Special Forces

[Feyd Rautha]

This article reads as something that's great in theory but doesn't work in real game. I've always felt like the experience system in Civ4 is a bit underwhelming at higher levels. I mean, level 2 units will dominate level 1, no question. And CR3 is extremely nice. But do you REALLY need a combat 4/march/amphibious/whatever infantry? It'll still lose, almost every time, to just two unpromoted infantry. Paratroopers are even weaker against infantry, and since they have to wait a turn to attack after a jump, they usually die before doing anything if you jump them into the middle of enemy territory. Just use an air strike or a spy instead- much more effective. The only use I get from Paratroopers is when mopping up someone way weaker than me, since paratroopers+air support can advance faster than tanks.

This is why I promote my paratroopers for defensive uses. I typically pair two Combat III paratroopers together and send them for a vital resource to cripple my opponent. If it is on hills or if there are a fair amount of forests around I promote one with Guerilla III or Woodsman III as appropriate. After pillaging the given resource I just sit right on it and build defensive +% buffs.

Two combat IIIs are enough to deter anything but a major stack attack (and if he's sending a big stack after my two little paratroops their mission is accomplished) and if they are Guerillas on hills or Woodsmen in the forest it's even harder for them to be dealt with. All this right out of the box as opposed to major promotion investment.

 

[pi-r8]

This is why I promote my paratroopers for defensive uses. I typically pair two Combat III paratroopers together and send them for a vital resource to cripple my opponent. If it is on hills or if there are a fair amount of forests around I promote one with Guerilla III or Woodsman III as appropriate. After pillaging the given resource I just sit right on it and build defensive +% buffs.

Two combat IIIs are enough to deter anything but a major stack attack (and if he's sending a big stack after my two little paratroops their mission is accomplished) and if they are Guerillas on hills or Woodsmen in the forest it's even harder for them to be dealt with. All this right out of the box as opposed to major promotion investment.

Well if you're going after a vital resource then it won't be on a forest. MAYBE it'll be on a mountain, but let's face it, in the modern era the only really crucial resource is oil. Destroying their gold supply or bronze supply won't do much if they're hammering you with tanks. And again, I still don't see the benefit in using a paratrooper when you can do the same thing faster, with less risk, and at longer range by using a plane.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

Well if you're going after a vital resource then it won't be on a forest. MAYBE it'll be on a mountain, but let's face it, in the modern era the only really crucial resource is oil. Destroying their gold supply or bronze supply won't do much if they're hammering you with tanks. And again, I still don't see the benefit in using a paratrooper when you can do the same thing faster, with less risk, and at longer range by using a plane.

A few things...
1.) I use woodsmen for attack, defense and healing. As I mentioned above I typically take a woodsman into the "hinterland" and cut railways, but they also can serve a vital role in defense of those open field stacks because of the first strikes and +15% healing they give to stack.
2.) You forgot uranium on the list of crucial resources. No uranium and no oil mans no nukes and no modern navy.
3.) I agree that destroying a resource from range is preferred, but they wil rebuild and that is where a paratroop fortified on top of the resource comes into play.
4.) A couple paratroopers is not a massive investment given the disruption they can provide (this is assuming they automatically upgrade with three promotions of course)

 

[kochman]

The purpose of a paratrooper in combat is to force the enemy to defend in depth. You can put boots on the ground deep behind enemy lines, and cause serious havoc to their war fighting ability.

One of two things happens when paras are in play:
1) The enemy defends in depth, meaning his front lines are weaker
2) The enemy doesn't defend in depth, meaning you can more easily isolate, fix, and finish the enemy's front lines

You can force option 1... if you have a front line battle AND you have groups of paras attacking cities behind the front line cities, the enemy now is compelled to defend in depth... option 1 comes into play

If you don't, doesn't matter, because option 2 (generally you will have less paras to throw into the fire) isn't bad either.

Edit: Oh yeah, and, in the game, the computer pretty much never defends in depth... so that means you can easily take out those non-front line cities with a handful of paras at each (while using bombers).

 

[pi-r8]

A few things...
1.) I use woodsmen for attack, defense and healing. As I mentioned above I typically take a woodsman into the "hinterland" and cut railways, but they also can serve a vital role in defense of those open field stacks because of the first strikes and +15% healing they give to stack.
2.) You forgot uranium on the list of crucial resources. No uranium and no oil mans no nukes and no modern navy.
3.) I agree that destroying a resource from range is preferred, but they wil rebuild and that is where a paratroop fortified on top of the resource comes into play.
4.) A couple paratroopers is not a massive investment given the disruption they can provide (this is assuming they automatically upgrade with three promotions of course)

uranium is meh, I've never actually seen a war decided by nukes since SDI is so effective. It's nice as a backup for your navy if you lose your oil, but the navy is usually optional anyway.

