 |
| |
|
|
Dodgy Geezer
|
|
Sydney, Australia
Jan 2002
time: 15:17
|
|
The problem with Paratroops in Civ3 is that their reason for being is made redundant by railways and no bridges.
IN WW2 I believe they were used as decoys - to draw away troops from the front, and to capture and hold key bridges, although for the latter they did go in gliders if I remember my war films correctly.
Since CIV3 does not have choke points that are away from the sea, their use is pretty redundant.
Now if they were to change the rules so that you couldn't RR mountains, that might change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dodgy Geezer
|
|
Sydney, Australia
Jan 2002
time: 15:17
|
|
Couldn't resists a quick check on google for paras. Picked up these
QUOTE:
1) Celebes Island [NEI] Menado-Kema area [target Langoan Airfield]; IJN 1 Yokosuka SNLF (Air) [CO Cdr Toyoaki Horiuchi]; 334 men were dropped from G3M1-L transport aircraft on 11 Jan 42 and 185 more paratroops on 12 Jan 42.
2) Sumatra Island [NEI] Palembang area [target Palembang 1 Airfield]; IJA 2 Parachute Regiment of 1 Parachute Brigade [CO Col Seiichi Kume]; 360 paratroops were dropped from Ki-56 and Ki-57 transport aircraft on 14 Jan 42 and 100 more men on the next day.
3) Timor Island [NEI] Dili-Koepang area [target Penfoei Airfield]; IJN 3 Yokosuka SNLF (Air) [CO Lt Cdr Koichi Fukumi]; 308 paratroops were dropped from G3M1-L planes on 20 Feb 42 and 323 more on the next day. Seizing of Timor was the first combined paratroop and amphibious operation in the history of warfare.
All three paratroop operations carried out in the beginning of the war were successful. (source http://www.j-aircraft.com/faq/japan...erations_in.htm)
QUOTE: During the eight years of war waged by the French Army in Vietnam against the Communist forces of the Vietminh, the two military actions which earned the greatest material and moral success— with the least losses and in the shortest time—— were the Airborne raids on 9 November 1952 at Phu-Dean, and on 17 July 1953 at Lang Son. (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Q...achuteraids.htm)
So it looks like they have been used successsfully. I guess dropping onto Islands or into jungles where there are limited garisons might be one of the few effective ways of using them in CIV3 as well - if only their range was a little bit greater. As it stands it is as easy to land marines or conventional forces.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
barefootbadass
|
|
Good grief, its only a range of 4? I thought it was 6. Anyway, the only 'specialized' unit I find use for are marines, they can allow you to establish a beachhead and unload all of your heavy stuff without wasting their turn giving you access to some railroad and the ability to press further inland. I guess a transport full of paratroops could be launched from that beachead to strategic positions, but with a range of 4 you barely pass the depth modern armor can reach unless its all mountains. A range of 6 might make them truely useful in this way to disrupt a resource or luxury, or merely to act as cannon fodder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Delta-V
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The only 2 examples of using paratroopers in WW2 by the Germans were the reinforcement of the Narvik assault force (originally mountaineers and navy) and the occupation of Crete.
|
Don't forget the attack on Eben Emael, the Belgish fortress guarding the bridges across the Maas river. German Fallshirmjagers (paratroopers) landed (in gliders) on top of the fortress itself, and on the 3 bridges. They overwhelmed the defenders using flamethrowers and satchel charges. Only one bridge was blown in the process, allowing the ground forces to quickly link up with the airborne troops.
One of the keys of airborne operations is rapid linkup with ground forces, since they can't stand alone in enemy territory very long. The British 1st Airborne got slaughtered at Arnheim because the British XXX corps couldn't get there in time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimension
Willem-
It's interesting that there are so many people in the Civ community comfortable changing the game rules. I suppose it doesn't matter in a single-player game if you think it improves the game and you can actually psychologically separate changing some rules with outright cheating.
