New Paratrooper Rules Are a Big Mistake

[George_Parr]

Makes me wonder if you couldn't just set a flag for the mission. If it's multiplayer, have the paratroopers lose their ability to drop after movement, if it's single-player, have them keep the ability.

Alternatively, you could let paradrops after movement happen, but they would be susceptible to anti-air fire while doing so.

[R2G2]

Makes me wonder if you couldn't just set a flag for the mission. If it's multiplayer, have the paratroopers lose their ability to drop after movement, if it's single-player, have them keep the ability.

Alternatively, you could let paradrops after movement happen, but they would be susceptible to anti-air fire while doing so.

The MP issue could be resolved with Lua Script. Just delay air transports for the first 3-4 turns depending on map size.

For DLC play... I don't want Paras to hang in air transports for a full turn for historical accuracy purposes and AI use, but I would prefer they lose all movement points once they hit the ground. I feel this would resemble the dispersed/unorganized landings that most airborne operations dealt with... Your thoughts?

[Bee1976]

For DLC play... I don't want Paras to hang in air transports for a full turn for historical accuracy purposes, but I would prefer they lose all movement points once they hit the ground. I feel this would resemble the dispersed/unorganized landings that most airborne operations dealt with... Your thoughts?

Interesting idea!
But sometimes paras dont land in the zone you plan, without a movement option, some missions like eben might still not work. So maybe i would allow them 1 move point.

[nexusno2000]

It's a turn based game.

Any action that has no potential counter isn't good for a turn based game...

In multiplayer this might be correct. I dont play multiplayer. But i remember that edmon statet some potential counters to the old para ruleset in multiplayer. But if pvp gamers are happy with those changes and the new ruleset, let them keep the new ruleset.

In singleplayer missions are balanced around that ruleset. So it doesnt matter if there is a counter or not. Devs have balanced around this "issue". The new ruleset is really bad for old missions that are not balanced around them. first training mission for eben is broken. Eben is way harder. But crete...well its historical correct watching the para ai die in seconds, but....
i dont think that much players will finish this mission on generalissimus. And its hard to imagine that more than maybe a handful of players is able to finish this mission with bonus objectives.

So old missions need old ruleset or a complete fix, so that players can play and enjoy those missions like before. I know that you prefer the new ruleset, but if the devs bring back the old ruleset (i dont think they do, i bet they fix old missions fpr the new ruleset to work again as intended) no one forbids you to let your paras fly 1 round over their target destination like a sitting duck before they land next turn
I can accept that real good players want a harder challenge, but there are many ways to increase the personal difficulty level. Only 0,4% of the steam players got the 1941 generalissimus achivement. So i dont think there is any need to tune the difficulty up for some missions by default. But of course we will see what the team will do. I bet they find a solution we both can accept

There is ONE mission, Eben-Emael, that's MEANINGFULLY impacted by the new rules from a player perspective. And if you're like me, playing with Fear of the unknown, it didn't actually change much. There are some additional scenarios, like Dover and Norway that are affected but not in any significant way.

From the AI perspective, only the US central scenario (core campaign) has meaningful para activity. And here it's just a gimmicky move.

If you look at solo scenarios, Crete becomes more difficult but was stupid easy with old para rules, so actually, it's a welcome change. Fjord War is also impacted but it's not a very big deal. Defenders of the Reich...it gets even harder since you get an additional 1 round delay for every wave of str 20 paras you send north.

[Bee1976]

There is ONE mission, Eben-Emael, that's MEANINGFULLY impacted by the new rules from a player perspective.

Well, i cant agree. Eben, the training mission for eben and crete are heavily impacted. AI Paras die like nothing. As mentioned, those missions are designed around that old ruleset. Yes crete was quite easy to win, but now winning this with bonus objective seems quite impossible.
And well, maybe im not the best player, but i play on generalissimus only and i choose traits and challenges to raise the difficulty for me. And there are so many more options to increase, i have a lot of stuff to try. Thats what i meant with "dont turn it harder by default".
But either way, if they fix all affected missions for the new ruleset, im ok with it. If the switch those missions or full AO to the old ruleset im ok with it aswell. The old ruleset is way more realistic for me, but as long as missions are play and enjoyable as intended every solution is fine for me.

Oh and to be honest, i have had to call some of my playthroughs, because it went to crazy for me

[nexusno2000]

There is ONE mission, Eben-Emael, that's MEANINGFULLY impacted by the new rules from a player perspective.