You can't just park in enemy territory unless the enemy is a AI, or just vastly weaker than you. Two infantry, or 1 airstrike plus infantry, or 1 tank is usually all it takes to destroy even a GG paratrooper. Not that 1 or 2 paratroopers is a huge investment, but why waste them if you don't have to?

 

[pi-r8]

The purpose of a paratrooper in combat is to force the enemy to defend in depth. You can put boots on the ground deep behind enemy lines, and cause serious havoc to their war fighting ability.

One of two things happens when paras are in play:
1) The enemy defends in depth, meaning his front lines are weaker
2) The enemy doesn't defend in depth, meaning you can more easily isolate, fix, and finish the enemy's front lines

You can force option 1... if you have a front line battle AND you have groups of paras attacking cities behind the front line cities, the enemy now is compelled to defend in depth... option 1 comes into play

If you don't, doesn't matter, because option 2 (generally you will have less paras to throw into the fire) isn't bad either.

Edit: Oh yeah, and, in the game, the computer pretty much never defends in depth... so that means you can easily take out those non-front line cities with a handful of paras at each (while using bombers).

I've always thought the opposite- that the computer leaves way too many units behind the front lines, so there's even less point going back there than there is against a good human opponent. Of course, a good opponent will have reinforcements coming in constantly, so it's not like they have to pull anything back to defend. You, on the other hand, DO lose a unit from your front lines, the paratrooper in question. And apparently the OP is sacrificing GGs to do this.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

With the amount of units I'm churning out at this point in the game, two paratroopers fortifying on a tile to deny any chance (without a rearguard action by my opponent) at a vital resource is worth it to me in the end. Especially if I'm in the space race and I need to lock down their aluminum, uranium, and oil access.

Generally speaking I wouldn't invest anything beyond the two units, but that's me... I'm definitely not in favor of spending a GG on a non-stack unit.

 

[kochman]

I've always thought the opposite- that the computer leaves way too many units behind the front lines, so there's even less point going back there than there is against a good human opponent. Of course, a good opponent will have reinforcements coming in constantly, so it's not like they have to pull anything back to defend. You, on the other hand, DO lose a unit from your front lines, the paratrooper in question. And apparently the OP is sacrificing GGs to do this.

Please explain to me how two units per city (the average computer defense in non-front line cities) is way too many?
With bombers and paras that means I can take each city with 2-3 paras each.
That means, your can potentially take double the amount of cities in 1 turn (front line plus next line), pretty cool.

And yeah, GG paras only go out in stacks, stacks with march very commonly present in them.


Anyhow, this defending in depth isn't my idea... that is the reason for paratroopers in real life. It works in this game too (since the AI doesn't do it, and it compels good human to do it). This is military strategy 101.

 

[pi-r8]

What level were you playing on when they had only 2 units per city? My experience is that the computer usually leaves about half it's forces on garrison duty, which is way too many. They end up just sitting there waiting for you to take the city. In the game I'm playing now, Alex is attacking me with a stack of about 20 units, while all of his cities have about 5 units defending them. I COULD build 10 paratroopers and take one of his inner cities, but then I'd probably lose one of my own. Even if there was a weakly defended city that I could take with just 2 units, I wouldn't be able to hold it. I guess they might be good in an MP game with a city elimination cap though.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

uranium is meh, I've never actually seen a war decided by nukes since SDI is so effective. It's nice as a backup for your navy if you lose your oil, but the navy is usually optional anyway.

You can't just park in enemy territory unless the enemy is a AI, or just vastly weaker than you. Two infantry, or 1 airstrike plus infantry, or 1 tank is usually all it takes to destroy even a GG paratrooper. Not that 1 or 2 paratroopers is a huge investment, but why waste them if you don't have to?

Well over half the tactical nukes fired hit even with SDI, and they cost less than 2 infantry...definitely worth working into your lineup if the game has gone that late and it isn't decided yet (and you won't be getting nuked back).

