-
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.
The different warfare and night fighting equipments should have some effect on terrain/weather combat, even if only a slight (5%) modifier to weather penalties.
They should also have effect on armored units (desert/arctic warfare and night fighting e.g.)
They should also have effect on armored units (desert/arctic warfare and night fighting e.g.)
For those that want more strength losses I think all you have to do is to change the LAND_COMBAT_STR_DAMAGE_MODIFIER = 0.15 in the defines lua file.
I've been campaigning for this since the beginning. It is desperately needed.
If you want a suggestion of improvement look here....
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=461196
Cheers
Captain Jack
Last edited:
Possibly, considering the effects on terrain at that time... Tokyo was still a city of wood and paper, til it got firebombed. Not as much hard cover and tough ground for tanks as the industrialised port area of Normandy... maybe.
I agree and would say Strength damage should be increased by 20%. There is not enough strength losses. 15% even would increase the realism I feel even.
The paratrooper changes doesn't address the real problems with para - it just makes them more expensive.
The problems with paras are:
1) Rebase any where in the world - the rebase mechanism is already over generous is where and how quickly you can rebase (it completely ignores how the highly trained ground crew gets there or how a plane can fly 1/2 way round the world without landing. Doing this with a para loaded is practically an exploit. An easy fix would be to limit rebase to being within range, or double range, as per other missions.
2) Paradrops are safe - historically even unopposed drops took material losses. Paras should take significant org and str losses when dropped. Take a look at what happened to the US 101st on D-Day as an example of what can go wrong with a drop.
3) Making paradrops took significant planning - Arhnem took a week to plan, and it was so short only because the previous dozen drops hand been cancelled (mostly because the drop zone had already been captured) so the units were in position, and even then it suffered from insufficient planning. Perhaps loading a para should set the attack timer.
4) A transport represents 500-750 planes plus gliders whereas other wings represent 100 planes. Perhaps transport planes need to be rejigged so that the suffer more from the stacking penalty (needing 5 times the units at 1/5th the cost would still be better.)
Ultimately so long as paratroopers have an uber ability to "instantly" be, or attack, anywhere it doesn't much matter what they cost - you could probably double their cost and still see them used more than historically.
The problems with paras are:
1) Rebase any where in the world - the rebase mechanism is already over generous is where and how quickly you can rebase (it completely ignores how the highly trained ground crew gets there or how a plane can fly 1/2 way round the world without landing. Doing this with a para loaded is practically an exploit. An easy fix would be to limit rebase to being within range, or double range, as per other missions.
2) Paradrops are safe - historically even unopposed drops took material losses. Paras should take significant org and str losses when dropped. Take a look at what happened to the US 101st on D-Day as an example of what can go wrong with a drop.
3) Making paradrops took significant planning - Arhnem took a week to plan, and it was so short only because the previous dozen drops hand been cancelled (mostly because the drop zone had already been captured) so the units were in position, and even then it suffered from insufficient planning. Perhaps loading a para should set the attack timer.
4) A transport represents 500-750 planes plus gliders whereas other wings represent 100 planes. Perhaps transport planes need to be rejigged so that the suffer more from the stacking penalty (needing 5 times the units at 1/5th the cost would still be better.)
Ultimately so long as paratroopers have an uber ability to "instantly" be, or attack, anywhere it doesn't much matter what they cost - you could probably double their cost and still see them used more than historically.
Very nice improvements there !
Few more ideas:
- Armored units should be weaker (and slower) in attack and defence in mountains.
- Bergsjaegers shouldn't be slowered by winter weather (ski units).
- Strengh damage should be increased by 20% and not decreased.
Oh....this is so easy.....the Eng changes are to try to get people to build them instead of Art.
Right?
By the way, I think that is great.
Right?
By the way, I think that is great.
It seems to me if you are going to remove the brigade range benefit, you really should add signal brigades that attach and provide communications. That is how it is in real life for corps and higher.
Combat really ought to be a little more lethal. For battles that last a week and only see a 1,000 or less casualties seems far fetched.
Weather equipment should have a positive modifier not only on attrition but combat for troops properly equipped. The presumption being that the units have been trained in the use of and tactics in such weather or terrain.
I think paratroopers are kind of weak now. A drop ought to result in some disorganization, but not as much as noted by others above. Most historical drops the paratroopers recovered quickly and functioned well. Remember, these also represent glider borne elements too, that brought in supplies, howitzers, anti-tank weapons and such that people seem to think they did not have.
Combat really ought to be a little more lethal. For battles that last a week and only see a 1,000 or less casualties seems far fetched.
Weather equipment should have a positive modifier not only on attrition but combat for troops properly equipped. The presumption being that the units have been trained in the use of and tactics in such weather or terrain.
