New Paratrooper Rules Are a Big Mistake

[brettz123]

I get they needed to be different for multiplayer but it really has messed up the Eben-Emael scenario in the 1940 DLC. The entire purpose having that paratroopers in that scenario was to be able to encircle the fortress and keep them unsupplied..... guess what can't be done anymore? Yeah, you guys basically made the scenario unplayable. Is this going to be addressed anytime soon?

[Patrick Ward]

I get they needed to be different for multiplayer but it really has messed up the Eben-Emael scenario in the 1940 DLC. The entire purpose having that paratroopers in that scenario was to be able to encircle the fortress and keep them unsupplied..... guess what can't be done anymore? Yeah, you guys basically made the scenario unplayable. Is this going to be addressed anytime soon?

You'll find your answer here.

viewtopic.php?f=464&t=106296&start=40#p936456

P

[brettz123]

Awesome, glad you guys are on it!

[Jaimainsoyyo]

I get they needed to be different for multiplayer but it really has messed up the Eben-Emael scenario in the 1940 DLC. The entire purpose having that paratroopers in that scenario was to be able to encircle the fortress and keep them unsupplied..... guess what can't be done anymore? Yeah, you guys basically made the scenario unplayable. Is this going to be addressed anytime soon?

In the meantime, if you want to do the same that Paras did before you only need a "Double Movement" Hero and problem fixed .

[Bee1976]

I get they needed to be different for multiplayer but it really has messed up the Eben-Emael scenario in the 1940 DLC. The entire purpose having that paratroopers in that scenario was to be able to encircle the fortress and keep them unsupplied..... guess what can't be done anymore? Yeah, you guys basically made the scenario unplayable. Is this going to be addressed anytime soon?

In the meantime, if you want to do the same that Paras did before you only need a "Double Movement" Hero and problem fixed .

The problem is heros are completly random. I never get the ones i would like. But there is no chance to exchange them. And for all missions that are broken right now, you need more than 1 unit paratroopers. And you cant assign them to AI units (crete)

Im unsure if its possible to fix this via a mod until the official tune up comes, but if there is one some1 pls help me out.

[impossible]

The problem is heros are completly random. I never get the ones i would like. But there is no chance to exchange them. And for all missions that are broken right now, you need more than 1 unit paratroopers. And you cant assign them to AI units (crete)

Im unsure if its possible to fix this via a mod until the official tune up comes, but if there is one some1 pls help me out.

crete is doable (except the bonus objectives which are very difficult now, couldnt do it with spanis uber import army on generalissimus+david&goliath+heroic showdown) - just use the southern supply hex airport and kill the fleet that is bombarding your troops after landing.

[Bee1976]

crete is doable (except the bonus objectives which are very difficult now

Thats why i labeled crete as broken. Its not working as intended. And somehow finishing a mission is no fun for me.
I havent played much PC2 since 1 month, waiting for the fixes.

[Kerensky]

Thats why i labeled crete as broken. Its not working as intended. And somehow finishing a mission is no fun for me.
I havent played much PC2 since 1 month, waiting for the fixes.

I apologize for the wait, but I assure you fixes are coming. We had to have some internal discussion on 'how' to address this issue, and while that was going on, several other outstanding issues have been getting addressed. Ideally we can release a nice big healthy patch, and not have to constantly push hotfix after hotfix in a mad scrambled rush.

It does mean you guys have to wait, which is indeed a bummer. Sorry again, and thank you for your patience.

[Retributarr]

"Kerensky!!!"... I want you to know... that i have 'Lots Of Patience'... do you know why???... that's because "I Never Use Any Of It!".

[nexusno2000]

I like the para change. A lot.

Eben-Emael specifically could use a tweak but please don't dumb it back down...

[nexusno2000]

Relatedly: naval landings are dumb.

Move ship, disembark same turn AND full land movement.

LOL

[Bee1976]

Thats why i labeled crete as broken. Its not working as intended. And somehow finishing a mission is no fun for me.
I havent played much PC2 since 1 month, waiting for the fixes.

I apologize for the wait, but I assure you fixes are coming. We had to have some internal discussion on 'how' to address this issue, and while that was going on, several other outstanding issues have been getting addressed. Ideally we can release a nice big healthy patch, and not have to constantly push hotfix after hotfix in a mad scrambled rush.

It does mean you guys have to wait, which is indeed a bummer. Sorry again, and thank you for your patience.

