Airborne Battle Groups Mobility

[CommanderCam]

Airborne Battle Groups should be able to deploy their airborne forces via helicopter or parachutes from planes throughout the game, not just forward deploy in the deployment phase. This would be more true to the actual advantages of tactical mobility and allow a more flexible game play than just an early bite and hold strategy.
Additionally, some should deploy with helicopters that persist or have helicopter units that can be made to move troops around that need to retreat or push forward by loading and unloading troops.
The fact that even deployment helicopters and planes deploying parachutes can be shot down by AA counters the potential to just spam deep into enemy territory meaning you have to create/exploit gaps in defenses or deploy short of the line of contact.

[BlackFoxSamaki]

People have asked for this very often and every time Eugen has told them no. Mostly their reasoning was that AA would prevent any possible air insertions anywhere near an active battlefield, but that excuse doesn't track since RUSE included paradrops on the battlefield. That was long ago though, when Eugen had more employees and a publisher backing them up. The real reason I think is simply because Eugen currently lacks the resources/time/skill to implement parachuting units and they don't want to admit it so they come up with excuses instead.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by CommanderCam:

Airborne Battle Groups should be able to deploy their airborne forces via helicopter

*Select Helicopter transport when building a deck
*Deploy troops via helicopter in-game
*Profit

For all your other points, it's already been a hard "no" due to all reasons previously mentioned before. The Advance Deployment exists those are the troops that ALREADY deployed via helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft transport, before the game-timer begins, and it's a pretty neat way to give Airborne divisions an doctrine-suited advantage without having the players waste points on a transport plane that's insta-destroyed by interceptors or SAMs 30 miles away from the battlefield.

Originally posted by BlackFoxSamaki:

but that excuse doesn't track since RUSE included paradrops on the battlefield.

Because 1941 and 1989 are doctrinally identical wars /s.

[Sabalias]

Just because it was in RUSE doesn't mean it should be in WARNO (or any of the Wargame series for that matter). As we all know, para drops were made extensively during WWII (RUSE) but there have been very few since. Strategically it would make sense to send paratroops into vital areas to secure them and then a battle may commence (which is reflected by the advanced deployment mechanic). They wouldn't drop onto an active battlefield, it would be far too risky to use such high-value troops in such a way. The only exception might be a small, special forces insertion. I would presume we might see them in the campaign but not individual battles.

[itzKyD[A]]

Originally posted by CommanderCam:

Airborne Battle Groups should be able to deploy their airborne forces via helicopter or parachutes from planes throughout the game, not just forward deploy in the deployment phase. This would be more true to the actual advantages of tactical mobility and allow a more flexible game play than just an early bite and hold strategy.
Additionally, some should deploy with helicopters that persist or have helicopter units that can be made to move troops around that need to retreat or push forward by loading and unloading troops.
The fact that even deployment helicopters and planes deploying parachutes can be shot down by AA counters the potential to just spam deep into enemy territory meaning you have to create/exploit gaps in defenses or deploy short of the line of contact.

sorry buy can't you already fly in the airsomething french inf and USA airborne troops with blackhawks?

as for parachuting out of the plane, this is not the scope of the game (on tactical level!) as no1 paradrops just 6-12 infantry at once (squad sizes in game!) unless this is black ops and this game is not about that either

[BlackFoxSamaki]

Originally posted by itzKyDA:

Originally posted by CommanderCam:

Airborne Battle Groups should be able to deploy their airborne forces via helicopter or parachutes from planes throughout the game, not just forward deploy in the deployment phase. This would be more true to the actual advantages of tactical mobility and allow a more flexible game play than just an early bite and hold strategy.
Additionally, some should deploy with helicopters that persist or have helicopter units that can be made to move troops around that need to retreat or push forward by loading and unloading troops.
The fact that even deployment helicopters and planes deploying parachutes can be shot down by AA counters the potential to just spam deep into enemy territory meaning you have to create/exploit gaps in defenses or deploy short of the line of contact.

sorry buy can't you already fly in the airsomething french inf and USA airborne troops with blackhawks?

as for parachuting out of the plane, this is not the scope of the game (on tactical level!) as no1 paradrops just 6-12 infantry at once (squad sizes in game!) unless this is black ops and this game is not about that either

Perfectly valid argument, but maybe something new to distinguish WARNO from WG:RD is needed to actually bring in players? It doesn't have to be paradrops, but can you think of something really major that WARNO has that WG doesn't? There are some small differences sure, like forward deploy, but nothing that really helps WARNO stand out as unique.

Ostensibly a strict adherence to 1989 with no out of timeframe unicorns was going to make WARNO unique, but after post 1989 equipment was added (like the KA-50) that distinctness was lost and WARNO essentially just became a version of WG:RD with far less content.

[BlackFoxSamaki]

Originally posted by Nero:

Originally posted by BlackFoxSamaki:

Perfectly valid argument, but maybe something new to distinguish WARNO from WG:RD is needed to actually bring in players? It doesn't have to be paradrops, but can you think of something really major that WARNO has that WG doesn't? There are some small differences sure, like forward deploy, but nothing that really helps WARNO stand out as unique.