I think paratroopers are kind of weak now. A drop ought to result in some disorganization, but not as much as noted by others above. Most historical drops the paratroopers recovered quickly and functioned well. Remember, these also represent glider borne elements too, that brought in supplies, howitzers, anti-tank weapons and such that people seem to think they did not have.
But if it goes through with -20% from its current value in 1.4 that is going to cause headaches and arguments for MP.
Has anyone tracked casualty averages and such on different scenarios vs history? Doesnt that new mod allow loss tracking? Is anyone getting some averages?
Absolutely, but compared to a regular Inf Bde, the para units were vastly under equiped & the weapons they did have were more ligher, more mobile, had fewer of them, more limited Ammo & often not as effective...
And to counter, were considered 'elete' troops, had higher entry requirements, had more training. But in effect, they were simply a lighter, more mobile equilivant of the Inf Bde. So, I can see higher morale, possibly Org, but not strength (especially in the AT category)
I only took a look vs. Poland with the AI commanding the Germans, casualties were pretty close to reality there, but the sample size is a bit small.
Barbarossa on the other hand had way too low casualties.
CharonJr
True, but there supplies were more than three or four days. Those transports should be airdropping supplies until ground pounder link up with them. They may not have had as much heavy weapons, but they usually had the best infantry equipment available. A larger contingent of automatic weapons, and they tended to fight with more ferocity than a normal unit. If they were trucked to the front instead of dropped, they shouldn't suffer any of the problems except for the heavy equipment that was not part of the TO&E.
It would be nice to see ranger/commando units, but I guess that may be too hard too model all the vagaries. That, and the fact those type of units usually operated at battalion or lower size forces.
Strength losses too low
The casualties in Poland was around 200,000 in one month, and then there were about 700,000 captured out of a force of about a million (20% casualty, 70% POW). If the average brigade spent 100 hours in contact, then there should be about .2% losses per hour, or 6 per hour per brigade.
Keep in mind that for the Russian army in the modern era, 10% casualties in an exercise wasn't too abnormal. In exercises, US and British para divisions experience about 5% casualties per year in jump exercises (typically 5 jumps a year). Combat, poorer training, tactics, equipment, nutrition and conditioning, medical response, etc imply WW2 rates should be significantly higher. Paradrops should start with perhaps a 3% loss at touchdown.
Engineers shouldn't increase defense, they should increase fortification. Minefields, obstacles, entrenchments, etc already has one game mechanic. This is important because the counter to defensive engineers is offensive engineers, which undo these changes to the battlefield.
Headquarters brigades should contain all elements necessary to maintain communications. Signal brigades do exist at the corps level, and it would make sense that signal would increase C2 range, and intelligence/counterintelligence functions. No other unit type however makes sense for this.
Suppression should propagate over whatever borders troops can cross. This is abstracting battalion or company level units spreading out, and they should have less restrictions on occupation movement than they would on combat movement.
The casualties in Poland was around 200,000 in one month, and then there were about 700,000 captured out of a force of about a million (20% casualty, 70% POW). If the average brigade spent 100 hours in contact, then there should be about .2% losses per hour, or 6 per hour per brigade.
Keep in mind that for the Russian army in the modern era, 10% casualties in an exercise wasn't too abnormal. In exercises, US and British para divisions experience about 5% casualties per year in jump exercises (typically 5 jumps a year). Combat, poorer training, tactics, equipment, nutrition and conditioning, medical response, etc imply WW2 rates should be significantly higher. Paradrops should start with perhaps a 3% loss at touchdown.
Engineers shouldn't increase defense, they should increase fortification. Minefields, obstacles, entrenchments, etc already has one game mechanic. This is important because the counter to defensive engineers is offensive engineers, which undo these changes to the battlefield.
Headquarters brigades should contain all elements necessary to maintain communications. Signal brigades do exist at the corps level, and it would make sense that signal would increase C2 range, and intelligence/counterintelligence functions. No other unit type however makes sense for this.
Suppression should propagate over whatever borders troops can cross. This is abstracting battalion or company level units spreading out, and they should have less restrictions on occupation movement than they would on combat movement.
.png){kind=avatar}
I think they should not be more expensive then they were before. Yes they have parashoots but they don't have heavy apparatuses. And they should not consume more leadership then before
Basically good news!
How about the attack modifiers for engineers? Combat engineers were and are primarily an offensive asset in reality. A decisive one, actually.
This is also the reason why all armies of the world train their troops to concentrate fire on combat engineers first, leading to engineers' life expectancy of only minutes in combat situations.
How about the attack modifiers for engineers? Combat engineers were and are primarily an offensive asset in reality. A decisive one, actually.
This is also the reason why all armies of the world train their troops to concentrate fire on combat engineers first, leading to engineers' life expectancy of only minutes in combat situations.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.408
- 38.945
Just checked the code, there is a 7 day supply on paradrops compared to the normal 30 day. This can of course be tweaked to even lower if someone prefers that in their game.