Paratroopers useless?

[vulture]

Originally posted by Jaybe

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

Is that an educated guess or something that you've tried and found to work? (I'm not in a position to test it myself at the moment )

[XOR]

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

My point, with more base than yours, is that CIV3_INFANTRY units are just some smaller crew of troops and not a "division", or even a "batalion", so they dont represent as having tanks in them. For CIV3_INFANTRY to be a batallion that have tanks with them, require of you to build many CIV3_TANK units and take your CIV3_INFANTRY and your CIV3_TANKs together (thing that we all do, as long as we have the tech to build tanks).

Just the same as CIV3_PARATROOPER units, if you could handle to get the CIV3_TANK uinits there somehow, then they WILL have tanks.

[Palaiologos]

Does anybody remember WWII operation "Market Garden"?
Monty's plan to end the war before Christmas?

The general plan was: Paratroopers in great numbers drop behind German lines and occupy important points/bridges in Holland(Arnhem, Nimegen, Ainthoven) before the German's blow them up. British armored XXX corps smashes through enemy lines and links up with the paras. The final outcome was a huge defeat for the Allies losing 17.000 men to the Germans' 500 dead and 1000 wounded.

So a simple analysis:

1)The paratroopers were used to occupy strong points, not form the spearhead of major offensives.
2)Even Allied paratroops with ample supplies and air supperiority were not expected to hold their own behind enemy lines, so XXX corps had to link up with them.
3)The Germans were able to quickly commit their panzer reserves on the isolated paras and crush them. They then turned their attention to XXX corps.

That is depicted in civ3.Paras can drop onto choke points(Mountains, Hills) and hold off superior forces untill armor cames to the rescue. However they are of little value versus the AI. I think however that they will be of much value to a MP game.

Actually to my knowledge the only paratroop operations that suceeded were the ones conducted by the Wermacht. But of course these were Germans.
Neither Russians or Allies used paras effectively.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by vulture
Is that an educated guess or something that you've tried and found to work? (I'm not in a position to test it myself at the moment )

Educated Guess. (I was/am not in a position to test it either)

[Jaybe]

Palaiologos, a major factor with Operation Market Garden was that the paratroopers had no radio communications with HQ so they could get no air support (the radios had been all turned to the wrong frequency).

Normandy invasion included good use of paratroops. Not to far behind enemy lines (since the invasion wasn't defeated).

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Palaiologos, a major factor with Operation Market Garden was that the paratroopers had no radio communications with HQ so they could get no air support (the radios had been all turned to the wrong frequency).

Normandy invasion included good use of paratroops. Not to far behind enemy lines (since the invasion wasn't defeated).

Oh yeah now that you mention it, i remembered it from the movie(bridge too far).But still the paras would not have been able to keep their own.

And ok Normandy was a good Allied use of paratroops but mainly because the Germans failed to commit their Armor reserves quickly enough.

[XOR]

3)The Germans were able to quickly commit their panzer reserves on the isolated paras and crush them. They then turned their attention to XXX corps.

Sir, if you had teleported ordinary infantry to that place to face the same circumstances they would not have lasted as much as the paras. Understood?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Jaybe

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

hi ,

simple , make the "airborne" , .....

now , since most of the other people can upgrade the paras to move after they jump , reinstall your version , .....


have a nice day

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by XOR


Sir, if you had teleported ordinary infantry to that place to face the same circumstances they would not have lasted as much as the paras. Understood?

Have i argued differently????

Paratroopers are elite units made up of proffesionals.
Regular infantry are conscripts. They may have heavier weapons(Better machine gun/men ratio, heavy anti-tank guns) but the better morale and sheer profesionalism of the paras more than makes up for it.
But still their lack of heavy weapons makes them vulnerable to armor attacks.

After the battle of Crete the German high command came to the assumption that the paras' days were over. From that day paras in the German army were used as elite foot-infantry. They proved their worth at the Monte Casino battle.

The modern dogma of using paras however differs a lot from WWII. Mass paratroop attacks are simply not worth it(Modern AA weapons will cut them to pieces). Instead they will be used in special missions, in small units.

OR for a country such as Greece, with many islands to protect, paras along with marines will be used to quickly counterattack and recapture any island lost to the enemy.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Regular infantry are conscripts.

Well actually conscripts are draftees and have 2 HP, regulars are more like volunteers and have 3 HP.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by XOR
My point, with more base than yours, is that CIV3_INFANTRY units are just some smaller crew of troops and not a "division", or even a "batalion", so they dont represent as having tanks in them. For CIV3_INFANTRY to be a batallion that have tanks with them, require of you to build many CIV3_TANK units and take your CIV3_INFANTRY and your CIV3_TANKs together (thing that we all do, as long as we have the tech to build tanks).

XOR, it seems our arguments are passing like ships in the night.

I see your point. It's different from my point, but I see it. I’m not really interested in arguing that you’re wrong, although if a CivIII Army loads up 3-4 smaller units, military doctrine would argue that those units would be Corps, even larger than Divisions. Given the scale of the game, it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that the units are actually Corps-strength, rather than battalion or smaller.

But it’s just not worth arguing about. It’s a game, and the units are both merely abstract representations of generic military formations and assigned almost wholly arbitrary combat values and abilities. And the paratrooper units, frankly, just aren’t worth the costs involved in researching or building them.

