Modern paratroops

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by MattPilot
paratroopers are not offensive units - they are defensive! Their main purpose is to bypass enemy defensive lines, take strategic targets, and DEFEND (HOLD) until reeinforcements arrive. E.G. D-Day, Paratroopers were inserted to hold key road points to stop enemy advance. Operation market garden - they were used (or tried) to take a bridge and HOLD it.

Of course one would have to attack an objective to hold it, though i do not believe that paratroopers engaged in offensive combat verses 'armies'.

Yeah, that's a problem. On a tactical scale, paratroopers are very useful, but Civ can't simulate combat on this level.

[alexman]

How about this proposal under consideration:

-> Marines upgrade to Modern Paratroopers.
-> Increase attack of Modern Paratroopers to 12.
-> Add stealth attack and amphibious ability to Modern Paratroopers.

Note that an attack of 12 is still just 50% that of the best attacker of that period (Modern Armor), and equal to that of TOW infantry, which is a Guerilla upgrade that does not require resources.

[Theseus]

Before responding to alexman's latest proposal, I'd like to respond to Matt as I originally meant to:

Originally posted by MattPilot
paratroopers are not offensive units - they are defensive! Their main purpose is to bypass enemy defensive lines, take strategic targets, and DEFEND (HOLD) until reeinforcements arrive. E.G. D-Day, Paratroopers were inserted to hold key road points to stop enemy advance. Operation market garden - they were used (or tried) to take a bridge and HOLD it.

Of course one would have to attack an objective to hold it, though i do not believe that paratroopers engaged in offensive combat verses 'armies'.

Quite right... that was in fact the primary mission of the vast majority of such units, here in the USA the Airborne being the prime example. In my mind, those are represented in-game by Paratroopers.

However, starting with WWII and developing to a culmination in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the military community worldwide moved away from the use of jump-capable units in set-piece battles, and instead towards a focus on their use in spec ops missions, which are invariably offensive, ranging from recon up through other more directly aggressive missions. And thus, in-game, the Modern Paratrooper.
_________________

So, to answer alexman's proposal, hell yes, and let's re-name these bad boys...

[player1]

IMHO, Modern Pratroopers should just be paratroopers and nothing more.

My suggestion would be to chanage their stats to 10/13/1 (+4 to attack and +2 to defense).
Defense is the top possibile since more would be better then TOW (and TOW in anti-tank, Paratoopers should never take that role).

Same for attack (it should never be better then of Marines, TOW, or Mech. Infantry).

10/13/1, op. range 8, cost 110 has its uses.

EDIT:
Of course in my mod I moded Marines to 12/8/1, cost 110.
These two units nicely supplement each other (and should never upgrade one to another).
They are special forces, they are not cost effective to be used in high amounts as it should be.

[player1]

Has anovody nocied what weapon is used by Modern Paratroopers.

It's a sub-machine gun.
And gues what?
Marines sue assault rifle.

So I just refuse to belive that these two units should have same attack strenght (from flavor stantpoint).

[Myrddin]

I like the suggestion, but think that the operational range also needs to be increased to 12 - these days the deployment range of airborne forces is almost infinite

[Theseus]

Quite right, Myrddin... HAHO from long range (stealth?) air assets put the snake-eaters ANYWHERE they want to go.

I'm still liking the idea of a late game Spec Ops unit... talk about strategic choice!

[alexman]

Time to vote. AU mod panel has 48 hours.

1. Yes/No: Marines upgrade to Modern Paratroopers, Increase attack of Modern Paratroopers to 12, Add stealth attack and amphibious ability to Modern Paratroopers.
2. Yes/No: If 1 results in a Yes, also increase operating range from 8 to 12.

My votes: 1.Yes, 2.No

I think that having units appear so far behind the front lines does not provide a clear enough benefit to justify one more change.

[Stuie]

1. Yes
2. Yes

[lockstep]

1: YES
2: NO

I'm also for renaming the Modern Paratrooper to 'Special Forces' if - and only if - this can be done without additional files.

[ZargonX]

1. Yes
2. I want say yes, but I think it would work better human v. human, so, No

[Caesar2760]

If paratroopers are given free pillage in the editor, will they be allowed to do so the first round they arrive?

[Risa]

About name changing: Simply click "Rename" button in editor and the result is near perfect. The old name will remains only within descriptive text in the civilpodia (sp?).

About stealth attack: What kinds of unit will we allow MP stealth attacking?
As I've tested, MP stealth attacking naval or air units will be converted to attacking the strongest ground unit in that tile, just as without stealth attack. So naval and air units should be out of the list.
When MP stealth attacks 0-defense unit while there are still non-0-defense units in that tile, it'll be resolve "like" a normal combat: 0-defense unit keeps on losing HP (shown or hidden) without fighting back (since 0 defense) and eventually gets destroyed, MP gains a chance of promotion. I assume there's chance of grenerating MGL, too. And of course, if there're only 0-defense units in that tile, those units will directly get captured or destroyed as usual.
So that allowing MP stealth attacking settler/worker/scout/explorer seems to be OK. But what about artillery type of units? And nukes? Imagine an ROP r*pe to nullify enemy's nuclear counter attack ability and then press the red button...

[nbarclay]

"How about this proposal under consideration" looked to me like Alexman was suggesting something that could be placed under consideration, not like he was actually placing something officially under consideration. That impression was reinforced by having discussion of other possibilities continue as if we were still talking about what would be the best option rather than having discussion focus on "yes or no" for one particular proposal. Since I didn't realize that Alexman was trying to place something officially under consideration rather than merely suggesting that it be placed under consideration, I never got around to speaking out against the proposal amidst the other issues I've been spending time (really more time than I ought to) debating. Unless I'm the only one who failed to realize that something was officially under consideration, I consider this vote premature.

I think an attack value of 12 is too high. In real-world terms, airborne forces should not have the same attack value as the best non-armored ground forces in existence. (Note that Modern Paratroopers are only one tech deeper into the modern era than MechInfs and TOW Infantry, so it's hard to argue that Modern Paratroopers supposedly use significantly more advanced weapons.) And in game terms, doubling the attack value from six to twelve is serious overkill once you consider the fact that players can soften up a target with bombers before the paratroopers strike.

I think either 9/11/1 or 10/11/1 would provide a good balance. It would let them take out easy targets without air support and virtually any target with adequate air support, but would make them pay a clear price for their mobility. Building a few would make sense when the conditions warrant it, but players would have a strong reason not to build more than they really need.

I also don't like the upgrade path from Marines. Theseus, can you really imagine the 101st Airborne storming a beach?

[Theseus]

As I stated before, Nathan, I think all of the spec ops capable RL units have evolved in mission, role, and capabilities. So yeah, I;m pretty comfortable in-game with the top of that pyramid being a kick-ass and cross-functional unit.

SO:

Yes
Yes
Rename to Special Forces, if possible.