Why do Marines and Paratroopers suck so much?

[unmerged(12783)]

I'm sure you guys have noticed that your fully decked out land units are very different, one from another, and this is just fine.

However, as I played, certain things about the land units were starting to bother me. Mainly, that my marines and paratroopers sucked worse than my basic infantry. These elite units have less organization, less soft attack, and less ground defense than their basic grunt counter-parts.

Forget about the airdrop bug, that'll get fixed. I'm talking here about the basic fit of these units in the game.

Being able to airdrop is a great special unit ability. Likewise, the marine unit advantages in sea invasions. Aside from that do you guys like the way these units are modeled? What should they represent?

Right now it looks like the model might be summed up as: unit cost a little more to make, takes a little more time to field, and is a worse unit in almost all ways then a basic inf unit.

I think I have a somewhat different concept. I'll toss it out for comment by you guys.

First off, I think that these units should cost more, but not just a little more, a lot, like two or three times, maybe even four times as much as an Infantry unit per day. Not only that, but they should also take longer to "train". Since the real cost of the unit is ICs per day times number of days to train what we see when we compare foot type ground units is:

Unit name (IC cost per day)(days until deployment)=total cost, IC

Infantry=5x90=450={CDxND=TC}
Marine=6x120=720={(1.2CD)x(1.33ND)=1.6TC}
Paratroop=6x120=720=ditto
Mountain=6x120=720=ditto
Militia=3x44=132={(0.6CD)x(0.48ND)=0.3TC}

So, what do you guys think?
I know what I think. I don't think I like what I see.
On this point alone, (Tech neutral), I think I'd rather see something like:

Infanrty=CDxND=TC
Marine=1.5CDx2ND=3TC
Paratroop=2CDx3ND=6TC
Mountain=CDx2ND=2TC
Militia=CDx0.25ND=0.25TC

What do I think we should get for these costs?

Unit, GoundDef, SoftAttack, Movement:

INF, basic, basic, basic foot
MAR, better, best, enhanced foot
PAR, better, fair, basic foot
MNT, best, basic, enhanced foot
MIL, fair, bad, slow foot

Verses what we have now, which is:

INF, basic, basic, basic
MAR, fair, basic, basic
PAR, fair, basic, basic
MNT, fair, basic, basic
MIL, fair, basic, basic

Right now basic Ground Defense=3, fair=2; Basic Soft Attack=1; Basic foot movement=4

For starters, we might want to do something like this to differentiate the values and ultimately the units themselves.

I'm thinking something like this:

#1) Basic infantry type Ground Defense = 3, fair = 2, bad = 1, better = 4, best = 5.

#2) Basic infantry type Soft Attack = 3, fair =2, bad = 1, better = 4, best = 5.

#3) Basic foot movement = 3, slow = 2, enhanced = 4

At the base unit level our units would then look like this for these factors:

INF: GrdDef=3, SftAtt=3, Move=3
MAR: GrdDef=4, SftAtt=5, Move=4
PAR: GrdDef=4, SftAtt=2, Move=3
MNT: GrdDef=5, SftAtt=3, Move=4
MIL: GrdDef=2, SftAtt=1, Move=2

Obviously, I've left the mobile units out of this for now. While related that's another topic.

I have just started to inspect the tech fields to try and figure out just what the model is and what we might want to tamper with after 1.03 is out. Since organization level is very important I looked at that field first.

FYI, is what I've found below:

LAND DOC ORG Adds
# INF MNT MAR PAR ARM MEC MOT CAV C$ TD Tot GTot
11000 - - - - -- - - - 40 300 12000 12000
11001 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 140 2800 14800
11002 3 3 1 0 10 5 5 5 30 180 5400 17400
11003 2 3 1 5 5 5 3 5 30 180 5400 17400
11100 - - - - - - - - 40 300 12000 24000
*11101 0 0 4 10 10 10 0 10 30 180 5400 40200
*11104 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 20 140 2800 29600
11102 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 160 4000 33400
11103 3 3 1 1 8 5 5 3 25 160 4000 33400
11200 - - - - - - - - 40 300 12000 36000
11201 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 0 25 160
11202 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 0
11203 8 5 0 0 10 10 10 5
11204 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
11205 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0
11301 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 0
11302 0 0 2 5 5 5 0 0
11303 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
11305 0 5 2 0 4 5 5 0
11306 0 5 3 0 3 5 5 0
11307 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0
11402 5 5 0 0 3 5 5 0
11403 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
11404 5 5 0 0 3 5 5 0
11406 8 5 0 0 0 5 5 0
11407 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0
11407 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
11501 0 0 6 6 6 6 0 0
11502 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3
11503 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0
Totals 70 70 30 40 90 90 69 40

Grd Def
11001 3 3 1 3 0 3 3 0
11204 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11401 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sft Att
11404 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0

Shor Att

 

[unmerged(12783)]

Grrr, of course the columns don't line up.
PitA to fix.