I posted an immortal game on general discussion about a month or two ago where I destroyed a 20 city empire mehmed and his 5 city vassal (or so) mansa musa by nuking and razing every single coastal city both had. Mansa broke free and both capitulated a couple turns later...their power was a quite funny vertical line downward on the graph.

Now I generally don't use nukes because often I'm backwards, but certainly they're a viable alternative to siege and/or airpower. If the enemy has uranium it can use it to build metal naval units in lieu of oil and nukes if they're available. Both of those are bad things and worth pillaging away.

 

[kochman]

What level were you playing on when they had only 2 units per city? My experience is that the computer usually leaves about half it's forces on garrison duty, which is way too many. They end up just sitting there waiting for you to take the city. In the game I'm playing now, Alex is attacking me with a stack of about 20 units, while all of his cities have about 5 units defending them. I COULD build 10 paratroopers and take one of his inner cities, but then I'd probably lose one of my own. Even if there was a weakly defended city that I could take with just 2 units, I wouldn't be able to hold it. I guess they might be good in an MP game with a city elimination cap though.

Prince or Monarch

I really don't get your vehement anti-paratrooper stance... I mean, are you denying that these methods can work? It seems like it. So, does that mean you think we are making up our experiences using these methods? Is it a huge paratrooper lobbyist conspiracy?

I mean, if you don't use them, fair enough.
The point of this thread is to discuss ways to use them properly, maybe you should focus on picking up some possible tips here, instead of telling people that their proven successful techniques don't work.

I guess what I am getting at is... what's your point? These are special units with special uses, they are not always the best units, no one is claiming otherwise. What would you like us to say? Yes, paras suck?

For the record, I certainly don't need a 2:1 paratrooper:defender ratio to take a city...

 

[pi-r8]

Prince or Monarch

I really don't get your vehement anti-paratrooper stance... I mean, are you denying that these methods can work? It seems like it. So, does that mean you think we are making up our experiences using these methods? Is it a huge paratrooper lobbyist conspiracy?

I mean, if you don'r use them, fair enough.
The point of this thread is to discuss ways to use them properly, maybe you should focus on picking up some possible tips here, instead of telling people that their proven successful techniques don't work.

I guess what I am getting at is... what's your point? These are special units with special uses, they are not always the best units, no one is claiming otherwise. What would you like us to say? Yes, paras suck?

For the record, I certainly don't need a 2:1 paratrooper:defender ratio to take a city...

I guess I'm just annoyed because I think that paratroopers are a really cool unit, and I WISH they were more useful, so I came to this thread with hopes of getting tips on how to use them, but none of the ideas in this thread are really practical. If people actually have experience using them in a practical way, I'd love to see, however I suspect that in almost every such situation the person would have been better off using infantry or tanks instead. Notice that the OP did not provide any screenshots of actual games.

Maybe other people are playing purely for the "cool" factor and don't care about winning. That's fine, but then they shouldn't be writing tips in the the strategy section.

 

[pi-r8]

Well over half the tactical nukes fired hit even with SDI, and they cost less than 2 infantry...definitely worth working into your lineup if the game has gone that late and it isn't decided yet (and you won't be getting nuked back).

I posted an immortal game on general discussion about a month or two ago where I destroyed a 20 city empire mehmed and his 5 city vassal (or so) mansa musa by nuking and razing every single coastal city both had. Mansa broke free and both capitulated a couple turns later...their power was a quite funny vertical line downward on the graph.

Now I generally don't use nukes because often I'm backwards, but certainly they're a viable alternative to siege and/or airpower. If the ernemy has uranium it can use it to build metal naval units in lieu of oil and nukes if they're available. Both of those are bad things and worth pillaging away.

Fair enough, I can see tactical nukes being useful. I'd still rather use air strikes to knock out the uranium though.

 

[kochman]

I guess I'm just annoyed because I think that paratroopers are a really cool unit, and I WISH they were more useful, so I came to this thread with hopes of getting tips on how to use them, but none of the ideas in this thread are really practical. If people actually have experience using them in a practical way, I'd love to see, however I suspect that in almost every such situation the person would have been better off using infantry or tanks instead. Notice that the OP did not provide any screenshots of actual games.

Maybe other people are playing purely for the "cool" factor and don't care about winning. That's fine, but then they shouldn't be writing tips in the the strategy section.

Um... there are plenty of tips in there... you dismissing them as being for "cool" factor, and then telling us we shouldn't be writing in the strategy section is just really odd, and pointless of you. Why not go play somewhere else, instead of just trolling this thread?

