Airborne

[Warhawks97]

Thsi what i found. I did remember we had a nice post for rifles already:
http://blitzkrieg-mod.de/board/user/610 ... ived&st=30


But what a mess is that? The M1 carabine has better accuracy on medium and long range as Garand?! and even on distant as good as M1 Garand? I would buff M1 carabine bullet damage a bit. After that some accuracy differences between Garand and carabine. Also reload after 14 bullets for carabine and 7 for Garand? wasnt it 15 and 8?

And a bullet damage that goes not above 18 is very poor even for an Carabine with this ammo type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Carbine


I know that The carabine was only good because of its weight and size and not because of its performence. What simply annoys me that this was never really considered in unit cost. 450 MP for a unit worse than a rifle squad actually. Also you got the point i am talking about since ever when people start talking about "US weapons better in close combat". I mean how often does it happen? Usually it doesnt because of what aou already wrote: Leave cover and you get shred by bikes etc. Thats painfull esspecially in early game when armies have still a similiar size.And for the 101st it´s even worse due to the carabine and the fact that they cant deny suppression by using sprint such as 82nd can. So unless the 101st has at least 4 lmgs (for 180 ammo) or 6 reccoiless rifles (for what you need 3 times 101st drop) they are just bad for the cost.



And as you talked about the engineers.... they cost 360 mp (once 400) but what can they do? I cant upgrade them with flamethrower or minesweepers and they cant be used for any combat. Also require Airborne HQ. Can the cost dropped a bit further and give them at least minesweepers. SD2 are often the greatest enemie when dropping guys in a town behind enemie lines ist too stupid that an entire air operation is denied by SD2 just because the AB engineers have no minesweepers....

[Warhawks97]

I´ve been thinking about the changes and i am not 100% certain about the weapon drop. M1 Garand, yes.

But about the weapon drop i am not sure. Very often i really need them with more anti inf power and thus the reccoiless arent usefull. At the other hand removing them would make quick operations behind enemie lines almost impossible as a single scout car would force the to retreat. Option would be dropping the 82 nd first with zooks but i am still not sure. Maybe you should do a poll. Either keep weapon drop and upgrades as they are or put BAR´s into the weapon drop and two reccoiless upgradable near AB HQ or in friendly territory for 35-40 ammo each. Or as thrid option the crate would contain one BAR and one reccoiless. Make a poll about it.




Also a question: Does rangers and AB range use same satchels? Because it seems that the Inf doc ranger blow up full HP bunker with two satchels while my AB rangers did need 2 for a Bunker that was already down to 50% which would make 4 in total when bunker has full HP. Maybe check what they use and the files.

[MarKr]

It's actually very similar situation to what you have now - Drop them, need BARs to fend off infantry but you have RL. OR Drop them, need RL to fend off vehicles but you have BARs. So I was thinking about those RL as weapon upgrades as you mentioned it.

About satchels - I think they have the same ability butI'm not sure. Will check it.

[Warhawks97]

It's actually very similar situation to what you have now - Drop them, need BARs to fend off infantry but you have RL. OR Drop them, need RL to fend off vehicles but you have BARs. So I was thinking about those RL as weapon upgrades as you mentioned it.

About satchels - I think they have the same ability butI'm not sure. Will check it.

OK, but recoiless should be available also near AB HQ. They wouldnt be able to fight successfull behind lines.

[Tony_Frost]

It's actually very similar situation to what you have now - Drop them, need BARs to fend off infantry but you have RL. OR Drop them, need RL to fend off vehicles but you have BARs. So I was thinking about those RL as weapon upgrades as you mentioned it.

I want to ask about Thompson upgrades. If it BARs will be dropped instead RL, what player gonna do, if he want arm 101nd with Thompsons? If it will behind enemy line, BARs gonna leave to the enemy infantry.

What's the difference between the Johnson LMG and the BAR? Both of them cost 45 munition but it seems that one is distinctly better than the other.

Besides firerat and damadge, BAR requires 2 weapon slots and Johnson LMG requires 1, so Johnson could be received by squad twice more than BAR.

[Warhawks97]

It's actually very similar situation to what you have now - Drop them, need BARs to fend off infantry but you have RL. OR Drop them, need RL to fend off vehicles but you have BARs. So I was thinking about those RL as weapon upgrades as you mentioned it.

