Well, I would offer a different viewpoint, but it seems discussing relative worth of Fallschirmjaeger in all the campaigns would be clearly OT here.
Then starting new thread seem reasonable. It clearly is an issue one can argue about.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Then starting new thread seem reasonable. It clearly is an issue one can argue about.
Due to a flaw in the game mechanics, paratroopers are very OP. Say you won a frontline battle against a 20 division stack, you could then send a paratrooper to take the province they're retreating too. If it's empty, just VoV the para and poof! Those 20 divisions die on arrival. Even if the province is defended, so long as the paratrooper is attacking the province during the time the 20 divisions are arriving, then poof! They vanish into thin air.
I'm glad you started new thread, Pang. For now I will only comment on using Fallshirmjaeger for Norway... and think it is a terrible idea. "Why?" is better expressed by Mr_BOnarpte when he writes, "paratroopers are very OP". Although I don't know what he means by OP (and hope he tells me), I can agree with him already based on his detail of paras blocking a mass retreat. In short, I would just say that, "There are a number of serious negative issues with AoD paras that can result in their use being disastarous."
While Mr_BOnarpte ponited out a case of disaster for the enemy (which I suspect he feels is not how game play should occur) I'll mention an opposite disaster for Germany that would occur if using para to take Norway, starting with Oslo. Firstly, one para probably will not win, or just win so marginally that the unit will be eliminated in a few short hours upon taking the province. Therefore the battle will also include some Wehrmacht coming in on an amphibious assault; and this should result in the lone Norweigan defender being over whelmed since we can expect German player to add interdiction and shore bombardment.
Unfortunately, because the rules governing attack by para are as they are, the battle will not be restricted to the defenders in Oslo, but will include all Norweigan units moving towards the defense of Oslo. Unless I am wrong, that is not limited to only Norwegian units adjacent to Oslo, but might include the WHOLE Norwegian army. But even if it includes only the adjacent Norwegians moving towards Oslo, the assumed easy win for Oslo just became a battle that doubled or tripled the number of defending units.
Now, because the attack will probably fail the amphib will cancel itself first. At that point your seriously wounded para fighting alone will quickly die. And you can not even reinforce the amphib with fresh troops (exchange 1st amphib wave for fresh wave) without the battle first strangely stopping for some hours (so leaving me uncertain what is the fate of the para at that instant).
The net result will be a VERY LONG battle not just for Oslo but one of defeating the better portion of the Norwegian army until the Fallschirmjaeger gets control of Oslo. This extended time (inordinate length of time) should guarantee that the UK AI will send a fleet into the straits and sink your whole assemblage there - starting with marines - and then paras will die alone.
As regards
I would look very closely at the other defenders in the surrounding provinces before I ever used para again in any huge battle. I once did, and the mini-AAR that documented it called that endeavor "A battle from hell", if you remember. As regards using them for Sea Lion, I would NOT to assist any effort by the marines. But I would to land on any empty province in the UK to open the port for inserting a Wehtmacht force.
For better or worse, because of game mechanics, rarely should para be used for battles (except near the end perhaps or if all surrounding enemy are already very weakened). They should be used to seize empty provinces, battle only against much weaker defenders who have no friends nearby, and they are merciless to block retreats, fantastic to close head of envelopment, or seriously disrupt enemy airforce.
While Mr_BOnarpte ponited out a case of disaster for the enemy (which I suspect he feels is not how game play should occur) I'll mention an opposite disaster for Germany that would occur if using para to take Norway, starting with Oslo. Firstly, one para probably will not win, or just win so marginally that the unit will be eliminated in a few short hours upon taking the province. Therefore the battle will also include some Wehrmacht coming in on an amphibious assault; and this should result in the lone Norweigan defender being over whelmed since we can expect German player to add interdiction and shore bombardment.
Unfortunately, because the rules governing attack by para are as they are, the battle will not be restricted to the defenders in Oslo, but will include all Norweigan units moving towards the defense of Oslo. Unless I am wrong, that is not limited to only Norwegian units adjacent to Oslo, but might include the WHOLE Norwegian army. But even if it includes only the adjacent Norwegians moving towards Oslo, the assumed easy win for Oslo just became a battle that doubled or tripled the number of defending units.
Now, because the attack will probably fail the amphib will cancel itself first. At that point your seriously wounded para fighting alone will quickly die. And you can not even reinforce the amphib with fresh troops (exchange 1st amphib wave for fresh wave) without the battle first strangely stopping for some hours (so leaving me uncertain what is the fate of the para at that instant).