Well, i cant agree. Eben, the training mission for eben and crete are heavily impacted. AI Paras die like nothing. As mentioned, those missions are designed around that old ruleset. Yes crete was quite easy to win, but now winning this with bonus objective seems quite impossible.
And well, maybe im not the best player, but i play on generalissimus only and i choose traits and challenges to raise the difficulty for me. And there are so many more options to increase, i have a lot of stuff to try. Thats what i meant with "dont turn it harder by default".
But either way, if they fix all affected missions for the new ruleset, im ok with it. If the switch those missions or full AO to the old ruleset im ok with it aswell. The old ruleset is way more realistic for me, but as long as missions are play and enjoyable as intended every solution is fine for me.

Oh and to be honest, i have had to call some of my playthroughs, because it went to crazy for me

I do agree that devs should look at already released content and make necessary adjustments when they introduce new mechanics.

I LIKE the change. But it was implemented badly.

[SirAllan]

Btw so many are talking about realism and it is more realistic now for using paratroopers - well I have a surprice for you, its not. No transport aeroplanes ever circled DZ to let paratroopers jump (it is that the new 1.02 patch simulates) and risk for getting hit by flak.
So the old rule worked better, simulated the actual drop. Perhaps after landing at DZ the unit only could move one hex and attack with reduced strength, simulating assemblingtime at DZ.

Btw my own flak didnt even have a single shot at enemy fighters while trying to protect my transport - why ?

[George_Parr]

Btw my own flak didnt even have a single shot at enemy fighters while trying to protect my transport - why ?

If you mean transport-plane, it is because anti-air protects ground targets, it doesn't shoot at planes engaging other planes.

[Patrick Ward]

Btw so many are talking about realism and it is more realistic now for using paratroopers - well I have a surprice for you, its not. No transport aeroplanes ever circled DZ to let paratroopers jump (it is that the new 1.02 patch simulates) and risk for getting hit by flak.
So the old rule worked better, simulated the actual drop. Perhaps after landing at DZ the unit only could move one hex and attack with reduced strength, simulating assemblingtime at DZ.

Btw my own flak didnt even have a single shot at enemy fighters while trying to protect my transport - why ?

Its not about simulating circling the DZ. Its about suggesting their fragility, the risk inherrent in their deployment and reducing their game breaking use as a super weapon.

Yes there were a few successful glider deployments at Pegasus Bridge, Eben Emael, Gran Sasso, but they were the exceptions.

After Crete in 1941, the Germans abandoned all airborne operations due to the catastrophic losses from ground based fire. 350 glider tow planes and para transporters shot down with many paras drowning when they were dropped into the sea.
On D-Day significant numbers of para transporters and gliders were hit by flak, crashed or were otherwise lost or widely scattered.
In Burma, during one of the most significant operations, only 36 out of 68 gliders ever made it to the LZ.
In Sicily 65 gliders landed in the sea, many more were hit by flak or were lost to weather.
At Arnhem, despite heavy flak suppression attacks preceeding the drops, the Poles still took fire from the ground.

How much of the original rules simulated or suggested that massive level of risk and loss demonstrated by the real life operations?

The current version, while still imperfect and in need of refinement, at least provides a higher degree of risk by making them a little more vulnerable over the target. Whats really needed is for the scenarios to be edited to account for the new rules .. which they are being.

Pat

[CaesarCzech]

Btw so many are talking about realism and it is more realistic now for using paratroopers - well I have a surprice for you, its not. No transport aeroplanes ever circled DZ to let paratroopers jump (it is that the new 1.02 patch simulates) and risk for getting hit by flak.
So the old rule worked better, simulated the actual drop. Perhaps after landing at DZ the unit only could move one hex and attack with reduced strength, simulating assemblingtime at DZ.

Btw my own flak didnt even have a single shot at enemy fighters while trying to protect my transport - why ?

Its not about simulating circling the DZ. Its about suggesting their fragility, the risk inherrent in their deployment and reducing their game breaking use as a super weapon.

Yes there were a few successful glider deployments at Pegasus Bridge, Eben Emael, Gran Sasso, but they were the exceptions.

After Crete in 1941, the Germans abandoned all airborne operations due to the catastrophic losses from ground based fire. 350 glider tow planes and para transporters shot down with many paras drowning when they were dropped into the sea.
On D-Day significant numbers of para transporters and gliders were hit by flak, crashed or were otherwise lost or widely scattered.
In Burma, during one of the most significant operations, only 36 out of 68 gliders ever made it to the LZ.
In Sicily 65 gliders landed in the sea, many more were hit by flak or were lost to weather.
At Arnhem, despite heavy flak suppression attacks preceeding the drops, the Poles still took fire from the ground.

How much of the original rules simulated or suggested that massive level of risk and loss demonstrated by the real life operations?