I want to ask about Thompson upgrades. If it BARs will be dropped instead RL, what player gonna do, if he want arm 101nd with Thompsons? If it will behind enemy line, BARs gonna leave to the enemy infantry.

What's the difference between the Johnson LMG and the BAR? Both of them cost 45 munition but it seems that one is distinctly better than the other.

Besides firerat and damadge, BAR requires 2 weapon slots and Johnson LMG requires 1, so Johnson could be received by squad twice more than BAR.

good questions...How many slots take a reccoiless? iirc just one like bazooka. So right now there can be squads with 2 reccoiless and 4 johnson. If we had BAR to the drop they will have two BAR, two johnson max. or Two BAR and two reccoiless after upgrade or two BAR, one reccoiless and one johnson. Means that the effectivness of the unit might be reduced as two BAR and two johnson and two M1 are as good as 4 Johnson.

What about Johnson inside the crate instead BAR? Coz some wont use the BAR maybe as it takes two slots.

I know for historical reasons not the best choice but considering that axis drop with 6 FG42 which were also very very rare i dont think that 2 johnson in a crate would hurt the historical accuracy.

[MarKr]

For testing purposes I made it in my version like this:
I removed the Thompson upgrade because it is only available near HQ squad - by the time you have HQ squad you already have access to 82nd rangers who come with 6 thompsons as default so giving the Thompsons to 101st is kinda pointless.

101st drop with 6 garands and have 2 BARs in the drop.
101st have 3 weapon upgrades options:
RL rife (gives 1 RL, possible to upgrade 2x)
1919a6 LMG (gives 1 lmg) - gives "Slowdown" ability
BARs (gives 2 additional BARs)
The upgrades work the way that if you chose one the others become unavailable due to not enough slots.

So the possible loadouts are:
6 Garands (without upgrades or the free BARs)
4 Garands + 2 BARs (without upgrades but collected free BARs)
2 Garands + 4 BARs (if BARs upgrade is used)
3 Garands + 2 BARs + 1 LMG (if lmg is used)
2 Garands + 2 BARs + 2 RLs (if RL upgrades are used)
And then, if you don't collect the two free BARs you have enough slots to combine the upgrades in a way.

I think that for very close combat you have 82nd while for other distances you can use 101st in this way. You can also upgrade 2xRL and then pick up zookas from 82nd which will give you an AT squad with 4 weapons which is also cool.

In general I am against giving them free Johnsons because...well because it is FREE and Johnsons are a sliiiightly bit better than BARs. I know, that Fallies have FG42 for free which is better weapon but you can only have 2 squads while 101st are limited by how many? 5 or 6? 101st are early available and you can have them in numbers so they need to have some downside from my point of view it is the fact that they don't excel at very close range - but with 4 BARs they are quite decent even at close range (if you don't go head-on-head against MP44s or FG42s)

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

The only thing why aiborne is good is acces to 6 Johnsons and 6 recoiless/zooks for 101s, changing this will make a complete shit from doc. Im against of any load out changing, exept swap Carabines to Garands. Just give them passive camo (like all elite inf) and implement Hellcat, there is no worth in any other changes.

Better think about 82s, they need some weapon upgrades, currently the only way of using them is kamikadze rush with satchels/stickies on flaks/tanks. Tompsons are doing zero damage on far/mid range to elite axis inf, getting closer is almost impossible.

[MarKr]

The only thing why aiborne is good is acces to 6 Johnsons and 6 recoiless/zooks for 101s, changing this will make a complete shit from doc.

Are you really saying that the only reason to play Airborne doc is to equip 101st with 6 Johnsons or hendheld AT weapons? I can understand the the AT but for what purpose do you use Johnsons? Close range? Thomposons are better (stats-wise from medium to close range) and overall 82nd too since they have a bit more health so getting close is easier than with 101st. For longer range - as I already said BARs and Johnsons are very similar just Johnson is slightly better so I'm guessing that something is wrong here since better weapon actually takes less slots than a worse weapon? If anything it shoud be the other way around. I thing the slot issue is remnant from vCoH where Rifles could get two BARs but along with them the insta-supress ability - this is not the case with Para doc.
Also the LMG could give the slowdown ability which in turn could provide conditions good enough for 82nd to close the distance and use their SMGs.

[Warhawks97]

The only thing why aiborne is good is acces to 6 Johnsons and 6 recoiless/zooks for 101s, changing this will make a complete shit from doc.

