Para satchels not working on anything as test by XOOM and OHM

[HuskerGI]

Fix coming?

[GOPHUR]

Yes and no.

No because the para satchel work 100% perfectly as designed.

Yes because the label in the HUD was wrong.

[HuskerGI]

Your design is not working.

Read the forums.

No one likes your loadout on this either.

Edited February 6, 2012 by huskergi

[HuskerGI]

Just get rid of the para.

That way I have nothing good to look forward to in life all the way around.

You guys have absolutely ruined them.

Yes, the axis had 50 some drop on a town last night but since you choked us all down to a two town map and they already sealed the phase win.....it was more like the end of map drops when people needed a break.

You've turned a good unit into a unit that people spawn when they are softcappin messin round instead of using it to kill tanks, sap fbs, and create shock and awe.

Kill it along with BB.

Labeling of the satchel....LMFAO...what is the label suppose to read, "FLOUR". Maybe "TAMPONS"......

Terrible.

Edited February 6, 2012 by huskergi

[ronpaul]

You guys know that the para satchels do 0% damage to FB tents?

[fxmmauser]

Just get rid of the para.

That way I have nothing good to look forward to in life all the way around.

You guys have absolutely ruined them.

Yes, the axis had 50 some drop on a town last night but since you choked us all down to a two town map and they already sealed the phase win.....it was more like the end of map drops when people needed a break.

You've turned a good unit into a unit that people spawn when they are softcappin messin round instead of using it to kill tanks, sap fbs, and create shock and awe.

Kill it along with BB.

Labeling of the satchel....LMFAO...what is the label suppose to read, "FLOUR". Maybe "TAMPONS"......

Terrible.

? You know allies can also use paras right and they both have the same equipment.

Paras are meant to be overpower, dont forget they don't have frus , that their plane can be shot down, takes usually alot of time to reach the target, they may land infront of an ai lmg and its hard to have a significant number of paras...

It's very hard to take a town with paras and an fb too, paras are special unit usually to give a fighting chance to players that normal units may not offer.

You guys know that the para satchels do 0% damage to FB tents?

Thats because they have only HEAT satchel, on 1.34.8 CRS is finally going to add 1 HE satchel to paras in order to give them the ability they had in 1.33 to also destroy Fb's.

So paras will now carry 1 HEAT 1 HE.

Edited February 6, 2012 by fxmmauser

[HuskerGI]

? You know allies can also use paras right and they both have the same equipment.

Paras are meant to be overpower, dont forget they don't have frus , that their plane can be shot down, takes usually alot of time to reach the target, they may land infront of an ai lmg and its hard to have a significant number of paras...

It's very hard to take a town with paras and an fb too, paras are special unit usually to give a fighting chance to players that normal units may not offer.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

I'm saying make the para something useful (Allied and axis) or just get rid of them.

CRS ruined them.

[JOKER007]

Um..if you are on this forum - and read all the posts - you'll see that PARAs are going to have---->>I mean, already have, BOTH satchels (1 of each).

The *label* is wrong, using only 1 name (either only HEAT or only HE, forget which) but they are there.

Post with more temperence, please, as far as possible. This is a bug reporting forum.

NOTE: I am not CRS related any longer, and the viewpoints on my posts are my own uneducated and badly formed arguments. (I should probably put this on my sig).

[coda]

You guys know that the para satchels do 0% damage to FB tents?

You know you're using the wrong one?

[GOPHUR]

You guys know that the para satchels do 0% damage to FB tents?

Yes. See read me.

The paratrooper rifle had a HEAT satchel, as he always did. It was labelled wrong in the HUD.

[GOPHUR]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

I'm saying make the para something useful (Allied and axis) or just get rid of them.

CRS ruined them.

I love a good trolling so I'll bite.

What did CRS do to ruin them?

P.S. Awesome use of the "them principle". +1.

Hope you'll forgive me gents. I'm feeling a little cheeky today.

[HuskerGI]

You first took away steering. Bug or not, it made the para useful and feared.

I've argued for a long time that we do not, did not, will never drop 200 paras on a target, behind a target, or behind lines. EVER.

The steering made up for lack of sheer numbers no different than a multicrew vehicle (which would have taken more than 1 person to use) is able to be used and be as deadly with just 1 person. You do it for fun. You do it because who is going to wait to find 2 more people to tank with all the time? Really?