 

[pi-r8]

Um... there are plenty of tips in there... you dismissing them as being for "cool" factor, and then telling us we shouldn't be writing in the strategy section is just really odd, and pointless of you. Why not go play somewhere else, instead of just trolling this thread?

But I've given detailed arguments for why all the "tips" in here are poor strategy... Do you think it's trolling to prove someone wrong? If someone wrote an article talking about how warriors are a great counter to axemen, I'd "troll" that thread too.

 

[kochman]

You have not proven that my use of paras in my past games has been a bad or easily bettered experience.
You have simply said that you disagree, though you were not involved in these games. You have your own ideas, no facts, just your ideas, and you are hoisting them upon us as though they were facts.
Then, you get insulting. That is where the trolling comes in.

Move on, please...
And, if not, don't expect me to respond to you anymore, and I ask that anyone who has an interest in the topic ignore mister pirate as well.

 

[pi-r8]

If you've been in a game situation where paratroopers were extremely useful, please post screenshots. I'd love to see it, but so far no one in this thread has done that. Everyone just gives vague theoretical arguments, like "paratroopers can pillage resources" and "a Combat 5 paratrooper can beat an infantry!" I can't comment on a game I've never seen, but I can point out the flaws in such arguments.

 

[kochman]

Paratroops ARE pretty stout with air support though. You don't need super promos...just shred everything with fighters/bombers and then attack. Even though infantry dominate paratroopers, they won't do so at 1/2 strength. Paradrop some more in to defend after that, air lift an infantry or so, and move the air force up for the next capture. You can substitute nukes for air power possibly .

Yes, it is key to use air support... Guided missiles, IF you can as well (the range is way too limited on those though).
I try to avoid nukes, since it pisses everyone off so much... what's the point in winning a battle if you lose the international standing war? (unless you are close to a domination win, which is usually how I win).

Another reason the paras are great... you just took an important city, and you did it with one of the last units in your stack... you can airlift in a unit... and as you mentioned, paradrop in reinforcements who can actually not attack once they land in the freshly taken and poorly defended city, but they can fortify.

I seldom leave one para anywhere, they generally get massed in groups of at least 4 for me... so, I could potentially drop 4 paras plus into the new city... when the initial "revenge" stack, which will really be the only stack the AIs bring against you in a war, comes... you have a chance of holding the city, rather than having to re-earn it with a diminish stack of attackers from the previous assualts.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

But I've given detailed arguments for why all the "tips" in here are poor strategy... Do you think it's trolling to prove someone wrong? If someone wrote an article talking about how warriors are a great counter to axemen, I'd "troll" that thread too.

pi-r8,

First off please ignore those that are attacking you. I welcome a discussion and so should everyone. Now granted you are saying things that are rather aggressive yourself (e.g. this shouldn't be in the strategy forum) so let's all dial it down a notch?

Secondly, let's get a baseline... what do you WANT out of your paratrooper units? Would you prefer them to be air droppable tank units? I'm not sure what you're looking for here. You are fully correct that loading up six or seven promotions on a paratrooper and then dropping him behind enemy lines is a bad idea, but I wouldn't say that exempts them from use altogether.

Finally, I think I'll try to sum up why I see paratroopers as useful and address some of your concerns.

To start, I think there are a lot of variables here that aren't being considered:
Difficulty: If you are on a higher difficulty setting then paratroops go down in usefulness. The AI will play a lot tougher and their units will be on par with yours more often than not. This doesn't necessarially mean that the strats in here are worthless, but any player at the Prince or higher level of play should be a good enough player to adapt them.
Reliability: You are very dismissive of paratroopers because you don't see the game mechanics supporting their reliability over other methods. Frankly, this does go into the AI a lot, but there ARE situations where air power simply won't cut it. SAM Infantry, Machine Guns, and interceptors can wreak havok on your airforce and even then they don't have a guaranteed chance to destroy the improvement (destroyed any forts lately?). Same goes for a spy. With a paratrooper I have 100% chance of pillaging the resource even if that is his only use I say that's worth 160 shields.
Logistics: Another thing to consider is that paratroopers free up other resources. If an AI has stacked fighters in a city or SAM infantry within one square of the resource you're investing a LOT of your air resources into an effort that would take one paratrooper to do while they focus on other things (namely city bombardment/airstrikes which is their most vital use). I know you continue to believe that they are so costly and if bombers and fighters still worked the way they used to (unlimited stacking) I'd agree with your "air only" point of view, but the fact of it is I am constantly struggling to bring enough air power to bear on the front lines (especially after the initial wave of city captures) and freeing up air resources for other missions is something I highly value.
“The Tech Window”: You make some very good arguments about all the various technological items that negate paratroopers. Cruise missiles are cheap and disposable and negate reliability & logistics claims that a paratrooper may have, and Modern Armor and Mobile Infantry will crush anything less than other Mobile Infantry moving through enemy territory. Simply put though, you have to use paratroopers inside their "window" of usefulness. Before these big units come out though their use is very high.