Are you really saying that the only reason to play Airborne doc is to equip 101st with 6 Johnsons or hendheld AT weapons? I can understand the the AT but for what purpose do you use Johnsons? Close range? Thomposons are better (stats-wise from medium to close range) and overall 82nd too since they have a bit more health so getting close is easier than with 101st. For longer range - as I already said BARs and Johnsons are very similar just Johnson is slightly better so I'm guessing that something is wrong here since better weapon actually takes less slots than a worse weapon? If anything it shoud be the other way around. I thing the slot issue is remnant from vCoH where Rifles could get two BARs but along with them the insta-supress ability - this is not the case with Para doc.
Also the LMG could give the slowdown ability which in turn could provide conditions good enough for 82nd to close the distance and use their SMGs.

Haha, 6 x lmg johonson (1-3 squads) and one with 6x reccoiless is the only real effective way currently. The proposed changes automatically need the new ability Bar you once showd us (switch between incendiary and normal nade, suppressive Fire BAR, hold fire andf ambush and M1 Garand. Build cost drop to 400 and reinforce cost from 34-36 wouldnt hurt either.


"Slowdown abiliy" the siht the G43 has..... DONT do it that way. In vcoh its fixed into suppressing the target squad. So in vcoh the abiilty slows down and suppresses the target squad (not pin). But dont slow down ability..... pls not like it is right now.

[MarKr]

OK, in the situation you suggested what are they good at then? Long to medium combat? Meidum to short combat? Both?
If the answer is "both" then there's definately something wrong since this infantry is not meant to be all-range killers. If the answer is "Medium to short combat" something is wrong again since this role should be filled by 82nd for obvious reasons. So logically the only one left is "long to medium" combat.
I tried it with the changes I described above and with the Garand and BARs/LMG they do quite decent at long to medium range. 101st are not meant to be some kind of equivalent of Assault Grenadiers who are fully equiped with MP44s. They are meant to be cheaper and less effective than e.g. Fallies but their stenght should be in numbers. If managed properly I don't really think they are that bad the way I made them. Given the fact about number of weapon slots taken by Johnson and BAR I guess that it could be made for 101st that it only takes 1 slot (however this might introduce a problem if picked up by other infantry :/ )

I am quite confused - I could find several posts at the old forum where people parodicaly called Johnson "Crapson" because they thought of it as poor weapon and people called for removing it and now, several patches later when no changes were intoduced to this weapon, it is suddenly so good that it is worth keeping? Wasn't it you, Warhawks, who called for removing this weapon since it was almost never used on western front? Little things like these always make my day .

Also are you guys really saying that the whole Para doctrine is worth using only because of 101st fully equipped with Johnsons or AT weapons? I'm not talking only about the effectivity of the 101st but the whole doctrine. If yes, then, again, something is still wrong with this doctrine.

Anyway I'll play ignorant and ask - what's wrong with the Slowdown ability? It suppresses and slows down squad for 20 ammo. What's so bad about that? (Never even noticed anyone complaining about this)

(BUT KEEP IN MIND IT IS MY VERSION FOR TESTING SO WHAT I WRITE DOESN'T HAVE TO END UP AS PART OF THE NEXT PATCH)

[Warhawks97]

OK, in the situation you suggested what are they good at then? Long to medium combat? Meidum to short combat? Both?
If the answer is "both" then there's definately something wrong since this infantry is not meant to be all-range killers. If the answer is "Medium to short combat" something is wrong again since this role should be filled by 82nd for obvious reasons. So logically the only one left is "long to medium" combat.
I tried it with the changes I described above and with the Garand and BARs/LMG they do quite decent at long to medium range. 101st are not meant to be some kind of equivalent of Assault Grenadiers who are fully equiped with MP44s. They are meant to be cheaper and less effective than e.g. Fallies but their stenght should be in numbers. If managed properly I don't really think they are that bad the way I made them. Given the fact about number of weapon slots taken by Johnson and BAR I guess that it could be made for 101st that it only takes 1 slot (however this might introduce a problem if picked up by other infantry :/ )

I am quite confused - I could find several posts at the old forum where people parodicaly called Johnson "Crapson" because they thought of it as poor weapon and people called for removing it and now, several patches later when no changes were intoduced to this weapon, it is suddenly so good that it is worth keeping? Wasn't it you, Warhawks, who called for removing this weapon since it was almost never used on western front? Little things like these always make my day .