The net result will be a VERY LONG battle not just for Oslo but one of defeating the better portion of the Norwegian army until the Fallschirmjaeger gets control of Oslo. This extended time (inordinate length of time) should guarantee that the UK AI will send a fleet into the straits and sink your whole assemblage there - starting with marines - and then paras will die alone.
As regards
I would look very closely at the other defenders in the surrounding provinces before I ever used para again in any huge battle. I once did, and the mini-AAR that documented it called that endeavor "A battle from hell", if you remember. As regards using them for Sea Lion, I would NOT to assist any effort by the marines. But I would to land on any empty province in the UK to open the port for inserting a Wehtmacht force.
For better or worse, because of game mechanics, rarely should para be used for battles (except near the end perhaps or if all surrounding enemy are already very weakened). They should be used to seize empty provinces, battle only against much weaker defenders who have no friends nearby, and they are merciless to block retreats, fantastic to close head of envelopment, or seriously disrupt enemy airforce.
Last edited:
@OP: It means overpowered, they are too strong.
@Norway: german AI uses this strategy rather sucessful. A human germany would probably simply take sweden first.
@huge battles: Using them not from the start of the battle on is missing the point. Attacking from 5 instead of 4 angles of attack will give +60% on the attack instead of only +30%. Simply using paras to capture territory would likely be a waste as mot can do that, too. That is only worth the effort if it does the huge damage Mr_B0narpte described or if it accelerates annexation by weeks.
@Norway: german AI uses this strategy rather sucessful. A human germany would probably simply take sweden first.
@huge battles: Using them not from the start of the battle on is missing the point. Attacking from 5 instead of 4 angles of attack will give +60% on the attack instead of only +30%. Simply using paras to capture territory would likely be a waste as mot can do that, too. That is only worth the effort if it does the huge damage Mr_B0narpte described or if it accelerates annexation by weeks.
That was what I thought it might mean... but wasn't sure. Actually, PARA are a relatively weak force compared to any other same circa unit. It is the game rule which Mr_BOnarpte mentioned that makes them OP. Their real strength is "airborne insertion" if played appropriately considering the AoD mechanics.
What the German AI manages is hardly relevant to discussing player using para, IMO. Perhaps in that case the Norway AI does not add adjacent defenders to the battle? I never watched German AI take Norway and only know it never manages to annex Norway in 48 hours from starting attacks like I do playing Germany. Norway is the easiest country on the map to annex, so why even bother the paras? You still have to move in MTN to keep the country... so may as well have your assault troops be your occupation troops and minimize more risk from later RN involvement moving troops about. Clearly the fastest attack of Norway is "Amphib all VP provinces at same time; and annex." So far this has always resulted in seemingly being too fast for the RN to react.
Some humans might. I would NEVER attack Sweden believing it to be a friend of Germany. Anyway, this distracts.
That is very true. But it can easily occur that keeping the para out may result in player getting control of province sooner because player can organize normal angles of attack and amass attackers to so quickly cause retreat of defending units and - importantly - the elimination of any GAR there - before new defenders can enter province. If para are in the battle, enemy defenders can easily triple to include all enemy in all surroundig provinces; and put themselves into re-cycling so battle can take weeks to finish.
Actually no other unit can do it if all units involved are battling already. Only the para is subject to no attack while over enemy territory; and can close envelopment instantly if province is empty. It might take the MOTs first winning their battle, having to wait 24 hours to remission, and then move into that province to accomplish same thing. But the use of para - timed precisely - can cause the sudden loss of retreat route that results in enemy elimination at the start of retreat (if a small envelopment) and also eliminate other units at end of retreat (as Mr_BOnarpte detailed).
Some edits done to improve 2nd and last paragraphs.
Last edited:
Paratroopers are overpowered. Maybe I wasn't clear why, here's a hypothetical scenario:
1) Germany is invading Poland, with there being 8 Polish divisions in Torun.
2) Germany attacks these 8 divisions by land, with the Polish forces retreating to Warsaw.
3) Before these 8 divisions arrive, Germany lands a paratrooper in Warsaw, which is defended by 2 divisions.
4) While this combat in Warsaw persists, even if in Poland's favour, those 8 divisions retreating from Torun instantly die upon arrival due to this para attack.
1) Germany is invading Poland, with there being 8 Polish divisions in Torun.
2) Germany attacks these 8 divisions by land, with the Polish forces retreating to Warsaw.
3) Before these 8 divisions arrive, Germany lands a paratrooper in Warsaw, which is defended by 2 divisions.
4) While this combat in Warsaw persists, even if in Poland's favour, those 8 divisions retreating from Torun instantly die upon arrival due to this para attack.