Ostensibly a strict adherence to 1989 with no out of timeframe unicorns was going to make WARNO unique, but after post 1989 equipment was added (like the KA-50) that distinctness was lost and WARNO essentially just became a version of WG:RD with far less content.

You could at least pretend to stay on topic when you repeatedly post your excessive whining and your trash opinion on why WARNO is a failure and Eugen incompetent. It must really haunt you huh?

Yeah it does haunt me, I wish WARNO was actually a good game. :( Watching Eugen games go downhill over the years has been really sad, but I'm doing my best to try and draw attention to it and hopefully turn things around. Even you have acknowledged that nobody plays WARNO and that Eugen desperately needs to do something about it.

Not sure why you have to be so rude though. Just block me if my posts bother you so much. Then you don't have to see my posts and I don't have to deal with your insults. Win-win!

[BlackFoxSamaki]

Originally posted by Nero:

Originally posted by BlackFoxSamaki:

The real reason I think is simply because Eugen currently lacks the resources/time/skill to implement parachuting units and they don't want to admit it so they come up with excuses instead.

Eugen had the same stance during European Escalation when they had a publisher Focus.

There were no planes on EE at all, so it makes sense there were no paratroopers in that game. TBH, I think planes were a mistake in general for WG/WARNO. They don't fit the scale, they don't control well and with Eugen's inability to make things not horribly OP or woefully weak they don't do well in the game's balance. Also, since airborne troops are a big part of WARNO as well as planes, people are naturally going to ask for paradrops. No planes avoids all that.

[ScreamingEmu]

The Russians in Ukraine would like to have a word with you as to why flying transport planes into an AO with active air defence is a bad idea. Regardless of how or why it happened, it doesn't work anymore, it's not WWII, and it shouldn't work in game.

[ScreamingEmu]

Originally posted by BlackFoxSamaki:

Originally posted by Nero:

Eugen had the same stance during European Escalation when they had a publisher Focus.

There were no planes on EE at all, so it makes sense there were no paratroopers in that game. TBH, I think planes were a mistake in general for WG/WARNO. They don't fit the scale, they don't control well and with Eugen's inability to make things not horribly OP or woefully weak they don't do well in the game's balance. Also, since airborne troops are a big part of WARNO as well as planes, people are naturally going to ask for paradrops. No planes avoids all that.

You know, I think if planes worked more like, say Regiments or World in Conflict it would be better. An off map call in that you didn't really control, more of a points reward that came in very infrequently but can change the course of a battle if applied well, with appropriate checks and balances that can be used by the other side. Fighters that automatically deploy when enemy bombers launch, and then there being a various number of factors that determine the outcome of the fight behind the scenes automatically (Speed, Experience, Strength, ect.)

It's too late for that in this stage of development obviously, but air combat now just feels like a mass series of kamikaze runs, it's very awkward.

[sgt.longbow]

im not sure why airborne deck is lacking air transportation, kind seems counter.

[molnibalage]

How mant times have to be denied the combat drop?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by ScreamingEmu:

Originally posted by BlackFoxSamaki:

There were no planes on EE at all, so it makes sense there were no paratroopers in that game. TBH, I think planes were a mistake in general for WG/WARNO. They don't fit the scale, they don't control well and with Eugen's inability to make things not horribly OP or woefully weak they don't do well in the game's balance. Also, since airborne troops are a big part of WARNO as well as planes, people are naturally going to ask for paradrops. No planes avoids all that.

You know, I think if planes worked more like, say Regiments or World in Conflict it would be better. An off map call in that you didn't really control, more of a points reward that came in very infrequently but can change the course of a battle if applied well, with appropriate checks and balances that can be used by the other side. Fighters that automatically deploy when enemy bombers launch, and then there being a various number of factors that determine the outcome of the fight behind the scenes automatically (Speed, Experience, Strength, ect.)

It's too late for that in this stage of development obviously, but air combat now just feels like a mass series of kamikaze runs, it's very awkward.

Very much agreed. I'm really not a fan of how air combat works right now.

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by Alexander:

Originally posted by ScreamingEmu:

You know, I think if planes worked more like, say Regiments or World in Conflict it would be better. An off map call in that you didn't really control, more of a points reward that came in very infrequently but can change the course of a battle if applied well, with appropriate checks and balances that can be used by the other side. Fighters that automatically deploy when enemy bombers launch, and then there being a various number of factors that determine the outcome of the fight behind the scenes automatically (Speed, Experience, Strength, ect.)

It's too late for that in this stage of development obviously, but air combat now just feels like a mass series of kamikaze runs, it's very awkward.

Very much agreed. I'm really not a fan of how air combat works right now.

As long as so large distance compression is in the game and somehow EUGEN wish to keep RL turn rate the air combat cannot be improved nor the SAM vs air.

Especially as long as the "rage" is a lock and launch range the the ZONES of AAMs and SAMs are not modeled and kinematics of the missiles. But WARNO is not a flight sim...