Also are you guys really saying that the whole Para doctrine is worth using only because of 101st fully equipped with Johnsons or AT weapons? I'm not talking only about the effectivity of the 101st but the whole doctrine. If yes, then, again, something is still wrong with this doctrine.

Anyway I'll play ignorant and ask - what's wrong with the Slowdown ability? It suppresses and slows down squad for 20 ammo. What's so bad about that? (Never even noticed anyone complaining about this)

(BUT KEEP IN MIND IT IS MY VERSION FOR TESTING SO WHAT I WRITE DOESN'T HAVE TO END UP AS PART OF THE NEXT PATCH)

I never said johnosn is crap iirc. At that time i´ve never played airborne. I thought is "as crapy" as BAR is without any difference. I also did not know that johnson takes less slots. Currently the 6 LMG is what makes them effective in late game. Two BARs would make them as good as basic rifles sqaud or as bad as those. So i asked for removal due to historical accuracy. But now it seems that this weapon is what makes the 101st usefull. Also AB only real AT is exactly this 6x reccoiless in a squad that works as a dedicated AT squad. That way you have 2 squads vs inf only and the "AT squad" standing ready waiting for action to knock out tanks in a run. 2 reccoiless in each squad reduces each squads anti inf capabilties but 2 reccoiless hardly kill anything. Thats why player have 6 lmgs in 2 squads and one AT squad.


I am really in favour now to put Johnosn in crates as they take one weapon slot. If someone complains then about too many "OP" weapons or so many LMGs i just want remind those that the Axis luft forces have very powerfull weapons by default (The G43 with a combination of accuracy, rof and Damage per bullet) and additional mg34. The Regiment 5 6 deadly FG42 mutlipurpose weapons.

And as BAR weapon slot reduction to one might affects other units i think its easier to have Johnson in crates and player keeps very flexible in their upgrades. I would also not reduce reccoiless to 2 per squad. Players should keep able to upgrade all 6 men with Johnsons and reccoiless in any numbers and absolutely free. Means 6x johnson or 6x reccoiless or 50:50 etc.



And Hellcats should be considered for all docs. The M10 should be as basic for 0 CP like sherman 75, Marder, stugs.

[MarKr]

I still consider this doctrine's infantry balance to be broken and surely a 6men squad equiped purely with Johnsons is not a solution. I don't undesrstand why those two weapons differ so little and yet the better actually takes less weapon slots - this is obviously an oversight.

By "could cause problems with other infantry" I meant that if dropped by 101st other infantry could pick it and it would still only take one slot - I don't know how much balance problems it could cause...maybe some and maybe none.
Anyway 2 Garands + 4 BARs perform decent.
The thing is similar as if you wanted to give to Enfield commandos and option to upgrade 6 Brens - why would you do that when for close combat you have Sten commandos and for non-close they are decent as they are...

Still remains my question about "Slowndown" ability.

[Warhawks97]

I still consider this doctrine's infantry balance to be broken and surely a 6men squad equiped purely with Johnsons is not a solution. I don't undesrstand why those two weapons differ so little and yet the better actually takes less weapon slots - this is obviously an oversight.

By "could cause problems with other infantry" I meant that if dropped by 101st other infantry could pick it and it would still only take one slot - I don't know how much balance problems it could cause...maybe some and maybe none.
Anyway 2 Garands + 4 BARs perform decent.
The thing is similar as if you wanted to give to Enfield commandos and option to upgrade 6 Brens - why would you do that when for close combat you have Sten commandos and for non-close they are decent as they are...

Still remains my question about "Slowndown" ability.

just for fun: maybe compare FG42 and johnson and their efficenciy at any distant. If the FG42 performs as good or better.... you know... then i dont see any reason that 101st shouldnt be able to have 6 johnson.

Also afaik most weapons take just one slot. I recently picked up 3 dropped m1919A6 with rangers if i looked correct and i still had the thompson upgrade available. Maybe the only different between johnson and rl, zook and 1919 is that it can be upgraded more often per squad. if so then dont make it take two slots and instead reduce possible upgrade to two. but picked up can be up to 6 still. RL need to be upgradable 4 times. A squad with just two makes simply little sense.


