Paratroopers should be able to drop anywhere on the active battlefield, even way behind enemy lines. If an enemy wants to grey zone camp a tank, let them. But let Paratroopers go there too in order to try and take them out
1 Like
wasted would like this idea but it will be fucking aids
22 Likes
I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying. I think you’re saying “you like the idea but ‘no’” but I can’t interpret your reasoning
no, i am saying a friend and a forum user some may know would like that idea, while i think it would be cancerous
3 Likes
No thanks
3 Likes
How so? How is letting defenders camp tanks in areas forbidden to attackers with no means to get infantry to them not ‘cancerous?’
With granting this ability for paratroopers to go behind enemy lines, it meshes with the actual tactics of paratrooper deployment.
1 Like
This is already in 80% of the maps possible and spawnkilling tanks is already happening.
2 Likes
Give me an example of a map where Paratroopers can deploy to the defenders’ grey zone and stay there without getting zapped.
1 Like
I personally would like paratroopers dropping in grey zones because it is their job to be behind enemy lines and cause havoc, but it is impossible with the current game.
The current game is beating the enemy team to the point where they can’t set up a defense for it. Since the maps are so small, objectives are practically right next door, so with squads like paratroopers, all they have to do is immediately drop near a new point and wipe out anyone there with their reinforcements right on their tail. If the maps were larger, it would not be as much of an issue since the objectives are spread out farther, and reinforcements won’t be coming anytime soon unless someone has an APC.
The only way to reasonably nerf the paratroopers upon release, since they are glorified assault squads, would be to limit them to dropping only in the current battlefield and not the grey zone. They are overpowered because of how small the maps are and are also hurt because of how small the maps are.
For the majority of the battles, these maps are made from either entirely fabricated or feature buildings/landmarks deemed iconic but leave out everything else and go for fabrication. By doing this, the obstacles that were faced in the actual battles are not in the game, which would have pumped the brakes on the gameplay abuse we see currently. I have talked about this with the Stalingrad maps, but the map-making issue is present in almost every faction.
2 Likes
Yeah no.
Last thing I want is p2w 100 round drum Thompsons, buildable MG and AP mines behind my back on default spawns
2 Likes
man…
i would pay for him getting back on the forum ( and his account unbanned ) just to watch a 
and a 
argue day and night.
but… that would also means he would get banned a second time for the same thing.
anyway, as it goes for op,
terrible idea.
letting paratrooper spawn camp or instantly revenge kill tanks isn’t a wise nor logical thing to do.
let alone the possibility of carousel 3 active paratrooper at a time.
what next, make the attackers / defender a sandwith between their spawn, the objective and back?
that’s a no from me either.
6 Likes
tank, AT, plane.
Its not like there aint way to deal with greyzone tanks.
3 Likes
Not to forget that Panzerfaust can take out vehicles up to 200 meters. Not easy to do, but definitely possible.
US lacks a late game AT launcher, but the other factions can do it.
1 Like
Did get more than few t-34’s with grb in moscow as well.
Idk if that thing is bugged yet again but when it did work it did the job.
True, but murrica as faction have usually more than enough cas in game.
Havent had more than few games without a single plane on murrican side.
Sure, murrica could use end game AT weapon anyway.
because certain people will use it to place AP mines everywhere and ignore tanks
1 Like
I had a deeper idea for suggested changes to the grey zone rules modeled after an “offsides” idea, but it never seemed to gain any traction. It was slightly elaborate in the description, but the number of changes that would need to be made to make it happen were pretty small.
Essentially: move the grey zone dynamic to model a maximum number of players with 1 as the initial max (essentially allowing for downed pilots behind enemy lines)
Then, the max number of soldiers in the grey zone would be determined by artillery camping time in the grey zone. If it exceeded a threshold, the cap of attackers in the grey zone would increase to permit “1 or 2” infiltration squads to execute an ad hoc mission behind enemy lines to take out the artillery/tank position. If the attackers die during the infiltration, there are no reinforcements possible. If the mission fails to score enough points, the defenders’ camping timer gets additional time before the attackers can try again. If thr attackers score enough points during the infiltration mission, the grey zone becomes completely wide open to attackers as a “double envelopment” reward.
But under the “offsides” idea, attackers could only infiltrate the grey zone if the defenders chronically camped artillery.
It was meant as a counterbalancing dynamic to allow defenders to continue to camp their artillery unabated if the attackers weren’t able to dislodge them. Let them camp and say “what are you going to do about it?” and let the attackers have an option to do something about it.
Like the plane users who seem to have photographic memory
been the one doing it… and the one on the receiving end too.
it’s just not fun.
1 Like
I stopped caring about that launcher because its performance changed increadibly often, when it first came to Moscow it worked increadibly well.
But this aside, I think Soviets deserve some launcher with decent penetration at BR2 as well. PTRS is nice but rather situational.