have all the news there is , ......

have a nice day

[vulture]

Originally posted by panag

give them two movement points and they can move the same turn as they dropped , ....

Not when I tried it they couldn't. I tried giving them blitz ability and multiple moves, but they still couldn't drop and attack. If anyone has had any better success I'd like to know about it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by vulture


Not when I tried it they couldn't. I tried giving them blitz ability and multiple moves, but they still couldn't drop and attack. If anyone has had any better success I'd like to know about it.

hi ,

okay , editor - units > moves , just put two or three there , .....

have a nice day

[XOR]

Originally posted by Barchan


It's not the individual soldier's weapons that's the problem (and yes, elite units always have and always will get the latest guns and gadgets available), it's the lack of heavy support equipment that most ground-based "infantry" divisions bring along with them. Even today, when the 82nd and 101st (which is now an Air Assault Division, BTW, and is primarily helicopter-transported rather than airdropped) go into battle, they don't have the overall combat strength and sustainability of an ordinary infantry division. Specifically, they lack the artillery and armor support ground-based divisions can bring to bear and thus suffer somewhat in terms of overall fighting power.

These are limitations related to being deployed behind enemy lines and without support of armored units. If you send any infantry unit (airborn or not) to face this conditions they will have, not same, but greater difficulties because they were not trained to face this situation.

In the game, you can think of paradroping a lonely paratrooper in the middle of the enemy territory the same same as unloading (or helitransporting, or even walking up to the place luckily being ignored) a lonely infantry unit in the same place. What would make you think that the paratrooper unit is in inferior condition? They are both abandoned in enemy territory without any tank support.

If they dont get support, they are both toast.

I think it’s important to point out that almost all infantry divisions have armor mixed into them. Frankly, if you look at WWII as an example, the French actually had more armor than the Germans did in 1940, but they had them so dispersed and integrated as infantry support units that they could not mass them effectively. The Germans, OTOH, formed specific armored units to focus the power and mobility of the tank to smash through lines and exploit more lightly defended rear areas, seize supply depots, cut off lines of movement and communication, and etc. I think that’s what the tank (and Panzer and MA as well) represents in CivIII; a higher concentration of armor in a unit to increase its attack and mobility abilities. Surely, there’s infantry in the tank unit and vice-versa, but it’s the focus of the primary equipment and purpose that really defines what kind of unit it is.

Sure, almost all "divisions", now lets check the "units":

Infantry: 6.10.1
Req: Replaceable Parts, Rubber.

Tank: 16.8.2
Req: Motorized Transport, Oil.

Paratrooper: 6.8.1
Req: Adv. Flight, Oil, Rubber.

I dont think the infantry unit is representative of having tanks. I think if you have a "division" of tanks, artillery and inf in Civ3 it will have to be made of tank units, artillery units and infantry units. An entire infantry division cant cost less than a single destroyer, so, really, we are speaking units that do not really represent "divisions".

WW2 american airborn infantry were dropped with a truckload of ammunition, mortars and light MGs (heavy MGs were rarely used by any inf at all, airborn or not), it's just that they had to regroup and arm them because they would carry everything in parts, I think MGs were 3 parts and mortars were 6 parts, but I dont remember exactly right now, and every man jumping would carry a part of a heavy weapon and, I think, 1 or 2 mortar rockets and an MG ammo belt. (more accurrate info would help).

[XOR]

remove this post. I had some prob with the [quote] tags and accidentally clicked quote instead of edit.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
So for U.S army should be:

Armored division:6 armored batalions, 3 Mechanized infantry battalions, 1 artillery battalion.

Mechanized Division: 6 Mechanized infantry batalions, 3 armored batalions, 1 artillery batalion.

Good analysis, Palaiologos, and pretty close, but the difference isn't even so dramatic in the US Army.

An Armored division has 6 armored battalions and 4 mechanized infantry battalions (artillery and other units are in addition to these).

A Mechanized division has 5 Armored battalions and 5 mechanized infantry battalions.

So, the big difference between Armored and Mechanized divisions is the addition of an extra armored battalion.

My point in all of this is that even “infantry” units have a significant number of tanks in them.

To get back on point, though, I think that the Paratrooper units in the game are woefully underpowered, not so much in combat strength but in the restriction of their range of operations and lack of any “surprise” bonus.

[vulture]

Originally posted by panag

okay , editor - units > moves , just put two or three there , .....

I already know how to change the move value for a unit - I'm just saying that changing it didn't have any effect on whether paratroopers could move after dropping or not.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by vulture
I already know how to change the move value for a unit - I'm just saying that changing it didn't have any effect on whether paratroopers could move after dropping or not.

Check to see if Marines have an ability that can be applied to Paras to have the desired effect....