What about random drops btw? gonna be fixed for all? its mega annoying weapons get dropped after 1 loss. But most annoying it that they often cant get upgraded again.

[MarKr]

just for fun: maybe compare FG42 and johnson and their efficenciy at any distant. If the FG42 performs as good or better.... you know... then i dont see any reason that 101st shouldnt be able to have 6 johnson.

If we follow this logic then any squad that can get weapon upgrades of a weapon that is stats-wise worse than FG42 should be allowed to fully equip that weapon (6x)? Let's see how people would like 6 mg34 in one squad...

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

@MarKr

I know only 2 people in community who often play airborne (and play it good) - its me, and my friend impulse, we both think that weapon change will fuck up the doctrine, doc aleady requries a very high skills for effective using. As i noticed Aiborne is the rarest alied pvp doc (after sappers), i belive its not because air units are very powerfull. EXACTLLY like warhawks said, the only possible way to play it are 101s with 6 mgs or 6 recoiless\zooks. Lets imagine your loadout ( 2 bars + 2 recoiless), can this guys handle storms with mp44\regiment 5\ss or even simple grens? - NO, they will suck. Can they handle a single pz4? - NO, they will suck. So, why the fuck i would play directly infantry oriented doctrine when doc specific units will not be able to deal with axis BASIC units and vehicles. Answer to your qusteion: Why they can carry so many weapons - because airborne is only about.....airborne, really i always use 4 101s + HQ team + pak\howitzer and res drop, nothing more, because other things are stupid or too suck (like 82s, we with impulse are using them only for kamikadzing flaks and mg nests, as i already said, their tompsons are doing zero damage on long\mid distance to all axis infatry, try to get closer? HA HA, good luck in trying to get closer to mp44\Fg42\mg42\mg34\g43, you will loose whole squad before they will kill a single axis man, jeez, give them some weapon upgrades, its the most useless unit for 550 mp. Now lets see to Pe counterpart (Flaks + fully equipted elite inf right from the drop with weapons and AT stuff which is able to kill and penetrate almost every alied tank with 2-3 shots, panzerfaust especially, SD2 bombs (best doc thing) + point disabling + super Marder 1 + non CP arty + even Panthers + airstikes VS 4 101s with HQ team and some airstrikes (which are now must be activated very smart). The THING of this doc is ability to concentrate power on your 101s, so they will be able to face (and kill effectivly) any axis inf and midle game vehicles, that compensates the particular orientation of this doctrine, and still, this squads are not something like easy to get ( 6 recoiless = 1200 mp, 6 johnsons = 280 ammo).

For concluison: Dont touch 101s loadout, its fine. Give camo to all airunits and Hellcat, curently its they only doc in game which is just gets smashed by tanks. I had several 1vs1s matches where i locked down my enemie at the base already, had maxed out air units, paks everywhere and max ammo for airstrikes, then 1 tiger and i lost, because its just going forward and killing everything, and you really have nothing for countering.

P.S. Also 82s may get a buff, worst elite unit in game for so far.

[Jagdpanther]

Squads with all men having only 1 type of weapon is not realistic, ww2 squads were equipped with various weapons. http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... G/ger.html.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Squads with all men having only 1 type of weapon is not realistic, ww2 squads were equipped with various weapons. http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... G/ger.html.

Are you even serious? Whos here giving a fuck how squads were equipted in reality?

[Jagdpanther]

Squads with all men having only 1 type of weapon is not realistic, ww2 squads were equipped with various weapons. http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... G/ger.html.

Are you even serious? Whos here giving a fuck how squads were equipted in reality?

yea who gives a fuck about historical accuracy, this game is based on fiction not on a real event right?

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

The main purpose of game (and mod) is to make it fun and interesting. You may better play some simulators, if want to jerk off on every historical accurate thing.

[Warhawks97]

Squads with all men having only 1 type of weapon is not realistic, ww2 squads were equipped with various weapons. http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaro ... G/ger.html.

Are you even serious? Whos here giving a fuck how squads were equipted in reality?

yea who gives a fuck about historical accuracy, this game is based on fiction not on a real event right?

going for historical weapon laodout is already more or less impossible. I mean 6x Fg42 in single squad just as sample. This way every squad wouldnt be able to equip anything and would simply have all their historcial weapon loadout right at default. Weapon upgrades in game differ from reality squad weapon loadout and is part of tactical decisions a player makes. Or instead one type of gren squad we would have different and instead upgrading weapons we would have squads with different weapon loadout produceable.