Paratroopers are too powerful to allow their use in multiplayer games. For the reasons already given: overrun retreating units, quickly close encirclement, take land province without beach but with sea front to create invasion beach-head, additional angle of attack. I have only thought of one practical way to overcome difficulties 2 & 3, but is expensive for the defending side. A change to the combat code would be required to correct the first difficulty. And the 4th difficulty appears to be a genuine advantage that should be retained.
Paratroopers can allow a successful seaborne invasion to occur without the attacker having naval supremacy; the attacker only needs surprise.
Some players build 2 or 3 times the number of paratrooper divisions, compared with the number of air transports. Is this a good strategy?
Paratroopers can allow a successful seaborne invasion to occur without the attacker having naval supremacy; the attacker only needs surprise.
Some players build 2 or 3 times the number of paratrooper divisions, compared with the number of air transports. Is this a good strategy?
Last edited:
Paras are much cheaper than Tra1936. Tra1940 is cheaper than Tra1936, Tra1942 is cheaper than Tra1940 and assemly line give a 20% discount on Tra but only 10% on Para.
Tra1936: 30 x 150 icd.
Tra1940: 25 x 150 icd.
Tra1942: 20 x 150 icd.
Para: 12 x 210 icd.
Art1938: 5 x 60 icd.
Art1940: 6 x 60 icd.
So in 1939 you get 1.46 Para1939-Art1938 per Tra1936, in 1940 you get 1.30 Para1940-Art1940 per Tra1940 and 1.17 Para1940-Art1940 per Tra1940 once assemlby line it is available. In 1942 you get 0.94 Para1942-Art1940 per Tra1942.
In the early years Tra are rather expensive, in the later years they regain org rather fast due to better doctrines. Both makes using more Paras than Tra reasonable. But using up to thrice as many Para as Tra seem a bit extrem. Aiming at 9 Tra and 18 Para might be more reasonable.
Tra1936: 30 x 150 icd.
Tra1940: 25 x 150 icd.
Tra1942: 20 x 150 icd.
Para: 12 x 210 icd.
Art1938: 5 x 60 icd.
Art1940: 6 x 60 icd.
So in 1939 you get 1.46 Para1939-Art1938 per Tra1936, in 1940 you get 1.30 Para1940-Art1940 per Tra1940 and 1.17 Para1940-Art1940 per Tra1940 once assemlby line it is available. In 1942 you get 0.94 Para1942-Art1940 per Tra1942.
In the early years Tra are rather expensive, in the later years they regain org rather fast due to better doctrines. Both makes using more Paras than Tra reasonable. But using up to thrice as many Para as Tra seem a bit extrem. Aiming at 9 Tra and 18 Para might be more reasonable.
I think not unless they are planning on losing a lot of paratroopers. I generally built 2 TRA for each para because it is the TRA which are the bottleneck for how I use paras mostly (seizing empty provinces, only contributing to winning battles and hopfully never in real heavy fighting).
The TRAs need full ORG to fly; but the Paras will jump with partial org and strength. So the paras are much more re-useable provided they stay out of major conflicts.
Generally for Germany I build 3 para and 5 TRA because that is what works into my early build scheme and still gets my infra construction limited to what I think fits me. The line of TRA construct from near start, and it is shortage of IC and other demands that results in cancelling the TRA line and not getting the 6th unit as I would more prefer. But because I try to use my para delicately, they are very re-useable and often 2 para can do the whole string of jobs provided enough TRA are available to get them airborne.
Playing USA or SU I do it the other way around, and only build the airborne force after the units have been tech rushed. Then it is easier to just keep the unit builds going as long as possible and so get greater numbers. Certainly they are very expensive, but even as UK I find I can afford 1 set - which then opens up new strategies.
I suppose if one had a strong strategy for paras being important in big battles (like comitting one for every big land battle to get the extra attack angle and greater bonus) then it would be wise to have far more paras than TRAs because paras are easily severely damaged right after they get control of province because at first they are alone. And they take a long time to repair. In fact, it might make sense to attack with 3 paras to better survive holding the province until the mobiles arrive. But somehow a so-dependent-on-para strategy would probably backfire because the same job (winning heavy battles) can be done cheaper using INF.
But another viewpoint for more para than TRA might be the idea that they will be used a lot one-at-a-time to win battles with the full expectation that after one battle the unit is, basically, finished. This kind of "expendable" attitude for para might be justifiable for major frontline action like Barbarossa... but it would take many para (and few TRA), be rather expensive, and I suspect subject to strong criticism regarding the icd inefficiency.
Last edited:
I certainly agree that building the units later is a great savings - but I don't do that for Germany only because I want them available for Poland.