Ok, so that said what qualities make paratroopers useful? (BTW you make one yourself)
Mobility: This is the biggest asset (obviously) of paratroopers. With stacked paratroopers you can move into enemy territory faster than stacked tanks. You make the point yourself aboe that a bomber/paratrooper blitz is faster. If stacked correctly, this blitz is also safer when inside the window because a 3 promotion paratrooper stack can defend against anything better than a logically promoted tank stack (unless that tank stack wants to move at 1), and if things get hairy they can fortify for even more bonuses. Did I mention they cost 20 shields less?

Offense: An offensive stack is just what you would expect. Dropping a paratrooper stack next to an enemy city ahead of your main stack and bombarding the snot out of it for two turns and then attacking. Personally I'd go with 5-6 Combat II+Pinch troopers (main offense with a reserve for open field defense), three Guerilla III troopers (withdraw chance/hilled city attack and one for defense) and a Combat I+Medic II trooper in support (You can add in a Woodsman III for the extra defense and healing also if you like). This stack should be able to take out most anything after two rounds of air strikes. You should take it just as your tanks are rolling through the streets of the city they are attacking. This has three benefits, it nets you another city, it often opens up rail and roads for your tanks that are further back to move up quickly, and it pushes your advance in two fronts splitting up the enemy forces or at least making them weak in one area if they don't split.

Defense: A defensive stack is different. In this strategy you use fewer paratroopers, but can net much higher gains. Basically you choose a target in a defensible area in the heart of your opponent's lands (hills, forests, or ideally forested hills), and you drop your paratroops right in the middle of it and fortify. With three units (Woodsman III, Combat I+Guerilla II, Combat II+Pinch) you can become a major thorn in the side of a foe and abuse an AIs constant desire to attack stray units behind it's front line. Now, this stack isn't invincible, but unless they dedicate a good number of units, it isn't going down without a hard fight. After the first jump your Combat I+Guerilla II trooper is going to defend at 44.8 on an unforested hill. If given the chance to fortify on a forested hill plot your woodsman III is going to defend as a 72 with two first strikes. Yes it can be taken out, but if the enemy does so they are going to wind up losing a bunch of units and putting those units out of a city and away from the front lines. Add in a Combat II+Ambush and Combat I+Medic II and this stack gets even tougher. Moving this stack around is generally safe for awhile and you can purge the enemy's most productive sectors of mines and roads sapping his production often in the production heart of your enemy's empire.

Total War: One note should be made about paratroopers in regards to the previous comment. If you are going to war to prevent a space victory by your opponent you want to build Combat I+Guerilla II paratroopers and pillage EVERYTHING. You will save on air resources (which are needed to assist the tanks and mech infantry in their march to the capitol) and cripple the production of their most productive cities when they need them most (focus on iron and coal also since the Ironworks city is generally the one you have to stop).​

War Weariness: I cannot find the thread I read that detailed all the factors relating to war weariness, but units pillaging fields or even just sitting in the hills outside of town adds to war weariness much more than bombing from afar. I know most wouldn't want to be engaged in a war long enough that enemy war weariness leads to surrender, but at the end of the game things can move very slowly.
________________________________________________________________
Anyway, I don't expect you'll like all these reasons or agree with my number investment (though it is worthy of note that I'm typically churning out units in 10-12 cities and so even my biggest investure only requires 2-3 turns to bring online), but in the end it works for me and having those paratroopers around is awesome when I'm rounding up the stragglers (like you were pointing out in your post), doing a full blitz on my opponent, or simply wanting to drag him down under constant pressure. Agree or disagree that's fine, but to say there isn't strategy in this thread is simply incorrect.

 

[pi-r8]

OK some good ideas here, but I still think that there are better ways of doing all of these things.