Of course, one could make the same arguments about paratroopers IRL. Sure, they’ve done some great work in the past and probably will again in the future. But I doubt that anyone could argue that the course of history would have been dramatically different if paratroopers had never been developed (not where they might have failed instead of succeeded when used IRL, but never been developed). At least not as different if, say, the tank had never been developed. Paratroopers simply weren’t (and aren’t) that critical to the overall course of war. In just about every case, there was another way to get the job done. It might have been costlier, and taken longer, but it could have been done.

The true value of paratroopers, IMHO and IRL, is their flexibility and unpredictability in combat employment. If your enemy has tanks and infantry along your front, you can set up a defensive line and engage them along it with minimal defenses in your rear areas. However, if he has paratroopers, all of a sudden you’ve got to be thinking about defending all your rear marshalling areas and supply depots, critical transportation and supply routes, your headquarters and training grounds. Nowhere is “safe”, and the strain of being on constant alert for an attack from above slowly saps the morale of troops trying to recover from the stresses of front-line combat (remember the tanks and infantry?). It’s the threat of imminent behind-the-line attack that makes paratroopers so valuable to have, oftentimes even more so than the actual value of whatever attacks they might make.

Naturally, this value is lost on the AI, who doesn’t seem to care where your units go anyway. Perhaps in MP, paratroopers will have more value, but I doubt it. The scale of the game is just too grand; paratroopers are usually employed tactically, but the value of tactics in CivIII is minimal at best. They might be able to pillage the odd resource here and there or cut the occasional rail line, but their weak drop range means it’s likely just as easy to accomplish these missions with infantry and explorers (saboteurs). It just isn’t worth taking the four or more extra turns to research paratroopers. After all, that’s four turns you *could* have spent researching modern armor. I don’t think we need a poll to find out what people would rather have in their inventory....

Anyway, apologies to any Paras lurking on the board; I’m not saying you’re not important or relevant, but simply trying to keep things in perspective.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by vmxa1


Well actually conscripts are draftees and have 2 HP, regulars are more like volunteers and have 3 HP.

I wasn't speaking in civ3 terms.
But i forgot that you people in America have a profesional army.

In Greece we have enlistment, but still the paratrooper corps is made up of profesionals.
But anywhay i was speaking for WWII when everybody had enlistment.

I had mentioned in a previous post that since civ3 makes no distinction, the infantry unit could represent a division(10.000 men), while the paras a brigade(3.000) being their normal combat formation, and hence the worse stats..

[NeOmega]

once again, because of the space race, I've never wasted time researching advanced flight.... and by the time it is cheap enough to buy, I already have Mech inf.


Man I really got to turn that space victory option off.

[XOR]

I see your point. It's different from my point, but I see it. I’m not really interested in arguing that you’re wrong, although if a CivIII Army loads up 3-4 smaller units, military doctrine would argue that those units would be Corps, even larger than Divisions. Given the scale of the game, it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that the units are actually Corps-strength, rather than battalion or smaller.

No, it's not my point, i'm just pointing how pointless your point is. Civ3 has NO such thing as "divisions", or "batallion", just units. You pretend to say that the CIV3_INFANTRY unit should be strongers because each unit is an "Infantry division" that includes "tanks" in it. Well, no, it's not just that there isnt anything that points to it being like that, but there happens to be a lot that points to it NOT being like that.

But, anyway, it seems like in Civ3 the Paratrooper ended up being a totally useless unit after all.

As for the course of history without paratroopers, I dont know if this is true, but I've heard ALL bridges captured intact by the Germans in WWII were captured by paratroopers in paradrop operations.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by XOR
No, it's not my point, i'm just pointing how pointless your point is. Civ3 has NO such thing as "divisions", or "batallion", just units. You pretend to say that the CIV3_INFANTRY unit should be strongers because each unit is an "Infantry division" that includes "tanks" in it. Well, no, it's not just that there isnt anything that points to it being like that, but there happens to be a lot that points to it NOT being like that.

*sighs* And so now the personal slights begin. Oh, well. It was getting too far OT anyway.

Nevertheless, for the record, nowhere did I say CivIII infantry units should be stronger. My entire point, pointless or not, was that IN REAL LIFE nearly every large infantry unit, such as, oh I don’t know, a DIVISION, has some armor in it. Also, IRL, large Airborne units, again, what the heck, lets just call them DIVISIONS, have less armor in them, on average, than infantry units do. This lack of armor makes the attack capabilities of airborne units less powerful than ground-deployed infantry units of similar size.

Anyway, that's my point. If you want to point out that there aren't specific unit designations in CivIII, knock yourself out. If you want to argue that divisions and battalions aren't units, I'd be most amused watching you do so. However, I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from ad hominem attacks and focus instead on the actual points being made.

Originally posted by XOR
As for the course of history without paratroopers, I dont know if this is true, but I've heard ALL bridges captured intact by the Germans in WWII were captured by paratroopers in paradrop operations.

Check your sources, because that sounds absolutely ludicrous. The German ground forces overran vast tracts of territory in both Western and Eastern Europe. I’m sure the Wehrmacht captured plenty of bridges intact all on its own. Frankly, after the mauling the Fallschirmjager took in Crete in 1941, Hitler forbade any further airdrops. Therefore, I find it tough to believe that the Germans failed to capture another bridge intact in over 4 subsequent years of fighting.