 

[unmerged(11656)]

I would increase default organisation for marine, bergsjaeger and paratrooper units.

However, I think current firepower for marines, bergsjaegers and paratroopers is fine.
As those units are capable for special actions, they can't carry as much firepower as infantry.


-

 

[peo]

I think the only thing that should be changed is the org value for them.
They were lighter units than normal infantry so they should have less firepower. But they are also units with li,ited survivability as they lack several support functions ie much less supplies carried.

 

[unmerged(12783)]

Yes, Lint, I certainly agree with the organization issue.

As far as the base values go, however, they are just that, base without any tech. The basic infantry units will probably get more GD an SA later from tech. I think what I'm triing to simulate at the base level is that the mountain, marine, and paratroopers are elite units, mens men, better trained, nastier killing machines. They'll stick longer and put the hurt on you more, particularly if you have to dislodge them.

In particular, I'm triing to simulate the above plus the following:

Marines, a little nastier on defense then regular infantry, very agressive, trained to move fast. Because they are better in most ways then regular infantry, they need to cost much more.

Bergsjaeger, elite defenders, fast moving, more or less same as regular inf on attack. They cost more because they can move faster, are great in mountainous terrain, and if you can afford them, they are the great foot defenders.

Paratroopers, nastier on defense mainly because if the jump into an unprotected area then you try and dislodge them they have grabbed all the bridges and easily defensable choke points, their main thing is the airdrop, vertical envelopment, surprise. If you want to use them as ground assault troops it's wasteful. They should cost a bundle.

Militia should just be rotten, should be cheap, but a waste of good manpower, basically it may already be.

I might even suggest that the MP cost for militia be half of the regular unit on the theory you are using unfit useless old farts and such or other manpower of very dubious quality.

On the other hand, I could see raising the MP costs of the elite units too make them really seem like the few and the brave, but maybe that flies too much in the face of reason.

Anyway, I hope that explains a little better where I'm coimng from on these numbers. It's just my way of looking at them. I'm tossing the stuff up to see if others of you have similar feeling and what you all think can be done to make it mo'better.

 

[unmerged(12783)]

I forgot to note what I'm setting as the CD, Cost per Day, value, 8, and The ND, Number of Days, value, 60.

For example, now a basic infanrty costs, for my game, 8 IC for 60 days or 480 IC total.

A militia unit now costs 8 IC for 15 days or 120 IC total.

 

[unmerged(590)]

Have you taken into consideration all Marine- and Paratrooper-specific technologies?

IMHO, Marines and Paratroopers can be just as effective as ordinary troops, but they require a lot more research.

 

[unmerged(11746)]

Marines, with the appropriate techs, are without any doubt the best unit at shore-attack - not by a little but by a massive margin... in that role their current costs are just fine... indeed changing it would be rather risky imo.

5 marine units can take over a province by shore attack, defended by 3 high-org infantry units where a dozen armoured/mech divisions fail.. try it out - they are VERY powerfull in their intended role.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

The "elite" troops should have a bit higher ground defense and considerable improved organisation. And trough research they should be improved more then ordinary infantry.

Also, note that the Germans didn't paradrop they paratroopers any more after Create, but used them as elite heavy infantry. (They had more support weapons then ordinary infantry divisions)

 

[unmerged(11746)]

Originally posted by madner
The "elite" troops should have a bit higher ground defense and considerable improved organisation. And trough research they should be improved more then ordinary infantry.

I disagree - you aren't really seeing Marines (et al) in the context that the game sets them, they aren't "elite troops".

The marines ahve one (and only one) priamry function in the game - that being shore attack, in which they allready excel. Basic marine units with an Org of 44 are worth more than double their numbers in that specific role even where other troops have orgs of 90+....