The para is in the same category. Without dropping 100 or more on a target it your success rate drops A LOT. With the smgs and lmgs being used so falsely (they are everywhere and being used for the wrong applications...like axis lmgs firing from the hip in town in building 90% of the time in a town) the para actually living to the ground is very unlikely anymore. Bofors can kill you easily....smgs from 400m below you....its crazy.

I know CRS audited the unit and rode along with a few squads and took info on how they were being used. Yes, there were some that were using the para to drop fb's that were being used on major attacks. Tough. Guard them.

At NO TIME was the squad I was in dropping on fb's and sapping middle poles on purpose. Most fb's were not guarded well. If they had heavy defense we could drop on the perimeter and actually survive by avoiding bofors shooting. Now your pretty much dead EVERYWHER you drop.

It's argued they are not being used right. Don't drop on a cp. Don't drop on a fb. Don't drop behind line at or outside an af and camp. Blah blah blah. Lots of don'ts and little does for them anymore.

This satchel thing is a joke to. One satchel for tank killing FOR RIFLE ONLY? Give me a break. What a slap in the face.

Paras are useless, unless its a softcap to an unlinked town, but now with your lovely BB thingy thats a frowned upon tatic too.

WTH are they suppose to be used for?

The steering thing doesn't have to go back to pinpoint turning....but it needs a lot more than what you've clipped our wings to at this point.

The para loadout needs satchels for ALL the units, unless you are LMG.

The para needs some sort of FRU ability so if we are going to jump outside a town we can at least have squad controlled spawning of limited numbers to make up for low para counts in the first place.

The main thing is more steering.

Or, make it manditory you MUST have 3 people for tanking. You must have 2 people for atgs. You must have multi crew for bombing. You must setup LMG's to fire. You must drive from the fb to town and have no FRU's anymore.

Because if you are preaching historical factual accuracy.....and simulation of such....you should do it across the board.

Just because a group of people had a problem with paras dropping and capping cps, and dropping fbs when the real problem is those groups didn't want to guard said points and just zerg attack after attack.....is the real problem.

You disable firing in spawn depots and fb inner inf tent rings.....those excuses are weak as water at the bar.

The paras are laughed upon. The paras are not 200+ strong. The steering made up for that.

Its your game, but you made a lot of people mad and they left because of it. At least in my squad.

[HuskerGI]

*see para threads in the barracks for others views*

[GOPHUR]

So:

1) Return Steering

I see this asked for a lot and I'm on board. I just honestly don't see how it makes any difference in survivability other than perception. It's also ahistorical. Biggest issue was people flying into places we didn't want them. No-Fire-Zone fixed that so I have no issues returning this when/if we can.

I don't buy steering makes up for numbers but that's likely because we differ on the survivability aspect.

I think the bottom line sounds more like "I want to steer". Which in itself is valid.

2) What your squad was doing is irrlevant to the conversation.

3) One satchel for killing a tank is exactly what you had before so what's the fuss? It used to do double duty yes. But we never wanted paras to destroy FBs or Bridges but hey if you can get it together a jump is hard enough so we compromise and give them to the most numerous field unit.

4) The para loadout needs satchels for ALL the units, unless you are LMG.

Why? I'll tell you why not.

a)Only engineers should build and destroy things. Paratroopers should have some of this functionality but not a lot. No para engineers.

b)Anti tank satchels are ahistorical but provide a needed anti infantry game function. Thus the most common units (non heavies) have them.

I can argue against a). What do you have to say on it.

5) Paras need MSP

You cite FRU. I hate it plus too complicated with mission origins and jump packs as currently implemented. I'd agree with a MSP on an airplane though.

[shad0w64]

The one thing I would like to see from this post is a return to some sort of steering. That is all. The other stuff would be nice. And I'm VERY thankful that the satchels were fixed, that has given a huge use for the paras back. I'm not nor have I ever proposed a return in the pinpoint steering we had, but I would like to see a little better, say 2X what is is now?

The problem we often run into is getting shot out of the air. When we could spin in tight circles over target we were very very hard to hit and with a drop of 15 guys we would maybe lose 1 guy 90% of the time we would all make it to the ground safely. Now with our limited mobility in the air (again I know paras were historically like this, but it is the arguement for lack of numbers) we are finding that number increasing to 3-5 guys dieing on roughly 75% of our drops. Due to bofors, smgs, and rifles being able to shoot us with ease as we gently glide to the earth.

