Many of the infantry regiments are historically “parachute infantry regiments”. For instance the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment / 101st Airborne Division “Squad” should clearly be able to parachute into battle. This parachute ability could be a squad ability, even if it has to be unlocked. I don’t think it should be a different squad type, just a squad ability. I haven’t purchased the premium paratrooper squad, so I’m not familiar with the mechanics, but it seems like this should be a basic ability of those squads that historically were part of parachute infantry regiments. It just makes sense. Hopefully I’m not just glossing over an existing capability in the game today…
1 Like
for the USA those squad are assaulter and sniper, for germany they are mortar or machinegunner, for drop those squad need switch their class to paratroopers
Currently something hard to expect to happen
3 Likes
They could keep their weapons, (so the American paratroopers used as snipers would keep their sniper rifles), and would get the rest of they paratrooper gear (parachutes, ammo crate ect. ect. )
Still they need switch class, and after we need new squad for replace the one who switch class
2 Likes
There is already enough issue with Paratrooper balancing, and that is even with just a handful of available squads. Not to sound like a broken record but defenses would need a serious buff if we were to have to deal with even MORE paratroopers, a serious buff is already needed.
The defense constructions shouldn’t be indestructible, maybe take a longer time to dismantle, and the paratrooper mechanics need to be edited.
Hopefully however we will get F2P paras.
I have NEVER asked for them to be
HOWEVER, they need to:
- Hold up better against fragmentation damage
- Require something to break down by hand (it requires and engineer with a limited material time to construct it, so it should either require an engineer or infantry with toolbox consumables to break it down. NOT just “take time to deconstruct”)
- Direct powerful explosions can still break them, such as TNT, aircraft bombs, large tank shells, and direct hits with artillery.
- Give the defenders knowledge of where the objective is going to go.
Right now, even with the handful of PARATROOPER squads available, it is nearly impossible to set up a defense that holds for very long, because now on top of having to try to defend the front that is getting pummeled by majority of forces, you have paratroopers attacking from behind as well.
Yes, and historically parachute infantry regiments often never parachute
This is good, but not with the toolbox we have now. They should make a melee for infantry like wire cutters that do not do melee damage, but can destroy barbed wire and (slowly) destroy sandbags.
This might lead to the defenders retreating early. I have seen games where the attackers almost captured the point, and the defenders get there just in time to defend it from being captured. Highlighting the next capture point for the defenders should not be given until the point they are trying to defend has been completely lost. However for the attackers the next point to attack should not be highlighted for about 2 minutes, so the defenders have some time to breathe and prepare. The capture point should also have a deadzone (like with the rally points) so the paratroopers cannot just land on the point.
1 Like
That’s very good idea, I like it a lot. But I think 1 minute would more than enough.
1 Like
just some time for them to breathe though
1 Like
I disagree that it should be a melee weapon. It actually NEEDS to be a consumable. Considering the engineer is using a limited resource to put it up, its only fair that it require a limited resource to break it down. Even TNT is a limited resource that could be used to take it down.
By doing it this way, not only does it give more balance, but it also gives reason for them to take something other than just grenade pouches or ammo pouches. They can either choose to have extra grenades and ammo to spam OR be able to break through fortifications.
The exception being an engineer, which is still fairly limited as its a character type not often seen (nor surviving for long on the front lines).
I outright disagree. The ONLY soldiers that are going to be falling back ahead of time are engineers and snipers. If nothing else, how about a compromise:
Only ENGINEERS are able to see all the objective points in advance?
If there is more than 4 actual players on the enemy team actively pushing, its going to take longer than 2 minutes for someone to set up an effective defense (I’m not saying impenetrable, but at least enough to make a difference). After all, the number of players that actually take the time to build anything more than ammo boxes and rally points are pretty few and far in between.
Not only that, but so many people complain about having to deal with barbwire crowding a doorway. One of the biggest reasons that people do this is because its actually got cover for them to put it up, and have some protection from explosions. You know what you have to do in order to get explosion protection for wire otherwise? Dig a trench and build it in there. Meaning having the time to properly prep will potentially help spread the defenses out away from the objective a bit, in order to allow a bit more breathing room inside and more effective hazards outside.
Some paratroopers dropped in and others fought mainly on the land. 101st did not parachute at all during battle of the bulge.
The consumable idea may work, but engineers should not need extra materials to build and dismantle things which is what they are supposed to do.
Besides I have taken apart barbed wire fences with a pair of pliers and my bare hands, with no extra consumables needed.
- Engineers should require materials to put up structures, as they do now.
- Engineers should not require a consumable to take down structures, HOWEVER, if they have them and wish to use them, it would go faster.
- Non-Engineers should require a consumable to take down structures.
The reason I am against just having a melee weapon to do it, is that:
- It doesn’t limit them. At least by requiring toolkits it means they can’t break down more than an absolute maximum of 4 per character for non-engineers.
- Not many people make use of their melee weapons. While that may be your reason for “make it a melee weapon”, I think better balance is putting it in a slot that actually requires a sacrifice, which would be best as a consumable. It means players actually have to give up grenade pouches or ammo bags for backpacks. UNLESS they wish to give up their one and only medkit for a toolkit, but would be unlikely.
Doing it this way greatly helps balance defenses capabilities as well as removing some of the grenade spam.
Seems to make sense
1 Like