Most people miss out on just how much better marines are at shore attack.

The game doesnt treat them as "elite infantry" as one might suppose from modern troop-types such as the RMC and USMC.. think of them as simply "shore attack troops" that the game happens to name "marines". Once ashore they should be replaced with other troops for advancing inland...

(unfortunately the AI remains clueless in how to use them mind you but thats another story).

- -

Paras are a similar story from an airborne perspective , unfortuantely how they are mdoelled for airdrops in the game makes them all but a total exploit to use. If you use them in a self-controlled contet of never dropping more than one province behind the lines then their "supposed/probably" use comes to light in a way that makes sense for the game.... once again though they aren't supposed to be the "best" or "elite" troops in the context of normalised ground combat.

Neither marines nor paras are divisional strength SBS/SAS units... though it seems many want them to be so.

 

[Norgesvenn]

I find that my marines work the way they should. I'm a bit more disappointed with my mountain troops. I don't really see the point of them.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

What makes troops elite? They equipment or training? Hardly, it is the corps de espri, the feeling to belong to an elite troop. The paratroopers and mountain troops laid much wight into this. (I dunno for the marines) So they became elite.

 

[unmerged(12783)]

Obviously, I see these units in a very different relationship, one to another, then some of you. I'm not saying my thoughts on this are right or wrong, just different.

I don't not wonder however, darkmoor dragon, if what you say is true, why are the "marine, mountain, and airdrop" abilities not then just brigade-like additions to plain old ground infantry. This, BTW, brings up a question I have regarding why there isn't a flag on the brigades that either tells the game which specific ground unit the addition can be attached to or which it can't be added to. That would be nice.

I know.
I'm such a pain.
Never satisfied.
Always complaining.
Very annoying.
I should shut-up and go away.

 

[unmerged(11746)]

Originally posted by Tenryu
Obviously, I see these units in a very different relationship, one to another, then some of you. I'm not saying my thoughts on this are right or wrong, just different.

I don't not wonder however, darkmoor dragon, if what you say is true, why are the "marine, mountain, and airdrop" abilities not then just brigade-like additions to plain old ground infantry. This, BTW, brings up a question I have regarding why there isn't a flag on the brigades that either tells the game which specific ground unit the addition can be attached to or which it can't be added to. That would be nice.

A good point. Probably because the intent of the design was for the player )and ai) to need to build specific troops for specific requirements.

Marines provide the best example for me - their specialist skill in shore attack only really becomes fully apparent after intense and specialised tech research - so, in theory, they are a late war unit (probably to allow for d-day type landings against a defended coast).

You "could" also do this by making it a high-tech brigde attachment - both would be valid. What only then remains is whether or not the designers intended such units to "also have" good (on a par) normalised ground combat abilities - which i think is questionable...and why they arent an attachment, you would then, once again, have units that are both expert shore-attackers and normalised ground combat troops.

Madner's point on esprit de corps is valid - except that the game simply doesn't model morale. It doesnt exist in the game. TO model such "spirit" by changing the combat values doesnt actually go towards making those units "More realistic" tbh - it would more probably make them a default "want to have" for normal ground combat rather than a limited special role useage as they currently have.

Norg - mountain troops get a bonus in fighting in mountains, thats about it really - you can see a distinct difference in defenc and attack in mountainous areas using them - elsewhere they aren't necessarily the best choice.

As far as the game is generally concerned their isnt much mountain fighting so their general useage is somewhat limited....and, as with marines, their primary role often one rarely utilised.

Marines - great at shore attacke
Paras - can drop behind enemey lines
Mounts - fgreat in mountains


Changing any of them beyond those basic abilities really turns them into "the best" infantry units. In many ways its the same discussion as that of giving battleships enhanced AA abilities - the role of the BB is to pund, the role of AA being given over to DDs.

A simple "do it yourself test" on the abilities and actual game-results on any of the commando units is easily done:

take oone unit of each type (para, marine, mountain, infantry, mech, mot,arm" and assault together againsta defended shore position - then carefully watch who takes losses in org and numbers the fastest.

It is readily apaprent that the Marines are "elite" troops in their given role. THey are, in game terms, "elite" because they excel in their given role - not for any need for extra stats.

(again this doesnt mean that everything works properly, just that the design concept for them seems correct, to me anyway)