The current version, while still imperfect and in need of refinement, at least provides a higher degree of risk by making them a little more vulnerable over the target. Whats really needed is for the scenarios to be edited to account for the new rules .. which they are being.

Pat

Oh Screw off, The least you can do is not lie to us, just admit its all about the mutliplayer and you are going to focus more here because some Higher UP in magement got one of his "really good ideas." You "fixed" something that was not broken.

[nexusno2000]

Btw so many are talking about realism and it is more realistic now for using paratroopers - well I have a surprice for you, its not. No transport aeroplanes ever circled DZ to let paratroopers jump (it is that the new 1.02 patch simulates) and risk for getting hit by flak.
So the old rule worked better, simulated the actual drop. Perhaps after landing at DZ the unit only could move one hex and attack with reduced strength, simulating assemblingtime at DZ.

Btw my own flak didnt even have a single shot at enemy fighters while trying to protect my transport - why ?

Its not about simulating circling the DZ. Its about suggesting their fragility, the risk inherrent in their deployment and reducing their game breaking use as a super weapon.

Yes there were a few successful glider deployments at Pegasus Bridge, Eben Emael, Gran Sasso, but they were the exceptions.

After Crete in 1941, the Germans abandoned all airborne operations due to the catastrophic losses from ground based fire. 350 glider tow planes and para transporters shot down with many paras drowning when they were dropped into the sea.
On D-Day significant numbers of para transporters and gliders were hit by flak, crashed or were otherwise lost or widely scattered.
In Burma, during one of the most significant operations, only 36 out of 68 gliders ever made it to the LZ.
In Sicily 65 gliders landed in the sea, many more were hit by flak or were lost to weather.
At Arnhem, despite heavy flak suppression attacks preceeding the drops, the Poles still took fire from the ground.

How much of the original rules simulated or suggested that massive level of risk and loss demonstrated by the real life operations?

The current version, while still imperfect and in need of refinement, at least provides a higher degree of risk by making them a little more vulnerable over the target. Whats really needed is for the scenarios to be edited to account for the new rules .. which they are being.

Pat

Oh Screw off, The least you can do is not lie to us, just admit its all about the mutliplayer and you are going to focus more here because some Higher UP in magement got one of his "really good ideas." You "fixed" something that was not broken.

Git gud scrub

Or just get polite. That helps a lot.

Single player paras have been poorly implemented since the start. Now we get an improvement and a few vocal ones cry wolf. Sigh.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

Nexus, that is also not very nice. It's not a few vocal ones crying wolf. I don't care the least for mp. I don't care for the rules either. I have no problem with the new implementation of rules. I have a problem with levels in the campaign not functioning properly anymore. Yes, I know, the levels are still beatable. The problem here is that a rule change that wasn't absolutely necessary was made with haste without any regards to possible problems. And a fix for the campaign has still (after over 2 weeks) not arrived.

[Bee1976]

Hey Pat

Its not about simulating circling the DZ. Its about suggesting their fragility, the risk inherrent in their deployment and reducing their game breaking use as a super weapon.

Well in singleplayer they are only a superweapon, when you play with (boring to me)mass encirclements. Outside of that, i always considered them as a weak and useless slotwaste. And that new ruleset made them even more insignifant (again: for me). But to be honest, in singleplayer there is a lot of stuff that can be used to act as a superweapon, considering heroes.

After Crete in 1941, the Germans abandoned all airborne operations due to the catastrophic losses from ground based fire.

Well there were some more Airborne Operations after Crete i.e. north africa(tunesia 43) or operation Stösser, but yes nothing real important or real successful.

How much of the original rules simulated or suggested that massive level of risk and loss demonstrated by the real life operations?

As mentioned above, in singleplay there are only a few scenarios were you can use them to take a critical hex, and you need at least 3 units of them. Ai prefers to hunt them down if you try to act with em, unless you sit in a close tile and dont move Again only in singleplayer and only without mass encirclements.

Whats really needed is for the scenarios to be edited to account for the new rules .. which they are being.

Pat

Best news of that day, and all i was hoping for. Oh and thanks for the answer

[BaronVonKrieg]

Btw so many are talking about realism and it is more realistic now for using paratroopers - well I have a surprice for you, its not. No transport aeroplanes ever circled DZ to let paratroopers jump (it is that the new 1.02 patch simulates) and risk for getting hit by flak.
So the old rule worked better, simulated the actual drop. Perhaps after landing at DZ the unit only could move one hex and attack with reduced strength, simulating assemblingtime at DZ.

Btw my own flak didnt even have a single shot at enemy fighters while trying to protect my transport - why ?

Its not about simulating circling the DZ. Its about suggesting their fragility, the risk inherrent in their deployment and reducing their game breaking use as a super weapon.