While this is true, the net effect is that modern TRA take longer to regain ORG after a drop than do older TRA, I believe (but am open to a test result). Because older TRA have small maximum ORG, they fully recover that relatively quickly. Modern TRA have far greater org, ALL OF WHICH IS LOST upon dropping para, so then it is longer wait to regain all the lost org. But as regards rebasing TRA, modern units regain org much faster because they lose far less org to do same rebase, and, of course, rate of org regain is better as Pang pointed out.
Again, I think this depends on how one uses their paras. If only seizing empty provinces one para may need several more TRA to do the job expediently. A good example is taking Siberia. The bottle necks are lack of orged TRAs, lack of airbases, and more unorged TRA when new airbase is placed and TRA finally rebases to reach the para to do next operation. As such, 2-3 TRA per para is needed.
As regards the relative costs, 9 TRA and 18 Para sounds good but it all seems exorbitantly huge. How many airborne divisions did the combined Allies have in WW2?
While this is true, the net effect is that modern TRA take longer to regain ORG after a drop than do older TRA, I believe (but am open to a test result). Because older TRA have small maximum ORG, they fully recover that relatively quickly. Modern TRA have far greater org, ALL OF WHICH IS LOST upon dropping para, so then it is longer wait to regain all the lost org. But as regards rebasing TRA, modern units regain org much faster because they lose far less org to do same rebase, and, of course, rate of org regain is better as Pang pointed out.
Again, I think this depends on how one uses their paras. If only seizing empty provinces one para may need several more TRA to do the job expediently. A good example is taking Siberia. The bottle necks are lack of orged TRAs, lack of airbases, and more unorged TRA when new airbase is placed and TRA finally rebases to reach the para to do next operation. As such, 2-3 TRA per para is needed.
As regards the relative costs, 9 TRA and 18 Para sounds good but it all seems exorbitantly huge. How many airborne divisions did the combined Allies have in WW2?
Uk has rather much ic at its disposal. Taking into account the better sliders UK may have a higher icd/manpower ratio than germany. In the early years it migh be different due to peacetime penalties.
I was think about organizing Paras into groups of 3 and using 3 such gruops for one big battle. That way Paras might be used in manpower efficient way. It will however need a rather strong enemy to be icd effecient, too.
If one let Paras be finished, let them take more than 10% strenght loss, than it would not seem very manpower efficient. Manpower is something one needs to worry more about in the long run.
I certainly agree with all you write except the base ic UK might have after it losses India, HK, Malaysia and N. Africa.
But using paras in a big way to be heavily involved in battles certainly does invoke MP concerns. I not convinced para are such a good deal to "force winning battles" but they sure are great for winning in other ways. They can be a bit like a key to open a door instead of battering it down in a somewhat skewed anology pertaining to their airborne capability that can fly them over the toughest obstacle. However, what use that might be really depends on "combined strategy", IMO.
Anyway, I had hoped you might test which plane actually recovers full ORG first after a para drop: TRA-1 or TRA-3?
But if there are others building huge numbers of para (like 18) maybe we could hear how you use them. And any stories about para divisions lost might be interesting too. While I never lost one yet, I admit that committing them gives a certain fear in the gut like no other unit can seem to duplicate for me... which is silly considering it is only a game... but actually only greatly adds to the game excitement - so playing without them is never a choice for me.
That might be awesome! Or it might be .... ?
But using paras in a big way to be heavily involved in battles certainly does invoke MP concerns. I not convinced para are such a good deal to "force winning battles" but they sure are great for winning in other ways. They can be a bit like a key to open a door instead of battering it down in a somewhat skewed anology pertaining to their airborne capability that can fly them over the toughest obstacle. However, what use that might be really depends on "combined strategy", IMO.
Anyway, I had hoped you might test which plane actually recovers full ORG first after a para drop: TRA-1 or TRA-3?
But if there are others building huge numbers of para (like 18) maybe we could hear how you use them. And any stories about para divisions lost might be interesting too. While I never lost one yet, I admit that committing them gives a certain fear in the gut like no other unit can seem to duplicate for me... which is silly considering it is only a game... but actually only greatly adds to the game excitement - so playing without them is never a choice for me.
That might be awesome! Or it might be .... ?
Last edited:
Paratrooper can surly unlock things especially for invading nearby islands. When I got into hoi2-doomsday it was then I truly learned how important they can be. Wales and Malta here we come*.
