Regarding parachutes in WW1

Battlefield 1 General Discussion
61

@forthecandy - In my head I was comparing the possible damage output against infantry to what we have now in BF4.

I hope they balance the ttk against infantry and not make it harder than it already is. The 30mm gau is laughable against infantry for example.

Hopefully the biplanes cannons(?) will still have a similar ttk. If not, there would be almost no point entering them.

Good point about the speed. Slower speeds should make you more accurate, but also much easier for the enemy to take you out.

62

well… almost no plane had cannons. It was mostly low caliber guns below 8mm . Anything above was a miracle… A few bombers had turrets with 20mm, but that was mostly for protection and has small rate of fire

63

I personally think it would be cooler if there wasn’t parachutes. Maybe try and crash land like they actually had to would make the game so much more intense. Not only are you wounded but you’re the pilot class who only has a pistol perhaps and now you have to survive. Maybe get lucky and kill someone and pick up their rifle. Could be potentially awesome!

64

Thanks. ‘Cannons’ felt wrong when i said it lol i’m just used to using that word when talking about BF4 jets.

Anyway, back on topic, i feel a parachute is needed due to the potential low firepower and the plane being an easy, weak target. Otherwise like i said earlier, the incentive to get in one is very low (other than the novelty of it which would soon wear thin)

65

Well… maybe you are right… Either they come up with some interesting solution or the parachute has to be there for planes to be fun for people

66

You obviously know your stuff about WW1, so I can understand why you would be against the idea of parachutes.
But in the grand scheme of things i dont see it as a major issue

67

Guys its simple, leave parachute only for pilots.

I really don’t want to see regular soldier have parachutes , nor do I want to see them deploy a parachute just from a 2 story building jump. That logic kills me.

Lets not forget how quickly the parachute disappears in BF3 and BF4 after landing :confused: ITS MAGIC!

If this is a combat game set in ww1 then don’t give the soldiers magic powers!

I don’t want a simulation of real life, but please don’t make things too unreal either!

68

Yea, I never understood why in BF4 you could use your chute from pretty much any height.
In BF3 you needed to be a certain height before you could deploy it. Shorter drops either messed you up or killed you. You also couldn’t deploy it if you fell accidentally. I learned this sniping on Gulf of Oman by backing up too much on the construction site roof.

I think in BF1 they should only be for pilots, if at all.

69

Actually, parachutes were only issued to the zeppelin crew, they weren’t issued to pilots as it was deemed cowardly to bail out of your plane. Also, the military thought that the pilots would be more prone to bailing out of the aircraft even with minimal damage and thus wasting an aircraft. And another fact is that those parachutes were unreliable, with many failures. Having no parachutes in the game (except for zeppelin crew), would reduce vehicle waste, add to realism, make players respect higher ground, make destroying tall buildings more rewarding (since no-one would be able to jump out of a 3 story building). Yet having parachutes for everyone would be fun. My opinion is that since there are specified vehicle operator classes, parachutes should only be for zeppelin crew and as an unlock for pilots, paratroopers would have it as well, Infantry shouldn’t get parachutes, but should get rappelling rope instead. I think it would be an overall good balance :slight_smile:

70

Xfactor said BF1 is gonna be a different game, they’ve reworked a lot of things we know about battlefield and just because there where chutes on other BF don’t mean there will be this time around.