About Air doc its true that the 82nd isnt really great. expensive and this "always get into close range" is very hard simply due to the BK gamestype and engine. Always nicely said "get close with US" coz their weapons exclusively are for mid range but the problem is that -unless the map allows it- it is very hard to do so when you get shred from "distant/long/medium" range already. Its simply this feature of the 101st which makes airborne really possible to play. Players that are less skilled with AB and which give like 2 reccoiless to each squad and one or two lmgs always suck. The squads cant kill tank effectively nor inf and so they gonna blobb extremly to have firepower concentrated but makes them vulnerable to nades, rockets etc. So its better to have 2 101st squads with 6 lmgs (which makes them in firepower and efficency equal to gebirgsjäger on longer ranges and or stormooper suppression squad). The Johnson also can be rather compared with BARs and FG42 and not with M1919 and lmg42/34 as those do not shoot while moving by having more rounds per magazin. And i dont see any real problem with a high versatile and massive weapon upgrades for 101st. If you have a look at stormtooper or rather SS squad which can be equiped with lots of different stuff several times (SS squad).


I would prefer two Johnson in drop and further johnson and rl upgradable. The RL at least 4 times but 6 is also OK. depending on how much Hellcat would boost AT capabilites of that doc but right now its based arround 6 RL squad. Why i prefer Johnson in drop and RL as upgrade? its simply because that way the first dropped unit is at least effective against inf. with RL in crates the first dropped 101st is usless unless lmgs are purchased or a second 101st dropped to pick up all 4 RL. With Johnson the first dropped would be effective against inf right when dropped and the second gives further two lmgs to first squad and purchasing quickly 4 RL.

In order to keep them effective when dropped behing enemie lines all upgrades should be available near Airborne HQ (all sorts: House, the one that looks like barracks and and 101st HQ). Also faster done than usual because the enemie will quickly try to smash those units and the 101st need to be able to quickly get up a AB HQ and AT weapons. The AB inside a house is also very expensive btw. 320 MP seem to be enough and not 400. Or reduce MP cost and add some fuel cost instead.


About Airstrikes i still think that the bombs are overpriced. Its hard to it anything else than an emplacment and thus filling a similiar role as the Stuka. AOE is pretty low even against inf (against tanks its ok). Beside that this doc needs a lot of ammo for weapon upgrades unlike brits commandos and luftwaffe which have weapons right by default or by tectree unlocks.

[MarKr]

EXACTLLY like warhawks said, the only possible way to play it are 101s with 6 mgs or 6 recoiless\zooks.
.......
Answer to your qusteion: Why they can carry so many weapons - because airborne is only about.....airborne, really i always use 4 101s + HQ team + pak\howitzer and res drop, nothing more, because other things are stupid or too suck

Which only supports what I said - this doctrine is broken. Honestly - do you think it was meant to be played this way? Like seriously you have unlock for shitload of stuf (HMGs/ Mortars/ offmap salvo/ airstrikes...) and you actually use four of them (101st, HQ, supply and AT gun)?

Lets imagine your loadout ( 2 bars + 2 recoiless), can this guys handle storms with mp44\regiment 5\ss or even simple grens?

Two points - you can choose not to pick up BARs then upgrade 2 RLs and from 82nd puck up zooks - you get your AT squad. BARs can be picked up by secend 101st (these are dropped with 2 BARs too) so you have 4 BARs for free + 2 Garands (which is already better than Carabine).
Second this load out is still not enough to beat anything you mentioned at close range if you go 1on1 (maybe except for simple Grens). But you're not meant to win with them 1on1 - that's my point. Also reg 5 can only have 2 squads in the field at a time while 101st can have 5 or 6 squads - in this ration you beat reg 5 even with this loadout like nothing.
Also I remember a time at the old topic where I tried to prove my point by comparing US Para to PE Luft and the answer I got was "Don't compare them, they are not meant to work the same way." - so there you go .

some airstrikes (which are now must be activated very smart)

Well, yeah, they could use some cooldown and price reduction after the AA changes...

Give camo to all airunits

Espetially this is probably not happening - Wolf is against it.

then 1 tiger and i lost, because its just going forward and killing everything, and you really have nothing for countering

Everyone has always been telling that as Airborne you have airstrikes as counter to heavy tanks - nobody ever mentiones that seldom have ammo to feed airstrikes since you need it to upgrade weapons for infatry

P.S. Also 82s may get a buff, worst elite unit in game for so far.

