 |
| |
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
Before responding to alexman's latest proposal, I'd like to respond to Matt as I originally meant to:
quote:
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
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
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.
Last edited by player1 on 25-02-2004 at 20:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caesar2760
|
|
Ohio...
Nov 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
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
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
"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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pauli
|
|
herndon, va, usa
Jan 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
yes, yes. and rename.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
I just spotted a huge problem with the idea of giving Modern Paratroopers an amphibious assault capability. The only benefit of the tech Amphibious Warfare is the ability to build marines. If Modern Paratroopers are given the same amphibious assault capability just two techs into the modern era, there will almost never be situations where it makes sense for players to research Amphibious Warfare. Worse, AIs likely will research Amphibious Warfare instead of aiming for Synthetic Fibers. Making an optional tech that's already marginal completely useless in the vast majority of situations is exactly the wrong direction for the AU Mod to go.
I'm also a bit puzzled at how the same panel that says, "Good enough players who know the right tricks can get enough value out of the Jaguar Warrior as is, so there's no need to change it," can say, "Let's create an uber-special--forces unit that doubles the stock attack value of the Modern Paratrooper and provides some other goodies as well." Yes, the default attack values for the Paratrooper and Modern Paratrooper are too low. But what I would expect from a conservative mod would be the minimum changes needed to make the units clearly useful in a reasonable number of situations, not changes that take the Modern Paratrooper all the way from being virtually useless to being tied for the third most powerful attack unit in the game. The more powerful we make the unit, the less strategy has to be developed to use the unit effectively.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:33
|
|
Amphibious units are much more useful to the AI against the human, because the AI defends all of its cities, while the human defends them more lightly, or even leaves them undefended. Therefore, I see no problem if the AI, but not the human, gets Amphibious Warfare, which forces the human to garisson his cities.
Keep in mind that Amphibious Warfare provides a unit with the same attack as the proposed Modern Paratroopers, but you can get Marines with as many as 5 required technologies remaining in the Industrial Age. Also, Marines don't require oil, while Modern Paratroopers do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
If allowing marines to upgrade to Modern Paratroopers added wonderful strategic depth to the game, I could see its being worth the price of taking away the need to research an optional tech to get an amphibious assault capability. But in my view, the upgrade path takes away more strategic depth than it adds.
Unlike the classical situation with marines and regular paratroopers, there is no challenge, "Are the benefits of the Modern Paratrooper unit worth going out of the way to research an optional tech for?" On the contrary, Synthetic Fibers is already the single most important tech in the modern era for offensive firepower. Thus, making Modern Paratroopers more powerful merely makes a tech that is already important even more important.
Granted, making Modern Paratroopers more powerful makes the idea of researching Synthetic Fibers before Rocketry rather than after (and thereby delaying the discovery of aluminum and access to TOW Infantry and jet fighters) more interesting. But that effect involves only a minor shuffling of the order techs are researched in. And making Modern Paratroopers powerful enough to be useful can make the choice an interesting one without going to the extremes of taking the unit's attack value all the way up to twelve and giving it an amphibious assault capability on top of that.
Further, giving the same unit both paradrop and amphibious assault capabilities takes away a lot of the challenge of deciding how many of which type of special forces units to build. Players can simply build the units and decide which role to use them in later. In my view, that significantly reduces the game's strategic depth.
If this were the "Give players powerful new toys to play with Mod," I would view the proposed revision to the Modern Paratrooper as a perfect fit. But my impression is that the "Give players powerful new toys to play with Mod" is exactly what the AU Mod is not supposed to be. I think maximum strategic depth is achieved by making Modern Paratroopers more powerful than they are in the stock game but still not as powerful as this change proposes, and by leaving marine and paradrop units as separate and distinct units. The fact that the same approach is also more conservative makes it even more preferable.
Nathan
Last edited by nbarclay on 08-03-2004 at 15:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Risa
|
|
One minor point: Should we remove leader and king units from valid target list? Surely it seldom comes into play in most of SP, but allowing killing hard-earned defensive-combat leader or king with a single shot is not that fun.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-02-2004 20:59
talk about strategic choice!
|