Dont get me wrong. It was not meant critizing. Im not upset. The team needs a break, thats ok for me. Meanwhile the team is working on a patch to adress some issues, do some tunings, and so on, and you dont want to rush it out. Thats ok for me again. I wait patiently, looking forward to a better experience in the game.
But its true, i havent played much PC2 since 4 weeks. If it takes more weeks to release that patch i will wait that time aswell. But i assure you, as soon as the patch is released i will play

So take your time, buuuuuuut to easy our (my) pain, what about some teasing spoilers of (to ?) that changelog

[R2G2]

I like the para change. A lot.

Eben-Emael specifically could use a tweak but please don't dumb it back down...

You should look at it from a Scenario Design perspective. The current change to paras cripples the AI's use of them. The drop zone can't be a random move and now they sit in the air transport for an extra turn.

If this was added to naval transports... might as well not bother with a D-Day scenario.

[Scrapulous]

If this was added to naval transports... might as well not bother with a D-Day scenario.

See, I think it's the current rules that make D-Day not worth bothering with. The Dover scenario in AO 1940 illustrates this pretty well, I think. If you land mobile units in the first wave, you can have the enemy's defenses encircled before they ever fire a shot. That's fairly ridiculous. I agree that a turn of inaction after an amphibious landing would make more sense and add meaningful and realistic challenge to amphibious scenarios. Under the current rules, D-Day would be a joke: overwhelming forces landing next to a thin garrison and some fixed defenses would absolutely crush the resistance, especially since many landings were uncontested. The defenders would be totally surrounded on turn 1 and would be lucky to fire a single shot.

[Bee1976]

The current change to paras cripples the AI's use of them.

Its quite unrealistic aswell. Paras jump out of a flying plane. Its ok that they need 1 turn to attack, but fyling in the air for 1 turn over their target location ? Waiting for anti-ar and enemy fighters to shoot at them ?
Giving ground forces 1 extra turn to react to them ? The new ruleset is completl ok for airliftet infantry besides paras and airlifted equipment, but well paras jump out of a plane over their destination area. Thir planes dont fly holding patterns.

[nexusno2000]

If this was added to naval transports... might as well not bother with a D-Day scenario.

See, I think it's the current rules that make D-Day not worth bothering with. The Dover scenario in AO 1940 illustrates this pretty well, I think. If you land mobile units in the first wave, you can have the enemy's defenses encircled before they ever fire a shot. That's fairly ridiculous. I agree that a turn of inaction after an amphibious landing would make more sense and add meaningful and realistic challenge to amphibious scenarios. Under the current rules, D-Day would be a joke: overwhelming forces landing next to a thin garrison and some fixed defenses would absolutely crush the resistance, especially since many landings were uncontested. The defenders would be totally surrounded on turn 1 and would be lucky to fire a single shot.

Yes, exactly this.

[nexusno2000]

I like the para change. A lot.

Eben-Emael specifically could use a tweak but please don't dumb it back down...

You should look at it from a Scenario Design perspective. The current change to paras cripples the AI's use of them. The drop zone can't be a random move and now they sit in the air transport for an extra turn.

If this was added to naval transports... might as well not bother with a D-Day scenario.

AI use of paras?

There is one US scenario in the core campaign that only underline the stupidity of old Para rules.

[nexusno2000]

The current change to paras cripples the AI's use of them.

Its quite unrealistic aswell. Paras jump out of a flying plane. Its ok that they need 1 turn to attack, but fyling in the air for 1 turn over their target location ? Waiting for anti-ar and enemy fighters to shoot at them ?
Giving ground forces 1 extra turn to react to them ? The new ruleset is completl ok for airliftet infantry besides paras and airlifted equipment, but well paras jump out of a plane over their destination area. Thir planes dont fly holding patterns.

It's a turn based game.

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

[R2G2]

I agree that a turn of inaction after an amphibious landing would make more sense and add meaningful and realistic challenge to amphibious scenarios.

This would also be the proper way to fix paras... let them land in the same turn, but lose all movement points. I hope they change to this in the next update.

AI use of paras?

There is one US scenario in the core campaign that only underline the stupidity of old Para rules.

Besides D-day, Axis Operations will most likely include Operations Varsity and Market Garden. There are at least 8 more airborne operations they could add along with these 3 for the AI’s use of paras.

[Bee1976]

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