Buff them how? Some weapon upgrades? 82nd are meant to be close combat unit. Allies have no better close combat weapon than Thompsons. If you give them BARs or Johnsons, you are basically turning them into another 101st...

Are you even serious? Whos here giving a fuck how squads were equipted in reality?

Quite a number of people were willing to debate squads loadouts based on historical accuracy - actually Warhawks participated in these debates too iirc.

TBH I woud rather hear some ideas to make the doctrine more playable and able to use all the toys they have at disposal rather than see it further dependant on two types of infantry and one weapon upgrade.

[Wake]

The general concensus is that airborne is the worst US doc and one of the worst allied docs, which I agree with.

You either have to dump ALL of your munitions into your 101st to make them any good or you have to spend ALL of your munitions on the plane attacks. It's either/or. There isn't enough munition to have both effective 101st and reliable air support, especially now considering that planes get shot down very easily.

The main argument I'm seeing now is what gun upgrades to give the 101st. I would say yes to give them all garands, because that's what they actually carried. But to extend that little bit of realism, paratroopers never had BARs. The BAR was too heavy and bulky to carry with you on a plane and jump out of it. That's why you never see paratroopers with BARs in the movies. They never got them until the Battle of the Bulge, when they were no longer paratroopers and were pretty much just infantry units. What the paratroopers did have was the m1919 LMG, the one that the rangers get now.

But speaking of that, the 101st and 82nd were America's "elite" infantry units. They were regarded as the best the US had to offer. I don't think this is really portrayed in game, as right now the US doesn't really have any true "elite" infantry. The Wehrmacht get stormtroopers, PE get waffen SS and luftwaffe, the brits get SAS, but what do the Americans get, Rangers? Most people expect the airborne to be the "elite" infantry of the US, but they're really not, as you have to spam them with 3 or 4 squads to be able to match the "elite" axis units.

It seems like right now, the 101st is just a rifleman squad with some weapon upgrades that costs 160 MP more and 1.5x the reinforce cost. It's like you're paying for their ability to paradrop anywhere, which really isn't that effective when you compare it to, say, the CQB squad which costs 450 MP and is probably 10x more effective.

So somehow, we need to make the 101st into a true elite unit, instead of just the slightly-better-riflemen they are now.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

1) Max 101s limit is 4, not 5-6.
2) Maybe this doc is broken, but your solution with load out just will kill it completely. Whole doc rework is kinda not possible, so leave it just it is.
3) Airborne airstrikes cant be used as a defensive stuff, thunderbolt bombs are not precise and plane is not fast enough.
4) 82s is close combat.....but they cant beat any axis squad for the same cost in close combat, isnt it strange? As at squad - 2 zooks still not enough to kill anything bigger than puma, what to say, sometimes all 6 recoiless salvo (after recoiless nerf better to say even often, not sometimes) cant kill a pz4 and "there is your at squad with 2 zooks"? *caught* caught* Give them at least a bit more HP, so their will not die completely when you will try to use them in "close combat"
5) Problem is not in ammo, problem is in their effectivness ( see point 3) thunderbolt bombs and patrool are very good to support your atack, when enemie is standing arround 1 territory and havent got many ways for movements. BUT, it cant protect you against advancing tiger.
6) Camo, simply why no?

@Wake
Nope, 101s with upgrades and HQ team nearby can kick ass of any axis elite. ( and with 6 johnsons they even were smashing old KCH)

[Wake]

Yeah, but that's like, two 400 MP squads of 101st, 540 munitions worth of Johnsons (12 of them), and a 700 MP HQ squad to for a total of 1500 MP.

If I was an axis player who had 1500 MP and 540 munitions, I could build a fully upgraded Waffen SS squad (700 MP), a fully upgraded gebirgsjaeger squad (600 MP), the gebirgsjaeger Le.IG 18 infantry gun (100 muni), and a bike (220 MP). And then some airstrikes and for good measure, the grenade assault ability that throws 10 grenades.

The airborne would be decimated before they even got close. The G43's of those axis squads would rip the airborne apart, blasted away by the LeIG 18 and chased by the airstrikes, then finally as they retreat, the bike would finish them off before they reach their base.