Secondly, let's get a baseline... what do you WANT out of your paratrooper units? Would you prefer them to be air droppable tank units? I'm not sure what you're looking for here. You are fully correct that loading up six or seven promotions on a paratrooper and then dropping him behind enemy lines is a bad idea, but I wouldn't say that exempts them from use altogether.

They'd have a lot more uses if they could attack the same turn they were dropped, or if they had a longer range. As it is, you've got a 5 drop range, + 1 move, and then wait a turn to attack. In that same time, a tank could move 4 squares, so tanks are almost as mobile, and a lot more powerful. Then of course there's gunships...

To start, I think there are a lot of variables here that aren't being considered:
Difficulty: If you are on a higher difficulty setting then paratroops go down in usefulness. The AI will play a lot tougher and their units will be on par with yours more often than not. This doesn't necessarially mean that the strats in here are worthless, but any player at the Prince or higher level of play should be a good enough player to adapt them.

I'm sure you CAN beat prince level with them- hell you can probably beat deity level with them- but if you're struggling to beat a level I don't see them helping you.

Reliability: You are very dismissive of paratroopers because you don't see the game mechanics supporting their reliability over other methods. Frankly, this does go into the AI a lot, but there ARE situations where air power simply won't cut it. SAM Infantry, Machine Guns, and interceptors can wreak havok on your airforce and even then they don't have a guaranteed chance to destroy the improvement (destroyed any forts lately?). Same goes for a spy. With a paratrooper I have 100% chance of pillaging the resource even if that is his only use I say that's worth 160 shields.

First of all, paratroopers get intercepted 75% of the time when they make a drop through an area being patrolled by enemy fighters. And when they're intercepted, they get no chance to fight back, they just die. Then of course they have to survive a turn on the ground, and if you want to destroy a resource, that means open ground, so survival is difficult. For just 100 shields you could make a fighter and get two cracks at it, or for a mere 60 you can make a guided missile which (I think? Not sure about this) always works). Heck, you could invest 250 and get a tactical nuke to destroy everything in the area!

Logistics: Another thing to consider is that paratroopers free up other resources. If an AI has stacked fighters in a city or SAM infantry within one square of the resource you're investing a LOT of your air resources into an effort that would take one paratrooper to do while they focus on other things (namely city bombardment/airstrikes which is their most vital use). I know you continue to believe that they are so costly and if bombers and fighters still worked the way they used to (unlimited stacking) I'd agree with your "air only" point of view, but the fact of it is I am constantly struggling to bring enough air power to bear on the front lines (especially after the initial wave of city captures) and freeing up air resources for other missions is something I highly value.

If you want your paratroopers to get through, you'll still have to knock at most of their air force for them to have a decent shot at it. And if they do have stacked fighters there, they'll be able to completely chew up any stray units on the ground near it.

“The Tech Window”: You make some very good arguments about all the various technological items that negate paratroopers. Cruise missiles are cheap and disposable and negate reliability & logistics claims that a paratrooper may have, and Modern Armor and Mobile Infantry will crush anything less than other Mobile Infantry moving through enemy territory. Simply put though, you have to use paratroopers inside their "window" of usefulness. Before these big units come out though their use is very high.

It's very annoying that you need fascism to get them. Maybe if you could build them with just flight and assembly line, they'd be better, since then they might come before tanks. It would also be nice if you could make a "modern paratrooper" unit that would be an upgrade for mechanized infantry.

Ok, so that said what qualities make paratroopers useful? (BTW you make one yourself)

I think maybe some of my hostility in this thread is because I've spent quite a long time trying to think of ways for them to be useful, and not finding much. I do think they could be useful in a MP game though, where razing a city is a major victory. In single player, razing a random city doesn't do too much, so it seems like they're only effective when you exploit stupidities of the AI.

Mobility: This is the biggest asset (obviously) of paratroopers. With stacked paratroopers you can move into enemy territory faster than stacked tanks. You make the point yourself aboe that a bomber/paratrooper blitz is faster. If stacked correctly, this blitz is also safer when inside the window because a 3 promotion paratrooper stack can defend against anything better than a logically promoted tank stack (unless that tank stack wants to move at 1), and if things get hairy they can fortify for even more bonuses. Did I mention they cost 20 shields less?

True, they're a little bit faster, but this only applies when you're so much more powerful than a civ that you're steamrolling them without ever needing to stop. I'm sure you could win with anything, in such a situation.

