Stuka performance

[Obergruppenfuhrer]

LOL! I know! Or when officers "shoot to wound" or someones arm to get them to drop their weapon! My dear god. Officers are required to shoot to kill if they discharge their weapons. Also -- sometime those gun fights where people are shooting each other on TV from over 100 yards away while moving with a 9mm pistol. Ummm, ever heard of "drop"? or "range"? or how about even "Gravity??"
It cracks me up.

[Ducky]

I think with the volume they had to work with, WotC did a decent job making the units in this game accurate. I just hope the areas, like the Stuka, where they slipped up get fixed. I just hope they do the heavy artillery right in the next expansion.

[Obergruppenfuhrer]

I think with the volume they had to work with, WotC did a decent job making the units in this game accurate. I just hope the areas, like the Stuka, where they slipped up get fixed. I just hope they do the heavy artillery right in the next expansion.

Yeah I agree. Planes could be very inaccurate trying to shoot at a small division of men or trying to drop a 500 kg bomb near them. However, the Stuka in particular was SO accurate for its time. And those 37 and 55mm guns? Man. Those things would take out a tank about as easy as a nashorn could. Stukas are the ONE aircraft they have where I think they totally missed how effective it was in ground support. They should be WAY better but cost A LOT.

[Motdc]

if you don't count my b**** about those damn paratroopers being able to land anywhere they want) Paratroopers often missed their target by miles or were killed on the way down.

Just so its said, the deployment of Paratroopers is NOT meant to portray them drifting down from the heavens mid fire-fight.  This has been repeatedly stated by WotC staff.

They are supposed to represent the active behind enemy lines troops.

Given that, I'm OK with Paratroopers. 

Well, actually, I'm OK that they deploy behind the lines, but I really think it should be required on turn 1.  Its silly to have paratroopers come charging out of a group of trees that a turn before help enemy troops.  They are not ninjas for cryin' out load!

[Obergruppenfuhrer]

 [/quote]

Just so its said, the deployment of Paratroopers is NOT meant to portray them drifting down from the heavens mid fire-fight.  This has been repeatedly stated by WotC staff.

They are supposed to represent the active behind enemy lines troops.

Given that, I'm OK with Paratroopers. 

Well, actually, I'm OK that they deploy behind the lines, but I really think it should be required on turn 1.  Its silly to have paratroopers come charging out of a group of trees that a turn before help enemy troops.  They are not ninjas for cryin' out load!
[/quote]

Yeah - Now that you bring that into perspective, I can see where it's value is and where it would be realistic. I do agree with you partially on the turn one thing. It's just totally wierd to have a paratrooper in turn 3 or 4 magically appear in a clear grass hex in the middle my men (not adjacent, but close enough). Your right, they're not ninjas. They are also not magical little elves that appear with a poof of pixie dust in the most convenient space available.

Now that I have the German Paratroopers, I'm complaining A LITTLE less. ok, a lot less.

My gripe with the Stuka still stands. It should be an accurate and devistating troop killer with the option (representation would be fine in stats) to bomb or use those 37mm or 55mm's. They should cost a lot to coincide. Additionally the allies should have their most accurate fighter/bomber represented that is comparable: and what else but the de Havilland Mosquito!

[Audacity]

Unless the historical context requires paratroops to be behind the lines I like to use paratroops as they normally are used, just as high speed soldiers.  I usually don't allow their paratroop ability.