Yes there were a few successful glider deployments at Pegasus Bridge, Eben Emael, Gran Sasso, but they were the exceptions.

After Crete in 1941, the Germans abandoned all airborne operations due to the catastrophic losses from ground based fire. 350 glider tow planes and para transporters shot down with many paras drowning when they were dropped into the sea.
On D-Day significant numbers of para transporters and gliders were hit by flak, crashed or were otherwise lost or widely scattered.
In Burma, during one of the most significant operations, only 36 out of 68 gliders ever made it to the LZ.
In Sicily 65 gliders landed in the sea, many more were hit by flak or were lost to weather.
At Arnhem, despite heavy flak suppression attacks preceeding the drops, the Poles still took fire from the ground.

How much of the original rules simulated or suggested that massive level of risk and loss demonstrated by the real life operations?

The current version, while still imperfect and in need of refinement, at least provides a higher degree of risk by making them a little more vulnerable over the target. Whats really needed is for the scenarios to be edited to account for the new rules .. which they are being.

Pat

wouldn't that fragility be better represented by losing strength an supply points after landing

[BaronVonKrieg]

Btw so many are talking about realism and it is more realistic now for using paratroopers - well I have a surprice for you, its not. No transport aeroplanes ever circled DZ to let paratroopers jump (it is that the new 1.02 patch simulates) and risk for getting hit by flak.
So the old rule worked better, simulated the actual drop. Perhaps after landing at DZ the unit only could move one hex and attack with reduced strength, simulating assemblingtime at DZ.

Btw my own flak didnt even have a single shot at enemy fighters while trying to protect my transport - why ?

Its not about simulating circling the DZ. Its about suggesting their fragility, the risk inherrent in their deployment and reducing their game breaking use as a super weapon.

Yes there were a few successful glider deployments at Pegasus Bridge, Eben Emael, Gran Sasso, but they were the exceptions.

After Crete in 1941, the Germans abandoned all airborne operations due to the catastrophic losses from ground based fire. 350 glider tow planes and para transporters shot down with many paras drowning when they were dropped into the sea.
On D-Day significant numbers of para transporters and gliders were hit by flak, crashed or were otherwise lost or widely scattered.
In Burma, during one of the most significant operations, only 36 out of 68 gliders ever made it to the LZ.
In Sicily 65 gliders landed in the sea, many more were hit by flak or were lost to weather.
At Arnhem, despite heavy flak suppression attacks preceeding the drops, the Poles still took fire from the ground.

How much of the original rules simulated or suggested that massive level of risk and loss demonstrated by the real life operations?

The current version, while still imperfect and in need of refinement, at least provides a higher degree of risk by making them a little more vulnerable over the target. Whats really needed is for the scenarios to be edited to account for the new rules .. which they are being.

Pat

wouldn't that fragility be better represented by losing strength an supply points after landing

pr unit got split after landing mby ?

[Chalaceador]

It is taking too much time to solve the 42 problems

[Bee1976]

It is taking too much time to solve the 42 problems

Small team, holiday times, pandemia....let them take their time. I prefer a little more waiting than the next rushed out content.

[Scrapulous]

And a fix for the campaign has still (after over 2 weeks) not arrived.

Would you prefer that AO'42 was not yet released? Because that's the trade-off. Before it came out, people complained about how long it was taking to release AO '42. Now that it's out, you are complaining that they didn't take long enough. The two camps are directly opposed to one another and seem not to be aware of it. There is a slider with "fast releases" on one end and "bug-free releases" on the other. Will you be posting here the next time somebody complains about how long PC2: Pacific is taking, advocating for careful and deliberate testing and a prolonged development process? I wonder.

[Mateusz300]

Hello guys, I'm nearly to finish AO 1940.

Playing on second level difficulty but not using save&load. I go to next mission only if achieve main and bonus objective. The question: is this possible to win Operation Mercury with new paratroopers rules? Or should I wait for patch and play another game ?

[Bee1976]

Before it came out, people complained about how long it was taking to release AO '42.

Well, i was one of those people. I love this game. And of course i would love fast and new content, and yes for an addict like me, it was a real long time to release AO42. Buuuuut i appreciate that new communication. Kerensky/Pat said that the Team needs a break from AO. Thats ok for me. I will wait fpr AO43 as long as it takes. Same for the Update. Its been more than a month now, buuuut they said "we dont want to rush this out". And i can understand this aswell.

And dont get me wrong, i would enjoy faster and more content. They could release 2 DLCs a month and i would buy them
But if they communicate that they will need some more time to release a DLC or an update or something, i can wait patiently. Communication is the key (for me) and i really really really appreciate Pats, Edmons and Kerenskys postings here.