Thats taking roughly 25% of our fighting force out of the fight before we even hit the ground. Not to mention once on the ground we are momentarily sitting ducks because of of disorientation (no complaint here).

I would just like to see a bit more maneuverability while we drop so we aren't such an easy target.

I appreciate your response in this forum as it is not the right place to have this post right now since the satchel "bug" is fixed.

Thanks,

shad0w64

[fxmmauser]

1) Return Steering

I see this asked for a lot and I'm on board. I just honestly don't see how it makes any difference in survivability other than perception. It's also ahistorical. Biggest issue was people flying into places we didn't want them. No-Fire-Zone fixed that so I have no issues returning this when/if we can.

I don't buy steering makes up for numbers but that's likely because we differ on the survivability aspect.

I think the bottom line sounds more like "I want to steer". Which in itself is valid.

Now with our limited mobility in the air (again I know paras were historically like this, but it is the arguement for lack of numbers)

Controlled Steering might be ahistorical but there is one think that is not a factor on WW2OL paradrops and that is wind, wind played a huge factor on paradrops when it was present.

Why not have a random factor that would move the parachute in a direction or set of directions this would make harder to shoot paras while still keeping realism.

b)Anti tank satchels are ahistorical but provide a needed anti infantry game function. Thus the most common units (non heavies) have them.

It would be easy to give German paras one panzerfaust replacing the ahistorical satchel, it would look good, give a new weapon for paratroopers making them more attractive, CRS seems geared up building RPATS why not make one small one, to avoiding coming back some years from now to model panzerfausts..?

5) Paras need MSP

Is it possible to allow on flight spawn and give a limit number of para tickets(spawns) to every transport plane?

ex:

6 rifles, 4 smgs , 2 lmg , 1 atr , 1 mortarman and 1 sniper

Every transport plane independent of the number of paras it carried and if it was flying in hostile or friendly territory, players would be able to spawn until the equipment list was used for each respawn it would deduce on the para brigade.

This would help so much paradropping and would not really hurt anyone:

- No more losing the plane

- Allow to Avoid a long and tedious ride and possible death at a cost of unit selection limitation for the player.

- Give more reasons for a transport plane to survive and keep flying over a target to use his remaining list.

- More transport planes would be over a target simulating a real airborne brigade attack.(Awesome!)

Pilots and AA gunners would still get a chance to get juicy multiple kills there would be still an incentive for players to spawn and ride a transport plane, paratroopers could still be all LMGs,.. they just had to get in the plane at the AF.

This would be the ideal solution for a para revamp but might not be the easier one.

Another topic is what do the para pilots need?

Edited February 14, 2012 by fxmmauser

[Tatonka]

So:

1) Return Steering

I see this asked for a lot and I'm on board. I just honestly don't see how it makes any difference in survivability other than perception. It's also ahistorical. Biggest issue was people flying into places we didn't want them. No-Fire-Zone fixed that so I have no issues returning this when/if we can.

I don't buy steering makes up for numbers but that's likely because we differ on the survivability aspect.

I think the bottom line sounds more like "I want to steer". Which in itself is valid.

Yes return steering , all places you dont want them flying into are now no fire zones . so please bring back steering.

[Tatonka]

bump

[GOPHUR]

The one thing I would like to see from this post is a return to some sort of steering. That is all.

Agreed.

[HuskerGI]

Bumpity.

Thanks for at least thinking about it GOPHUR

[romzburg]

I think steering *does* improve survivability.

If you jump from high enough to be able to steer more than a little bit, you can choose to land behind berms, or in tree cover, or on a peaked roof, or between buildings *instead* of on a roof.

I also think that the "ahistorical" aspect is soundly trumped by "good-for-the-game".

I think no-fire zones need to be eliminated, and stairs need to go all the way to the ground, and when an infantry spawns he should have 20 or 30 seconds of invulnerability *unless he moves*. This gives him time to rotate in place and shoot any would-be spawn-point-campers, or throw grenades around a corner or through a doorway.

The current "oh geez my gun won't shoot because somebody captured a building 50 yards away from here" is one of the reasons my time in game is practically nonexistent anymore.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

jw:

If you're going to argue with Romz, do your homework before you post. He gets it, and you can't teach common sense, you have to be born with it.

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.