The biggest problem with changing the rules is the AI. The AI is tuned for the standard rules set, so I wonder how it would react to rule changes. I'm sure there are some places where the AI will adapt and some places where it won't. That is, if you modify a unit, would the AI make appropriate use of it? |
First of all I don't consider it cheating, I look at it as customising. There's not been a Civ game yet that I've fully agreed with all of the ways they've implemented things. In Civ II ToT, I pretty much redid the entire tech tree because I felt they left out some very important things (nice to see they finally recognize Printing as a major advance). Plus I didn't care much for the endgame, so I changed it around until I felt comfortable with. But it was just as difficult to play as the game that came out of the box. That's one of the beauties of the game. Within a basic framework, you can mold it to what ever shape you want. Once they add some new features to the editor, it could be a very interesting game when it comes to customization.
As for the AI using them, that's more or less a question of trial and error. Sometimes they use them properly, sometimes they don't. You just have to see what happens. Generally though some minor alteration like Range/Attack etc. have no effect on how the AI uses them. It's when you get into the special ability flags that you might get some snags.
P.S. There's also the possibillty that you might create something that the AI exploits better than you imagined, and wish you hadn't come up with.
Last edited by Willem on 25-01-2002 at 03:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Unregistered
|
|
Some small points about paras, both in game & out.
In game:
Range is now 6 at least, maybe more. It was increased in the patch. & can be increased to taste in the editor.
Yes, they have to take off from an airport.
They are a fairly special purpose unit, obviously, but can be extremely effective in the right situations.
For example, an enemy stack of tanks is near your borders & it would be nice to burn a few of them. But when you attack, they retreat. Well, cut off the lines of retreat w/ paratroopers & then smash away. This is particularly effective in mountain terrain, both because they're able to penetrate much further into enemy territory than even modern armor will and the defensive bonus pretty much ensures that they'll survive, especially if you stack them two or three deep. Also nice to reach that isolated enemy mountain stronghold that would take your armor 4 turns or so to reach. They can do it in two. Or as a quick reinforcement for a city your ground pounders can't reach for a couple of turns because the enemy has bombed out the road thru the mountain pass, & your last mech infantry is hanging by a thread w/ 12 enemy tanks one move away, and you don't have an airport to airlift reinforcements in with.
They can be also be used to assault across a narrow straight of water if there are no transports or marines handy. This is particularly useful if the enemy civ either doesn't have the resources for or the tech for tanks, or other modern units that would make life uncomfortable for the paras.
All of the above situations I've run into playing the game. & no, I haven't changed the range in the editor, I've left it at whatever the patch changed it to. Soren has said in chat that the ai shouldn't have a problem with a change like this. But as Willem noted earlier, you may not like what it will do with it....
In real life:
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the Germans never again used paratroopers as airborne assault troops after Crete. This was Hitler's call, not the German High commands. What Crete did do was point up the fact that paratroopers cannot be expected to serve as the primary forces in an assault. (Being airmobile means traveling light which means your heavy weapons capability is non-existant) This was the lesson the Allies took from that experience.
The paratroopers landed by the Allies prior to the Normandy invasion is probably the best large scale use of paratroopers on record. & yes, they did encounter enormous problems with sticks being scattered due to wind and units becoming seperated from their supplies, etc. As a result they were not as successful as they could have been. Several jobs they were assigned to do were not completed. But they were able to complete a suprising number of their assigned objectives, in some cases later than their timetables called for, but most of those cases worked out ok. One of the biggest things they accomplished for the rest of the invasion forces was to add a lot of suprise & confusion for the Germans, which made them slow to react & when they did react it wasn't always in a productive direction due to the confusion. Were they crucial to the effort? Probably not. The landings would almost certainly have succeeded without them. But without them it would have also been a much messier affair.
Market-Garden was pretty much a c*ckup from the paras point of view. I don't even want to get into that. Suffice it to say that the paras did the jobs they had been tasked with on that op.
Enuff 4 now,
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2002 17:57
The part about the paratroopers dangling in the harness is pretty good, though. Especially considering the turns are one or two years. That's a lot of dangling.
|