I could see them being useful as city garrisons, though, if the city you've captured is still stuck inside enemy culture.

Offense: An offensive stack is just what you would expect. Dropping a paratrooper stack next to an enemy city ahead of your main stack and bombarding the snot out of it for two turns and then attacking. Personally I'd go with 5-6 Combat II+Pinch troopers (main offense with a reserve for open field defense), three Guerilla III troopers (withdraw chance/hilled city attack and one for defense) and a Combat I+Medic II trooper in support (You can add in a Woodsman III for the extra defense and healing also if you like). This stack should be able to take out most anything after two rounds of air strikes. You should take it just as your tanks are rolling through the streets of the city they are attacking. This has three benefits, it nets you another city, it often opens up rail and roads for your tanks that are further back to move up quickly, and it pushes your advance in two fronts splitting up the enemy forces or at least making them weak in one area if they don't split.

Well this is that I would call steamrolling. I mean, yeah, you CAN take cities this way, and very quickly. But if the city is less than 5 spaces away, your tanks can get their just as quickly, and they'll be a lot better at taking the city. Plus, they're not stuck waiting next to the city for 1 turn, where a counterattack with artillery and tanks could wipe them out. If the city is exactly 5, 6, or 7 tiles away, then you CAN get there 1 turn faster with paratroopers, but if your war is going that well then you're going to be winning, regardless.

Defense: A defensive stack is different. In this strategy you use fewer paratroopers, but can net much higher gains. Basically you choose a target in a defensible area in the heart of your opponent's lands (hills, forests, or ideally forested hills), and you drop your paratroops right in the middle of it and fortify. With three units (Woodsman III, Combat I+Guerilla II, Combat II+Pinch) you can become a major thorn in the side of a foe and abuse an AIs constant desire to attack stray units behind it's front line. Now, this stack isn't invincible, but unless they dedicate a good number of units, it isn't going down without a hard fight. After the first jump your Combat I+Guerilla II trooper is going to defend at 44.8 on an unforested hill. If given the chance to fortify on a forested hill plot your woodsman III is going to defend as a 72 with two first strikes. Yes it can be taken out, but if the enemy does so they are going to wind up losing a bunch of units and putting those units out of a city and away from the front lines. Add in a Combat II+Ambush and Combat I+Medic II and this stack gets even tougher. Moving this stack around is generally safe for awhile and you can purge the enemy's most productive sectors of mines and roads sapping his production often in the production heart of your enemy's empire.

Maybe I'm biased because I've played quite a bit of multiplayer, so I know exactly how to counter this. If the paratroopers are on a forested hill, ignore them, because that's not a space that you need to work. If they try to move onto a resource, you hit them with an air strike or artillery and them mop them up with whatever. Or just roll over them with tanks or pinch infantry.

Now it's true, I'm not sure the AI is smart enough to do that. Maybe the AI will, in some situations, be dumb enough to attack guerrilla/woodsman/ambush units on a forested hill, and then wait for them to heal. I'm still guessing that most AIs that have a chance of winning the war against you would have enough units on hand to mow down a small stack like this with no problems. If they lose 3 infantry and you lose 3 paratroopers, that's not really a good trade.

Total War: One note should be made about paratroopers in regards to the previous comment. If you are going to war to prevent a space victory by your opponent you want to build Combat I+Guerilla II paratroopers and pillage EVERYTHING. You will save on air resources (which are needed to assist the tanks and mech infantry in their march to the capitol) and cripple the production of their most productive cities when they need them most (focus on iron and coal also since the Ironworks city is generally the one you have to stop).​

I would just nuke and raze their capital lol, or just send a stack of tanks there. If they're only a few turns away from a space victory then pillaging random tile improvements probably won't help. Maaaaaybe their capital is 5 spaces away from your city, and you've only got 2 turns to take it, then paratroopers would be perfect, but that's really a once in a million situation.

War Weariness: I cannot find the thread I read that detailed all the factors relating to war weariness, but units pillaging fields or even just sitting in the hills outside of town adds to war weariness much more than bombing from afar. I know most wouldn't want to be engaged in a war long enough that enemy war weariness leads to surrender, but at the end of the game things can move very slowly.

You don't get any war weariness from fighting that happens in your own territory. You do, however, get a lot of war weariness for losing units in enemy territory (people don't mind defending the motherland, but they hate trying to invade and losing).

Overall I still feel like their roll is just duplicating stuff that air power, infantry, and tanks can all do better.