This is nonsense. No air doctrines or air techs increase the organisation level of Transport Planes, only the morale. Meaning the more upto date your techs for TRA are, the quicker they regain org due to the higher morale levels - and since the org remains constant the net effect is that TRA are quicker in regaining org with modern air doctrines.
even if air doctrines would increase org for TRA and not morale, that wouldn't increase the reorg time.
if you didn't notice, units replenish percentage of their max org each hour. how much percentage it is, depends on infra, morale, if it's moving, ese... etc.
if you didn't notice, units replenish percentage of their max org each hour. how much percentage it is, depends on infra, morale, if it's moving, ese... etc.
Those statements are both wrong to some degree. All Tra models have same Org and Morale. Morale is increased by many STR doctrines. So only longer range of later Tra models might decrease org loss by relocation by some time.
No unit regains org as a percentage of max org. For landunits reorg depends on the current percentage of max og in the sense that there are 4 speeds: 1 for less than 25%, 2/3 for less than 50%, 1/3 for less than 75%, 1/6 else: http://www.paradoxian.org/hoi2wiki/index.php/Reinforcements,_Reorganization_and_Bases
Reorg of naval and air units does not depend on max org. Since max org is 22.22% higher at full professional army than at full drafted army the later is a small advantage for the time needed to regain full current max org. Naturally the paras will have less Org at drafted army.
Thankyou Pang for the correction (my error was more grammatical than anything else) and the very helpful link!
pang is right, unfortunately his link is outdated and works quite different in aod. still i was wrong and max org does not influence org regain speed [except the percentage modifiers]
What is the green bar next to the strength bar? It is the ORG bar right?
Next, that bar will not be a full bar unless a very modern unit, right?
I'm handicapped right now cause I don't have AoD installed here, and working from memory which is only reason I'm asking before continuing.
EDIT: Got the basic game (1.02) installed so I'll continue. Both TRA-1 and TRA-3 have same org (20%) and Morale (30%). That is not what I was actually talking about.
I was referring to the increased ORG that TRA-3 has in perhaps 1941 or so when you can build TRA-3 BECAUSE ORG INCREASES from 1936 to 1941 playing Germany. Or are we to assume that German player will not move towards Standing Army which increases ORG, will not do doctrines that increase TRA Morale, and will not have gained EXP that also increases morale (which affects ORG regain).
To be clear - I was referring to the simple fact that if you are Germany your TRA-3 has more maximum ORG than your TRA-1 if you simply compare the amount of green bar in those different years at the times that you normally have those different models. In the simplest sense - without complicating why or for what direct reasons - any normal player of Germany will have TRA-3 with higher ORG than their TRA-1 had because they had 5 years to do various things to increase org.
Considering this fact of normal game play, I look at the maximum ORG for TRA-1 at time of Poland (1939) and I look at TRA-3 at time after Barbarossa (1942) and I definietly see increased ORG in the later time. As the later time relates to later model, I simply do a short cut, and conclude that my TRA-3 have more maximum ORG than my TRA-1.
Stated differently, because I fly TRA-1 in 1939 and TRA-3 in 1942, my TRA-3 have greater maximum org than did my TRA-1 (which is actually correct).
Is this understood?
It interests me not why the two different models (at their different years) have different ORG, only that they do (and how that then relates to the main statement I made). But I won't repeat. Just drop a para with a TRA-1 in 1939, and drop a para with a TRA-3 in 1942 and see which plane (or in which year) full regain of org after total org was lost happens quickest. In my recollection the TRA-1 in 1939 actually is ready to drop para again sooner than the TRA-3 in 1942 (because TRA-1 in 1939 have less total ORG that needs regaining.) Naturally, the regain rate is better for TRA-3 in 1942 than for the TRA-1 during Poland campaign and they are superior for any partial org loss due to rebasing. But when it comes to full org loss due to airborne drop, and waiting until aircraft can perform next airborne drop (needs to be at full org to do next drop) then the earlier model used at an earlier year may have an advantage. At least that's how I remember it. And that was my point (and not a discussion of what creates org increase).
Last edited:
Since the very low max Org does not change and the only relative changes that are observable are due to sliders and ministers including ideas the absolute differences in max org are rather small and hardly noticeable. If a collection of all Tra models is owned at one point in time there are no differences in Max org or morale. At different points in time different morale is due to Str doctrines and due to different ministers including ideas. Experience has no effect on morale or org regain, has it?
Edit: actually there are 2 techs that increase Max org of Tra: 1944 and 1946 weather forecast. Both increase Air units Max org by 2%, so max Org climbs from 20% to 24%.
Edit: actually there are 2 techs that increase Max org of Tra: 1944 and 1946 weather forecast. Both increase Air units Max org by 2%, so max Org climbs from 20% to 24%.