Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


agentwade last won the day on October 15 2017

agentwade had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

30 FNG

About agentwade

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. RDP tiers still change, it affects the supply levels. Typically armor amounts are increased. For several campaigns axis tanks of every type would outnumber their allied equivalents across the board until it was brought to the notice of DOC. Now that armor levels have been modified from time to time and axis armor levels increased again, I'm curious if this is occurring again.
  2. It's been a while since I've checked axis spawn lists once the Americans come in, are they still giving the Germans more Pz4gs, Stug3gs, and Tigers than their American counterparts once it goes to t4?
  3. I've lost count of the amount of times I've hit someone with a rifle and had to finish them off. As for BB guns, you sure you aren't talking about pellet guns? I admit it's been 20 years since I've seriously looked at BB guns tbh
  4. BB's typically only fire at 150 feet per second, much slower than bullets. If you shot someone in the head with one going at 600 fps you'd likely kill them as the BB penetrates the skull then bounces around. Anyway later I'll look around for some better measurements but the faster velocity of the 9mm means that it isn't as outmatched as you think it is. As for .45 vs. rifles, I've more reliably taken down people with limb shots with a .45 than I have with rifles, at any distance.
  5. Yeah, and the mp34 would still underperform compared to the basic allied SMGs until some kind of audit is made so it really wouldn't have much effect on gameplay.
  6. 9mm has more KE than a .45 actually due to it's greater speed, but the advantage that the .45 has in 1940s warfare is that it's going to cause a much greater wound cavity than the 9mm, since they are both basic loads and FMJ rounds (as opposed to modern times, where a +p+ JHP 9mm round will vastly outperform .45 ACP in lethality.) The problem is that it also seems to either equal or outperform the rifles in lethality, and they are firing full sized rifle cartridges that are delivering around x8 more energy in calibers in the .30 range. This wouldn't be such a big deal if the .45 rounds weren't taking people down with single hand and leg shots, but it is to a fairly regular degree.
  7. It's been a long time since I've tried comparing the US and UK Thompsons to be honest. I know field testing them that single fire was worthless past 15m though. Either way, to be honest, the end game is that the accuracy and recoil of all of the SMGs need a hard look at, and as I mentioned the .45 ACP needs scrutinized in any of the guns that fire it, as it seems to kill in one hit more reliably than some of the rifles.
  8. Which means that the problem, stat wise, isn't the grease gun or the sten, it's the garbage mp34. Removing the allied guns doesn't make the mp34 any better.
  9. How does the mp34 compare to the mas38 and thompson is a better question in my opinion.
  10. Again, I'm not talking about recoil, I'm talking about the random dispersion between each bullet (also known as Minute of Angle) if the gun and the barrel never moved between shots. The MP34's recoil is atrocious so it doesn't matter how accurate each individual shot is in a normal game setting normally because you aren't sniping with it. If it's accurate with single fire shots though, then it's already leagues ahead of the old SMGs. Fire a full magazine one round at a time (recentering in between if needed) on the m3, the mp34, or the sten, and I can pretty much guarantee that they will be more accurate than doing the same on the mas38, Thompson, or mp40.
  11. There seems to be some misconceptions here that I remember trying to clear up back when the new SMGs first came out, which is leading to a lot of clueless arguing. I'm not going to get into all of the rest. There are a few things to know about the weapons that came out at that time and how they compare to others before people start complaining. The two big ones are that the new SMGs are not coded in the same way as the old ones, and that the eye relief of the new guns (and for some reason around then is when they changed the m1 Garand as well) is different than that of the old guns. Hopefully I can explain how this affects the performance of the guns and the way CRS behaved. First off, the different way the accuracy of the guns are programmed. As most of you have probably noticed, the rifles in this game might as well be lasers. There's bullet drop, but otherwise the shot hits on point pretty much every time, with none of the dispersion you'd expect to see at range. It's been awhile since I've bothered with LMGs so I can't comment about it too much, but the old SMGs had their bullet dispersion cranked up to 11, producing a horrible lack of accuracy even at 25-50m when firing even a single shot. All of them do this, but the MAS38 fires so quickly that it doesn't matter, while the .45 ACP rounds in this game do too much damage on top of being fired from the fast Thompson. So in the original SMG lineup, all guns are way too inaccurate, but the MP40's relatively slow rate of fire and only a 9mm cartridge make it so that it's not very impressive. In contrast, the mp34 and the M3 and Sten don't have this ridiculous amount of dispersion, and act much closer to how they should in real life compared to other guns. That's why we have people in this thread talking about how the mp34 has to be fired in single shot, because they are reacting to how much differently it performs to the MP40 in both accuracy and recoil (the mp34 has to be way too high). Despite this, the Sten is a relatively stable gun that also uses 9mm rounds so it's not too bad, and the M3 has a slow enough rate of fire that a 2-3 round burst can be accurate (just like the other guns in this lineup) and deadly because of the .45 rounds. Unless CRS brings all SMGs into line with way they do coded randomized dispersion, you're still going to have a problem with the guns performing much differently than each other. Any weapons audit by Scotsman has to address this. Secondly, for some reason at some point CRS decided to model the art for guns to have a different eye relief once they started putting in new guns again. They did this across the board and for both sides. In the original guns, the eye relief was very close to the sight, giving you a clear picture of what you were looking at. This was moved much further back with the new lineup, for rifles and SMGs. With the german weapons you hardly notice it because of the way the rear sight aperture is designed, with its open sights. With the allied weapons though they all have a peep hole sight (you know, that closed metal ring), which caused huge problems with the new guns and required an immediate patch to fix them so that they were actually usable, as the area in which you aimed was so small and obscured that you had to hope that you were pointing at the enemy after moving your sights on him. This is why you saw immediate action to fix the artwork for them (and the Garand) but no other substantial changes afterwards. To be quite frank I don't understand all of the complaining. The new guns aren't substantially better than the old ones for someone who knows what they are doing and if you really wanted to remove the late war guns you could simply pump up the original SMGs to match totals across forces. Personally I don't care either way, but really all you're doing at that point is taking away toys from one side without any impact on balance, in a game where we already currently tweak or ignore historical accuracy.
  12. An added bonus to this is that players can then spend time on the ground or providing CAS on the front with the time they'd save from RDP bombing runs, and allow both HCs to coordinate planned offensives if they want.
  13. I said something as well including about the g41, I'm guessing it just wasn't as high priority as the new allied weapons because the sights weren't as obtrusive. Maybe one day they'll do a complete audit on the firing characteristics of SMGs but everyone needs to realize that currently all SMGs have an inherently random, inaccurate firing pattern that is not really based on recoil, firing in bursts, or anything of the like. The first generation of SMGs have this dialed to 11, which is why it's important to fire in bursts and hope that one of the 3-5 shots land on target.
  14. It works the same exact way with the original allied SMGs as well. Seriously I'm having a hard time understanding how people are just now figuring this out when all SMGs have been this way for years.
  15. I've suggested this before as well, and the usual push back is that who could you trust to handle this responsibility. I still think it's something that should be considered though.